ADVERTISING APPROACH AND AVOIDANCE: A DUAL PROCESS MODEL By Samuel M. Tham A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Information and Media – Doctor of Philosophy 2019 ABSTRACT ADVERTISING APPROACH AND AVOIDANCE: A DUAL PROCESS MODEL By Samuel M. Tham In this dissertation, I propose a dual process model for explaining advertising approach and avoidance. The dual process model maps the different processes that underlie advertising approach and avoidance. Guided by the model, two studies related to approach and avoidance are conducted. In the first study, we test the role of attitude and norm accessibility with regard to approach and avoidance. In the second study, we explore the role of involvement and repeated expression and their influences. This dissertation synthesizes past research, and explicates how positive and negative responses to advertising can be usefully conceptualized. In Chapter 2, we look at the history of advertising avoidance, how advertising has evolved over time, and the methods and reasons why people choose to avoid and approach advertising. Approach has often been discussed in terms of value derived from advertising such as information and entertainment, while avoidance is often conceptualized in terms of the negative affect it creates, such as annoyance or boredom. In Chapter 3, a reaction time study was conducted to evaluate the accessibility of attitudes and norms in advertising and approach behavior across three media platforms. The study found that both approach and avoidance utilize different processes with approach being a deliberative behavior while avoidance is spontaneous in nature. Additionally, media differences also invoke different set of processing, such as the role of attitudes and norm accessibility. In Chapter 4, a study was conducted to evaluate the role of involvement, increased accessibility through repeated expression, attitudes towards the ad, and attitude towards the product. I find that even though there are different processes, there are many similarities shared as well. I conclude the dissertation in Chapter 5 by presenting a dual process model of approach and avoidance, arguing how these processes are different in nature and serve as opposing motivators as to when people approach and avoid. In addition, we see different mechanisms that predict approach, and avoidance uniquely as well variables that affect both. Also discussed are the theoretical implications, and limitations of this research. Dedicated to Iona. I will see you soon. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS What a journey it has been, and yet it is never quite over – if anything I have learned, it is that we will never “arrive” but “always arriving.” The final leg of this dissertation pilgrimage has been trying, challenging, and even painful, yet it has also been rewarding. It was worth it because I was never alone, and I want to acknowledge the people that have made this difference. First: my family. To my father and mother who have raised me, and loved me. I may never understand your ways, but I know your heart. I will always appreciate what you have done for me all my life. Dad, thank you so much for inspiring me to be a better person and supporting me in my hard times and teaching me the essence of perseverance and hardship. Deborah, thanks for being an amazing sister. To my committee members, it has truly been my good fortune to have met you, and I have been touched by each and every one of you in a unique way. All of you have taken precious time over the years to share with me knowledge, and life, and have mentored me in your own unique way. To my advisor and chair, Esther Thorson, you have been a pillar of strength and constancy, and someone I have looked up to in the last five years of my life: through both my masters and doctoral odyssey. Thank you for inviting me to join you on this adventure at Michigan State, always taking the time to help me out with my research, career goals, and life. To David Ewoldsen, who opened the doors of my mind to the wonders of media psychology. Thanks for pushing me, challenging me to be a better scholar, and perhaps most importantly, for teaching me the importance of spelling names correctly. To Nancy Rhodes, who always makes time for my interruptions, thank you for being brilliant, kind, always available, and elucidating me that cats and norms are perhaps the most delightful things in life. To Liz Quilliam, whom I have always looked up to as a role model for your successes in both the industry and academia, v but more so your giving personality and kindness. You have taught me strength and fortitude in your resilience in your life. Even though they are not on my committee, I want to acknowledge Kjerstin Thorson and Morgan Ellithorpe. Kjerstin, thanks for being awesome! You have supported me from the very beginning of my time here at MSU and have helped me immensely with my teaching, and continually giving me practical and sound advice during my struggles. To Morgan – who is always available to help, I have learned lots from you in our short time working together, thank you for teaching me that there is life after SPSS. Friendships are forged by fire. I was so fortunate to have made many along the way, to both share successes and commiserate failures with. To my friends I made at MSU, Nikki McClaran, Carin Tunney, Kristen Lynch, Whisnu Triwibowo, and Yingying Chen. I owe you much for your companionship and time together. To my tennis comrades, Reed Reynolds, Kelsey Earle and Shay Yao, thanks for running me around the tennis courts to help me stay in shape. To my friends whom I have met at Missouri, Gregory Perreault, Mikkel Christensen, and David Wolfgang, you all have been magnificent to me. To Kim Kelling, I am eternally grateful to be a recipient of your generosity in helping me prepare for lots, especially the job search. Finally, a big thank you to my life-long friends that have always been by my side. I owe a great deal to Mark Swanson, Remington and Valerie Moll, Sarah and Victor Strasburg, Phil Shearrer, Lisa Pilkington, Joshua Armstrong, and Brett Barton. Your support and encouragement and always being available in my time of need gives me the encouragement to know that I am not alone. Last, but not least, thank you Square Enix for making Final Fantasy X: a game that taught me a simple lesson- even though one may be ordinary, yet when surrounded and supported by amazing people, one can sometimes accomplish one’s wildest dreams. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... ix CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................1 Purpose of the current study ................................................................................................3 Theory articulation and hypotheses .....................................................................................3 CHAPTER TWO: HISTORY OF AD AVOIDANCE ..............................................................................................6 Factors affecting advertising avoidance ...............................................................................7 Ads: Noise or message .......................................................................................................14 Factors in approach and avoidance ....................................................................................16 CHAPTER THREE: ROLE OF ACCESSIBILITY IN APPROACH AND AVOIDANCE .....................................20 Study I: Role of accessibility .............................................................................................20 Measures ............................................................................................................................25 Reaction time measures .....................................................................................................25 Survey measures ................................................................................................................26 Results ................................................................................................................................27 Discussion ..........................................................................................................................32 CHAPTER FOUR: ROLE OF REPEATED EXPRESSION AND INVOLVEMENT ...........................................37 Study II: Repeated expression, involvement and attitudes ..............................................37 Measures ..........................................................................................................................47 Dependent variables .........................................................................................................50 Independent variables ......................................................................................................51 Results ..............................................................................................................................52 Discussion ........................................................................................................................58 CHAPTER FIVE: A DUAL PROCESS MODEL OF APPROACH AND AVOIDANCE ...................................64 A dual process model .........................................................................................................64 Theoretical implications .....................................................................................................66 Limitations .........................................................................................................................68 APPENDICES ...............................................................................................................................71 APPENDIX A: Study I Reaction Time Tasks ..........................................................................72 APPENDIX B: Study I Survey .................................................................................................81 APPENDIX C: Study II: Survey .............................................................................................112 APPENDIX D: Tables ............................................................................................................173 vii REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................194 viii LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Advertising Avoidance: Facebook ads ..........................................................................173 Table 2. Advertising Approach: Facebook ads ............................................................................174 Table 3. Advertising Avoidance: YouTube ads ...........................................................................175 Table 4. Advertising Approach: YouTube ads ............................................................................176 Table 5. Advertising Avoidance: TV ads ....................................................................................177 Table 6. Advertising Approach: TV ads ......................................................................................178 Table 7. Summary of predictors for approach and avoidance .....................................................179 Table 8. Advertising Approach: Laptop ad ..................................................................................180 Table 9. Advertising Approach: Ice-cream ad .............................................................................181 Table 10. Advertising Approach: Cereal ad ................................................................................182 Table 11. Advertising Approach: Cellphone ad ..........................................................................183 Table 12. Advertising Avoidance: Laptop ad ..............................................................................184 Table 13. Advertising Avoidance: Ice-cream ad .........................................................................185 Table 14. Advertising Avoidance: Cereal ad ...............................................................................186 Table 15. Advertising Avoidance: Cellphone ad .........................................................................187 Table 16. Correlations between ad approach and valenced attitude accessibility .......................188 Table 17. Correlations between ad avoidance and valenced attitude accessibility ......................189 Table 18. Correlations between AAd with attitude and avoidance for laptop .............................190 Table 19. Correlations between AAd with attitude and avoidance for ice-cream .......................191 Table 20. Correlations between AAd with attitude and avoidance for cereal .............................192 Table 21. Correlations between AAd with attitude and avoidance for cellphone .......................193 ix CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION In modern societies today, advertising is a constant. Embedded in many facets of everyday life, advertisements are ubiquitous and can be seen on billboards, outdoor signage, newspapers, magazines, television, and digital media through cellphones, tablets, and computers.. Such is the inundation of advertising in our generation that some levels of inoculation is bound to have occurred, resulting in apathy, inattention, and dislike towards advertising. Perhaps this is why ad agencies have coined the phrase “break through clutter” in order to find new ways to make ads stand out amongst the crowd. While general exposure towards advertising may have risen over the years, what has not changed is that there is still a limited amount of attention that can be used to process these messages in the media. As a result of dealing with inordinate amounts of information, a selectivity process occurs to filter out such persuasive messages in the media. Advertising has traditionally been defined as “paid communication from an identified sponsor for using mass media to persuade an audience” (Rodgers & Thorson, 2012). Yet today, ads do not necessarily need to be paid communication. Digital advertisements have altered the landscape and advertising can take the guise of either paid (traditional definition), owned, or earned media. This means that a website or an app whose ownership is by the said company, such as Nike’s website (Nike.com) or an app in the app store by Panera Bread Company would be considered as owned media – a form of advertising. Earned media on the other hand, is about getting advocated through a third party. This can take the form of endorsements from influencers on social media (i.e. Facebook, Instagram), reviewers, and online channels (YouTube, Twitch), and this too is considered advertising. 1 Based on this revised definition of advertising, much of what we would not previously consider as advertisements such as electronic word of mouth, or a twitter post promoting a product would today be considered as advertising. Therefore, the wide array of media messages we receive should be considered advertisements, even though not everyone in the general public may readily recognize it. However, there are two possible responses to when one encounters an ad: avoidance or approach. When advertising is considered a nuisance, a common response is avoidance. Some typical responses include walking away and not paying attention. Technology today has enabled new levels of affordances to weed out unwanted advertisements in digital media through ad blocking software. These have become more widespread to combat the rampant advertising presence in forms such as pop-up ads, pre-loaded ads, retargeted ads, and other formats that disrupt one’s intended experience online. But when ads provide value, an alternative is to approach. Some advertisements provide value such as entertainment, and humor, while others provide helpful information to inform their consumers. As a result, sometimes people deliberately seek out advertising to meet these needs. In 2015, Marissa Mayer, CEO of Yahoo cited that the reason why people have a disdain for advertising and are inclined to use ad blocking apps is because the quality of ads are not good enough. She believes that “better ads” will stop that problem. Once a year, during Superbowl Sunday, people watch Superbowl commercials to talk about them the next day at work or school. Yet raising the bar on all ads, does not solve the issue. The fundamental problem that remains is a scarcity of human attention. We cannot pay attention to every single ad that we encounter, and this scarcity of attention is what advertisers fight for. The purpose of ads is to communicate a message, and as a result of their mass proliferation, we end up being selective of what messages 2 we choose to respond to, and much depend on the timing, circumstances and our attitudes for determining how we respond to specific advertisements. Purpose of the current study This research looks to build theory at the intersection of two areas within the advertising framework – advertising approach and avoidance. Approach and avoidance have long been thought of as two separate functions, with reasons for avoidance separate from reasons for approach. However, what if they could be thought of as a process model of sorts. Thus, when approach is low, avoidance is high and vice versa. In order to better understand this, we need to understand the psychology behind decision making. At the heart of this is understanding the psychological processes behind the situational reasons and the motivational processes that determine the circumstances in which people approach and avoid advertising. In the present study, these processes can be thought of as antecedent variables and it is assumed that the greater the likelihood a person reports being inundated with ads, the greater the likelihood that he or she will avoid it. That is, approach and avoidance of advertising are in competition with each other, and which motivation wins determines ad processing and impact. Theory articulation and hypotheses The key question here is under what circumstances do people approach advertising, and what circumstances will cause people to avoid it. Ducoffe (1995) provides foundational concepts relevant to the present study; that is, advertising is media content that intrinsically possesses both positive and negative values. For Ducoffe, there are four dimensions that determine advertising value: providing information and entertainment as positive outcomes; negative values as creating deception and irritation. While information and entertainment have been relatively enduring 3 over time for positive dimensions of ad value, the dimensions in the negative ad value have increased with new dimensions such as intrusiveness (Li, Edwards & Lee, 2002), perceived goal impediment (Cho & Cheon,2004), invasion of privacy (Baek & Morimoto, 2012), and lack of credibility (Kelly, Kerr & Drennan,2010; Jin & Villegas, 2007). The rise of technology and the increasing negativity of advertising impact on people have led to invention of more ways to avoid ads. Speck & Elliott (1997) looked at examples of behavioral and mechanical avoidance while encountering ads in television and print media, as ways that people avoid ads such as turning the page, changing the channel, and fast forwarding through ads. But newer studies such as Cho & Cheon (2004) added ways to avoid ads, both cognitive (e.g., not paying attention), and affective (e.g., experiencing a negative emotion) ways in which negative ad value causes people to respond. In terms of technology solutions to avoid ads, Duff & Lutchyn (2017) added examples of multi-screening as a way that people avoid advertisements by looking on a second screen such as a mobile device when an advertisement is playing on television. People can not only zip through pre-recorded programs to avoid ads and jump to another channel when an ad comes on, they can also purchase ad blockers for every device they use to consume programming. And of course, they purchase content from providers like Hulu, Amazon, and Netflix, to end up in environments almost totally devoid of ads. In contrast to research on ad avoidance, positive aspects of advertising values have been examined considerably less frequently. An exception, Rosengren (2016) articulates the concept of advertising approach and explains that advertising approach is necessary for owned media when consumers seek information about a product and deliberately seek information and advertisements. This can often be done through visiting of a brand’s website, search engines or even using recommendations or information from brand apps. Three factors play a prominent 4 role in the decision in how and why people approach advertising. They include: the specification of the ad, the situation in which the ad is encountered, and the individual characteristics of the person that encounters the ad. Here the case is presented as to how advertising is defined, the issues that surround advertising, and the call for a dual process model to better understand the processes of how and why people approach and avoid advertisements with the goal to contribute to theory, as well as to the industry. 5 CHAPTER TWO: HISTORY OF AD AVOIDANCE A short review of the history of advertising avoidance follows. The chapter chronologically traces advertising avoidance through time, beginning with research that looks at advertising avoidance as advertising developed in broadcast television. Zapping (Heeter & Greenburg, 1985) was a term used to describe how television viewers used the remote to manually switch channels on a television during commercials. Understanding what the profile of a zapper was part of this early research. Research showed that zapping varied across demographics, particularly age and gender. Men and younger adults tended to be zappers and avoid ads. This early research sought to develop the profile of the ad avoider instead of asking why they were avoiding ads since that was a relatively new phenomenon at that time. Over the years, with the introduction of the VCR and the ability to pre-record shows, a new form of ad avoidance was identified. The concept of zipping was introduced to explain how people use the fast-forward function on a VCR to skip over pre-recorded advertisements (Stout & Burda, 1989). Conceptually zipping and zapping are very different in the sense that when an ad is zapped, it is being replaced by another ad or program, however when an ad is zipped, it is merely fast-forwarded and it can still be viewed albeit at a higher speed and usually without sound. Over time, researchers found that ad zipping became a normal way to watch VCR tapes. Zipping gradually became an avoidance mechanism that was a pre-meditated approach, meaning that people knew that when an showed up while watching a VCR, they would automatically fast forward to the next part of the recorded program. This lack of attention became another way of avoiding ads because the content of the ads did not make it to the viewer (Cronin & Menelly, 1992). 6 To better understand avoidance, Abernety (1991), separated advertising avoidance into two dimensions: behavioral and mechanical. While zipping and zapping were considered mechanical avoidance, behavioral avoidance consisted of specific behavior in which people would avoid ads by leaving the room. In radio research, people were more likely to zap during commercials than programs in car radios (Abernety 1991). Additionally, there was a correlation between zapping radio ads and zapping television ads (Heeter and Cohen 1988). Factors affecting advertising avoidance The seminal paper by Speck and Elliott (1997) added a third dimension of avoidance, a cognitive component in addition to the behavioral and mechanical. Cognitive avoidance is differentiated from the other two as it looks primarily at inattention. They found that these three forms of avoidance exist across the dominant forms of media in the era including print media such as magazine and newspapers, as well as broadcast media such as radio and television. Importantly, this was the first study that looked at the differences between different types of media, compared them and redefined advertising avoidance. Here, instead of merely looking at the profile of avoiders, research was conceptualized to look at the why people avoid ads. Speck and Elliott (1997) specified four antecedents to avoidance and conceptualized the first model of advertising avoidance. First, there are demographic variables that build on profiles from past studies. Here, the belief is that age, gender and income (Heeter and Greenburg, 1985, Abernety, 1991), are key in defining the profile of ad avoiders. Men, those who were younger, and those with lower income were identified as the key demographic characteristics of higher ad avoiders. Second, media related variables were thought to affect avoidance. These variables include the attitude towards the media channel, frequency of use in the media, and overall exposure to the media. How one perceives a media channel, and the amount of time people spend using it may 7 account for avoidance behavior. Third, the perceptions or attitudes towards advertising were thought to be important. An individual’s attitude towards avoidance was thought to be negatively correlated with their attitude towards the advertisements they encounter (Lee and Lumpkin, 1992). The psychological process of using attitudes to help predict behavior (Kelman, 1961) was therefore used in avoidance studies. Attitudes towards advertising was thought to be an antecedent towards advertising response (MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989), therefore it becomes a relevant contribution in ad avoidance research. Fourth, communication problems were identified as negative effects of ads including how ads can be a search hindrance, how ads can be a distraction from ongoing processing, and how ads can be a disruption of ongoing processing. Speck and Elliott (1997) developed advertising avoidance scales that were media specific for each of the dimensions (cognitive, behavioral, and mechanical). For example, behavioral avoidance for print would include ripping or discarding inserts while that would not be possible for radio or television. This research shows us that avoidance behavior is not one-size fits all and should not be perceived equally. Some media channels may have more ways of avoidance than others. Traditional print for example, would not have mechanical avoidance, but will have subsets of behavioral and cognitive avoidance, while having avoidance features (such as turning the page) which is not available in broadcast media. Speck and Elliott’s (1997) study provided foundational research in advertising avoidance, looking at all the dominant media at the time, providing a model, as well creating scales and identifying the key constructs. The rise of the internet heralded by the dotcom boom in the late 1990s created a medium quite different from radio, television, and print. Online advertising changed the ground rules as the features of the medium changed the way ads are presented. New elements such as interactivity, realism, telepresence, navigation and recency of information are some ways that 8 internet ads provided that were unique and not seen in print and broadcast (Rodgers & Thorson, 2000). One of the key ways that the internet changed media is the interactivity where a user can choose how they want to handle the media that they are presented. The Interactive Advertising Model (IAM) proposed that there are two parts of advertisements online that both intersect to form the advertising experience. One side of it is consumer controlled, and the other is advertiser controlled. (Rodgers & Thorson, 2000). Control of content on the internet therefore, also empowered consumers to select the content they wish to view, in addition to the ads that they encounter. In the early era of internet advertising , there were two prominent types of advertising: banner ads and pop ups. 63% of the ads were in the form of pop-ups, banners, interstitials or hyperlinks (Rodgers & Thorson 2000; Internet Advertising Bureau, 1997). Banner ads hung from the side of webpages (horizontal or vertical, either at the top or bottom or the side of a page), while pop-up or pop-under ads typically blocked one’s field of vision when browsing content online. Because of the visual annoyance, and having to take effort to dismiss them, pop-up ads were thought to create intrusiveness (Li, Edwards & Lee, 2002), this in turn caused reactance, which is the more the ad is intrusive, the more you would shy away from it, hence resulting in people increasing their propensity to avoid advertising (Edwards, Li & Lee, 2002). In this early