YANG & OLIVER 2004, Exploring the Effects of Online Advertising on Readers Perceptions of Online News

Prévia do material em texto

EXPLORING THE EFFECTS OF ONLINE 
ADVERTISING ON READERS’ PERCEPTIONS 
OF ONLINE NEWS 
By Hyeseung Yung and Mary Beth Oliver 
This study examined how commercialization of Internet news sites can 
impact perceptions of news. An experiment (N=260) showed that per- 
ceptions of online news stories varied as afunction of the presence or 
seriousness of online advertising and Internet use (light versus heavy). 
Among light Internet users, the inclusion of advertisements resulted in 
sign$cantly lower perceived news value of hard news stories. I 
Individuals’ growing reliance on Web-based information exchange 
leaves little doubt as to the importance of the Internet as a source of 
news information. However, online news sources have been criticized 
for their commercialization. Given the increase in advertising on the 
Web, how might the combined presentation of news and advertising 
affect people’s perceptions? 
In research and commentary on the impact of advertising on per- 
ceptions of news, the greatest amount of critical attention has been 
directed toward television. For example, Postman argued that the banal- 
ity of advertising embedded in television news programs undermines 
the perceived credibility and importance of serious social and political 
news stories being reported.’ In other words, commercials may make 
serious matters appear trivial. Additionally, other researchers have sug- 
gested that advertising may intensify the perceived importance of triv- 
ial or soft news. Specifically, Biocca et al. conducted an experiment to 
examine Postman’s assertions, and while the inclusion of advertising in 
news programming had little effect on perceived importance in general, 
the inclusion of humorous or silly advertising did result in increased 
perceived importance of soft news stories.2 
One interpretation of Biocca et al.’s failure to find an advertising 
effect on perceived importance of news in general or hard news specifi- 
cally may simply be that television viewers have become adept at ignor- 
ing or discounting advertising interruptions while viewing television 
news. From this perspective, greater exposure to television news should 
lead to enhanced skills in this regard and should lead to diminished 
effects of advertising on news perceptions. On the other hand, an alter- 
Hyeseung Yang is a doctoral candidate in the College of Communications, Pennsylvania 
State University, and Mary Beth Oliver is a professor in the College ofCornrnunications, 
Pennsylvania State University 
~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ 
J 6 M C Quarterly 
vol 81, No.4 
Winter 2004 
733-749 
02004 AEJMC 
E X P L O R I N G THE EFFECTS OF O N L I N E ADVERTISING O N READERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF O N L I N E NEWS 
~~~ ~ 
733 
___ 
 at CAPES on April 16, 2016jmq.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
native interpretation may relate to the fact that news content is 
typically presented separately from commercial messages, thereby creat- 
ing a temporal and perhaps psychological distance between news 
content and advertising. In contrast, other media such as the Internet 
tend to present advertising and news simultaneously, with advertise- 
ments intermingled with, obscuring, and sometimes even blocking 
the viewing of news content. As a result, the adverse effects of advertis- 
ing on viewers‘ news perceptions may be enhanced. The purpose of 
this study is to examine the effects of advertising on viewers’ perceptions 
of news stories in the context of an online news site. 
~ ~~ ~ ~~ -- ~ 
Backpund 
Contextual Relevance and Cognitive Interference. Research explor- 
ing the reciprocal influences of news and advertising has centered prima- 
rily on the effects of media context (i.e., the programming or editorial 
environment in which an advertisement is embedded) on processing or 
evaluations of advertising3 In general, this research suggests that ads 
surrounded by media content that has irrelevant or inconsistent tones and 
manners can evoke less favorable perceptions or attitudes than can ads 
surrounded by media content that is relevant. In fact, research has gener- 
ally found that irrelevant information results in less favorable attitudes 
than does relevant information, and that consumers’ ability to integrate 
relevant information with ease can result in favorable attitude and behav- 
ioral changes4 
However, as Stewart and Ward point out, it is conceivable to expect 
that context effects, in addition to affecting viewers’ perceptions or atti- 
tudes about advertising, also play a similar role in affecting viewers’ per- 
ceptions or attitudes about media content that surrounds the ads.i That is, 
in the context of an online news page, a news story surrounded by adver- 
tising that is irrelevant or inconsistent in terms of tone and manner should 
be perceived less favorably than a news story surrounded by advertising 
that is relevant or that is not associated with advertising at all. For exam- 
ple, exposure to a humorous or silly ad while reading a hard news story 
dealing with a serious topic may harm perceived news value or credibili- 
ty of the news. 
