1. Steffi de jans; Liselot Hudders; Veroline Cauberghe
Children’s Responses to Internet Advertising: Are Native Advertisements More Persuasive Than Online Banners?
Steffi de jans; Liselot Hudders; Veroline Cauberghe

3. INTRODUCTION

4. INTRODUCTION Advertising literacy: recognize advertising
distinguish the commercial content from the media content
understand persuasive intent, selling intent and the techniques that are used

5. RESEARCH AIM
What is children’s understanding of advertising’s selling intent after exposure to a native ad compared to a more traditional banner ad?
What is the moderating impact of skeptical attitude toward the advertising format?

6. HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT
Less recognition and understanding of native ads compared to online banners among adults (Howe & Teufel, 2014; Tutaj & van Reijmersdal, 2012)
Native ads are also perceived as more informative, more amusing and less irritating than online banners (Tutaj & van Reijmersdal, 2012)
Disguished and fun nature of native advertising  adults’ advertising literacy is less triggered
Thus, even more difficult for children to recognize and understand native advertisements
In line with previous research on children’s advertising literacy for other embedded advertising formats (An et al., 2014; Owen et al., 2013)
H1: Children have less understanding of advertising’s selling intent after exposure to a native ad compared to an online banner ad.

7. HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT
H2: Children have less understanding of advertising’s selling intent after exposure to a native ad, which will result in a more positive brand attitude, but only when children are not skeptical toward the advertising format.

8. METHOD
2-level (advertising format: online banner vs. native ad) between-subjects experimental design
Children out of 7 different elementary schools in Belgium
Parental consent
N = 243 between 7 and 12 years (M = 9.28 years; 53.1% boys)

9. Native ad

10. Online banner

11. MEASURES Questionnaire adapted to the cognitive abilities of children
Understanding of advertising’s selling intent (‘Do you think [brand X] appears on this website/in this article so you would buy their product?’; derived from Rozendaal et al. (2014))
Skeptical attitude toward the advertising format (3 semantic differentials; ‘good/wrong’, ‘fair/unfair’, ‘allowed/forbidden’, adapted from Rozendaal et al. (2014) and Campbell (1999))
Brand attitude (3 item; Bakir & Palan, 2010)
Age and attitude toward the ad were included as covariates in the analyses

12. RESULTS (a = -1.02, SE = .14, t = -7.48, p < .001)
Native ad (M = 3.37, SD = 1.25)
Online banner (M = 4.35, SD = .85)
(a = -1.02, SE = .14, t = -7.48, p < .001)

13. Skeptical attitude toward the advertising format
Conditional effects
Skeptical attitude toward the advertising format
Low (B = .12, SE = .06, 95%CI = [.0073, .2446])
Moderate (B = .04, SE = .05, 95%CI = [-.0569, .1363])
High (B = -.03, SE = .06, 95%CI = [-.1647, .0773])
RESULTS
(B = -.10, SE = .05, 95%CI = [-.1976, ])

14. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Young children have less understanding of advertising’s selling intent for a native ad than for an online banner
Skeptical attitude toward the advertising format taken into account
Implications
Educational programs to inform children about the different advertising formats they are exposed to on the Internet
Not only a focus on the cognitive dimension of advertising literacy, attitudinal mechanisms should also be taken into account

15. THANK YOU See you in Ghent this year