online advertising era, several theories were developed to factor in the new outcomes of ad avoidance. Cho and Cheon (2004) proposed a general model for advertising avoidance for online ads. Two major contributions stemmed from the research. First, instead of mechanical, behavioral and cognitive, Cho and Cheon proposed that avoidance outcomes should be considered as attitudinal responses and three outcomes that are observed are: affect, behavioral and cognitive that are quite similar to the components of attitude in psychology 9 (Breckinridge, 1984). For online ads, affect as an outcome measures a consumer’s emotional response to online ads, cognitive measures attention to online ads, and behavioral measures the physical activity such as clicking off an ad or scrolling away. Second, the antecedents (causes) for advertising avoidance were parsed out into three areas which were all negative: perceived goal impediment, perceived ad clutter online, and negative prior experiences. Perceived goal impediment looks primarily at ways in which online ads slow down one’s goal when utilizing online media. This construct is measured by search hindrance, disruption and distraction. Perceived ad clutter is a construct that indexes the excessiveness of advertising. This construct is measured by excessiveness of noise in the media, thus disrupting the signal and message processing leading to irritation (Elliott & Speck, 1998). Finally, prior negative experience looks at how past bad interactions with advertising predict response to future interactions. This construct is measured by dissatisfaction, perceived lack of unity, and perceived lack of incentive. Like Speck and Elliott’s (1997) study that was important for legacy media, Cho and Cheon’s (2004) work was likewise important for other digital media studies that followed especially in mobile and social media. This study was later replicated in different cultural context with Iranians (Seyedghorban, Tahenerjad & Matanda 2016) with similar results. By the 2010s, attitudes and research towards ad avoidance in broadcast and print media had evolved with media changes. Prendergast, Cheung and West (2010) studied ad avoidance in China, a country whose culture had taken an isolationist approach for decades towards Western advertising. What they did was a replication of Speck and Elliott’s (1997) study in China looking at the same four media types: radio, television, magazine and newspaper. Here they reinforced findings that attitudes towards advertising predict avoidance. Additionally, they added two new constructs: time pressure and the presence of others. They found that while in the presence of 10 others, people tend to avoid ads for broadcast media but not print media. Likewise, they find that people who have greater time pressure (are busier) also tend to avoid broadcast ads more frequently. However, these differences were not found with print ads. Another television study studied DVR viewing, ad zapping, and skipping. They found that increased prior exposures will likely increase avoidance. However, they found that adding audio messages to an ad can potentially reduce avoidance (Bellman, Schewda & Varan,2010). Wilbur (2016) introduced a new method of looking at zapping called the Passive Active Zap (PAZ). This looks at two forms of zapping: active and passive. An active zap is when one uses the remote from a passive state (e.g., lying on a couch). A passive zap typically refers to when a user is channel searching – moving from zap to zap (e.g. the user is channel browsing after making the initial zap to find a program to watch). This study was interested in active zaps. The study found that 27% of commercials on television were zapped, but that the types of ads that were zapped were different. Movie ads were less likely to be zapped, while ads pertaining to online websites, auto insurance and women’s clothing were more likely to be avoided. Additionally, just like the findings from Bellman, Schewda & Varan (2010), repeated exposures would indicate a greater likelihood to be zapped and interestingly, they found that during rainy weather, more ads tend to be zapped as well. Another important aspect for television avoidance is time. Rojas-Mendez and Davies (2017) proposed that culture and time would affect how television viewers would avoid ads. Two antecedents that they looked at were time pressure and time planning. Time pressure looks at construct at how people approach their lives looking for efficient and saving time when they can. Time planning looks at how careful individuals are in planning and outline what they do in a particular day. They found that in the UK, both time pressure and time planning predicted mechanical and behavioral avoidance, but in 11 Chile, only time planning predicts behavioral avoidance citing that culture plays a part in avoidance behaviors for television. For online ads, Kelly, Kerr and Drennan (2010) adopted Cho and Cheon’s (2004) general online model and applied it to social media. For social media, they adopted prior negative experience as the antecedent, but replaced the other two components (clutter and goal impediment) as they were not as relevant, with relevance of message, as well as the skepticism towards the message and the source. Skepticism was a construct based on the disbelief of advertising claims of a product that is being advertised (Obermiller & Spaenberger,1998). Additionally, they defined the advertising outcomes as being cognitive and behavioral for social media. Interactivity was also seen as a factor of avoidance with low interactivity on ads were found to be more likely to be avoided as opposed to high interactive ads (Jin & Villegas, 2007). This study used a different theoretical model, looking at four antecedents which are ad credibility, attitudinal ambivalence, need for cognition and risk-taking propensity. Duff and Faber (2011) researched banner ad avoidance online. Here the two areas they looked at were similarity (how similar the ad is to the target content) when using searches, and how the close the banner ad is to the source. They find that similarity and location proximity increased negativity towards those forms of advertising and increased avoidance. One of the interesting questions raised was the effect of mere exposure effect versus active avoidance. Mere exposure is clearly a case of inattention and should be thought of as a passive form of avoidance and this can be a result of multi-screen use such as when one is watching playing a game when an ad shows (Duff & Lutchyn, 2017). Therefore, passively watched ads with low attentional focus can potentially create familiarity and lessen avoidance. Another study that looked specifically to reduce advertising intrusiveness online found that using humor, having longer ads 12 can help make ads seem a little less intrusive and as a result reduce the avoidance factor (Goodrich, Schiller & Galletta, 2015). Looking specifically at video online pre-rolled ads, revealed several key findings (Campbell et al, 2017). First, the study found that video ads that illicit basic emotions such as disgust, happiness and sadness and some complex emotions led to skipping. However more complex emotions that came from ads such as exhilaration, nostalgia, shock and relaxing did not seem to affect people skipping ads. Second, attention tactics such as using celebrities, branding and loudness encouraged skipping. Third, they found that the longer the ads the more likely they would be skipped. Extending to mobile technology, we find that there is additional facet that should be considered in how ads are avoided. Baek and Morimoto (2012) found that both direct and electronic mail ads that were customized to the user and that addressed the user by name (personalization) raised concerns about privacy. As a result, a boomerang effect occurs wherein people avoid ads that target them due to reactance and the notion that they feel that there is an invasion of privacy through the gathering of personal information. However, from an advertiser’s point of view, it may be more economically viable according to Johnson (2013) for advertisers to do that. Research showed that that even though privacy was an issue, companies should continue to focus targeted ads even though it would have a negative impact on audiences. He proposed that it was because not enough people were installing ad blockers and it was still a net gain for advertisers to continue to do so. For another mobile study, Rau, Liao and Chen (2013) highlighted the importance of relevance and context. Relevance looks at the personal situation for the individual that responds to the ad on a mobile phone, while context looks at the situational characteristics where the person encounters the ads. 13 Another form of mobile ads that is popular are geo-targeted ads. This is when a user receives an ad based on their location (e.g., passing by a store and receiving an offer). Research on location-based advertising was also found to create goal impediment, and annoyance to users, however they are far greater for medium and heavy users than for light mobile users (Shin & Lin, 2016).This is due to the fact that medium and heavy users would encounter this more frequently than light uses thus exacerbating the annoyance. Finally, a recent study looked at culture and generations, comparing the internet generation, with the newspaper generation, and the television generation across six western countries: Germany, Spain, United Kingdom, United States, France and the Netherlands. Here they looked at media use, and attitudes for six channels which are websites, social media, mobile, television and newspapers (van der Goot et al. 2018). They found that surprisingly, the newspaper generation was most negative towards ads while the net generation was the most positive. However, when it comes to advertising behavior, however generations did not matter. Ads: Noise or message The review of the studies presents us with some key questions with regard to ad avoidance. First, ad avoidance in the communication context is an issue that has not been clearly defined as to how it is perceived in communication terms. Past studies have defined it as noise without additional specifications. As noise, ads are seen to interfere with the reception of the message which causes communication issues These communication problems laid out by Speck and Elliott (1997), posited that ads hinder the search for media content, they can distract a person processing media content, and they can disrupt desired media processing. To understand the role of noise in a communication model, we turn to the traditional communication framework of Shannon and Weaver (Shannon, 1949) of sender, channel, message, receiver. Since media use 14 typically fits this model, one way to perceive advertisements is as a form of noise that seeks to disrupt the message to the receiver. Depending on the type of medium or the channel, ads create disturbances and disruptions in our media use. This can come in the form of “hijacking” the channel, delaying the message reception, and ostensibly causing reactance or the communication problems aforementioned which can be hindrance, distractions, and disruptions. However, is that sufficient? Should advertisements be conceptualized as more than just noise? Imagine two friends met each other in the park and were catching up. As they were talking, a lawn mower pulls up beside them, started cutting the grass making their conversation inaudible to each other. That creates problems for them to continue conversing, because of the noise created by the lawnmower. Now, imagine a different scenario, once again these two friends are talking in the park. However, this time around, a third person arrives and interrupts their conversation. Imagine this third person was promoting a cause, or was selling a product, and wanted to share with them about it. This too can also be considered as noise. But both are diametrically different. What then is the inherent differences between these two scenarios? The noise from the lawnmower is probably unintelligible, with no clear content to be processed and hence can be easily ignored. However, when the third person arrives and interrupts the two friends, the person also brought along a message that can be processed, even though it was noise that interrupted the initial conversation. Hence, the friends talking could either choose to process or ignore the message from this third person. Advertisements can be thought of in the same way. While defining advertisements as noise alone (like in the context of the lawn mower), there is a systematic issue of denigrating advertising into a sort of a garbled warped message with no inherent properties of its own that is meant to be processed. Instead, ads should be considered similar to a person interrupting a 15 conversation, a secondary message that is also noise. If we continue with current research that is looking at ads as nothing more than noise, it will only allow us to look at avoidance as an outcome. However, by considering ads as a secondary message, it can help us look at attentional acceptance of the ad as well as rejection as two possible outcomes. Attention to advertising is similar to the approach-avoid motivations in psychology, whereby decisions are made to decide if one should attend or avoid an ad based on a myriad of factors. In other words, the question that I would like to ask is that what the processes are that happen during an encounter with an ad. And how does it lead to the possible outcomes of avoidance and acceptance. This would tap into the communication framework and persuasion to understand how messages are accepted or rejected. What then are the circumstances in which people would choose approach and when they would avoid? This research strives to look at the processes behind this decision-making framework, exploring the circumstances, and developing theory to better predict the importance of different antecedents, situations, and factors that best predict avoidance and approach behavior. Factors in approach and avoidance One’s attitude towards advertising in general should predict how one approaches or attempts to avoid ads, and positive attitudes about advertising have often been good predictors of behavior (Glasman & Albarracin,2006). The classic measure of attitude toward advertising in general is McKenzie and Lutz (1989) who showed how much of accepting and processing of ads depend on people’s thinking that ads add a lot to helping them figure out what to buy. 16 The importance of the role of attitudes, provide us with a framework to better understand the processes behind the decisions in approach and avoidance. This proposal therefore seeks to address several questions in which there are two questions that loom larger. Much scholarship has focused on avoidance, but much less has been done in the realm of approach. This is perhaps a realistic expectation in the modern world where ads are littering the world, that is oft the more common response. As mentioned earlier, ads are known to cause annoyance, clutter, and reactance. Yet, does this mean we will always choose avoidance when we encounter an advertisement? Consider two examples. First, we know that at least one day a year, people deliberately choose to come together to watch commercials together: Superbowl Sunday. Rating and ranking the top advertisements on Superbowl Sunday, is in fact not out of the ordinary, and people discuss the ads that the enjoyed watching online or even the day after in the office. People do sometimes enjoy watching ads. Second, consider the widely popular 2014 film, Lego The Movie, which to some is considered as a two-hour long commercial for the Lego brand, yet people pay money to watch this. Likewise, Crazy Rich Asians in 2018 has been touted to be an ad for tourism for the country of Singapore. As Ducoffe (1995) proposed that when information and entertainment are seen as positive values in advertising, we will see people not only paying attention to them but instead seeking them out through approach. Based on the previous chapter, we can broadly define ad avoidance as a sum of behavioral, cognition and affective aversive outcomes towards advertising. What then is approach? Likewise, advertising approach needs to be considered as an outcome when we want to explain processes and situations in which when and why people may choose to attend or seek an advertisement. Rosengren (2016) defines advertising approach as a way for consumers to deliberately seek out information about a product or service. 17 The purpose of this research is to continue to build and synthesize both approach and avoidance into a focal area of research, looking at both in tandem as opposed to individually as seen in approach (Rosengren, 2016) and avoidance (Speck & Elliott, 1997). Synthesizing such research was done looking at seven media platforms, including television for sports, television for news, social media, mobile, online news, network news (Thorson, Tham & Duffy, 2018). This research investigated the effects of negative media attitudes, positive media attitudes as well as how much people like using each particular medium in predicting approach and avoidance. This research showed that different media types and the different purposes underlying media use can affect avoidance and approach in different ways. It shows the importance of context as a predictor of approach and avoidance, and underlines the fact that in different situations, there is an inherent weighing of pros and cons towards whether to approach or avoid. In other words, which factors outweigh the other when we encounter an advertisement? On one hand, positive attitudes towards advertising may drive us to approach, whereas negative attitudes would drive us to avoid. However, in the context when the ad is encountered on each particular medium, the relevance of these variables shifts showing that approach and avoidance are not static, but in fact are a function of what becomes more important in each encounter. This therefore leads this research to question the underlying processes and mechanisms of how advertisements are processed. When we encounter an ad, do we cognitively decide to avoid or approach right away? Is this decision made prior to the encounter or is this something that happens when the ad is encountered? A key question to understand is the encapsulated role of deliberative and spontaneous processing in advertising avoidance and approach. Is advertising approach and avoidance a spontaneous or deliberative process? To answer this we to turn to the theoretical framework of the MODE model and then ask a two-fold question that follows 18 regarding the valence and the accessibility of attitude which is the strength of the association of the approach and avoidance aspects of advertising. Accessibility of attitude helps us better understand if the evaluation of advertising response is a function of a premeditated response or if it is more deliberative in nature. Second, the accessibility of norms, which looks at the influences of people around us (Ewoldsen, Rhodes & Fazio, 2015) is another aspect of deliberative and spontaneous processing that is important in how people approach or avoid ads. Here we want to know if response to approach and avoidance is affected by peer influences, social in and out- groups and strength of familial ties. 19 CHAPTER THREE: ROLE OF ACCESSBILITY IN APPROACH AND AVOIDANCE Study I: Role of accessibility The MODE model (Fazio,1990) provides the framework for how media messages are processed. It posits that motivation and opportunity are the twin determinants of processing of media messages. Motivation can be described as the impetus to engage whereas, opportunity looks at the resources available, such as time, attention, and energy. When motivation and opportunity are present, an individual would typically engage in more thoughtful behavior that would lead to a deliberative response, whereas in a low motivation and/or opportunity setting, a spontaneous behavior would likely be engaged. What determines the form of spontaneous behavior however, is often influenced by accessible attitudes and norms as defined in the process model (Fazio, 1986; Ewoldsen, Rhodes & Fazio, 2015). What this means is that in lieu of thoughtful deliberation, spontaneous behaviors rely on both the strength of an existing accessibility of an attitude towards an attitude-object, as well as the role of social norms (Rhodes & Ewoldsen, 2013). Attitude accessibility measures the both the valence (positive / negative) and ease of retrieval (available / not available) of the construct towards an attitude object in one’s mind. Therefore, the greater the attitude accessibility one has towards an attitude object, it is typically more predictive of the likelihood of the behavior in question based on the valence and ease of retrieval. Norm accessibility on the other hand looks at the social pressures that motivate our decision making. Injunctive norms has to do with the ramifications of social reward and punishment based on behavior that we engaged in. However, multiple social groups are often at play, hence norms are often looked at based on different social groups such as friends, family, roommates and so on. Like attitude accessibility, norm accessibility attempts to predict when 20 social rewards and punishment from certain groups are more salient to us, it can predict the way we engage in behavior. The role of accessibility of attitudes and norms in advertising avoidance and approach research presents several interesting questions that this study strives to investigate. Through reaction times tests, we can catch a glimpse of both the valence of the responses (favorable or not favorable) to avoidance and approach, as well as the strength of the attitudes and norms based on the accessibility measures. The accessibility of attitudes towards advertising approach and avoidance can therefore be used as a measure to test approach and avoidance behaviors as well as be counter checked with other prior measures of avoidance. Before delving into these processes, it is imperative to conceptually understand the role of approach and avoidance. Approach and avoidance are conceptually different and not polar opposites (Thorson, Tham and Duffy, 2018). This means the approach behavior consists of finding value, entertainment, and information in advertising that causes the individual to look towards the advertisement. Avoidance on the other hand looks at the behaviors taken as well as the negativity towards advertising that is presented. Through accessibility, we want to parse and see how these processes are fundamentally different. This line of advertising research seeks answers to pertinent questions about whether the processes between approach and avoidance differ. Therefore, we want to ask two fundamental research questions through this research RQ1: How are the processes of avoidance different from that of approach? Breaking down now avoidance and approach, as well as advertising types, we can start to compare the processes of attitude accessibility. Accessible attitudes towards approach towards advertising for example may mean that if one has a positive and easily retrievable attitude towards advertising as providing entertainment and information, it can lead to the users seeking to watch ads, or even seek them out for information or entertainment purposes. The rationale for 21 looking at television, Facebook and YouTube is that it allows us to compare three very popular media platforms today that are hosting ads. These three media platforms account for the bulk of advertising today. YouTube is a platform that delivers video advertising, whereas Facebook combines a mixture of digital print ads as well as video ads. Media differences contribute to different avoidance behavior. Speck and Elliott (1997) highlighted several differences in print and television media and how the types of avoidance behaviors change. Additionally, Elliott and Speck (1998) showed that the affordances that different media provides (e.g. information via print, and enjoyment via television), provide different motivations as to how and why people use different media. Finally, newer research (Cho & Cheon, 2004), showed that digital media such as online advertising with mandatory advertising creates a different set of avoidance behaviors different from television. When we look at accessibility in the face of different media types, we can consider that having a more accessible attitude towards advertising approach, one may find that it would be positively correlated with positive advertising attitudes. Therefore, we would posit that. H1A: There is a positive correlation between the accessibility of ad approach attitudes in Facebook with positive advertising attitudes. H1B: There is a positive correlation between the accessibility of ad approach attitudes in YouTube ads with positive advertising attitudes. H1C: There is a positive correlation between the accessibility of ad approach attitudes in TV ads with positive advertising attitudes. Likewise, we would expect that the inverse would be true for attitudes towards ad avoidance as well as negative advertising attitudes. In the same manner, we posit that: 22 H2A: There is a positive correlation between the accessibility of ad avoidance attitudes in Facebook with negative advertising attitudes. H2B: There is a positive correlation between the accessibility of ad avoidance attitudes in YouTube ads with negative advertising attitudes. H2C: There is a positive correlation between the accessibility of ad avoidance attitudes in TV ads with negative advertising attitudes Next, the strength of accessibility based on reaction time measures can also provide us with glimpses of the process of how approach and avoidance behaviors may differ as a function of automaticity. Since reaction times are functions of attitude accessibility, we can predict how automatic people’s considerations of approach and avoidance are when they encounter advertising. The more accessible that one holds an attitude, the more easily it comes to mind. Additionally, reaction times also measure valence allowing us to see the direction of the attitude that they hold towards the behavior. Hence we ask: RQ2A: What is the nature of automaticity in the attitudinal responses of avoidance and approach towards advertising? RQ2B: What is the attitude valence in predicting how people choose to approach or avoid advertising? In addition to the constructs of approach and avoidance, it is necessary to look at media differences based on the affordances that they provide (Sundar & Limperos, 2013). For example, digital media in the forms of Facebook, and YouTube ads are often not information that people seek out voluntarily but are sometimes relevant because of the widespread use of social media. These ads work through functions based on preferences such as retargeted ads based on where one has visited before, programmatic ad sales, and even search functions (Rogers & Thorson, 23 2017). This is very different from television ads that are placed based on the ratings of the programs and the number of viewers in that particular time slot. Importantly, the role of television as a form of advertisement vehicle should not be diminished as we have seen by the successes of the Superbowl commercials (O’Barr, 2012) over the years and the gradual increase of cost in the commercial slots. To better understand this line of research, it is necessary to evaluate if these three different forms of media are significantly different. Therefore, we seek to answer this research question: RQ3: Are there differences in the types of ads such as Facebook, YouTube and television and the way they are being approach and avoided? Finally, we want to test the role of norm accessibility through subjective norms, on different social groups on approach and avoidance. We want to know the role of best friends, significant others, parents, groups of friends, and siblings play in affecting approach and avoidance. Similarly to attitude accessibility, we want to find out the impact of these different groups on the individual, and the pressure they exert on individuals to either approach or avoid ads. Likewise, measuring the automaticity of the norms can help us better understand the processes in which social groups exert an influence in how we approach and avoid ads. Therefore, we ask two questions: RQ4A: What is the nature of automaticity of social norms in avoidance and approach towards advertising? RQ4B: What is the relative valence of the social groups (norm valence) in predicting how people choose to approach or avoid advertising? 