What cognitive mechanisms are involved in the effects (on news 
perceptions) of contextual irrelevance between news stories and adver- 
tisements? Some researchers have suggested that news processing may be 
interfered with by ads that prime inappropriate cognitive strategies, 
moods, and schemas. For example, Chaudhuri and Buck explored how 
different advertising strategies evoke different cognitive responses, and 
reported that product information strategies generate analytic cognition 
(e.g., thinking of differences between the brands and its competitors) and 
discourage affective cognition (e.g., feeling happy or sad), whereas mood 
arousal strategies generate affective cognition and discourage analytic 
cognition.6 
Gunther also pointed out that viewers who possess or use the 
wrong schema for processing news, or are not familiar with the appropri- 
734 \OURNALISM & MASS C1)MMUNICATION QUARTERLY 
 at CAPES on April 16, 2016jmq.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
ate schema, fail to understand information, allocate less attention, and 
remember less news inf~rmation.~ It might be reasonable to expect that if 
advertising primes cognitive strategies, moods, or schemas that are inap- 
propriate for news processing, perceptions of the news content itself may 
be adversely affected. For example, if serious news stories, such as one 
about a deadly fire that has killed children, are being reported in an online 
news page where silly and jovial advertisements are being advertised, 
perceived newsworthiness or quality of the stories may be negatively 
affected by those ads, because moods or schemas to process those serious 
news stories may be interrupted by moods and schemas introduced by 
the funny ads. 
With these perceptual mechanisms in mind, it is also important to 
consider how advertising is presented in different media. In television, 
commercials are presented sequentially, not simultaneously, with essen- 
tially no overlap between advertising and news content. In newspapers, 
advertising is often presented on the same page (or nearby pages) as news 
content, but ads are rarely embedded within the news stories themselves. 
Consequently, when watching television or reading a newspaper, news 
users could more easily (and intentionally) ignore ads and pay attention 
to news stories because advertisements are typically easily distinguish- 
able from and separated from news stories. However, in typical online 
news sites, the physical distance between news stories and ads is more 
intermingled. That is, on the Internet, one can hardly expect to read news 
stories without being interrupted by ads because there are no areas of 
Websites that are predictably devoid of advertising content. In addition, 
online advertisementsare often more distracting than in traditional 
media, employing color, animation, and pop-up techniques. As a conse- 
quence, effects of advertising on news perceptions may be particularly 
likely in an online context. 
The purpose of the present study is to explore the effects of adver- 
tising on perceptions of hard news (i.e., evaluation of newsworthiness or 
credibility of hard news stories). Specifically, based on prior research find- 
ings concerning contextual relevance and the processing of news informa- 
tion, the following hypothesis was examined: 
H1: Online news readers exposed to silly ads will tend 
to evaluate hard news stories more negatively than will online 
news readers exposed to no ads or to serious ads. 
If we assume that exposure to a humorous or silly ad in the context 
of a hard news story may harm perceived news value or perceived credi- 
bility of the news, what can we assume with regard to soft news stories? 
We sought to replicate Biocca et al.’s finding that humorous or silly ads 
can also impact perceptions of soft news stories, leading to perceptions of 
increased importance.8 Thus: 
H2: Online news readers exposed to silly ads will tend 
to evaluate soft news stories more positively than will online 
news readers exposed to no ads or to serious ads. 