24 Measures Main test: Undergraduate students were recruited from the Michigan State University student SONA pool. Students who participate are recruited for course credit for their classes. Main study: Students were recruited to participate in a 45-minute long study. The study consisted of three parts. The first two parts are reaction time tasks for attitude and norm accessibility recorded using Direct RT. The third part was a survey hosted on Qualtrics. Before the study, students were told that they were participating in a survey about media habits, they were instructed to read the instructions carefully, and not to use their cell phones during the study. Reaction time measures Attitude Accessibility. Adapted from established measures, participants were given four blocks of trials. The first three blocks had 24 trials, with the final block having 26 trials. In each trial, they were to press the like or dislike key. The first two blocks were practice blocks where participants were told to specifically press the like or dislike key in order to help them be familiar with the task. The third block served as another practice trial, this time with real issues such as “reading about lice”, and participants had to indicate if they like or dislike the items. The final block had 26 trials, where there were 18 distractor items and 8 critical items. Here participants were asked if they would like or dislike “Ignoring Facebook ads”, “Avoiding YouTube ads”, “Learning from YouTube ads”, “Enjoying Facebook ads”, “Skipping TV ads”, “Ignoring TV ads”, “Learning from TV ads”, and “Enjoying TV ads”, Norm Accessibility. Adapted from Rhodes et al., (2008), participants were given six blocks of trials. The first block is a practice trial where they familiarize themselves with the “Yes” and “No” keys on the keyboard. In the following six trials, each trial had a repertoire of questions 25 that asked if a particular social group would approve in the engaging of a behavior, and the participants would click a “yes” or “no.” This was a measure of injunctive norms. The five social groups are parents, siblings, significant other, best friends, friends. If they did not have a person that fit that group, they were instructed to think of someone that would best fit the role. The final block measures their motivation to comply, and the importance of how each of these social group’s importance is for the participant. Survey measures Advertising avoidance: Frequency of ad avoidance was measured across three media types: television, Facebook and YouTube. General avoidance behaviors are used for each measure. This include, “Ignore the ads”, “Feel interrupted when watching the ads”, and “Feel the ads are a waste of time,” They also include medium specific measures such as “Find an alternative site with fewer ads,” and “Turn off the TV.” These are measured on an 11 point scale from Never (1) to All the time (11). Advertising approach: Frequency of ad approach and enjoyment was measured across three media types: television, Facebook and YouTube. Enjoyment and approach measures include, “Get information that’s useful to you”, “Enjoy some of the better ads that comes on,” “Feel interested in the ads.” These are measured on an 11-point scale from Never (1) to All the time (11). Media Attitude: Media attitude for television, Facebook and YouTube was measured using semantic differential scales with items including, “Important/Unimportant”, “Irrelevant/Relevant”, “Means a lot to me/Means little to me”, “Unexciting/Exciting”, “Matters to me/Doesn’t matter to me,” “Pleasant/Unpleasant,” and “Boring/Interesting.” 26 Attitude towards advertising: This is a general measure of their evaluation of advertisement. The items used in this scale were adapted from MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989. Ease of avoidance: Self-report measures of avoidance and approach are asked in the survey. These statements are asked on a 7-point scale from (1) Strongly disagree to (7) Strongly agree. Injunctive Norms: Self-report measures of approach and avoidance are asked for each of the five groups parents, siblings, significant other, best friend and group of friends. Each statement reads, “My (parents) expect me to (watch television ads)” asked on a 7-point scale from (1) Strongly disagree to (7) Strongly agree. The social group and type of ads are switched in each instance. Data analyses: Correlations and exploratory factor analysis were conducted to investigate how the variables hang together particularly for the independent variables. Then hierarchical regressions will be used to determine how well avoidance and approach are predicted by attitude and norm accessibility. Results Due to the inherent skewness of reaction time data, several steps were undertaken to normalize it through transformation. Adapted from Rhodes and Ewoldsen (2009), the critical reaction times were transformed to their reciprocal (to reduce skewness), and then multiplied by 1,000 (to have a number without too many decimal points). This transformed time is used as the calculation for attitude accessibility. In addition, attitude valence was computed with a score of either 1 and -1. This was calculated by the like (+1) and dislike (-1) input based on the participants’ response during the reaction time tasks. Finally, an interaction term for valenced attitude accessibility was derived by the multiplication of both terms. For norm reaction times, a similar transformation was also done for the same reasons. For the calculation of norm accessibility, the transformed data used the mean reciprocal multiplied by 1,000 of the five 27 groups (parents, siblings, significant other, best friends, and group of friends). Norm valence was computed as the mean of the five social groups, based on their approval to the target behavior, with yes scoring a +1 and no scoring a -1. Finally, an interaction term for valenced norm accessibility was derived by the multiplication of both terms. To address the first set of hypotheses, H1a through H1c posited that there is a positive correlation between the accessibility of ad approach attitudes in all the three media types: TV, Facebook, and YouTube with advertising approach in each of these media. A correlational analysis was conducted to test these hypotheses (Table 16). We find that for the composite ad approach measure on Facebook, there is a significant positive correlation (r=.297, p<.01) with attitude accessibility. For YouTube, we also find a significant positive correlation between the ad approach with attitude accessibility (r=.303, p<.01). For TV, a positive correlation (r=.431, p<.01) between the ad approach measured with the attitude accessibility was also found. Therefore, all three parts of H1 (a thru c) were supported. While causation cannot be established by the correlations, results indicate that the intention to approach advertising in all three media is strongly connected to their accessibility to the subject matter. The next set of hypotheses, H2 (a thru c) sought to establish how well attitude accessibility of avoidance is correlated with the ad avoidance measures on all three platforms, TV , Facebook and YouTube. A correlation analysis was conducted (Table 17) and the results were as follows. For Facebook (r=-.065, p>.05) and YouTube (r=-.071, p>0.5), there was no significant correlation between the attitude accessibility and the avoidance measures. Therefore, H2a and H2b were not supported. However. for H2c, we found a significant positive correlation (r=.187, p<.05) between TV avoidance measures as well as the attitude accessibility. Thus, H2c was supported. 28 These results give us a glimpse how the processes of approach and avoidance are fundamentally different and should warrant further investigation. The correlation between approach but not in avoidance except for TV, provided a starting point which was addressed by RQ1. RQ1 asked if the processes of avoidance and approach are different. To address this, a hierarchical analysis was conducted separately for each approach measure (Facebook, YouTube, and TV), as well as for the avoidance measures along the same three media platforms as well. The results for the avoidance hierarchical a Results of the analyses can be found in Tables 1, 3, and 5, while the approach hierarchical analyses can be found in Tables 2, 4, and 6. For each hierarchical analysis, the first block regressed demographics (age, gender, race, and income) on the dependent variable, followed by the attitude valence and attitude accessibility in the second block. In the third block, we test the predictive power of the interaction term. The fourth block tested norm accessibility and norm valence, while the fifth and final block analyzed the interaction term of valenced norm accessibility. For the avoidance models, the R2 for the models that were significant only accounted for 5.8% for Facebook (Table 1 – Model 3), 8.2% for YouTube (Table 3 – Model 2), and 13.3% for television (Table 5 – Model 5). Overall, the variance explained may seem modest, especially for the digital models, however it is important to not discount their significance. The modest effect size may conceal the fact that this is only a single exposure, and hence with the number of exposures that happens daily to an individual, the numbers may in actuality snowball and present a much bigger impact (Abelson, 1985, Prentice & Miller, 1992, Lang & Ewoldsen, 2010).Therefore, it is worth considering that even a small effect size can have a larger impact when considering the amount of exposures over time, because watching advertisements in an 29 environment of clutter will result in a much higher over time effect. However, for television, norms were more important. Contrasting this to the approach models, the R2 for the approach models indicated a 25.1% variance explained for Facebook (Table 2 – Model 4), 22.2% variance explained for YouTube (Table 4 – Model 4), and 31.2% for television (Table 6 – Model 4). These results indicated the predictive power of norms in ad approach. In addressing RQ1, we find that the processes of approach and avoidance differ, as we can see a much greater impact of the role of norms in approach, with a diminished role in avoidance. However, we see a greater role of attitudes in avoidance measures instead. RQ2 asked, “What is the nature of automaticity in the attitudinal responses of avoidance and approach towards advertising?” Looking at avoidance, the results indicated that for Facebook advertising avoidance (Table 1 – Model 3), attitude accessibility was a significant positive predictor (b=1.61, p <.05). This means that the more accessible attitude they have towards avoidance, the more likely they will engage in avoidance behavior. For YouTube (Table 3 – Model 2), we find that attitude accessibility was also a significant positive predictor (b=2.04, p<.01). This means that the more accessible attitude they have towards YouTube ads, the more likely they will avoid them. For television (Table 5), attitude accessibility was not a significant predictor at all. For approach, we find that attitude accessibility was not a significant predictor of approach in all three media platforms. Therefore, the results indicate that attitude accessibility is a predictor in digital avoidance but not in television avoidance. In approach, attitude accessibility was not a predictor at all. RQ2B asks, “What is the valence of the attitude in predicting how people choose to approach or avoid advertising?” For the avoidance constructs, the results indicated that for all three media platforms, the valence of the attitude was not a significant predictor in how ads are 30 being avoided. However, in approach, we find that the valence of the attitude is significant predictor (b=.75, p<.01) for Facebook (Table 2- Model 2), and also a significant predictor (b=0.55, p<.01), for YouTube (Table 4- Model 2), as well as a significant predictor (b=0.99, p<.001) for television (Table 6 -Model 2). The results indicate that valence of attitude is a far better predictor in approach for all three media platforms, while not a predictor in avoidance in all three media platforms. RQ3 asks if there are differences in the types of ads such as Facebook, YouTube and television and the way they are being approach and avoided. Here we are comparing how media types differ in approach and avoidance. A summary of the predictors consolidated from Tables 1 through 6 can be found in Table 7. The summary indicate some inherent differences in the three media type. First, for approach, we see that both YouTube and Facebook was predicted by gender as females were more likely to approach those ads, but gender had no effect in television. We also see that attitude valence plays a part in all three media types, however, norm valence was predictive only in Facebook and television, whereas norm accessibility was predictive in YouTube approach. For avoidance, we see that attitude accessibility is important in both digital media types of Facebook and YouTube but not in television. However, television avoidance are predicted by norm valence unlike their digital counterparts suggesting avoidance processes differ across media types. This may also indicate a banding of digital media in avoidance behaviors compared to television. RQ4A asks “What is the nature of automaticity of social norms in avoidance and approach towards advertising?” For avoidance, we find that norm accessibility was not a significant predictor for both Facebook (Table 1) ,YouTube (Table 3), as well as television (Table 5). For approach, we see that it was also not a significant predictor in Facebook (Table 2) 31 and TV (Table 6), however, it was a significant predictor (b=1.36, p<.05) in YouTube (Table 4 – Model 4). Norm accessibility is not a predictive variable in advertising approach and avoidance in these three media, except when individuals seek to approach YouTube ads, RQ4B asks “What is the valence of the social groups (norm valence) in predicting how people choose to approach or avoid advertising?” For avoidance, we find that norm valence was not a significant predictor for both Facebook (Table 1) and YouTube (Table 3), however, it was a significant predictor (b=2.95, p<.01) in television (Table 5). For approach, we find that norm valence was not a significant predictor for YouTube ads (Table 4), but it was a significant predictor (b=0.68, p<.01) in Facebook (Table 2 -Model 4), as well as a significant predictor (b = 0.92, p<.01) in television (Table 6 – Model 4). The results seem to indicate that for digital avoidance in Facebook and YouTube, norm valence is not predictive, except only for television. Interestingly, for approach, we see find that norm valence had no impact on YouTube, but it did for both Facebook and television, suggesting perhaps different mechanisms in how norms play in approach in YouTube video ads versus, Facebook and television ads. Discussion The results of this study identified several important factors towards both media psychology and advertising research. The first two sets of hypotheses tackle how attitude accessibility is correlated with approach and avoidance in all media types. Here, we see that ad approach in all three media platforms is strongly correlated with attitude accessibility whereas avoidance does not correlate with attitude accessibility for digital media. This finding suggests that 1) there are distinct underlying mechanisms in how we process avoidance and approach behaviors when we encounter an ad and 2) even within the context of approach and avoidance, 32 further differences between the media types, in particular digital media (YouTube and Facebook) with television, suggests that across media types, further differences are present. Even though ad attention has been thought to be a singular measure of an “either/or” prospect of attention or inattention, it is belied by the fact that approach and avoidance are intrinsically different processes. Beginning with the comparison in digital media, we see that avoidance on Facebook and YouTube is highly predicted by one’s accessibility to avoidance. Whereas, approach is predicted primarily by attitude valence. Returning to the theory of the MODE model, that explains how decision making is done through of deliberative and spontaneous behaviors, we find that the results here indicate that ad avoidance as predicted by accessibility tends to be a spontaneous behavior led by the accessibility of one’s attitude. Conversely, we find that approach is predicted by attitude valence, this would suggest that when one thinks about watching an ad, the process is slow, thoughtful and deliberative. In the MODE model (Fazio,1990), motivation and opportunity determines how media messages are processed. In the absence of motivation and opportunity, processing comes down to accessibility of the attitude. Thus, we see that that avoidance comes down to accessibility, and is an outcome of spontaneous behavior meaning that what is most accessible determines avoidance. However, we find that approach is a more thoughtful process, meaning that the views are typically more motivated to carefully consider the ad that they are watching before ultimately deciding to approach it. Meaning, the more one has an accessible attitude about avoiding ads on digital media, the more likely they are to avoid digital ads. This may come down to the fact that digital media have been slammed by the abundance of advertising (as defined in Chapter 1 of earned, owned and paid media), ranging from Facebook sponsored posts, friends liking certain brands, or retargeted 33 ads, while pre-rolled ads on YouTube is the format that characterizes YouTube videos. There is an inherent pattern of how ads are presented in some of these digital platforms. However, when approaching ads, the motivation is more well deliberated, meaning that it is an ongoing process when an ad is shown. However, we do not see this manifested in television. Part of the reason may be that when one turns on the programming on the TV set, it is uncertain if it could be in the middle of an ad or programming, hence the decision is less premeditated since one could show up in the middle of a program or an ad. In general, digital media typically have a “fixed” format in how ads are displayed, you either watch the ad, before or in the middle of the content that you are viewing. This seems to indicate that the mechanisms behind approach and avoidance is not the inverse of each other but are triggered differently. Media differences tend to indicate that the inherent nature of programming and attributes invoke different processes which we use. Parsing this further looking at the different types of media, we see some fundamental similarities: digital avoidance is predicted by attitude accessibility while digital approach is predicted by attitude valence. However, neither attitude accessibility nor attitude valence predicted avoidance in television, suggesting the role of attitudes differ as a process between those media. This means that while avoidance is spontaneous in digital media, it is more unclear when it comes to legacy media such as television. This may be a result of pre-conditioning of ad avoidance (i.e. hitting the “skip” button after five seconds of a YouTube ad playing or pressing the “X” to close out an ad on Facebook), and very easily available measures to avoid them. However, we see that approach once again in all media is predicted by attitude valence. What this tells us is that regardless of media type, approach seems to indicate a more thoughtful, 34 deliberative process, meaning that people carefully consider what they are wanting to engage in when encountering an ad. The role of norms also has a predictive role in this study. The results indicate that norms do not play a role in avoidance in digital media but do so in television avoidance. This is an interesting finding, because the consumption of digital media may be commonly done in private or individually, whereas watching television may be a communal activity and done as a group. Therefore, the importance of what others think may play more of a role in television ad viewing in a social setting, versus digital media in a private setting. It may warrant looking at co-viewing and individual viewing of television to see if there are further differences. In approach, we see that norm valence is predictive in Facebook ad watching as well as TV ad watching, this means, that participants in this study would approach advertising if they thought others around them valued that too. However, for YouTube, ad approach is predicted by norm accessibility. Therefore, the more accessible the norm is for YouTube, the more likely the approach. This is perhaps driven by the virality of certain ads that have become topics of conversation in the workplace or in a private setting with friends or family. However, the difference in YouTube ad watching may suggest that as a video channel, accessibility is a key determinant in both approach and avoidance and norm and attitude accessibility. This may perhaps indicate the automaticity in how we regard video ads that typically come in a fixed format of pre-rolled commercials with little to no variation to the when the ad is showed. Therefore, those that have used YouTube, typically have been “trained” and hence accessibility plays a much bigger role. Finally, we see that gender plays a role only in the approach on YouTube and Facebook, but not in any other place. While this was an interesting finding, it may be more important to investigate whether gender differences are only particular to these two platforms or if they apply 35 to other areas such as Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter etc. The findings can better help us understand how the bombardment of digital ads have led to a sheer tendency to avoid, hence losing its effectiveness, but also help us see that in most other cases, other factors can contribute to a “game time” decision during the encounter of an advertisement. The results from this study, allow us to better understand how approach and avoidance function as processes in the decisions to approach and avoid, and how they differ across different platforms. Importantly, it lends insights to the role of attitude and norm accessibility and how that can help in the creation of the dual process model. 36 CHAPTER FOUR: ROLE OF REPEATED EXPRESSION AND INVOLVEMENT Study II: Repeated expression, involvement and attitudes Study I showed that there are differences between the processes of approach and avoidance. The results demonstrate that both attitude and norm accessibility play different roles in approach and avoidance. In the context of the MODE model, approach is a thoughtful, deliberative process, whereas avoidance is spontaneous. This is also due in part to the fact that intrinsic motivations vary from the individual, and the context in which they encounter it. The results also indicated that the media platforms make a difference in how such the processes vary across legacy and digital media and even subtle differences within digital media such as differences between YouTube and Facebook advertisements Study II builds on these findings of the role of processes within attitude accessibility towards advertising avoidance and approach. The goal is to identify other critical variables that are relevant in advertising approach and avoidance to help outline the proposed dual process model. To better understand the role of processes in why one may utilize greater resources to approach rather than to avoid, we can look towards the Limited Capacity Model of Motivated Mediated Processing (LC4MP), which states that as human beings, we have limited resources allocated to cognitive functions (Lang, 2006). The term “cognitive misers” was used to explain how humans tend to conserve cognitive resources and rely on heuristic decision making when their task is to adequately process what is around them (Fiske & Taylor, 1991). However, depending on the task at hand, the goal of the observer, and their intrinsic motivations, the individual would take on the role of a “motivated tactician” to find the best allocation of resources to navigate the task at hand (Fiske & Taylor, 1991). To put this in the context, of advertising approach and avoidance, let us conceive a scenario where an individual has multiple 37 goals while surfing the web. One such goal let us assume is to learn how to bake a peach cobbler pie, and as a result, the individual is on YouTube looking for informational videos. However, as we know, YouTube typically opens with a pre-rolled advertisement, and in this example, let us assume an ad for a pair of Adidas running shoes pop up. In this instance, other goals may come into play, such as does the individual need a pair of shoes, is Adidas a brand the individual like, how urgently does the individual need it, and if he or she would even think running shoes are important. Hence, the LC4MP theory elucidates us by explaining that because of the limited amount of resources that is available, we will not be able to attend to all the questions that we need, and as a result, the individual will selectively choose to encode and store the necessary information for future retrieval (Lang, 2006). Limited resources thus will force this individual to decide if the information is worth processing heuristically or systematically. Thus, the motivations to process as according to Fiske and Taylor (1991) is driven the importance of competing goals and the end result is based on whatever proves to be the most important or motivating. The goal of the second study is to examine the intersection of two theories, the LC4MP (Lang, 2006) and the MODE model (Fazio, 1990). Here the LC4MP, informs us that because we have limited cognitive resources, we choose what information to process. This can be traced back to our baser instincts for survival, that can trigger fight or flight responses. Our cognitions towards new information is therefore appetitive or aversive depending on the conditions of the encounter. Thus, when information presented is useful and needs to be processed learned and remembered, an orienting response is formed whereby significant attention is given to the message in order to encode and store it in the long-term memory for future retrieval. However, 38 when a message is not thought to be important (insufficient motivation), or if there is a cognitive overload (e.g. too many goals and tasks), the message is not processed and is instead ignored. As established in Chapter 3, the MODE model looks at motivation and opportunity as impetus for processing deliberatively. Hence, while the LC4MP provides the reasons for limited processing, the MODE model provides some explanations for when motivated processing happens. Since we know that approach and avoidance can be traced to different processes and motivations of explanation, the purpose of this study is to focus on more salient predictors under the circumstances of approach and avoid, questioning that under deliberative and spontaneous processing mechanisms, what are other salient factors that can be predictive of approach and avoidance. To identify such variables, we first turn to the results of the previous study, followed by prior research. In the previous study, the results indicated that media platforms are processed differently. This determination led to a narrowing of the media platform for this second study to isolate confounds. Study two will thus solely focus on video advertising on the YouTube platform to maintain consistency, and to reduce possible confounds if ads were compared from other platforms (e.g. Facebook ads, online ads). The mainstay of YouTube advertisements takes the form of pre-rolled advertising, meaning that ads are typically viewed before a video is played, sometimes with the option to skip after 5 or 15 seconds the commercial (Mialki, 2018). Because of the finding of attitude accessibility being a predictor in video advertising ad avoidance, this study will explore the role of attitude accessibility through (1) repeated expression, in addition to (2) product involvement, and (3) time scarcity: and how it affects one’s propensity to approach and avoid advertising, and finally (4) attitude towards the product 39 and the ad. First, we will define each of these variables and their importance to advertising research. To understand repeated exposure, we first need to establish that the role of accessibility of the source can affect the liking of a message. Prior research has shown that when the accessibility to an object evaluation is increased, it can lead to greater liking or agreement with the message than if the accessibility is not increased (Roskos-Ewoldsen & Fazio, 1992). In other words, by increasing the accessibility to the object, it can amplify one’s evaluation towards the subject matter. In order to increase accessibility, Roskos-Ewoldsen and Fazio (1992) demonstrated that this can be accomplished through having multiple evaluations of the source or subject over a short period of time. These multiple evaluations over a short period of time will therefore increase the accessibility and this process is known as repeated expression. The importance of repeated expression in this study, is to better understand when respondents are aware about their evaluations of approach and avoid in video advertising, how it may affect them in their approach or avoidance decisions. The second variable in this study is involvement. Involvement as established by Zaichkowsky (1994), posits that three factors, (1) the characteristics of the individual, (2) the situation, and (3) the object, will affect one’s involvement towards a product. This means that based on a person’s values and needs (Zaichkowsky 1986), involvement acts as a form of motivation of the response given towards the product in question. While involvement is often established on a continuum, it has been broken down into three markers which are low, medium and high involvement products, based on value, relevance and importance (Zaichkowsky (1994). 40 Consequently, involvement plays an important role in the information seeking process. What this means that how a service or product or even an ad is perceived varies from the individual based on their perception of what the product or ad means to them (Zaichkowsky, 1986). Petty, Cacioppo and Goldman (1981), demonstrated that for issues related to people with a higher involvement, it might show understanding of the issue, as they have spent more time thinking about it. This means, that ads for products deemed of higher involvement may warrant further understanding in terms of attention being paid to them The third variable is time scarcity. Building on prior work (Thorson, Tham & Duffy, 2018), it should also be noted that how much people like the media in which advertising occurs, and what functional value those media hold for them are also highly predictive of approaching (or avoiding) advertising. Indeed, media enjoyment and media gratifications conceptualized on a medium specific level are found to be an antecedent of advertising approach and avoidance (Thorson, Tham & Duffy, 2018). The greater the enjoyment of using a medium (like watching television) the more likely they are to like the embedded advertising. However, the greater the intensity of different gratifications people derive from using the medium (e.g. escaping their boring daily lives, how entertained they are, how much the media provide the social-cultural interactions with others, and how much they learn from the medium) One finding shows the more focused they are in performing a task, they greater the dislike for interruption from advertising. If they are consuming media as enjoyment, recreation, and there is not a task- orientation, the less they dislike the interruption of advertising. the more likely they are to resent the interruption of advertising and the greater their likelihood of trying to avoid it (Thorson, Tham & Duffy, 2018). Therefore, time scarcity can be considered as a new form of the context 41 of approaching an ad when there is a task at hand when one has a need for a product right away or further down in the future. The fourth variable is attitude towards the product and the ad. General attitude towards advertising (McKenzie & Lutz, 1989) has often been used as an indicator of behavior of approach and avoidance meaning a negative attitude will lead avoidance and a positive attitude to approach. Considering, behavior has often been traditionally been predicted by attitudes (Ajzen & Fishbein. 1973), it is therefore important to look at specific attitudes that predict specific behavior (Kim & Hunter, 1993). In order to identify specific attitudes towards the product and the ad, exemplar ads need to be selected for evaluation as part of the research goal for this study. The purpose of the present study is to define and distinguish circumstances in which individuals will approach and avoid advertising on YouTube, and ascertain if the variables of interest will be good predictors of both behaviors. Past studies have typically examined the general attitude towards advertising as a function to approach and avoidance, because of the nature of this study to look at exemplar ads, this provided an opportunity to examine direct attitudes of the ad itself, as well as of the product advertised, in relation to advertising attitude with regard to approach and avoidance. Therefore, we ask: RQ5: What is the correlation between avoidance and approach, with attitude towards general advertising and attitude towards the product, and attitude towards the ad? Next, the study will look at the influence of each of the aforementioned variables. The accessibility of the attitude as demonstrated in previous study based on reaction time tasks indicated that attitude accessibility played a much bigger role in avoidance than approach. 42 Through the manipulation of repeated expression of video advertising evaluation, we would be able to increase one’s accessibility towards video advertising. Having a more accessible attitude towards video advertising, resulting in an amplification of the behavior, we would hypothesize that H3: Increased accessibility through repeated expression will lead to greater propensity to avoid advertising. RQ6: How does increased accessibility through repeated expression affect advertising approach? Product involvement is the second variable of interest in this study. Petty, Cacioppo and Schumann (1983) considered involvement as a variable that moderates the effectiveness of persuasion in advertising messages, such that those with higher involvement would require more deliberate thought invoking central processing, whereas those with low involvement would lead to peripheral processing. While initially building on this, Zaichkowsky (1994) believed one’s personal involvement towards the product should be thought of as a motivational state. Thinking about advertising as both a construct that could provide information and entertainment, while simultaneously being able to annoy and interrupt, the role of involvement towards a product being advertised should affect the way in which one be motivated to either approach or avoid the advertisement shown. It is expected that when one is more involved in the purchase of the item, the greater their desire for information about it. It would seem likely that higher product involvement will make people less sensitive to their intrinsic negative and positive attitudes toward advertising. The involvement construct necessitated the influence of specific products 43 for evaluation in this study, such that items in both the high and low involvement continuum should be considered Therefore, we hypothesize: H4: Higher involvement products will exhibit higher approach tendencies than lower involvement products. H5: Higher involvement products will exhibit lower avoidance tendencies than lower involvement products. We also want to investigate the interaction of having a presence or absence of high accessibility towards video advertising when encountering advertisements involving high and low involvement products. The underlying question is how this would influence the approach and avoidance of advertising. Therefore, we ask: RQ7a: How does the absence and presence of repeated expression interact with high and low involvement products when thinking about approach? RQ7b: How does the absence and presence of repeated expression interact with high and low involvement products when thinking about avoidance? Third, prior research (Thorson, Tham & Duffy, 2018) suggests that four antecedents: positive attitudes towards advertising (e.g., it tells me about new products), negative attitudes towards advertising (it makes people more materialistic), media context gratifications (when I’m watching television I learn new things), and media enjoyment (I feel good when I’m surfing online). Importantly, research has shown that time restrictions would present an important context in the decision-making process leading to anticipated regret (Swain, Hanna & Abendroth, 2006). Consequently, the desire to remove the anticipated regret from the scarcity of time has led people to seek out coping mechanisms such as reactance and hoarding (Gupta, 2013). Suffice to say, little research has been done to investigate how it would result in 44 information seeking behavior such as advertisements and in this area approach and avoidance. The central question here is that, does time scarcity lead to people paying greater attention to advertising, hence we ask H6: Scarcity of time would lead to greater attention to advertising. Finally, we want to test an integrated predictive model of the theory advertising and avoidance, looking at the role of specific attitudes and their predictive ability. Several factors come into mind while looking at this. The first is the role of attitudes, Ajzen and Fishbein (1977) added the importance of correspondence between the attitude and the behavior in the form of action, context and time to better facilitate the predictive behavior. In order to understand why people approach and avoid, it will be important to look at underlying attitudes towards advertising in general. McKenzie & Lutz (1989) provides a general scale of attitudes towards advertising, while Thorson, Tham and Duffy (2018) expanded this by breaking down general attitudes towards advertising through a positive outlook and a negative one. Second, the role of demographics have often been influential in predicting media usage (Jeffres & Atkin, 1996; Bondad-Brown, Rice & Pearce, 2012; Cingel & Krcmar, 2013). Demographics such as age, race, gender, income and religion can account for how media is being used such that for example, younger audiences are more likely to consume digital media whereas old audiences may prefer print. Accounting for demographics provides a broad overview of the population accounting for the fact that people are different and such characteristics impact the way media is being use vis-a-vi how they are being avoided or approached as well. Third, the construct of involvement (Zaichkowsky, 1994) is deemed the relevance and importance one places into the product in question, suggesting that it may indeed affect how may ultimately decide whether to approach or avoid the ad based on the category of the product. Fifth, repeated expression through 45 increased attitude accessibility is hypothesized to affect how one approach and avoid, if the attitude is more accessible. Finally, context is important, therefore in addition to general attitudes, specific attitudes to both the product itself and to the ad should be considered. This means, understanding how one perceives how the attitude of the product and the ad itself affects one’s propensity to approach or avoid. To test this model, we would therefore look at the predictive ability of demographics, general attitudes towards advertising (negative and positive), involvement towards the product, repeated expression, attitudes towards the ad, and attitudes towards the product and their impact as predictors to advertising approach and avoidance. RQ8: How well do the proposed variables: demographics, general attitudes towards advertising (positive and negative), involvement of the product, repeated expression, attitude towards the ad, and attitude towards the product predict video advertising model of approach? RQ9: How well do the proposed variables: demographics, general attitudes towards advertising (positive and negative), involvement of the product, repeated expression, attitude towards the ad, and attitude towards the product predict video advertising model of avoidance? Thus, the study will test a 2 (repeated expression: present/absent) x 2 (involvement: high/low) experiment fielded in an online Qualtrics sample; involvement in products will be within-subject. Two high-involvement and two low involvement products will be represented (also within-subject). Because of the nature of approach and information seeking behaviors, only online ads will be included to test the idea that media-specific enjoyment and functionality impact approach/avoiding advertising, and how they are affected by product involvement. 46 Measures Pretests: Two pretests were conducted for product involvement and repeated expression. For product involvement, the study identifies what were clearly high involvement and low involvement products for the study. Instead of the three levels (high, medium and low) explicated by Zaichkowsky (1994), this study wanted to contrast those on both ends of the spectrum. For repeated expression, the goal of the pre-test was to ensure that the manipulation was properly working. These results from these tests were to ensure the measures were adequate before the main study was run. Product Involvement: To determine high or low product involvement, a pre-test was conducted to determined what products (2 high involvement and low involvement) were selected for the study. The scale utilized is an adaptation of Zaichkowsky’s (1994) scale of “product involvement, where participants provided an evaluation of each item based on the dimensions of, importance, involvement, need, and worth. 57 participants were recruited from a midwestern university and were given class credit for their time. Participants were given 14 items to evaluate. For each item, four evaluations were provided on a 7-point bipolar scale (e.g. unimportant to important). The mean score of these four evaluations were used to determine the product involvement score. In order to contrast the involvement of the products to showcase their differences (Zaichkowsky, 1994), only the highest two and lowest two mean scores were utilized. This therefore permitted the selection of the products with the greatest difference in involvement. The 14 items selected for evaluation were adapted from Zaichkowsky’s (1994), list that included perceived low involvement items such as facial tissue, washing detergent, socks, ice-cream, and cereal with high involvement products such as cell phone, backpack, laptop, earphones, and running shoes. After the pre-test, the results 47 indicated that the products with the highest involvement scores were laptop (m=6.43) and cellphone (m=6.31), whereas cereal (m=3.39) and ice-cream (m=3.32) were deemed the lowest involvement products. Therefore, these four items – two from each category were selected for the main study. Repeated Expression: This variable was manipulated by having respondents evaluate multiple exposures to “Watching a video ad.” A pre-test was conducted to test this manipulation. At the beginning of the survey, respondents were asked to evaluate 60 items on a bi-polar scale (e.g. dislike…like, bad…good etc.). A pre-test was conducted to test this manipulation. Participants in the control condition only received one exposure to the critical evaluation: question 58/60, whereas those in the treatment condition received five additional evaluations in addition to the critical evaluation. To control for order effects, two different order of stimuli was used in each condition.. This pre-test was conducted via Qualtrics panel, and 58 respondents participated (26 in each condition). To ensure that reaction times were properly measured, participants were screened to ensure that they participated in the survey only if they were doing it on a computer. Respondents first evaluated the 60 items on Qualtrics, and then were directed to the Inqusit site to take the reaction time task online. The reaction time portion on Inquisit was conducted over three blocks, with the first two blocks being practice blocks, and the final block containing the critical item of “Watching a video ad.” A one-way ANOVA was conducted on the reaction time results. The results F (1,54)=4.45, p<.05, indicated that there was a significant difference between the control (m=1398.50, sd=811.84) and the treatment (m=1055.93,sd=279.16) group. Those in the repeated expression condition had a more accessible evaluation towards watching video ads than those that in the control condition. This suggested that the manipulation was 48 successful and that multiple exposures of the evaluation created a more accessible attitude towards video ads. Main test: 410 adults aged 18 or older were nationally sampled by a Qualtrics panel to participate in the study. The number suggested by power analysis (Erdfelder, Faul & Buchner, 1996) determined that this was a good number for the study. Participants were chosen based to be representative of the current US population in terms of age, gender, race, income and education. Participants were recruited by Qualtrics and undertook the survey with a mean time of 34.55 minutes per completion. The main design of the survey is a 2 (repeated expression) x 2 (involvement) condition. Repeated expression was a within-subjects design while involvement was between subjects. A series of qualifying questions were asked to ensure that 1) participants gave their best answers, 2) were familiar and had watched YouTube advertisements, and 3) had the ability to watch video advertisements during the survey. In addition, three attention checks were placed in the survey to ensure quality control. Participants were then directed into the repeated expression condition of the survey. In this portion they were randomly assigned into either the repeated expression or non-repeated expression condition. For each condition, they were then shown one of two possible stimuli in order to balance for order effects. The induction of repeated expression was done in the same manner as the pre-test with those in the repeated expression condition presented an evaluation of “watching a video ad” six times versus, a single evaluation in the non- repeated expression condition. After the repeated expression part of the experiment. Participants were then told they would watch video ads and answer questions that followed. They were then assigned to watch the four video commercials for the two low-involvement items (ice-cream and cereal), and two 49 high-involvement items (laptop and cell phone). After each commercial, that they viewed, they then answered a battery of questions about their advertising experience, the commercial, and asked about the product. To balance for order effects, the order of the four commercials were randomized for each participant. Finally, they answered several general questions about advertising, and demographics, and they were thanked for their time. University IRB was obtained before participants were recruited for the study. Dependent variables Advertising approach: This was a measure of the likelihood people will process the ad. Adapted from Thorson, Tham and Duffy (2018), this measure was measured based on each ad watched from each product category: laptop, ice-cream, cereal, and cell phone. The three items that formed this measure were, After watching this ad, did you “Get information that’s useful to you”, “Feel pleasure,” and “Feel interested in the ad.” Participants answered this question on a scale of (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree. The Cronbach's α for this three-item measure for each of the product categories is .86 for laptop, .89 for ice-cream, .89 for cereal, and .89 for cell phone. Advertising avoidance: This was a measure of the likelihood people will process the ad. Adapted from Thorson, Tham and Duffy (2018), this measure was measured based on each ad watched from each product category: laptop, ice-cream, cereal, and cell phone. The six items that formed this measure were, After watching this ad, did you “Feel the ad interferes with your online experience”, “Ignore the ad,” “Feel irritated”, “Feel the ad is a waste of your time,” “Feel you do not have the ability to control your exposure to the ads”, “and “Feel interrupted when watching the ad.” Participants answered this question on a scale of (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly 50 agree. The Cronbach's α for this three-item measure for each of the product categories is .89 for laptop, .89 for ice-cream, .89 for cereal, and .89 for cell phone. Independent variables Positive attitude towards advertising(general): This is a general measure of their evaluation of advertising.. The items used in this scale was adapted from prior research (MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989). The eight items were, “ Advertising is a valuable source of information about products/services,” “Advertising tells me which brands have the features I am looking for,” “Advertising helps me keep up to date about products/services available in the marketplace,” “Advertising is informative,” “Quite often, advertising is amusing and entertaining,” “Sometimes advertisements can be fun,” “In general, advertising stimulates our nation’s economy,” and “In general, advertising promotes competition, which benefits the consumer.” The question asked were on a scale of (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree. The Cronbach's α for this eight- item measure is .95 Negative attitude towards advertising (general): This is Richin’s (1992) general measure of participants’ evaluation of advertisement having negative effects on advertising like making society more materialistic. It typically looks at the negative consequences of advertising on society. The four items were, “Advertising is making us a materialistic society, overly interested in buying and owning things,” “Advertising makes people buy unaffordable products just to show off,” “Advertising makes people live in a world of fantasy,” and, “Because of advertising, people buy a lot of things they do not really need.” The questions asked were on a scale of (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree. The Cronbach's α for this eight-item measure is .86. Attitude towards the ad: This is a measure of the attitude specifically towards the ad for the product that they watched. Here participants rated their attitude towards the ads in the stimuli 51 based on five dimensions of attitude evaluation which are, “Not important to important,” “bad to good,” “irrelevant to relevant,” “unexciting to exciting,” “unappealing to appealing.” The Cronbach's α for this five-item measure for each of the product categories is .95 for laptop, .96 for ice-cream, .96 for cereal, and .96 for cell phone. Attitude towards the product: This is a measure of the attitude specifically towards the product in question. Here participants rate their perceptions of these products based on five dimensions of attitude evaluation which are, “Not important to important,” “bad to good,” “irrelevant to relevant,” “unexciting to exciting,” “unappealing to appealing.” The Cronbach's α for this five- item measure for each of the product categories is .95 for laptop, .93 for ice-cream, .95 for cereal, and .95 for cell phone. Product Involvement: This is a measure of the involvement towards a product adapted from Zaichkowsky (1994). The questions asked were on a scale of (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree of their evaluations of each of the four products. The questions include, “Purchasing [product] is important to me,” “I am involved in the decision to purchase [product],” “Ads play an important part in my purchase decision”, “Finding information about the product on the website is important to me,” “I know a lot about [product],” and “I am very familiar about [product].” The Cronbach's α for these six questions for laptop is .86, for ice-cream .81, for cereal .84, and .84 for cell phone. Results RQ5 asks “What is the correlation between avoidance and approach, with attitude towards general advertising and attitude towards the product, and attitude towards the ad?.” A correlational analysis was done for each of the four product ads (laptop, ice-cream, cereal, and cell phone) along with their corresponding variables which are positive attitude towards 52 advertising (general), negative attitude towards advertising (general), attitude towards the ad, attitude towards the product, the ad approach measure, and the ad avoidance measure. The results can be found in Tables 18 through 21. Across the board, we see that positive attitude towards advertising (general) is significantly and positively correlated with all the other variables, except for advertising avoidance. For negative attitude towards advertising (general), across the board, results indicate a significant correlation with the positive attitude towards advertising (general), as well as advertising avoidance. For attitude towards the specific ad, and attitude towards the product, results across the board indicate that they are positively correlated with all variables except for negative attitude towards advertising (in some cases), and negatively correlated with advertising avoidance. Overall, the correlation analysis indicates that approach and avoidance is highly correlated not only with attitude towards advertising, but also the attitude towards the specific ad they watch as well as the attitude towards the product. Looking at the effects of repeated expression, H3 states that increased accessibility through repeated expression will lead to greater propensity to avoid. To analyze the four dependent variables, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was calculated examining the effect of repeated expression (present, absent) on advertising avoidance for the laptop, ice- cream, cereal, and cell-phone commercials respectively. No significant effect was found. (Lambda (4,405)=.996, p>.05). None of the propensity to avoid commercials was significantly influenced by increased accessibility through repeated expression. Therefore, H3 was not supported. For approach, RQ6 asked, “How does increased accessibility through repeated expression affect advertising approach?” A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was calculated examining the effect of repeated expression (present, absent) on advertising approach for the 53 laptop, ice-cream, cereal, and cell-phone commercials respectively. No significant effect was found (Lambda (4,405)=.991, p>.05). None of the propensity to approach advertisements was significantly influenced by increased accessibility through repeated expression. Therefore, there was no effect of repeated expression on advertising approach. To address H4 which is, “Higher involvement products will exhibit higher approach tendencies than lower involvement products”, a one-way repeated measures ANOVA was calculated comparing the approach propensity of the participants for the high involvement ads (laptop, and cell phone) against the low involvement ads (ice-cream, and cereal). A significant main effect for involvement was found (F(1,408)=93.98), p<.001). We find that those in the higher involvement condition (m=4.497,sd=1.56 ) were significantly more likely to approach ads that those in the lower involvement condition (m=3.859, sd =1.64 ). Therefore, H4 is supported. To address H5,“Higher involvement products will exhibit lower avoidance tendencies than lower involvement products”, a one-way repeated measures ANOVA was calculated comparing the approach propensity of the participants for the high involvement ads (laptop, and cell phone) against the low involvement ads (ice-cream, and cereal). A significant main effect for involvement was found (F(1,409)=42.31), p<.001). We find that those in the higher involvement condition (m=3.16,sd=1.47 ) were significantly less likely to avoid ads that those in the lower involvement condition (m=3.54, sd =1.53 ). Therefore, H5 is supported. To address RQ7a and 7b, “How does the absence and presence of repeated expression interact with high and low involvement products when thinking about approach and avoidance” A 2 x 2 mixed designed ANOVA was calculated to examine the effects of repeated expression (present, absence), by involvement (high,low) on advertising approach and avoidance. For approach, no significant interaction (F(1,408)=3.52, p>.05) was found. Therefore, there was no 54 interaction between repeated expression and involvement on approach. For avoidance, no significant interaction (F(1,408)=0.67, p>.05) was found. Therefore, there was no interaction between repeated expression and involvement on avoidance. H6 hypothesized that “Scarcity of time would lead to greater attention to advertising.” To analyze this, four paired-sample t-tests were computed to analyze the differences between the mean score of paying more attention to advertising if needing to buy the product the next day versus 30 days in the future. The paired-samples t-test to calculate the mean score for greater attention for purchase laptop (next day) was 4.70 and the mean score for laptop (30 days) was 4.65. No significant difference was found (t(409)=1.337, p>0.5 For ice-cream, the mean score for greater attention if needing it the next day was 4.21, and 4.04 for 30 days in the future. A significant effect was found (t(409)=3.661, p<.001. Therefore, those needing ice-cream after 30 days were significantly more likely to pay less attention to advertising than those needing ice- cream the next day. For cereal, the mean score for greater attention if needing it the next day was 3.98, and 3.85 for 30 days in the future. A significant was found (t(409)=2.771, p<.01. Therefore, those needing cereal after 30 days were significantly more likely to pay less attention to advertising than those needing ice-cream the next day. For cell-phone, the mean score the mean score for greater attention if needing it the next day was 4.64, and 4.58 for 30 days in the future. No significant difference was found (t(409)=1.689, p>05. RQ8 asked, “How well do the proposed variables: demographics, general attitudes towards advertising (positive and negative), involvement of the product, repeated expression, attitude towards the ad, and attitude towards the product predict video advertising model of approach?” A hierarchical regression was run to test this research question for each of the four ads to test for ad approach predictors. The results can be found in Tables 8 (laptop), 9 (ice- 55 cream), 10 (cereal), and 11 (cell-phone). For the laptop ad, model 2 (R2 = 40.9%), model 3 (R2 = 49.3%), and model 4 (R2 = 71.4%) were good predictive models. In model 2, positive attitude towards advertising (general) was a positive predictor. In model 3, both positive attitude and involvement of product were positive predictors, and in model 4, attitude towards the ad, involvement and gender (male) were the positive predictors of approach. . For the ice-cream ad, model 1 (R2 = 5.8%), model 2 (R2 = 30.4%), model 3 (R2 = 41.8%), and model 4 (R2 = 80.7%) were good predictive models. In model 1, age was a predictor with younger audiences were more likely to approach. In model 2, age, and positive attitude towards advertising (general) were positive predictors. In model 3, age, positive attitude and involvement of product were positive predictors, and in model 4, only, attitude towards the ad, and involvement were the positive predictors of approach. For the cereal ad, model 1 (R2 = 12.2%), model 2 (R2 = 35.4%), model 3 (R2 = 44.7%), and model 4 (R2 = 73.5%) were good predictive models. In model 1, age, gender and race were predictors with younger, male and non-white audiences were more likely to approach. In model 2, age, gender, and positive attitude towards advertising (general) were positive predictors. In model 3, age, gender, positive attitude and involvement of product were positive predictors, and in model 4, only involvement, and attitude towards the ad were the positive predictors of approach. For the cell-phone ad, model 1 (R2 = 6.0%), model 2 (R2 = 40.7%), model 3 (R2 = 44.3%), and model 4 (R2 = 73.4%) were good predictive models. In model 1, age and race were predictors with non-white and younger audiences being more likely to approach. In model 2, age, race, and positive attitude towards advertising (general) were positive predictors. In model 3, race, positive attitude and involvement of product were positive predictors, and in model 4, only involvement, and attitude towards the ad were the positive predictors of approach. 