735 
~~ ~ 
EXPLORING THE EFECTS OF ONLINE A D V t R T i 5 l N G ON READERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF ONLINE NtWs 
 at CAPES on April 16, 2016jmq.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
Internet User Experience. When we consider the characteristics of 
the Web, user experience is clearly an important factor. For example, 
Benway and Lane suggested that expert users have a tendency to avoid 
banner ads when they browse the Internet.9 Similarly, Dreze and 
Hussherr employed an eye-tracking device to examine users' attention 
levels, finding that expert users paid significantly less attention to banner 
ads and remembered fewer brands displayed in banners than did 
novices.1° These studies are consistent with additional research reporting 
a negative relationship between user experience and inclination to click 
on banner ads." 
In sum, research generally suggests that experienced Internet users 
are more adept than are light users at avoiding online advertising, and 
may consequently be less likely to be influenced. Therefore, we may ten- 
tatively assume that effects of online advertising on news perceptions 
may be more pronounced among light than among heavy Internet users: 
H3: Ad inclusion will have more salient effects on online 
news perceptions among light Internet users than among 
heavy Internet users. 
Perceptions of Online Advertising. News and advertising likely 
have reciprocal effects as many previous studies have shown. That is, the 
perceptions of online ads could vary as a function not only of factors such 
as the seriousness of ads and Internet use, but also as a function of story 
type (hard news versus soft news). Therefore, this study examined the fol- 
lowing research question: 
RQ1: How do ad perceptions vary as a function of ad 
type, Internet use, and story type? 
Participants. Two hundred and sixty-three undergraduate stu- 
dents taking communication courses at a large Northeastern university 
participated in the study. All participants were juniors or seniors with a 
median age of 21. Participants were awarded a nominal amount of extra 
credit in exchange for their participation. Responses from three partici- 
pants were discarded due to incomplete answers. As a result, responses 
from 260 participants were analyzed. 
Experimental Design and Procedure. A 2 (Story Type: Hard News, 
Soft News) x 3 (Seriousness of Ad: No Advertisement, Silly 
Advertisement, Serious Advertisement) x 2 (Internet Use) between-sub- 
jects experiment design was employed in which Internet Use was meas- 
ured and all other factors were manipulated. In addition to Story Type, 
Seriousness of Ad, and Internet Use, this study also considered another 
factor, Ad Format (banner versus pop-up). Among conditions with ads 
present, Seriousness of Ad (silly versus serious) and Ad Format (banner 
versus pop-up) were counterbalanced.I2 
All stimulus presentation and data collection was conducted via 
the Web, with a JavaScript employed to randomly assign participants to 
Method 
IOURNALISM & M A S S COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY 
~ ~~ 
736 ~ 
~~ 
 at CAPES on April 16, 2016jmq.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
experimental condition^.'^ To maximize external validity, all proce- 
dures were conducted outside of the laboratory. Participants were 
allowed to participate in the study at any time and in any location 
during the course of a one-week time period. During the week, 
participants were sent an e-mail explaining the study and providing 
them with a URL that directed them to the study site where further 
instructions were provided, the news stories were presented, and 
questionnaire data were collected. Each participant was presented 
with three news articles to read, each on consecutive pages. Each news 
story was accompanied by a silly advertisement (either pop-up or ban- 
ner), a serious advertisement (either pop-up or banner), or no advertise- 
ment. Among the conditions with ads present, participants were exposed 
to just one ad; the same ad was shown during all three stories. For exam- 
ple, a participant assigned to the hard news with pop-up, serious ad con- 
dition was exposed to an identical pop-up, serious ad three times while 
reading three different hard news stories. Subsequently, participants pro- 
ceeded to the questionnaire page where they reported their overall per- 
ceptions of the three news stories, their perceptions of the advertise- 
ments, and their typical Internet use. Participants were divided into 
groups of heavy or light Internet use on the basis of two measures: years 
of using the Internet and daily Internet use hours. Standardized scores for 
each of these two measures were first calculated, and the average of these 
two z-scores was then computed. Respondents with mean z-scores of 
more than or equal to 0 were coded as heavy Internet users, with others 
coded as light Internet users. Independent-sample t-tests revealed that 
there were significant differences between light and heavy Internet users 
both in the average years of using the Internet (light: M = 5.09, s.d. = 1.09; 
heavy: M = 7.64, s.d. = 1.53; t[257] = 15.46, p < .001) and daily Internet use 
in hours (light: M = 1.53, s.d. = 1.02; heavy: M = 3.54, s.d. = 2.58; t[246] = 
8.00, p i .001). 