56 RQ9 asked “How well do the proposed variables: demographics, general attitudes towards advertising (positive and negative), involvement of the product, repeated expression, attitude towards the ad, and attitude towards the product predict video advertising model of avoidance?” A hierarchical regression was run to test this research question. The results can be found in tables 12 (laptop), 13 (ice-cream), 14 (cereal), and 15 (cell-phone). For the laptop ad, model 2 (R2 = 26.3%), and model 4 (R2 = 30.2%) were good predictive models. In model 2, age, and gender were predictors with younger, and male more likely to avoid, also, positive attitudes towards advertising was a negative predictor and negative attitudes towards advertising a positive predictor. In model 4, gender: male, was still a predictor of avoidance, negative attitudes towards advertising was a positive predictor, positive attitudes towards advertising and attitude towards the ad were also both negative predictors to avoidance. For the ice-cream ad, model 1 (R2 = 5.3%), (model 2 (R2 = 21.1%), and model 4 (R2 = 30.9%) were good predictive models. In model 1, education was a positive predictor meaning greater education led to greater avoidance. In model 2, education together with, positive attitudes towards advertising (negative predictor), and negative attitudes towards advertising a positive predictor. In model 4, gender: male, was a new predictor of avoidance, together with attitude towards the ad (negative predictor), while education, negative attitudes towards advertising, and positive attitudes towards advertising continued to be significant predictors. For the cereal ad, model 1 (R2 = 3.8%), (model 2 (R2 = 19.6%), and model 4 (R2 = 27.7%) were good predictive models. In model 1, education was a positive predictor meaning greater education led to greater avoidance. In model 2, education together with, positive attitudes towards advertising (negative predictor), and negative attitudes towards advertising a positive predictor. In model 4, gender: male, was a new predictor of avoidance, together with attitude 57 towards the ad (negative predictor), while education, negative attitudes towards advertising, and positive attitudes towards advertising continued to be significant predictors. For the cell-phone ad, model 1 (R2 = 5.2%), (model 2 (R2 = 26.7%), and model 4 (R2 = 35.6%) were good predictive models. In model 1, gender: male and education were both positive predictors. In model 2, gender, education together with, positive attitudes towards advertising (negative predictor), and negative attitudes towards advertising a positive predictor. In model 4, gender: male, education, negative attitudes towards advertising, and positive attitudes towards advertising continued to be significant predictors with attitude towards the ad being a new significant negative predictor. Discussion This purpose of the second study was to continue research along both paths of approach and avoidance identifying critical predictors to explain the underlying processes. Instead of just asking participants from theoretical standpoint of of imagining an ad, this study used actual advertisements and products to test the hypotheses. To discuss the results, we will elaborate the findings based on the four areas of interest that were identified earlier: (1) repeated expression, (2) involvement, (3) time scarcity, and (4) specific attitudes. First, the results on increased accessibility through repeated expression was not predictive in the study for either approach, and avoidance. This is a surprising finding, given the results of the pre-test and the results of the past study that accessibility being more predictive in avoidance measures. The failure of the manipulation may come down to the fact that because since approach is a measure of deliberative thought, once one is forced to watch an ad and answer the questions that follow, it invalidates the process because the respondents are forced to watch the ads. Other potential reasons for this may be that between the theoretical differences of thinking of a video ad (holding the thought in mind) versus seeing an actual ad. For the latter, this is perhaps a function of 58 having developed salient attitudes towards specific advertising products, brands, or ads that are already accessible. Hence it is possible, that the attitude accessibility may have increased when thinking of a generic ad, but when watching a specific ad, increased accessibility does not matter if the participants already have very salient attitudes towards the ad. Second, the role of involvement had significant impact in a few areas in approach and avoidance. The results from this part of involvement looked specifically at two areas. The first was the differences between high-involvement and low-involvement products as established by the pre-test. This look at classically items of lesser relevance and importance, such as cereal, and ice-cream, versus more expensive, or important products like a cellphone, and a laptop. The results of the high and low involvement products indicated that for overall approach, the high involvement product ads were more likely to be approached than low involvement product ads. Consequently, we see a similar angle when considering avoidance. Higher involvement products were less likely to be avoided compared to low involvement products. Even though the approach and avoid mechanisms are different, when one perceives value in a product that one is interested in, not only one is more likely to approach, but one is also less likely to avoid. However, the second part of involvement looked at personal involvement with these products that the participants had. When we look at personal involvement through the regressions results, we find that personal involvement towards the product was predictive in all four ads when thinking about approaching advertising. This means that the higher personal involvement one has towards the product, the more likely one is to approach the ad regardless of the product. This is predictive across both the pre-tested high and low involvement products. However, personal involvement towards product is different when it comes to advertising avoidance. Here the results show that personal involvement towards the products did not predict 59 advertising avoidance. Thus, the effect of perceived product categories and personal involvement to the product may slightly vary. Third, scarcity of time has some interesting results that warrant discussion. Here we see that time scarcity did not significantly affect paying more attention for the high-involvement products which are the cellphone and laptop ads. It is important to note that this is a self-reported measure as opposed to a manipulation of time scarcity. However, there was a significant difference between the low-involvement products which are cereal and ice-cream. This may point to the fact that attention to advertising may come down to the perceived value that they provide. Needing a low-involvement item immediately, rather than in the long term, turning to an online video ad for information for a less important item may help in the decision-making process, whereas this is not the case for more complex decisions. In a past study, time pressure, together and separately from product involvement have been found to be a significant motivator in the university selection/purchase process (Brennan, 2001). This may suggest the process of information gathering, whereby people may rely on advertising to glean information about the products towards their purchase decision for low-involvement products, whereas for more high involvement such as laptops and cell-phones, the ads alone may not provide sufficient information to warrant the additional attention, and hence there is no difference in the amount of attention paid to needing those items one day or 30 days after. This finding may suggest that people may seek information through advertising for low involvement products rather than for high involvement products. Fourth, the role of attitudes is important as always. By breaking attitudes down into positive and negative (general) attitudes, as well as looking at an individual’s attitude towards the specific ad, as well as the product, this research was able to delineate differences between the 60 different attitudes and their impact on approach and avoidance. We find that in general, for approach, positive attitudes towards advertising in general was predictive if people would approach advertising. However, once attitude towards the ad specifically is introduced, it wipes out the effect of general positive attitudes. Additionally, we see that negative advertising attitudes are not predictive of approach tendencies. Thinking about how advertisement makes the world a more materialistic place does not affect one’s propensity to approach. Hence much of approach is predicated by the positive value of advertising. More importantly, when attitude towards the ad gets introduced, the amount of variance explained dramatically increases. For avoidance, we see that both positive and negative attitudes are predictive in avoidance, as well as attitude towards the ad are predictive, however in the case of avoidance, when attitude towards the ad is introduced, it does the displace the other attitudes as predictors, signifying a lesser intensity as compared to approach. We see here that the role of attitudes are manifested differently, at times being predictors for both and others just towards approach or avoidance alone. This bears some similarity to the first study. In Study I, we see that attitude valence was significant for YouTube ad approach while attitude accessibility was significant for YouTube ad avoidance. Here we see a similar pattern through the general positive and negative attitudes. For approach, positive general attitudes of advertising were predictors of advertising but not negative attitudes suggesting the valence of the attitude of liking advertising being important. Likewise, the dramatic increase in the variance explained through the introduction of attitude towards the ad, showed that the likelihood of approaching advertising increased if we have a stronger attitude towards advertising and the ad itself. We see a different case when it comes to avoidance. In the first study, attitude accessibility was a strong predictor of avoidance. Here in the regression analysis, 61 we see all three attitude components (positive, negative, towards the ad) being predictors. This reinforced the findings of the first study such that the more salient and accessible we have in those attitudes about advertising, the more likely we can predict avoidance. A way to consider all three attitude variables being predictors may be that avoidance, may be a more spontaneous behavior meaning that is driven by accessibility such that if one holds those salient attitudes towards advertising, they may have already made up their mind to avoid the advertising they encounter. Interestingly, attitude towards the product did not in any way predict avoidance and approach. Part of the rationale for this variable stem from the attitudinal transference of objects to the advertising being irrelevant here with a possible explanation that, “I hate cars” therefore “I hate car commercials” line of reasoning being fallacious. However, this lack of support from the attitude of the product is thus reflected in the results of the study. As a cross-sectional study, the conclusions do not permit the drawing of causality, therefore we are not able to say if liking an ad made them want to approach it or wanting to approach it make them like the ad. However, based on research and theory, we are contending that the liking of the ad created the intention to approach advertising and vice versa for avoidance. Of course, there are unique situations such as the Superbowl Sunday where the inverse is true, because people approach the ads and then develop the attitudes after. As a deliberative process, approach of advertisement of video ads are guided by three key variables as shown in the second study, involvement of the individual towards the product on display, positive attitudes towards advertising in general, and the attitude towards the specific ad. This means that some factors that some of these motivations, stem from the importance of the product itself, in addition to how much the individual likes advertising in general, as well as the ad. This 62 might be part of the motivations as posited by the MODE model based on deliberative behavior. On the other hand, we find that for avoidance, both positive and negative attitudes towards advertising in general, as well as the attitude towards the ad are predictive of this spontaneous behavior. What this suggests is that in the absence of motivation and opportunity, an individual would rely on these heuristics to decide if an ad is worth avoiding. 63 CHAPTER FIVE: A DUAL PROCESS MODEL OF APPROACH AND AVOIDANCE A dual process model The dual process model of advertising approach and avoidance provides a framework that can better explain the processes that lead to approach and avoidance of advertisements under different circumstances. As outlined in Chapter 1, the decisions to pay attention (or avoid) advertisements are often based on several factors such as clutter, environment, and the media. As articulated by the MODE Model (Fazio, 1990) one’s desire to approach or avoid can be defined as either a deliberative and spontaneous behavior, with the argument that thoughtful decisions are made in the presence of motivation and opportunity. Because of limited cognitive resources (Lang, 2006), and the fact that we are cognitive misers and are only motivated to process under the right conditions (Fitz &Taylor, 1991), we find that approach and avoidance are processes that fall under this umbrella. One way to conceptualize approach and avoidance based on the results of the studies is to consider what motivating role they play in a dual process model. The results of the study established that advertising approach is a deliberative behavior, meaning that ad approach can be thought of as a motivator such that under the conditions of high motivation and opportunity, processing advertisements for information and entertainment may happen. Because approach of advertising is a deliberative process, consider that when an individual encounters an ad, it becomes an ongoing system of slowly processing, and deliberating as to if they should continue to approach it. This continues to happen as long as the motivation to process is present, and the longer they watch it, the more likely they will be gripped by media inertia making it less likely to walk away. However, because we find that advertising avoidance is a spontaneous process, we can consider it as a negative motivator or de-motivator. This means, that without the presence of 64 motivation, avoidance happens quickly, and is reliant on the accessibility of attitudes. Thus, when we consider what happens when one encounters an ad, we could postulate that an orienting response first occurs. Very quickly, if motivation to process the ad is present, the individual may engage in approach activity, with involvement, and attitudes towards advertising driving the motivations to determine if they will continue to watch the commercial. However, if motivation is absent, avoidance quickly takes over based on the accessibility of attitudes. This means that under high motivation and opportunity, mindful and thoughtful deliberation can occur which brings about the motivation to approach advertising. Avoidance on the other hand is often a response and outcome based on heuristics based on the attitudes towards advertising (both positive and negative), as well as towards the ad. Considering that both approach and avoidance are two different processes, we do find that other variables also play a role in affecting this. The findings from Thorson, Tham and Duffy (2018) showed that while approach and avoidance are often thought of as different constructs, they can sometimes share common variables as a predictor. One such predictor found in the study was the role of context. This meant that instead of the concept of approach and avoidance as two separate entities, some of such underlying processes such as context provides a tug-of-war of sorts, meaning that depending on how the variable is evaluated, the outcome of approach or avoidance may change. Essentially, what is happening are that different underlying variables “duke it out” with the outcome often the result of variables with greater importance to the individual winning the brawl. A way to think about this is that with limited cognitive resources, the importance of different variables can shift the balance creating motivations based on the circumstances, 65 therefore for approach, we see the role of involvement for instance, and for avoid, attitudes become more important. Therefore, the process model presents the influence of competing variables that can determine the outcome. As shown by the results of the two studies conducted in this research, some variables only affect the outcome of avoidance, and other variables only affect the outcome of approach. However, there are certain variables that can have an impact on both approach and avoidance. Therefore, this dual process model provides a better way to understand approach and avoidance not as two separate entities but similar but more so as dual motivators as outcomes of the process. This process model highlights three key areas such as context of encountering the ad, attitude towards the advertisement and general positive attitude towards advertising as shared predictors of both processes in approach and avoidance. What this suggests is that the direction of these variables directly affect how likely one is to approach and avoid. Other factors, such as involvement, and attitude valence can only affect approach while factors that only affect avoidance such as general negative attitudes towards advertising, and attitude accessibility. What this means is that each variable has a function, one that moves the needle in the direction of approach or avoidance. Theoretical implications The theoretical contribution of both these studies can help future researchers in a few areas. First, instead of considering approach and avoidance as separate entities, this process model proposes that a dual process approach that can help us think of approach and avoidance. Instead of two sides of a coin, they are indeed, two different processes that come about differently but share similarities. This means that instead of thinking of processes as a singular 66 outcome, it could be considered as a multi-layer function, where multiple processes are at work at the same time. One way of conceptualizing this may be similar to the motivation and ego depletion theory whereby a common theme to perform an action is thought to be an outcome of struggles and restraint (Baumeister & Vohs, 2007). Likewise, we could consider a push-pull effect of different variables of motivating variables in the process model whereby under certain conditions, some of these variables are more salient than others, and/or are more likely to occur. In the same way highlighted in ego depletion theory (Baumeister et al., 1997), where one has finite resources for self-control, the limited cognition resources in the process model can be thought of in the same way. Such that under the duress of making a split-second decision, a person does so with limited time and cognitive resources. This limitation in resources may postulate a crippling effect of making decisions resulting in the over-reliance of certain factors being better predictors. The first study demonstrated that the deliberative nature of processing in approach is far different from the spontaneous nature of avoidance. Motivation thus become the key as to when it becomes necessary for one to process. The shared common predictors and the correlations seen in approach and avoid components may highlight certain similarities that affect both processes even though the way it happens is different.. The second study helps illustrate this by showing that the similar predictors can serve perform different functions to help motivate or de-motivate an individual to approach or avoid. We see this in the role of positive general attitudes towards advertising as well as attitude towards the ad, having a positive influence on approach and a negative influence on avoidance. This may imply that secondary influences in the form of such variable play a role in both processes. Another important contribution is the role of involvement in the second study, here we see another marked difference between approach and avoidance. 67 For approach, there is a quality of seeking information in advertising, which when involvement toward a product is high, it becomes a predictor hence possibly indicating motivation. However, in choosing to avoid advertising, it is more the attitudes in question rather than the product itself. An area that warrants further investigation is the role of time scarcity. This study did a preliminary informational identification on the role of time scarcity on the attention of advertising based on product involvement. Interestingly, the results indicated that time scarcity makes more of a difference in low-involvement products suggesting the lack of the informational material through a 30-second commercial to make it worth paying attention to a high- involvement product. While this is based only a self-report, the results indicate that time scarcity while different from involvement as a construct, may indeed play an important role as a potential mediator in the dual process model. Limitations There are several limitations to this research that should be discussed. First, is the difference in the conceptualization of approach and avoidance between study I and study II. In the first study, ads were described as a general thought experiment. Hence, approach and avoidance was thought of in a hypothetical way, meaning that when asked to think a video ad, one participant may think in terms of encountering their favorite beer ad, another person may think of an annoying insurance commercial. While, thought exercises can yield meaningful results, they can also be quite general, and may be different in how they are being processed. Such is the foundational basics of building theory as a building block. More importantly, the conceptualization of approach and avoidance differs between study I and II, such that in study I, they did not have to watch an ad, but in study II, they were asked those questions after watching the ad, which may capture a different construct, since it lacks the consistency of both measures. 68 The second study on the other hand had participants view the advertisements and then have them answer the approach and avoidance questions. While, this second study attempts to put together evaluations of the same commercial watch by each participant, it also unfortunately provides the burden of a self-report after having watched the ad. More importantly, there is a stark difference in the perceptual thought exercise (study I) versus an exercise where a participant is made to watch an ad and then answer the questions that follow (study II). Als,o the second problem is that answering a question after watching an ad could be construed as a separate construction than asking about advertising in general. Hence, the measures of approach and avoidance in both studies (though the questions are asked in the same manner), are done in very different contexts. In the second study, instead of measuring if the participant approached or avoided, the self-reported measure may have been slightly skewed by an artificial desire by the participants to complete the socially acceptable task at hand which is to pay attention to the video advertisements that was played. More importantly, the result of gauging approach and avoid after an ad has been watched is different from asking whether they would watch an ad in a hypothetical situation. Perhaps further research down the line should separate both streams to better validate the findings from this study. Second, while the predictors have shown significance in each study, it is difficult to ascertain the magnitude of the impact of each variable in the process. Of the hitherto identified factors, the magnitude of each factor warrants further study, for example, though we may predict attitude towards the specific ad may have a greater impact on approach than avoidance even though it can predict both. Finally, another issue that warrants further research is the likelihood of the factor being an important predictor. This means, that under any circumstances, not all 69 variables are equally likely to be a factor, meaning that under certain circumstances, certain variables may be more likely to persist as compared to others. Despite the limitations, this study has provided discussion of a different way to conceptualize approach and avoidance on a continuum and the ability to swap in different factors to better predict how the outcomes can be derived. 70 APPENDICES 71 APPENDIX A: Study I Reaction Time Tasks Thank you for your interest in our research project. Before I can schedule you for a session, I need to ask you a few questions. First, are you a student at Michigan State University? (only students are eligible). How old are you? (only students between ages 19 and 23 will be tested). Would you say your hometown growing up was urban, in a city; suburban, in a neighborhood but not in a large city; or rural, in the country away from most urban development? How did you find out about the study? (for use in improving recruiting methods). Thank you. You are (are not) eligible to participate. (Eligible students will be given an appointment and directions for getting to the study site.) 72 Instructions for Attitude Accessibility Blocks Screen 1 You are about to complete a task that relies on a quick response. Please pay close attention and do your best to do as it asks as quickly as possible. Please press the SPACE BAR to continue. Screen 2 You will make judgments about a number of items. We are interested in your judgments of these items. Because they will involve your preferences, there are no correct answers to any of these judgments. When you are ready to proceed, please press the SPACE BAR. Screen 3 We are interested in whether you LIKE or DISLIKE various items. For example,if you were presented with the words "Diet Coke" and you like Diet Coke, you would indicate that you like Diet Coke bypressing the "like" key. You will indicate that you LIKE something by pressing the Q key. When you are ready to proceed, please press the Q key. Screen 4 However, if you do not like Diet Coke or you think that Diet Coke is bad, you should press the "dislike" key. You will indicate that you DISLIKE something by pressing the P key. When you are ready to proceed, please press the P key. Screen 5 All this task involves is a simple like/dislike judgment. For each item presented, indicate whether you think the item is something you LIKE or something you DISLIKE. We are interested in how quickly you can make these judgments accurately, so please go as fast as possible without making a lot of mistakes. When you are ready to proceed, please press the SPACE BAR. Screen 6 In order to respond as quickly as possible, you should place the index finger of your left hand on the Q key and the index finger of your right hand on the P key, and keep your fingers on these keys during the entire experiment. When you are ready to proceed, please press the Q key. Screen 7 Remember that it is important to respond as QUICKLY as possible while still being as ACCURATE as possible. So you should try to maximize both the speed and accuracy of your responses. When you are ready to proceed, please, press the SPACE BAR. Screen 8 Before each item you will judge is presented on the computer screen, the following message will be displayed: GET READY! Immediately afteward, a word or short phrase will appear. Once you have indicated your like/disklike judgment, the word will disappear. You will then see the GET READY! prompt again and will know you are about to start the next trial. When you are ready to proceed, please press the P key. Screen 9 If you have any questions, please ask the experimenter at this time. 73 You will first familiarize yourself with the "like" (Q) and "dislike" (P) keys. Please place your fingers on these keys now. When you see the word "like," press the key for "like" and when you see the word "dislike"press the key for "dislike." When you are ready to proceed with the task, please press the SPACE BAR. Practice Block 1: “GET READY” [followed by each item] 10 x Like (Q) 10 x Dislike (P) Screen 10 You will now proceed to the first round of like/dislike judgments. Remember that it is important to respond as QUICKLY as possible while still being as ACCURATE as possible. When you are ready to proceed, please press the SPACE BAR. Practice Block 2: “GET READY” [followed by each item] Screen 11 You will now proceed to the second round of like/dislike judgments. Remember that it is important to respond as QUICKLY as possible while still being as ACCURATE as possible. When you are ready to proceed, please press the SPACE BAR. Block 3: Critical Items & Filler items “GET READY” [followed by each item] Screen 12 Thank you! You have completed this part of the study. Please press the SPACE BAR to complete this portion, and then tell the experimenter that you are ready to continue. 74 Items for Attitude Accessibility Trials Practice Items for Blocks 1 20 Trials 10 x Press the “LIKE” Key 10 x Press the “DISLIKE” Key Practice Items for Blocks 2 19 Trials 1. Watching comedies 2. Political Campaign Reform 3. Thinking about Miller Lite 4. Dreaming about flowers 5. Reading about poverty 6. Attending large lecture classes 7. Eating Mexican food 8. Watching a documentary about lice 9. Attending a football game 10. Going to a victory parade 11. Watching a superbowl commercial 12. Eating a Peanut butter sandwich 13. Going to a concert 14. Attending a symphony 15. Exploring a rose garden 16. Doing homework 17. Listening to Jazz Music 18. Reading about spiders 19. Listening to Spotify Critical and Filler Items for Blocks 3 24 Trials Critical Items Enjoying Facebook ads Learning from TV Ads Enjoying TV Ads Learning from YouTube ads Avoiding YouTube ads Ignoring Facebook ads Ignoring TV Ads Skipping TV Ads Distractor Items Watching Netflix 75 Installing fastfood app Watching NFL Football Watching the news Watching Hulu Installing banking app Watching Game of Thrones Browsing Facebook Posting on Instagram Posting on Twitter Watching crime drama Installing mobile game Playing on gaming console Watching TV reruns Watching horror movies Press the “LIKE” Key Press the “DISLIKE” Key 76 Instructions for Norm Accessibility Screen 1 You are about to complete a questionnaire that relies on a quick response. Please pay close attention and do your best to do as it asks as quickly as possible. In a task such as this it is normal to get some incorrect answers due to the time constraints. However, if you do offer an incorrect answer you will be asked to enter the correct one before moving on. If you have any questions please ask the experimenter at this time. When you are ready to proceed, please press the SPACE bar. Screen 2 The first thing we would like you to do is to practice simply answering “yes” or “no”, because that is what you will be using to categorize words later. During the following trials, if the word on the screen is YES press the Q key. If the word on the screen is NO press the P key. Please put your index or middle fingers on those keys now to facilitate your responses. When you are ready to begin, press the SPACE bar. Practice Block 1 8 x Yes (Q) 8 x No (P) Screen 3 Now that you have had some practice responding “yes”and “no”, we would like you to use that to answer some questions about what different people in your life think about different behaviors. If you do not have a person in the specific role we ask about, then think about the person who most closely fills that role for you. Please press the SPACE bar to continue. Screen 4 During the following trials we would like you to think carefully about your PARENTS. We will ask what your PARENTS think about some behaviors, and we want you to answer YES if your PARENTS want you to do the behavior, and NO if your PARENTS do not want you to do the behavior. To answer YES press the Q key, to answer NO press the P key. Please press the SPACE bar to begin. Parent Question Block Screen 5 77 During the following trials we would like you to think carefully about your BROTHERS/SISTERS. We will ask what your BROTHERS/SISTERS think about some behaviors, and we want you to answer YES if your BROTHERS/SISTERS want you to do the behavior, and NO if your BROTHERS/SISTERS do not want you to do the behavior. To answer YES press the Q key, to answer NO press the P key. Please press the SPACE bar to begin. Sibling Question Block Screen 6 During the following trials we would like you to think carefully about your SIGNIFICANT OTHER. We will ask what your SIGNIFICANT OTHER thinks about some behaviors, and we want you to answer YES if your SIGNIFICANT OTHER wants you to do the behavior, and NO if your SIGNIFICANT OTHERdoes not want you to do the behavior. To answer YES press the Q key, to answer NO press the P key. Please press the SPACE bar to begin. Significant Other Question Block Screen 7 During the following trials we would like you to think carefully about your ROOMMATE(S). We will ask what your ROOMMATE(S) think about some behaviors, and we want you to answer YES if your ROOMMATE(S) want you to do the behavior, and NO if your ROOMMATE(S) do not want you to do the behavior. To answer YES press the Q key, to answer NO press the P key. Please press the SPACE bar to begin. Roommate Question Block Screen 8 During the following trials we would like you to think carefully about your BEST FRIEND. We will ask what your BEST FRIEND thinks about some behaviors, and we want you to answer YES if your BEST FRIEND wants you to do the behavior, and NO if your BEST FRIEND does not want you to do the behavior. To answer YES press the Q key, to answer NO press the P key. Please press the SPACE bar to begin. Best Friend Block 78 Screen 9 During the following trials we would like you to think carefully about your GROUP OF FRIENDS. We will ask what your GROUP OF FRIENDS think about some behaviors, and we want you to answer YES if your GROUP OF FRIENDS want you to do the behavior, and NO if your GROUP OF FRIENDS do not want you to do the behavior. To answer YES press the Q key, to answer NO press the P key. Please press the SPACE bar to begin. Group of Friends Question Block Screen 10 Please pay close attention as the directions for the task are now different from what they were before. We will now show you the different types of people, and we want you to tell us whether you usually try to do what they want you to do or not. If you generally try to do whatthat person/those people want you to do, answer YES. If you generally do not try to do what they want you to do, answer NO. To answer YES press the Q key, to answer NO press the P key. Please press the SPACE bar to begin. . Motivation Question Block Parents Brothers/Sisters Significant Other Roommate Best Friend Group of Friends Other people my age Block Target People: Parents Siblings (Brothers / Sisters) Significant other Roommate Best friend Group of friends Target Behavior (4) Installing adblocker Watching YouTube ads Ignoring ads 79 Watching Facebook ads Distractor Behavior (11) Watching Netflix Watching NFL Football Watching reality television Watching Hulu Installing banking app Watching Game of Thrones Browsing Facebook Watching romantic comedies Installing mobile game Watching TV reruns Watching horror movies 80 APPENDIX B: Study I Survey Q2 You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Michigan State University. You have the right to be informed about the study procedures so you can decide whether you want to participate. Your participation in this study is voluntary. You may choose not to participate at all, or you may refuse to participate in certain procedures or answer certain questions or discontinue your participation at any time without consequences (e.g., it will not affect treatment you will received). Description. You will be asked several questions about your attitudes towards media use in particular towards online advertising. Risk. Your participation in this study is not expected to cause you any risks greater than those encountered in everyday life. In addition, your answers will not harm you in any way. If you feel uncomfortable at any point in the study, you can withdraw from the study. Participation in this study is voluntary, thus you may withdraw at any time without penalty. Confidentiality. Your identity, participation and any information you provide will be kept confidential in this experiment. Your information will not be shared with anyone, and will only be used for the purpose of the research. MSU IRB will have access to the data as well as the researchers. The data will be kept for at least three years after the project closes. Your name will not be linked to the data in any form. Incentives for participation. You will be incentivized the allotted amount you agreed upon by SONA. Questions, Concerns, and Complaints. If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would like to obtain information or offer input or would like to register a complaint about this study, you may contact Dr. David Ewoldsen at ewoldsen@msu.edu. Alternatively, you may contact anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University’s Human Research Protection Program at 517-355-2180, Fax 517-432-4503 or email irb@msu.edu or regular mail at 4000 Collins Road, Suite 136, Lansing, MI, 48910 Consent. I have read this consent form and my questions have been answered. I hereby give my voluntary consent to participate in this study and confirm that I am at least 18 years of age by clicking on the ">>" button. Your identity, participation and any information you provide will be kept confidential in this experiment. Your information will not be shared with anyone, and will only be used for the purpose of the research. MU IRB will have access to the data as well as the researchers. The data will be kept for at least three years after the project closes. 81 Q3 We care about the quality of our data. For us to get the most accurate measures of your knowledge and opinions, it is important that you thoughtfully provide your best answers to each question in this survey. Do you commit to thoughtfully provide your best answers to each question in this survey? o I will provide my best answers (1) o I will not provide my best answers (2) o I can’t promise either way (3) Skip To: End of Block If We care about the quality of our data. For us to get the most accurate measures of your knowledge... != I will provide my best answers End of Block: Intro Start of Block: Behaviors and Attitudes 82 Q52 How often do you use the following media: Never (0) (1) (1) (2) (2) (3) (3) (4) (4) (5) Some of the time (5) (6) (6) (7) (7) (8) (8) (9) (9) (10) All the time (10) (11) Watching videos on online (e.g. YouTube) (1) o o o o o o o o o o o Engaging in Social Media (e.g. Facebook / Twitter) (2) Using Mobile App (3) Watching television (4) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Listening to the radio (5) o o o o o o o o o o o Reading print newspapers (6) o o o o o o o o o o o Reading online news (7) o o o o o o o o o o o 83 Q46 What do you do when you are watching a video on YouTube and an ad shows up. Enjoy some of the better ads that come on (1) Get information that’s useful to you (2) Feel the ad interferes with your watching experience (3) Ignore the ads (4) Leave the YouTube page (5) Find an alternative video site with less ads (6) Feel Never (0) (1) (1) (2) (2) (3) (3) (4) (4) (5) Some of the time (5) (6) (6) (7) (7) (8) (8) (9) (9) (10) All the time (10) (11) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o irritated (8) o o o o o o o o o o o Feel pleasure (9) o o o o o o o o o o o 84 Feel the ads are a waste of your time (10) o o o o o o o o o o o Feel you do not have the ability to control your exposure to the ads (11) Feel distracted from what you are looking at interrupted when watching the ads (14) interested in the ads (12) Feel (13) Feel o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 85 Q47 When you are online looking at your favorite social network site (like Facebook or Instagram), and an ad appears, how often do you: Enjoy some of the better ads that come on (1) Get information that’s useful to you (2) Feel the ad interferes with your online experience (3) Never (0) (1) (1) (2) (2) (3) (3) (4) (4) (5) Some of the time (5) (6) (6) (7) (7) (8) (8) (9) (9) (10) All the time (10) (11) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Ignore the ads (4) Leave the site (5) Find an alternative site with less ads (6) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 86 Feel irritated (8) o o o o o o o o o o o Feel pleasure (9) Feel the ads are a waste of your time (10) Feel you do not have the ability to control your exposure to the ads (11) Feel distracted from looking at the site (12) Feel interested in the ads (13) Feel interrupted when watching the ads (14) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 87 Q48 When you are using a mobile app (like for games, entertainment, or news), and an ad appears, how often do you: Enjoy some of the better ads that come on (1) Get information that’s useful to you (2) Feel the ad interferes with your online mobile experience (3) Ignore the ads (4) Leave the mobile app to avoid the advertising (5) Find another app with less advertisements (6) Never (0) (1) (1) (2) (2) (3) (3) (4) (4) (5) Some of the time (5) (6) (6) (7) (7) (8) (8) (9) (9) (10) All the time (10) (11) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Feel irritated (8) Feel pleasure (9) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 88 Feel the ads are a waste of your time (10) o o o o o o o o o o o Feel you do not have the ability to control your exposure to the ads (11) Feel distracted from the app's content (12) o o o o o o o o o o o Feel interested in the ads (13) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o interrupted when Feel watching the ads (14) o o o o o o o o o o o 89 Q21 Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements. I leave the vicinity (e.g. walk away) when I see an ad come on (1) I turn to another device when I see an ad come on (2) I do not pay attention to the ad when I see an ad come on (3) I watch ads if it makes the content I am watching free (4) Strongly Disagree (0) (1) (1) (2) (2) (3) (3) (4) (4) (5) Neither agree nor disagree (5) (6) (6) (7) (7) (8) (8) (9) (9) (10) Strongly agree (10) (11) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 90 I watch ads if I receive a monetary incentive (5) o o o o o o o o o o o I installed at least one ad blocker on my digital devices (like cellphone, laptop, iPad) (6) I skip video ads that precede internet content I’m interested in as soon as I can. (7) I do not pay attention to YouTube ads (8) I do not pay attention to social media ads (9) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 91 I do not pay attention to mobile ads (10) o o o o o o o o o o o End of Block: Intention to Avoid Start of Block: Critical Items Q25 Installing an ad blocker 1 (0) 2 (1) 3 (2) 4 (3) 5 (4) 6 (5) 7 (6) 8 (7) 9 (8) Strongly Dislike (1) o o o o o o o o o o Strongly Like Q26 Installing an ad blocker 1 (0) 2 (1) 3 (2) 4 (3) 5 (4) 6 (5) 7 (6) 8 (7) 9 (8) Harmful (1) o o o o o o o o o o Beneficial Q27 Installing an ad blocker 1 (0) 2 (1) 3 (2) 4 (3) 5 (4) 6 (5) 7 (6) 8 (7) 9 (8) Very Negative (1) o o o o o o o o o o Very positive 92 Q33 Watching Facebook Ads Q34 Watching Facebook Ads Q28 Installing an ad blocker 1 (0) 2 (1) 3 (2) 4 (3) 5 (4) 6 (5) 7 (6) 8 (7) 9 (8) Extremely Bad (1) o o o o o o o o o o Extremely Good 1 (0) 2 (1) 3 (2) 4 (3) 5 (4) 6 (5) 7 (6) 8 (7) 9 (8) Strongly Dislike (1) o o o o o o o o o o Strongly Like 1 (0) 2 (1) 3 (2) 4 (3) 5 (4) 6 (5) 7 (6) 8 (7) 9 (8) Harmful (1) o o o o o o o o o o Beneficial Q36 Watching Facebook Ads 1 (0) 2 (1) 3 (2) 4 (3) 5 (4) 6 (5) 7 (6) 8 (7) 9 (8) Extremely Bad (1) o o o o o o o o o o Extremely Good 93 Q35 Watching Facebook Ads 1 (0) 2 (1) 3 (2) 4 (3) 5 (4) 6 (5) 7 (6) 8 (7) 9 (8) Very Negative (1) o o o o o o o o o o Very positive Q29 Watching YouTube Ads Q30 Watching YouTube Ads 1 (0) 2 (1) 3 (2) 4 (3) 5 (4) 6 (5) 7 (6) 8 (7) 9 (8) Strongly Dislike (1) o o o o o o o o o o Strongly Like 1 (0) 2 (1) 3 (2) 4 (3) 5 (4) 6 (5) 7 (6) 8 (7) 9 (8) Harmful (1) o o o o o o o o o o Beneficial Q31 Watching YouTube Ads 1 (0) 2 (1) 3 (2) 4 (3) 5 (4) 6 (5) 7 (6) 8 (7) 9 (8) Very Negative (1) o o o o o o o o o o Very positive 94 Q37 Ignoring Ads Q38 Ignoring Ads Q32 Watching YouTube Ads 1 (0) 2 (1) 3 (2) 4 (3) 5 (4) 6 (5) 7 (6) 8 (7) 9 (8) Extremely Bad (1) o o o o o o o o o o Extremely Good 1 (0) 2 (1) 3 (2) 4 (3) 5 (4) 6 (5) 7 (6) 8 (7) 9 (8) Strongly Dislike (1) o o o o o o o o o o Strongly Like 1 (0) 2 (1) 3 (2) 4 (3) 5 (4) 6 (5) 7 (6) 8 (7) 9 (8) Harmful (1) o o o o o o o o o o Beneficial Q39 Ignoring Ads 1 (0) 2 (1) 3 (2) 4 (3) 5 (4) 6 (5) 7 (6) 8 (7) 9 (8) Very Negative (1) o o o o o o o o o o Very positive 95 Q40 Ignoring Ads 1 (0) 2 (1) 3 (2) 4 (3) 5 (4) 6 (5) 7 (6) 8 (7) 9 (8) Extremely Bad (1) o o o o o o o o o o Extremely Good End of Block: Critical Items Start of Block: Ease / Mindlessness / Effort Q41 It is easy for me to ignore a YouTube ad o Strongly disagree (1) o Disagree (2) o Somewhat disagree (3) o Neither agree nor disagree (4) o Somewhat agree (5) o Agree (6) o Strongly agree (7) 96 Q45 I do not think about it when I ignore a YouTube ad o Strongly disagree (1) o Disagree (2) o Somewhat disagree (3) o Neither agree nor disagree (4) o Somewhat agree (5) o Agree (6) o Strongly agree (7) Q46 It takes a lot of effort to ignore a YouTube ad o Strongly disagree (1) o Disagree (2) o Somewhat disagree (3) o Neither agree nor disagree (4) o Somewhat agree (5) o Agree (6) o Strongly agree (7) 97 Q47 It is easy for me to install an adblocker o Strongly disagree (1) o Disagree (2) o Somewhat disagree (3) o Neither agree nor disagree (4) o Somewhat agree (5) o Agree (6) o Strongly agree (7) Q48 I do not think about it when I install an ad blocker o Strongly disagree (1) o Disagree (2) o Somewhat disagree (3) o Neither agree nor disagree (4) o Somewhat agree (5) o Agree (6) o Strongly agree (7) 98 Q49 It takes a lot of effort to install an adblocker o Strongly disagree (1) o Disagree (2) o Somewhat disagree (3) o Neither agree nor disagree (4) o Somewhat agree (5) o Agree (6) o Strongly agree (7) Q50 It is easy for me to watch Facebook ads o Strongly disagree (1) o Disagree (2) o Somewhat disagree (3) o Neither agree nor disagree (4) o Somewhat agree (5) o Agree (6) o Strongly agree (7) 99 Q51 I do not think about it when I watch a Facebook ad o Strongly disagree (1) o Disagree (2) o Somewhat disagree (3) o Neither agree nor disagree (4) o Somewhat agree (5) o Agree (6) o Strongly agree (7) Q52 It takes a lot of effort to watch Facebook Ads o Strongly disagree (1) o Disagree (2) o Somewhat disagree (3) o Neither agree nor disagree (4) o Somewhat agree (5) o Agree (6) o Strongly agree (7) 100 Q54 It is easy for me to ignore ads o Strongly disagree (1) o Disagree (2) o Somewhat disagree (3) o Neither agree nor disagree (4) o Somewhat agree (5) o Agree (6) o Strongly agree (7) Q55 I do not think about it when I ignore ads o Strongly disagree (1) o Disagree (2) o Somewhat disagree (3) o Neither agree nor disagree (4) o Somewhat agree (5) o Agree (6) o Strongly agree (7) 101 Q56 It takes a lot of effort to ignore ads o Strongly disagree (1) o Disagree (2) o Somewhat disagree (3) o Neither agree nor disagree (4) o Somewhat agree (5) o Agree (6) o Strongly agree (7) Q54 I do not think about it when I watch a Facebook ad o Strongly disagree (1) o Disagree (2) o Somewhat disagree (3) o Neither agree nor disagree (4) o Somewhat agree (5) o Agree (6) o Strongly agree (7) 102 Q55 It takes a lot of effort to watch Facebook Ads o Strongly disagree (1) o Disagree (2) o Somewhat disagree (3) o Neither agree nor disagree (4) o Somewhat agree (5) o Agree (6) o Strongly agree (7) Q22 Your close friends believe that avoiding advertising is acceptable. o Strongly Disagree (1) o Disagree (2) o Neither agree nor disgree (3) o Agree (4) o Strongly Agree (5) 103 Q23 Your family believe that avoiding advertising is acceptable. o Strongly Disagree (1) o Disagree (2) o Neither agree nor disgree (3) o Agree (4) o Strongly Agree (5) Q24 Your peers believe that avoiding advertising is a normal thing to do. o Strongly Disagree (1) o Disagree (2) o Neither agree nor disgree (3) o Agree (4) o Strongly Agree (5) 104 Q50 Please answer the following questions about your attitude towards advertising Advertising is a valuable source of information products/services. about (1) Strongly disagree (0) (1) (1) (2) (2) (3) (3) (4) (4) (5) Neither agree nor disagree (5) (6) (6) (7) (7) (8) (8) (9) (9) (10) Strongly agree (10) (11) o o o o o o o o o o o Advertising tells me which brands have the features I am looking for. (2) o o o o o o o o o o o Advertising helps me keep up to date about prod- ucts/services available in the marketplace. (3) Advertising is informative. (4) Advertising tells me what to buy to impress others. (5) Advertising tells me what people with lifestyles similar 
to mine are using. (6) Advertising helps me know which products will or will 
not reflect the sort of person I am. (7) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 105 Advertising helps me keep up with current social trends. (8) Quite often, advertising is amusing and entertaining. (9) Sometimes I take pleasure in thinking about what I saw, 
heard, or read advertisements. in (10) Sometimes advertisements are even more enjoyable than 
other media content. (11) Sometimes advertisements can be fun. (12) In general, advertising helps our nation’s economy. (13) In general, advertising does not waste our economic re
sources. (14) In general, advertising promotes competition, which ben