Stimulus Materials. A pretest was conducted to determine which 
news articles to use for this study. Twelve news articles from various 
online news sites were used in the pretest. Forty-seven undergraduate 
students rated the news articles using a 7-point scale anchored between 1 
(Consider as soft news) and 7 (Consider as hard news). To control for the 
effects of differing articles in each story type condition, three soft and 
three hard news stories were used for this experiment. In the hard news 
condition, topics included a deadly fire, an international child pornogra- 
phy case, and Gulf War veterans’ complaints of dizziness; in the soft news 
condition, topics included an annual international whistlers convention, 
professional Etch-a-Sketch artists, and a dog casting call by a theater. A 
paired t-test of the average score across the three soft news and the three 
hard news stories selected in the pretest revealed that participants per- 
ceived significant differences between soft news stories (M = 1.25, s.d. = 
.45) and hard news stories (M = 5.91, s.d. = .72), t(46) = 37.97, p < .001. TO 
control for order effects, the order of the news stories was varied within 
each condition. Thus, three different orders of the soft news stories and 
three different orders of the hard news stories were createdsuch that 
equivalent numbers of participants read each order. 
EXPLORING T H E EFFECTS OF ONLINE ADVERTISING ON READERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF ONLINE NEWS 
~ ~~~ ~ ~- ___ __ -~ 73 7 ~ 
 at CAPES on April 16, 2016jmq.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
To determine which ads to use for this study, 20 banner ads from 
various online news sites were also pretested using two semantic differ- 
ential scales anchored between 1 (Silly) and 7 (Serious) and between 1 
(Boring) and 7 (Interesting). Based on the mean scores, two ads were 
selected to represent "silly advertisements," and two ads were selected to 
represent "serious advertisements," in such a way that the two ad types 
maximized differences in perceived seriousness, but minimized differ- 
ences in perceived intere~t.'~ Two different ads were used to represent 
silly and serious advertisements to reduce problems associated with idio- 
syncratic effects due to a specific ad. The brands used in the silly ad con- 
dition were an online game company and an online sweepstake company, 
and the brands used in the serious ad condition were an e-service compa- 
ny and an online health (fitness) service c~mpany. '~ 
All ads selected for this study used animated GIF images with mul- 
tiple image frames. The overall tone of the silly ads was light and bouncy. 
For example, in the ad for the online sweepstake company, frames dis- 
played texts such as "Have fun" and "Win Prizes," and the font was 
designed so that it looked like handwriting. In contrast, the overall tone 
of the serious ads was straightforward and nonhumorous. For example, 
in the ad for the online health (fitness) service company, frames displayed 
texts such as "Are you overweight?" and "Try our body mass calculator" 
by turns. Paired t-tests between the average seriousness scores of the two 
silly ads selected versus the two serious ads selected revealed that the 
silly ads were perceived as significantly less serious ( M = 2.89, s.d. = 1.07) 
than the serious ads ( M = 5.87, s.d. = 1.27), t(44) = 11.49, p < .001. 
Importantly, there was no significant difference in Boring/Interesting rat- 
ings between silly ads ( M = 4.43, s.d. = 1.47) and serious ads ( M = 4.11, s.d. 
= 1.84), t(45) = 234, p = .41, suggesting that any differences obtained 
between the two ad types reflect differences in seriousness rather than in 
interest. 
The stimulus Website was designed to look like a typical online 
news site. To rule out possible confounds, a bogus masthead was created, 
and dates and reporter names were not included in the stories. At the bot- 
tom of each online news story, a link would take participants to the next 
news article. Pop-up ads were developed, which were identical to banner 
ads selected by the pretest. The size of all the ads was 300 x 250 pixels.1h 
For conditions with pop-up ads present, each Web page was designed in 
such a way that a pop-up ad appeared over the text of a news story, and 
participants could close the pop-up ad window by clicking on the "close" 
(x) button at the top right of the pop-up ad window to start reading the 
news article of the Web page. For conditions with banner ads present, a 
banner ad appeared within the frame where the text of the news article 
was presented. 