efits the consumer. (15) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 106 In general, advertising results in lower prices for the products I buy. (16) Advertising is making us a materialistic society, overly interested in buying and owning things. (17) Advertising makes people buy unaffordable products just to show off. (18) Advertising makes people live in a world of fantasy. (19) Because of advertising, people buy a lot of things they do not really need. (20) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o In general, I feel that I can trust advertising. (21) o o o o o o o o o o o Products/services that I have used usually live up to the promise of quality made in their ads. (22) In general, advertising is misleading. (23) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 107 In general, advertisements present an accurate picture of the product advertised. (24) o o o o o o o o o o o Q52 In general, how good or bad do you think advertising is? Extremely Bad (1) 1 (0) 2 (1) 3 (2) 4 (3) 5 (4) 6 (5) 7 (6) 8 (7) 9 (8) 10 (9) o o o o o o o o o o o Good Extremely Q53 Is your overall attitude toward advertising positive or negative? 1 (0) 2 (1) Very negative (1) 3 (2) 4 (3) 5 (4) 6 (5) 7 (6) 8 (7) 9 (8) 10 (9) o o o o o o o o o o o Very positive Q54 Overall, how much do you like or dislike advertising? Strongly Dislike (1) 1 (0) 2 (1) 3 (2) 4 (3) 5 (4) 6 (5) 7 (6) 8 (7) 9 (8) 10 (9) o o o o o o o o o o o Like Strongly Q4 What is your age? ________________________________________________________________ 108 Skip To: End of Survey If What is your age? < 18 Skip To: End of Survey If What is your age? > 99 Q5 What is your gender? o Male (1) o Female (2) Q7 Which of the following describes your race? o White (1) o Black or African American (2) o American Indian or Alaska Native (4) o Asian (5) o Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (6) o Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin (7) o Other (8) Q9 What is your total household income? o Less than $25,000 (1) o $25,000 to $49,999 (2) o $50,000 to $74,999 (3) o $75,000 to $99,999 (4) o $100,000+ (5) 109 Q10 What is your present religion, if any? o Protestant (for example, Baptist, Methodist, Non-denominational, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, Episcopalian, Reformed, Church of Christ, etc.) (1) o Roman Catholic (2) o Mormon (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or LDS) (3) o Orthodox (such as Greek, Russian, or some other Orthodox church) (4) o Jewish (5) o Muslim (6) o Buddhist (7) o Hindu (8) o Atheist / Agnostic (9) o Other (10) Q11 Which of the following best describes your party affiliation? o Strong Democrat (1) o Democrat (2) o Independent leaning Democrat (3) o Independent (4) o Independent leaning Republican (5) o Republican (6) o Strong Republican (7) 110 Q6 What is the highest level of education you have completed? o Less than high school (1) o High school graduate or GED (2) o Some college (including tech/vocational, some community college, associate’s degree) (3) o Four year college degree/bachelor’s degree (4) o Some postgraduate or professional schooling; no postgraduate degree (5) o Postgraduate or professional degree, including master’s doctorate, medical or law degree (6) Q55 That’s the end of our questions. We are so grateful to you for participating. Have a great day. 111 APPENDIX C: Study II: Survey Q23 What is your age? ________________________________________________________________ Skip To: End of Block If What is your age? < 18 Skip To: End of Block If What is your age? > 99 Q24 What is your gender? o Male (1) o Female (2) Q25 Which of the following describes your race? o White (1) o Black or African American (2) o American Indian or Alaska Native (3) o Asian (4) o Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (5) o Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin (6) o Other (7) 112 Q26 What is your total household income? o Less than $25,000 (1) o $25,000 to $49,999 (2) o $50,000 to $74,999 (3) o $75,000 to $99,999 (4) o $100,000+ (5) Q27 What is your present religion, if any? o Protestant (for example, Baptist, Methodist, Non-denominational, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, Episcopalian, Reformed, Church of Christ, etc.) (1) o Roman Catholic (2) o Mormon (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or LDS) (3) o Orthodox (such as Greek, Russian, or some other Orthodox church) (4) o Jewish (5) o Muslim (6) o Buddhist (7) o Hindu (8) o Atheist / Agnostic (9) o Other (10) 113 Q28 Which of the following best describes your party affiliation? o Strong Democrat (1) o Democrat (2) o Independent leaning Democrat (3) o Independent (4) o Independent leaning Republican (5) o Republican (6) o Strong Republican (7) Q29 What is the highest level of education you have completed? o Less than high school (1) o High school graduate or GED (2) o Some college (including tech/vocational, some community college, associate’s degree) (3) o Four year college degree/bachelor’s degree (4) o Some postgraduate or professional schooling; no postgraduate degree (5) o Postgraduate or professional degree, including master’s doctorate, medical or law degree (6) End of Block: Demographics Start of Block: Consent Intro You are being asked to participate in a research study. Researchers are required to provide a consent form to inform you about the research study, to convey that participation is voluntary, to explain risks and benefits of participation, and to empower you to make an informed decision. You are free to ask the researchers any questions you may have. 114 1. PURPOSE OF RESEARCH The purpose of this research study is to better understand about products featured in advertising. 2. WHAT YOU WILL DO This study involves an online questionnaire. The online survey takes approximately 30 minutes. Items on the online survey include questions regarding actions regarding products in advertisements. 3. POTENTIAL BENEFITS The benefit of this study is to help increase the knowledge that we have towards how people respond to advertising and products. 4. POTENTIAL RISKS There are no more than minimal risks from everyday activity associated with this study. 5. PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. No personally identifying information will be reported in any research product, and your IP address will be removed to not link your responses with any computer you may have used in participation in this study. Your results will be kept confidential to the trained research staff of this study and will be securely kept for at least three years after the project closes. 6. YOUR RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE, SAY "NO", OR WITHDRAW You have the right to say no to participate in the research. You can stop at any time after the survey has already started. There will be no consequences if you stop. 7. COSTS AND COMPENSATION FOR BEING IN THE STUDYThe survey should take approximately 15 minutes. You will be compensated as agreed upon by the provider. 8. CONTACT INFORMATION If you have concerns or questions about this study, such as scientific issues, how to do any part of it, or to report an injury, please contact the researcher (Dr. Nancy Rhodes, email: rhodesn3@msu.edu) or the study coordinator (Samuel M. Tham, email: stham@msu.edu, phone: (573) 424-7402). If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would like to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University’s Human Research Protection Program at 517-355-2180, Fax 517-432-4503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu or regular mail at 4000 Collins Rd, Suite 136, Lansing, MI 48910. 10. DOCUMENTATION OF INFORMED CONSENT By clicking the >> below, you are indicating that you have read this form and are agreeing to participate in this research. Check1 We care about the quality of our data. For us to get the most accurate measures of your knowledge and opinions, it is important that you thoughtfully provide your best answers to each 115 question in this survey. Do you commit to thoughtfully provide your best answers to each question in this survey? o I will provide my best answers (1) o I will not provide my best answers (2) o I cannot promise either way (3) Skip To: End of Block If We care about the quality of our data. For us to get the most accurate measures of your knowledge... = I will not provide my best answers Skip To: End of Block If We care about the quality of our data. For us to get the most accurate measures of your knowledge... = I cannot promise either way Q42 First, we need to know, how often you watch ads. Do you install an ad blocker or have ad blocking software on your computer or your phone? o Yes (1) o No (2) Skip To: End of Block If First, we need to know, how often you watch ads. Do you install an ad blocker or have ad blocking... = Yes Q134 During this survey you will be asked to watch some videos. We want to make sure you are on a device with sound and visual capabilities. Are you able to watch and listen to YouTube videos? o Yes (1) o No (2) 116 Skip To: End of Block If During this survey you will be asked to watch some videos. We want to make sure you are on a devi... = No Q410 I am currently shopping for Somewhat agree (5) Agree (6) Strongly agree (7) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neither agree nor disagree (4) Facial Tissue (1) o Cell phone (2) o Running Shoes (3) Washing Detergent (4) o o Cereal (5) o Laptop (6) o Bag pack (7) o o o o o o Ice Cream (8) Socks (9) Milk (10) Ear phones (11) Toothpaste (12) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 117 Q523 Next you will be presented with a series of items. Please state your attitude towards each item. Q524 Candle scent (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Unfavorable o o o o o o o Favorable Q525 Watching a video ad Q526 Feeding a cat Q527 Watching a video ad Q528 Eating hotdogs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Dislike o o o o o o o Like (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Bad o o o o o o o Good (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Unfavorable o o o o o o o Favorable (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Dislike o o o o o o o Like 118 Q529 Crossing the street (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Unfavorable o o o o o o o Favorable Q530 Brushing your teeth Q531 Watching a video ad Q532 Mowing the lawn Fun Fun (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Not fun o o o o o o o (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Bad o o o o o o o Good (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Not fun o o o o o o o Q533 Watching the news (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Not entertaining o o o o o o o Entertaining 119 Q534 Watching a movie (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Not entertaining o o o o o o o Entertaining Q535 Having your name mispronounced (3) (2) (1) (4) (5) (6) (7) Not entertaining o o o o o o o Entertaining Q536 Doing dishes (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Dislike o o o o o o o Like (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Bad o o o o o o o Good Q537 Buying groceries Q538 Cold weather (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Not fun o o o o o o o Fun Q539 Watching political news (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Dislike o o o o o o o Like 120 Q540 Watching comedy shows (2) (1) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Not entertaining o o o o o o o Entertaining Q541 Doing a puzzle (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Unfavorable o o o o o o o Favorable Q542 Spray painting the sidewalk (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Not fun o o o o o o o Fun Q543 Using your cellphone (2) (1) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Bad o o o o o o o Good Q565 Next you will be presented with a series of items. Please state your attitude towards each item. Q566 Watching a video ad (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Dislike o o o o o o o Like 121 Q567 Watching people on the streets (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Not entertaining o o o o o o o Entertaining Q568 Going to a concert (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Bad o o o o o o o Good Q569 Playing with puppies (2) (1) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Not fun o o o o o o o Fun Q570 Watching videos online (2) (1) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Unfavorable o o o o o o o Favorable Q571 Reading the newspaper (2) (1) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Dislike o o o o o o o Like Q572 Watching a video ad (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Not entertaining o o o o o o o Entertaining 122 Q573 Taking exams Q574 Microwaving water (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Bad o o o o o o o Good (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Not fun o o o o o o o Fun Q575 Being asked about your political affiliation (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Unfavorable o o o o o o o Favorable Q576 Going to the beach (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Dislike o o o o o o o Like Q577 Watching your friends dance (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Not entertaining o o o o o o o Entertaining 123 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Bad o o o o o o o Good Q578 Taking your driving test Q579 Watching sports programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Not fun o o o o o o o Q580 Tying shoe laces (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Unfavorable o o o o o o o Favorable Fun Q581 Playing in the rain Q582 Going on a road trip (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Dislike o o o o o o o Like (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Not entertaining o o o o o o o Entertaining Q583 Listening to country music (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Bad o o o o o o o Good 124 Q584 Watching a video ad (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Not fun o o o o o o o Fun Q585 Eating raw eggs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Unfavorable o o o o o o o Favorable Q586 Next you will be presented with a series of items. Please state your attitude towards each item. Q587 Eating hotdogs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Dislike o o o o o o o Like Q588 Watching the news (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Not entertaining o o o o o o o Entertaining Q589 Using your cellphone (2) (1) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Bad o o o o o o o Good 125 Q592 Watching a video ad Q593 Watching a movie Q594 Buying groceries (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Dislike o o o o o o o Like (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Not entertaining o o o o o o o Entertaining Q590 Brushing your teeth (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Not fun o o o o o o o Q591 Doing a puzzle (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Unfavorable o o o o o o o Favorable Fun (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Bad o o o o o o o Good 126 Q595 Mowing the lawn (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Not fun o o o o o o o Fun Q596 Candle scent (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Unfavorable o o o o o o o Favorable Q597 Doing dishes (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Dislike o o o o o o o Like Q598 Having your name mispronounced (3) (2) (1) (4) (5) (6) (7) Not entertaining o o o o o o o Entertaining (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Bad o o o o o o o Good Q599 Feeding a cat Q600 Cold weather (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Not fun o o o o o o o 127 Fun Q601 Watching a video ad (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Unfavorable o o o o o o o Favorable Q602 Watching political news (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Dislike o o o o o o o Like Q603 Watching comedy shows (2) (1) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Not entertaining o o o o o o o Entertaining Q604 Watching a video ad Q605 Spray painting the sidewalk (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Bad o o o o o o o Good (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Not fun o o o o o o o Fun Q606 Crossing the street (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Unfavorable o o o o o o o Favorable 128 Q618 Tying shoe laces (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Unfavorable o o o o o o o Favorable Start of Block: Repeated Expression 3 Q712 Next you will be presented with a series of items. Please state your attitude towards each item. Q713 Reciting poetry (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Dislike o o o o o o o Like Q714 Watching a mime (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Not entertaining o o o o o o o Entertaining Q715 Playing board games (2) (1) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Bad o o o o o o o Good Q716 Watching International news (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Not fun o o o o o o o 129 Fun Q717 Doing laundry (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Unfavorable o o o o o o o Favorable Q718 Folding clothes Q719 Listening to podcasts (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Dislike o o o o o o o Like (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Not entertaining o o o o o o o Entertaining Q720 Being locked out of your house (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Bad o o o o o o o Good Q721 Making sandcastles Fun (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Not fun o o o o o o o Q722 Recycling (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Unfavorable o o o o o o o Favorable 130 Q723 Getting junk mail (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Dislike o o o o o o o Like Q724 American Idol (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Not entertaining o o o o o o o Entertaining Q725 Eating fries with no ketchup Q726 Watching Harry Potter movies (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Bad o o o o o o o Good (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Not fun o o o o o o o Fun Q727 When someone hits reply all in an email (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Unfavorable o o o o o o o Favorable Q728 Scratching on a chalk board (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Dislike o o o o o o o Like 131 Q729 Watching they Jerry Springer show (3) (2) (1) (4) (5) (6) (7) Not entertaining o o o o o o o Entertaining Q730 Watching a video ad (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Bad o o o o o o o Good Q731 Searching for crayons on Google (3) (2) (1) (4) (5) (6) (7) Not fun o o o o o o o Fun Q732 Buying a backpack on Amazon (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Unfavorable o o o o o o o Favorable End of Block: Repeated Expression 3 Start of Block: Interval Q262 Next you will be watching some ads. Please watch them and answer the questions that follow. End of Block: Interval Start of Block: Laptop Please watch the video and answer the questions that follow: 132 Q412 Please rate your perception of the ad you just watched 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Not important Bad o o o o o o o Important o o o o o o o Good Relevant Exciting Appealing Irrelevant o o o o o o o Unexciting o o o o o o o Unappealing o o o o o o o 133 Ignore the ad (4) o Feel irritated (8) o Feel pleasure (9) Feel the ad is a waste of your time (10) Feel you do not have the ability to control your exposure to the ads (11) Q128 After watching this ad, did you Get information that’s useful to you (2) Feel the ad interferes with your online experience (3) Never (1) (1) (2) (2) (3) (3) (4) (4) (5) (5) (6) (6) All the time (7) (7) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Feel interested in the ad (13) o o o o o o o 134 Feel interrupted when watching the ad (14) o o o o o o o Q66 On a scale of 0 - 10 (where 10 is the most attention). How much attention did you pay to the ad you just watched? (0) Did not pay attention Paid full attention (9) (10) (8) (9) (5) (6) (3) (4) (4) (5) (6) (7) (7) (8) (1) (2) (2) (3) (10) (11) (1) Attention to ad (1) o o o o o o o o o o o 135 Covariates Please answer the following questions about the ad you just watched Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Somewhat agree (5) Agree (6) Strongly agree (7) Neither agree nor disagree (4) I often pay attention to ads for laptops (1) I am very familiar with the brand shown in this ad (2) I like the brand of the laptop in the ad I just watched (3) The ad was entertaining (4) The ad provided me information that I needed about laptops (5) The ad would have been more enjoyable if it was the brand I liked (9) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 136 Scarcity Please answer the following questions about the ad you just watched Neither agree nor disagree (4) Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Somewhat agree (5) Agree (6) Strongly agree (7) I would pay more attention to the ad if I needed to buy a laptop the next day (1) I would pay more attention to the ad if I needed to buy a laptop in the next 30 days (2) I would pay more attention to the ad if the price was important to me (3) I would pay more attention to the ad if the price of the laptop was greatly discounted (4) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 137 Attention1 The voiceover for the commercial you just watched is from a o Robot (1) o No voiceover (2) o Female (3) o Male (4) Skip To: End of Block If The voiceover for the commercial you just watched is from a != No voiceover Q129 Please answer the following questions about your purchase decisions Somewhat agree (5) Agree (6) Strongly agree (7) Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neither agree nor disagree (4) I know what brand of laptop I want to purchase: (1) I will only buy a laptop from my favorite brand (2) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Q21 The brand I would purchase is: ________________________________________________________________ 138 Involvement Please answer the following questions about your laptop purchase decision Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Somewhat agree (5) Agree (6) Strongly agree (7) Neither agree nor disagree (4) Purchasing a laptop is important to me (5) o o o o o o o involved in I am the decision to purchase a laptop (6) Ads play an important part in my purchase decision (7) Finding information about the product on the website is important to me (8) I know a lot about laptops (9) o I am very familiar o with laptops (10) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 139 Product Involvement Please rate your perception of laptops 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Not important Bad o o o o o o o Important o o o o o o o Good Relevant Exciting Appealing Irrelevant o o o o o o o Unexciting o o o o o o o Unappealing o o o o o o o ProductInvolvement2 How often do you Never (1) Sometimes (2) About half the time (3) Most of the time (4) Always (5) buy a laptop (1) use a laptop (2) o o o o o o o o o o 140 Q481 Please watch the video and answer the questions that follow: Q483 Please rate your perception of the ad you just watched 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Not important Bad o o o o o o o Important o o o o o o o Good Relevant Exciting Appealing Irrelevant o o o o o o o Unexciting o o o o o o o Unappealing o o o o o o o Q300 After watching this ad, did you 141 Never (1) (1) (2) (2) (3) (3) (4) (4) (5) (5) (6) (6) All the time (7) (7) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o (3) Ignore the ad (4) o Feel irritated (8) o Get information that’s useful to you (2) Feel the ad interferes with your online experience Feel pleasure (9) Feel the ad is a waste of your time (10) Feel you do not have the ability to control your exposure to the ads (11) o o o o o o o Feel interested in the ad (13) o o o o o o o 142 Feel interrupted when watching the ad (14) o o o o o o o Q485 On a scale of 0 - 10 (where 10 is the most attention). How much attention did you pay to the ad you just watched? (0) Did not pay attention (1) (1) (2) (2) (3) (3) (4) (4) (5) (5) (6) (6) (7) (7) (8) (8) (9) (9) (10) (10) Paid full attention (11) Attention to ad (1) o o o o o o o o o o o 143 Q486 Please answer the following questions about the ad you just watched Neither agree nor disagree (4) Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Somewhat agree (5) Agree (6) Strongly agree (7) I often pay attention to ads for ice cream (1) I am very familiar with the brand shown in this ad (2) I like the brand of the ice cream in the ad I just watched (3) The ad was entertaining (4) The ad provided me information that I needed about ice cream (5) The ad would have been more enjoyable if it was the brand I liked (9) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 144 Q487 Please answer the following questions about the ad you just watched Neither agree nor disagree (4) Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Somewhat agree (5) Agree (6) Strongly agree (7) I would pay more attention to the ad if I needed to buy ice cream the next day (1) I would pay more attention to the ad if I needed to buy ice cream in the next 30 days (2) I would pay more attention to the ad if the price was important to me (3) I would pay more attention to the ad if the price of ice cream was greatly discounted (4) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 145 Attention2 The brand of the ice cream ad you just watched was o Magnum (1) o Halo Top (2) o Ben and Jerrys (3) o Breyers (4) Skip To: End of Block If The brand of the ice cream ad you just watched was != Halo Top Q489 Please answer the following questions about your purchase decisions Somewhat agree (5) Agree (6) Strongly agree (7) Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neither agree nor disagree (4) I know what brand of ice cream I want to purchase: (1) I will only buy ice cream from my favorite brand (2) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Q490 The brand I would purchase is: ________________________________________________________________ 146 Q491 Please answer the following questions about your ice cream purchase decision Neither agree nor disagree (4) Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Somewhat agree (5) Agree (6) Strongly agree (7) Purchasing ice cream is important to me (5) involved in I am the decision to purchase ice cream (6) Ads play an important part in my purchase decision (7) Finding information about the product on the website is important to me (8) I know a lot about ice cream (9) I am very familiar with ice cream (10) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 147 Not important Bad 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) o o o o o o o Important o o o o o o o Q492 Please rate your perception of ice cream Good Relevant Exciting Appealing Irrelevant o o o o o o o Unexciting o o o o o o o Unappealing o o o o o o o Q493 How often do you Never (1) Sometimes (2) About half the time (3) Most of the time (4) Always (5) buy ice cream (1) eat ice cream (2) o o o o o o o o o o End of Block: Ice Cream Start of Block: Cereal Q494 Please watch the video and answer the questions that follow: 148 Q496 Please rate your perception of the ad you just watched 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Not important Bad o o o o o o o Important o o o o o o o Good Relevant Exciting Appealing Irrelevant o o o o o o o Unexciting o o o o o o o Unappealing o o o o o o o 149 Ignore the ad (4) o Feel irritated (8) o Feel pleasure (9) Feel the ad is a waste of your time (10) Feel you do not have the ability to control your exposure to the ads (11) Q301 After watching this ad, did you Get information that’s useful to you (2) Feel the ad interferes with your online experience (3) Never (1) (1) (2) (2) (3) (3) (4) (4) (5) (5) (6) (6) All the time (7) (7) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Feel interested in the ad (13) o o o o o o o 150 Feel interrupted when watching the ad (14) o o o o o o o Q498 On a scale of 0 - 10 (where 10 is the most attention). How much attention did you pay to the ad you just watched? (0) Did not pay attention (1) (1) (2) (2) (3) (3) (4) (4) (5) (5) (6) (6) (7) (7) (8) (8) (9) (9) (10) (10) Paid full attention (11) Attention to ad (1) o o o o o o o o o o o 151 Q499 Please answer the following questions about the ad you just watched Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Somewhat agree (5) Agree (6) Strongly agree (7) Neither agree nor disagree (4) I often pay attention to ads for cereal (1) I am very familiar with the brand shown in this ad (2) I like the brand of the cereal in the ad I just watched (3) The ad was entertaining (4) The ad provided me information that I needed about cereal (5) The ad would have been more enjoyable if it was the brand I liked (9) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 152 Q500 Please answer the following questions about the ad you just watched Neither agree nor disagree (4) Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Somewhat agree (5) Agree (6) Strongly agree (7) I would pay more attention to the ad if I needed to buy cereal the next day (1) I would pay more attention to the ad if I needed to buy cereal in the next 30 days (2) I would pay more attention to the ad if the price was important to me (3) I would pay more attention to the ad if the price of cereal was greatly discounted (4) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 153 Q502 Please answer the following questions about your purchase decisions Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neither agree nor disagree (4) Somewhat agree (5) Agree (6) Strongly agree (7) I know what brand of cereal I want to purchase: (1) I will only buy cereal from my favorite brand (2) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Q503 The brand I would purchase is: 154 Q504 Please answer the following questions about your cereal purchase decision Neither agree nor disagree (4) Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Somewhat agree (5) Agree (6) Strongly agree (7) Purchasing cereal is important to me (5) o o o o o o o involved in I am the decision to purchase cereal (6) Ads play an important part in my purchase decision (7) Finding information about the product on the website is important to me (8) I know a lot about cereal (9) I am very familiar with cereal (10) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 155 Q505 Please rate your perception of cereals 3 (3) 2 (2) 1 (1) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Not important Bad o o o o o o o Important o o o o o o o Good Relevant Exciting Appealing Irrelevant o o o o o o o Unexciting o o o o o o o Unappealing o o o o o o o Q506 How often do you Never (1) Sometimes (2) About half the time (3) Most of the time (4) Always (5) buy cereal (1) eat cereal (2) End of Block: Cereal o o o o o o o o o o Start of Block: Phone Q507 Please watch the video and answer the questions that follow: 156 Q509 Please rate your perception of the ad you just watched 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Not important Bad o o o o o o o Important o o o o o o o Good Relevant Exciting Appealing Irrelevant o o o o o o o Unexciting o o o o o o o Unappealing o o o o o o o 157 Ignore the ad (4) o Feel irritated (8) o Feel pleasure (9) Feel the ad is a waste of your time (10) Feel you do not have the ability to control your exposure to the ads (11) Q302 After watching this ad, did you Get information that’s useful to you (2) Feel the ad interferes with your online experience (3) Never (1) (1) (2) (2) (3) (3) (4) (4) (5) (5) (6) (6) All the time (7) (7) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Feel interested in the ad (13) o o o o o o o 158 Feel interrupted when watching the ad (14) o o o o o o o Q511 On a scale of 0 - 10 (where 10 is the most attention). How much attention did you pay to the ad you just watched? (0) Did not pay attention (1) (1) (2) (2) (3) (3) (4) (4) (5) (5) (6) (6) (7) (7) (8) (8) (9) (9) (10) (10) Paid full attention (11) Attention to ad (1) o o o o o o o o o o o 159 Q512 Please answer the following questions about the ad you just watched Neither agree nor disagree (4) Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Somewhat agree (5) Agree (6) Strongly agree (7) I often pay attention to ads for cell phones (1) I am very familiar with the brand shown in this ad (2) I like the brand of the cell phone in the ad I just watched (3) The ad was entertaining (4) The ad provided me information that I needed about cell phones (5) The ad would have been more enjoyable if it was the brand I liked (9) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 160 Q513 Please answer the following questions about the ad you just watched Neither agree nor disagree (4) Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Somewhat agree (5) Agree (6) Strongly agree (7) I would pay more attention to the ad if I needed to buy a cell phone the next day (1) I would pay more attention to the ad if I needed to buy a cell phone in the next 30 days (2) I would pay more attention to the ad if the price was important to me (3) I would pay more attention to the ad if the price of the cell phone was greatly discounted (4) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 161 Attention3 What was the brand of the cell phone ad you just watched? o Samsung (1) o Apple (2) o Google (3) o Motorola (4) Skip To: End of Block If What was the brand of the cell phone ad you just watched? != Samsung Q515 Please answer the following questions about your purchase decisions Somewhat agree (5) Agree (6) Strongly agree (7) Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neither agree nor disagree (4) I know what brand of cell phone I want to purchase: (1) I will only buy a cell phone from my favorite brand (2) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Q516 The brand I would purchase is: ________________________________________________________________ 162 Q517 Please answer the following questions about your cell phone purchase decision Neither agree nor disagree (4) Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Somewhat agree (5) Agree (6) Strongly agree (7) Purchasing a cell phone is important to me (5) o o o o o o o involved in I am the decision to purchase a cell phone (6) Ads play an important part in my purchase decision (7) Finding information about the product on the website is important to me (8) I know a lot about cell phones (9) I am very familiar with cell phones (10) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 163 Q518 Please rate your perception of cell phones 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Not important Bad o o o o o o o Important o o o o o o o Good Relevant Exciting Appealing Irrelevant o o o o o o o Unexciting o o o o o o o Unappealing o o o o o o o Q519 How often do you Never (1) Sometimes (2) About half the time (3) Most of the time (4) Always (5) buy a cell phone (1) use a cell phone (2) End of Block: Phone o o o o o o o o o o Start of Block: Ad Value / Attitude towards Advertising 164 AAd Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with these statements Advertising is a valuable source of information products/services about . (1) Strongl y disagree (1) Disagre e (2) Somewha t disagree (3) Neither agree nor disagre e (4) Somewha t agree (5) Agre e (6) Strongl y agree (7) o o o o o o o Advertising tells me which brands have the features I am looking for. (2) o o o o o o o Advertising helps me keep up to date about prod- o ucts/services available in the marketplace. (3) Advertising is informative. (4) o Advertising tells me what to buy to impress others. (5) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Advertising tells me what people with lifestyles similar 
to mine are using. (6) Advertising helps me know which products will or will 
not reflect the sort of person I am. (7) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 165 Advertising helps me keep up with current social trends. (8) Quite often, advertising is amusing and entertaining. (9) Sometimes I take pleasure in thinking about what I saw, 
heard, or read advertisements. in (10) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Sometimes o advertisements are even more enjoyable than 
other media content. (11) Sometimes advertisements can be fun. (12) o In general, advertising does not waste our economic re
sources. (14) In general, advertising stimulates our nation’s economy. (15) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 166 Q77 Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with these statements Strongl y disagree (1) Disagre e (2) Somewha t disagree (3) Neither agree nor disagre e (4) Somewha t agree (5) Agre e (6) Strongl y agree (7) In general, advertising promotes competition, which ben
efits the consumer. (1) In general, advertising results in lower prices for the products I buy. (2) Advertising is making us a materialistic society, overly interested in buying and owning things. (3) Advertising makes people buy unaffordable products just to show off. (4) Advertising makes people live in a world of fantasy. (5) Because of advertising, people buy a lot of things they do not really need. (6) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 167 In general, I feel that I can trust advertising. (7) o Products/service s that I have used usually live o o o o o o up to the promise of quality made in their ads. (8) In general, advertising is misleading. (9) In general, advertisements present an accurate picture of the product advertised. (10) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Q78 Please rate your overall attitude towards advertising. 7 (7) 1 (1) 3 (3) 2 (2) 4 (4) 6 (6) 5 (5) 8 (8) 9 (9) 10 (10) 11 (11) Very negative o o o o o o o o o o o Very positive Q79 Overall, how much do you like advertising? 6 (6) 5 (5) 2 (2) 4 (4) 3 (3) 1 (1) 7 (7) 8 (8) 9 (9) 10 (10) 11 (11) Strongly Dislike o o o o o o o o o o o Strongly Like 168 AdHumor I pay attention to ads that are funny o Strongly disagree (1) o Disagree (2) o Somewhat disagree (3) o Neither agree nor disagree (4) o Somewhat agree (5) o Agree (6) o Strongly agree (7) AdNarrative I pay attention to ads that have a good narrative o Strongly disagree (1) o Disagree (2) o Somewhat disagree (3) o Neither agree nor disagree (4) o Somewhat agree (5) o Agree (6) o Strongly agree (7) 169 AdBrand I pay attention to ads that have a brand i am interested in o Strongly disagree (1) o Disagree (2) o Somewhat disagree (3) o Neither agree nor disagree (4) o Somewhat agree (5) o Agree (6) o Strongly agree (7) 170 AdProduct I pay attention to ads that have a product I am interested in o Strongly disagree (1) o Disagree (2) o Somewhat disagree (3) o Neither agree nor disagree (4) o Somewhat agree (5) o Agree (6) o Strongly agree (7) Adefficacy Please state your agreement with the following statements: 171 Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neither agree nor disagree (4) Somewhat agree (5) Agree (6) Strongly agree (7) I feel I control whether ads persuade me or not. (1) I am good at controlling how much advertising I’m exposed to. (2) When I encounter an ad, my actions determine what effect it will have on me. (3) The number of ads I pay attention to is really up to me. (4) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Q23 That’s the end of our questions. We are so grateful to you for participating. Have a great day. 172 APPENDIX D: Tables Table 1. Advertising Avoidance: Facebook ads Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 1 St. beta St. beta -0.09 -0.63 0.10 0.01 --- --- --- --- --- --- 2.0 Block 1: Demographics Age Gender: Male Race: White Income Block 2: Attitude Accessibility Attitude Valence Block 3: Valenced Attitude Accessibility Block 4: Norm Valence Norm Accessibility Block 5: Valenced Norm Accessibility R2(%) n=126 # p < .1. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. Referent Group: Gender = Male, Race = White St. beta -0.11 -0.68 0.06 0.03 1.61* 0.65 -1.95* --- --- --- 5.8* St. beta -0.10 -0.75 0.12 0.04 1.73* 0.36 -2.18* 0.09 0.13 --- 6.4 St. beta -0.10 -0.80 0.11 0.04 1.68* 0.37 -2.08* 0.59 0.67 -0.56 6.7 -0.09 -0.65 0.09 0.01 0.06 0.13 --- --- --- --- 2.1 173 Table 2. Advertising Approach: Facebook ads Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 St. beta 0.10 -0.84* -0.52 0.04 0.17 1.37* -0.94 0.13 0.46 0.59 25.5 Model 1 St. beta St. beta 0.04 -1.07* 0.04 -0.01 --- --- --- --- --- --- 5.0 Block 1: Demographics Age Gender: Male Race: White Income Block 2: Attitude Accessibility Attitude Valence Block 3: Valenced Attitude Accessibility Block 4: Norm Valence Norm Accessibility Block 5: Valenced Norm Accessibility R2(%) n=126 # p < .1. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. Referent Group: Gender = Male, Race = White St. beta 0.11 -0.86* -0.48 0.03 0.17 1.35* -0.92 0.68* 0.70 --- 25.1** 0.03 -0.91* -0.34 0.00 0.17 0.75*** --- --- --- --- 15.8** St. beta 0.05 -0.91* -0.40 0.00 0.45 1.55* -0.96 --- --- --- 17.1 174 Table 3. Advertising Avoidance: YouTube ads Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 -0.06 -0.71 -0.13 0.05 2.04** -0.03 --- --- --- --- 8.2* Model 1 St. beta St. beta -0.11 -0.70 -0.09 0.05 --- --- --- --- --- --- 2.5 Block 1: Demographics Age Gender: Male Race: White Income Block 2: Attitude Accessibility Attitude Valence Block 3: Valenced Attitude Accessibility Block 4: Norm Valence Norm Accessibility Block 5: Valenced Norm Accessibility R2(%) n=126 # p < .1. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. Referent Group: Gender = Male, Race = White St. beta -0.08 -0.64 -0.09 0.04 2.58** 0.93 -1.26 --- --- --- 9.9 St. beta -0.09 -0.65 -0.12 0.03 2.57** 0.87 -1.21 0.17 -0.01 --- 9.9 St. beta -0.08 -0.66 -0.13 0.03 2.47** 0.86 -1.23 0.47 0.26 -0.29 10.1 175 Table 4. Advertising Approach: YouTube ads Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 St. beta 0.09 -1.30** -0.08 0.10 0.41 -0.67 1.45* 1.11 0.56** -0.87 23.6 Model 1 St. beta St. beta 0.04 -1.07* 0.04 -0.01 --- --- --- --- --- --- 5.0 Block 1: Demographics Age Gender: Male Race: White Income Block 2: Attitude Accessibility Attitude Valence Block 3: Valenced Attitude Accessibility Block 4: Norm Valence Norm Accessibility Block 5: Valenced Norm Accessibility R2(%) n=126 # p < .1. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. Referent Group: Gender = Male, Race = White St. beta 0.08 -1.28** -0.10 0.11 0.31 -0.60 1.36* 0.27 0.46** --- 22.2* 0.06 -1.13** -0.04 0.05 0.68 0.55** --- --- --- --- 12.9** St. beta 0.05 -1.12** 0.01 0.07 0.29 -0.48 1.37* --- --- --- 15.9* 176 Table 5. Advertising Avoidance: TV ads Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 -0.13 0.04 -0.20 0.06 0.58 0.45 --- --- --- --- 5.7 Model 1 St. beta St. beta -0.13 0.18 -0.18 0.11 --- --- --- --- --- --- 3.3 Block 1: Demographics Age Gender: Male Race: White Income Block 2: Attitude Accessibility Attitude Valence Block 3: Valenced Attitude Accessibility Block 4: Norm Valence Norm Accessibility Block 5: Valenced Norm Accessibility R2(%) n=126 # p < .1. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. Referent Group: Gender = Male, Race = White St. beta -0.13 0.06 -0.18 0.06 0.34 -0.04 0.63 --- --- --- 6.1 St. beta -0.14 0.13 -0.19 0.05 0.42 -0.25 0.82 0.14 -0.27 --- 6.9 St. beta -0.16 0.15 -0.16 -0.01 1.32 -0.02 0.63 2.95** 0.43 -2.90** 13.3** 177 Table 6. Advertising Approach: TV ads Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 St. beta 0.13 0.51 -0.45 0.06 -0.36 0.54 0.17 1.44* 0.48 -0.51 31.7 Model 1 St. beta St. beta 0.09 0.32 -0.30 -0.01 --- --- --- --- --- --- 2.0 Block 1: Demographics Age Gender: Male Race: White Income Block 2: Attitude Accessibility Attitude Valence Block 3: Valenced Attitude Accessibility Block 4: Norm Valence Norm Accessibility Block 5: Valenced Norm Accessibility R2(%) n=126 # p < .1. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. Referent Group: Gender = Male, Race = White St. beta 0.12 0.49 -0.46 0.07 -0.35 0.67 0.05 0.92** 0.30 --- 31.2** 0.10 0.36 -0.34 0.04 0.39 0.99*** --- --- --- --- 22.0*** St. beta 0.09 0.36 -0.33 0.04 0.29 0.83 0.21 --- --- --- 22.1 178 Table 7. Summary of predictors for approach and avoidance Facebook Avoid X X X YouTube Avoid TV Avoid Facebook Approach X X X YouTube Approach X X X X TV Approach X X X X Gender Attitude Valence Attitude Accessibility Valenced Attitude Accessibility Norm Valence Norm Accessibility Valenced Norm Accessibility 179 Table 8. Advertising Approach: Laptop ad Model 1 St. beta St. beta 0.01 -0.23 -0.48* 0.03 0.06 --- --- --- --- --- --- 2.4 Block 1: Demographics Age Gender: Female Race: White Income Education Block 2: AAd Positive (General) AAd Negative (General) Block 3: Involvement with Product Repeated Expression Block 4: Attitude towards Ad (Specific) Attitude towards Product R2(%) n=410 # p < .1. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. Referent Group: Gender = Female, Race = White St. beta -.002 -.279* -.118 -.061 .078 .058 -.077 .230*** .116 .671*** .093 71.4*** Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 -.002 -.139 -.207 -.041 .152* .829*** -.035 --- --- --- --- 40.9*** St. beta .002 -.185 -.222 -.087 .111 .508*** -.084 .497*** -.012 --- --- 49.3*** 180 Table 9. Advertising Approach: Ice-Cream ad Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 1 St. beta St. beta -0.02** -0.19 -0.38 0.00 -0.07 --- --- --- --- --- --- 5.8*** Block 1: Demographics Age Gender: Female Race: White Income Education Block 2: AAd Positive (General) AAd Negative (General) Block 3: Involvement with Product Repeated Expression Block 4: Attitude towards Ad (Specific) Attitude towards Product R2(%) n=410 # p < .1. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. Referent Group: Gender = Female, Race = White St. beta 0.00 0.02 -0.03 -0.07 0.03 0.00 -0.02 0.36*** -0.10 0.78*** -0.18*** 80.7*** -0.02*** -0.16 -0.13 -0.07 0.00 0.61*** -0.08 --- --- --- --- 30.4*** St. beta -0.01** -0.17 -0.11 -0.07 0.00 0.27** -0.06 0.72*** -0.08 --- --- 41.8*** 181 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Table 10. Advertising Approach: Cereal ad Model 1 St. beta St. beta -0.03** -0.59** -0.56** 0.00 0.01 --- --- --- --- --- --- 12.2*** 35.4*** Block 1: Demographics Age Gender: Female Race: White Income Education Block 2: AAd Positive (General) AAd Negative (General) Block 3: Involvement with Product Repeated Expression Block 4: Attitude towards Ad (Specific) Attitude towards Product R2(%) n=410 # p < .1. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. Referent Group: Gender = Female, Race = White St. beta -0.02*** -0.46** -0.28 -0.07 0.05 0.34*** -0.04 0.58*** 0.07 --- --- 44.7*** -0.03*** -0.53** -0.32 -0.07 0.09 0.70*** -0.06 --- --- --- --- St. beta 0.00 -0.20 -0.08 -0.04 0.02 0.00 -0.02 0.27*** 0.05 0.69*** -0.01 73.5*** 182 Table 11. Advertising Approach: Cellphone ad Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 1 St. beta St. beta -0.01* -0.08 -0.66** 0.07 -0.05 --- --- --- --- --- --- 6.0*** Block 1: Demographics Age Gender: Female Race: White Income Education Block 2: AAd Positive (General) AAd Negative (General) Block 3: Involvement with Product Repeated Expression Block 4: Attitude towards Ad (Specific) Attitude towards Product R2(%) n=410 # p < .1. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. Referent Group: Gender = Female, Race = White St. beta 0.00 -0.02 -0.19 -0.02 0.01 0.10 -0.03 0.22*** 0.02 0.76*** -0.10 73.4*** -0.02* -0.05 -0.37** -0.01 0.05 0.80*** -0.08 --- --- --- --- 40.7*** St. beta -0.01 -0.02 -0.31* -0.05 0.04 0.58*** -0.10* 0.40*** 0.03 --- --- 44.3*** 183 Table 12. Advertising Avoidance: Laptop ad Model 1 St. beta St. beta -0.01** -0.34 0.18 -0.07 0.18* --- --- --- --- --- --- 5.8 Block 1: Demographics Age Gender: Female Race: White Income Education Block 2: AAd Positive (General) AAd Negative (General) Block 3: Involvement with Product Repeated Expression Block 4: Attitude towards Ad (Specific) Attitude towards Product R2(%) n=410 # p < .1. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. Referent Group: Gender = Female, Race = White St. beta -0.01 -0.43* -0.01 -0.03 0.13 -0.32** 0.26*** 0.01 -0.25 -0.24** -0.01 30.2** Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 -0.01* -0.43* 0.01 -0.03 0.11 -0.53*** 0.25*** --- --- --- --- 26.3*** St. beta -0.01* -0.46** 0.03 -0.02 0.12 -0.48*** 0.26*** -0.07 -0.20 --- --- 26.9 184 Table 13. Advertising Avoidance: Ice-Cream ad Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 1 St. beta St. beta 0.01 -0.30 0.19 0.02 0.23* --- --- --- --- --- --- 5.3** Block 1: Demographics Age Gender: Female Race: White Income Education Block 2: AAd Positive (General) AAd Negative (General) Block 3: Involvement with Product Repeated Expression Block 4: Attitude towards Ad (Specific) Attitude towards Product R2(%) n=410 # p < .1. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. Referent Group: Gender = Female, Race = White St. beta 0.00 -0.42** 0.04 0.04 0.17** -0.29*** 0.31*** 0.05 -0.11 -0.34*** 0.03 30.9*** 0.01 -0.32 0.08 0.04 0.18** -0.48*** 0.33*** --- --- --- --- 21.1*** St. beta 0.01 -0.33 0.07 0.05 0.18** -0.41*** 0.33*** -0.14 -0.11 --- --- 21.7 185 Table 14. Advertising Avoidance: Cereal ad Model 1 St. beta St. beta 0.00 -0.22 0.23 -0.01 0.24** --- --- --- --- --- --- 3.8** Block 1: Demographics Age Gender: Female Race: White Income Education Block 2: AAd Positive (General) AAd Negative (General) Block 3: Involvement with Product Repeated Expression Block 4: Attitude towards Ad (Specific) Attitude towards Product R2(%) n=410 # p < .1. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. Referent Group: Gender = Female, Race = White St. beta -0.01 -0.39* 0.03 0.00 0.20** -0.33*** 0.36*** 0.02 -0.25 -0.33*** 0.12 27.7*** Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 0.00 -0.25 0.11 0.01 0.18** -0.50*** 0.37*** --- --- --- --- 19.6*** St. beta 0.00 -0.28 0.11 0.01 0.19** -0.47*** 0.37*** -0.05 -0.26 --- --- 20.3 186 Table 15. Advertising Avoidance: Cell-phone ad Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 1 St. beta St. beta 0.00 -0.46** 0.16 -0.01 0.23** --- --- --- --- --- --- 5.2** Block 1: Demographics Age Gender: Female Race: White Income Education Block 2: AAd Positive (General) AAd Negative (General) Block 3: Involvement with Product Repeated Expression Block 4: Attitude towards Ad (Specific) Attitude towards Product R2(%) n=410 # p < .1. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. Referent Group: Gender = Female, Race = White St. beta 0.00 -0.49*** -0.08 0.02 0.18** -0.23** 0.33*** 0.05 -0.20 -0.33*** -0.08 35.6*** 0.01 -0.48** -0.01 0.01 0.16** -0.53*** 0.35*** --- --- --- --- 26.7*** St. beta 0.00 -0.51*** -0.03 0.02 0.17** -0.46*** 0.36*** -0.12 -0.20 --- --- 27.5 187 Table 16. Correlations between ad approach and valenced attitude accessibility 188 Table 17. Correlations between ad avoidance and valenced attitude accessibility 189 Table 18. Correlations between AAd with attitude and avoidance for laptop 190 Table 19. Correlations between AAd with attitude and avoidance for ice-cream 191 Table 20. Correlations between AAd with attitude and avoidance for cereal 192 Table 21. Correlations between AAd with attitude and avoidance for cellphone 193 REFERENCES 194 REFERENCES Abelson, R. P. (1985). A variance explanation paradox: When a little is a lot. Psychological Bulletin, 97(1), 129. Abernethy, A. M. (1991). Physical and mechanical avoidance of television commercials: An exploratory study of zipping, zapping and leaving. In Proceedings of the American Academy of Advertising (pp. 223-231). New York: The American Academy of Advertising. Abernethy, A. M. (1991). Differences between advertising and program exposure for car radio listening. Journal of Advertising Research. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1973). Attitudinal and normative variables as predictors of specific behavior. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 27(1), 41. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological bulletin, 84(5), 888. Baek, T. H., & Morimoto, M. (2012). Stay away from me. Journal of advertising, 41(1), 59-76. Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., & Muraven, M. (1997). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource?. In Self-Regulation and Self-Control (pp. 24-52). Routledge. Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2007). Self‐Regulation, ego depletion, and motivation. Social and personality psychology compass, 1(1), 115-128. Bondad-Brown, B. A., Rice, R. E., & Pearce, K. E. (2012). Influences on TV viewing and online user-shared video use: Demographics, generations, contextual age, media use, motivations, and audience activity. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56(4), 471-493. Brennan, L. (2001). How prospective students choose universities: A buyer behaviour perspective (Doctoral dissertation). Cho, C. H. & Cheon, J.C. (2004). Why do people avoid advertising on the internet?. Journal of Advertising, 33(4), 89-97. Cingel, D. P., & Krcmar, M. (2013). Predicting media use in very young children: The role of demographics and parent attitudes. Communication Studies, 64(4), 374-394. Ducoffe, R. H. (1995). How consumers assess the value of advertising. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 17(1), 1-18. 195 Ducoffe, R. H. (1996). Advertising value and advertising on the web. Journal of advertising research, 36(5), 21-21. Duff, B. R., & Lutchyn, Y. (2017). Advertising (In) attention in the Digital Environment. Digital Advertising: Theory and Research. 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. Elliott, M. T., & Speck, P. S. (1998). Consumer perceptions of advertising clutter and its impact across various media. Journal of advertising research, 38(1), 29-30. Erdfelder, E., Faul, F., & Buchner, A. (1996). GPOWER: A general power analysis program. Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers, 28(1), 1-11. Ewoldsen, D. R., Rhodes, N., & Fazio, R. H. (2015). The MODE model and its implications for studying the media. Media Psychology, 18(3), 312-337 Fazio, R. H. (1990). Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: The MODE model as an integrative framework. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 75-109). Academic Press. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition: From brains to culture. Sage. Glasman, L. R., & Albarracín, D. (2006). Forming attitudes that predict future behavior: A meta- analysis of the attitude-behavior relation. Psychological bulletin, 132(5), 778. Greenleaf, E. A., & Lehmann, D. R. (1995). Reasons for substantial delay in consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(2), 186-199. Gupta, S. (2013). The psychological effects of perceived scarcity on consumers’ buying behavior. Heeter, C., & Cohen, E. (1988). Viewing style differences between radio and television. Cableviewing, 113-122. Heeter, C., & Greenberg, B. S. (1985). Profiling the zappers. Journal of Advertising Research. Internet Advertising Bureau (1997). IAB online advertising effectiveness study. Internet Advertising Bureau. Jeffres, L., & Atkin, D. (1996). Predicting use of technologies for communication and consumer needs. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 40(3), 318-330. 196 Jin, C. H., & Villegas, J. (2006). Consumer responses to advertising on the internet: The effect of individual difference on ambivalence and avoidance. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(2), 258-266. Johnson, J. P. (2013). Targeted advertising and advertising avoidance. The RAND Journal of Economics, 44(1), 128-144. Kelly, L., Kerr, G., & Drennan, J. (2010). Avoidance of advertising in social networking sites: The teenage perspective. Journal of interactive advertising, 10(2), 16-27. Kim, M. S., & Hunter, J. E. (1993). Relationships among attitudes, behavioral intentions, and behavior: A meta-analysis of past research, part 2. Communication research, 20(3), 331- 364. Landy, F. J., Rastegary, H., Thayer, J., & Colvin, C. (1991). Time urgency: The construct and its measurement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(5), 644. Lang, A. (2006). Using the limited capacity model of motivated mediated message processing to design effective cancer communication messages. Journal of communication, 56(suppl_1), S57-S80. Lang, A., & Ewoldsen, D. (2010). Beyond effects: Conceptualizing communication as dynamic, complex, nonlinear, and fundamental. Rethinking communication: Keywords in communication research, 111-122. Lee, C. C., & Hsieh, M. C. (2009, June). The influence of mobile self-efficacy on attitude towards mobile advertising. In 2009 International Conference on New Trends in Information and Service Science (pp. 1231-1236). IEEE. 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. 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. Luna Cortés, G., & Royo Vela, M. (2013). The antecedents of consumers’ negative attitudes toward SMS advertising: a theoretical framework and empirical study. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 13(2), 109-117. MacKenzie, S. B., & Lutz, R. J. (1989). An empirical examination of the structural antecedents of attitude toward the ad in an advertising pretesting context. The Journal of Marketing, 48-65. Mialki, S. (2018). What is a Pre-roll ad & Why should marketers use them in campaigns.. Instapage. Retrieved from https://instapage.com/blog/pre-roll-ads 197 O'Barr, W. M. (2012). Super Bowl commercials: America's annual festival of advertising. Advertising & Society Review, 13(1). Obermiller, C., & Spangenberg, E. R. (1998). Development of a scale to measure consumer skepticism toward advertising. Journal of consumer psychology, 7(2), 159-186. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of personality and social psychology, 41(5), 847. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of consumer research, 10(2), 135-146. Prendergast, G., Cheung, W. L., & West, D. (2010). Antecedents to advertising avoidance in China. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 32(2), 87-100. Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1992). When small effects are impressive. Psychological bulletin, 112(1), 160. Rau, P. L. P., Liao, Q., & Chen, C. (2013). Factors influencing mobile advertising avoidance. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 11(2), 123-139. Rodgers, S., & Thorson, E. (Eds.). (2012). Advertising theory. Routledge. Rodgers, S., & Thorson, E. (Eds.). (2017). Network Advertising Model. Digital advertising: Theory and research. Taylor & Francis. Rosengren, S. (2016). From Advertising Avoidance to Advertising Approach: Rethinking Attention in New Advertising Formats. In Advertising in New Formats and Media: Current Research and Implications for Marketers (pp. 3-18). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Roskos‐Ewoldsen, D. R., & Fazio, R. H. (1997). The role of belief accessibility in attitude formation. Southern Journal of Communication, 62(2), 107-116. Rhodes, N., Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R., Edison, A., & Bradford, M. B. (2008). Attitude and norm accessibility affect processing of anti-smoking messages. Health Psychology, 27(3S), S224. 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. Shannon, C. E. (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication by CE Shannon and W. Weaver. 198 Speck, P. S., & Elliott, M. T. (1997). Predictors of advertising avoidance in print and broadcast media. Journal of Advertising, 26(3), 61-76. Stout, P. A., & Burda, B. L. (1989). Zipped commercials: Are they effective?. Journal of Advertising, 18(4), 23-32. Sundar, S. S., & Limperos, A. M. (2013). Uses and grats 2.0: New gratifications for new media. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57(4), 504-525. Swain, S. D., Hanna, R., & Abendroth, L. J. (2006). How time restrictions work: the roles of urgency, anticipated regret, and deal evaluations. ACR North American Advances. Thorson E., Tham, S.M., & Duffy, M. (2018). The role of media context and general advertising attitudes on ad avoidance. AEJMC van der Goot, M. J., Rozendaal, E., Opree, S. J., Ketelaar, P. E., & Smit, E. G. (2018). Media generations and their advertising attitudes and avoidance: a six-country comparison. International Journal of Advertising, 37(2), 289-308. Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of consumer research, 12(3), 341-352. Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1986). Conceptualizing involvement. Journal of advertising, 15(2), 4-34. Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1994). The personal involvement inventory: Reduction, revision, and application to advertising. Journal of advertising, 23(4), 59-70. 199