Dependent Measures. Twelve news perception items were 
employed in this study: Important, Newsworthy, Serious, Valuable, 
Trustworthy, Credible, Believable, Accurate, Objective, Lively, Entertain- 
ing, and Interesting. These items were extracted from Sundar's news eval- 
uation items and modified to fit the purposes of the present study.'7 Six 
items pertaining to ad perceptions were developed by the authors: 
738 /Ol IRNALISM &f M A S S C O M M U N I C A T I O N QUARTERLY 
~~ ~ 
 at CAPES on April 16, 2016jmq.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
Items 
News value 
Important 
Newsworthy 
Serious 
Valuable 
News credibility 
Trustworthy 
Credible 
Believable 
Accurate 
Objective 
News entertainment 
Lively 
Entertaining 
Interesting 
Eigenvalue 
Proportion of Variance 
TABLE 1 
Factor Loadings of News Perception Items 
Factor 1 
.90 
.90 
.89 
.82 
.26 
.32 
.28 
-.11 
.oo 
-.13 
-.08 
.32 
3.47 
28.88 
Factor 2 
~~~~ ~ 
.05 
.19 
.15 
.17 
.80 
.76 
.69 
.68 
.61 
.02 
.08 
.ll 
2.63 
21.93 
Factor 3 
-.05 
.07 
-.20 
.20 
.09 
.15 
.ll 
.15 
-.20 
.87 
.86 
.82 
2.36 
19.68 
Note: Numbers in boldface type indicate primary loading of a given variable (row) on the corre- 
sponding factor (column). 
Professional, Credible, Trustworthy, Distracting, Irritating, and Inappro- 
priate. Both news perception and ad perception items were measured 
using 7-point semantic differential scales. - ~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ 
Results News Perceptions. News perception items were subjected to an 
exploratory principal components analysis with varimax rotation. An 
examination of factor loadings, eigenvalues greater than one, and the 
scree plot suggested three factors: news value, news credibility, and news 
entertainment. News value was composed of four items (important, news 
worthy, serious, and valuable; Cronbach's alpha = .91); news credibility 
was composed of five items (trustworthy, credible, believable, accurate, 
and objective; alpha = .77); and news entertainment was composed of 
three items (lively, entertaining, and interesting; alpha = .82). Table 1 
reports the factor loadings of the news perception items. Scales for each of 
three factors were computed by averaging the scores of the items that 
loaded highly on a given factor. Consequently, scores could range from 1 
to 7. 
To examine how the seriousness of advertising (silly versus serious) 
affected perceptions of the news stories, a 2 (Story Type) x 3 (Seriousness 
739 
~ ~~~ 
EXPLORING THE EFFECTS OF ONLINE ADVERTISING O N READERS' PERCEPTIONS OF ONLINE NEWT 
 at CAPES on April 16, 2016jmq.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
TABLE 2 
Perceived News Value and Credibility: Story Type x Seriousness of Ad x Internet Use 
Perceived News Value 
Seriousness of Ad 
Storv TvDe Internet Use No Ads Silly Serious 
Soft news Light M (SE) 2.46 (.19) 2.78 (.20) 2.80 (.17) 
Heavy M(SE) 2.63 (.17) 2.11 (.19) 2.55 (.18) 
Hard news Light M (SE) 5.60 (.18& 4.84 (.19)a 4.98 (.22),, 
Heavy M(SE) 4.92 (.18) 5.30 (.19) 5.25 (.22) 
Seriousness of Ad 
Story Type No Ads Silly Serious 
Soft news Light M (SE) 4.19 (.19) 4.62 (.20) 4.76 (.17) 
Heavy M(SE) 4.70 (.18) 4.64 (.20) 4.71 (.18) 
Hard news Light M(SE) 5.14 (.18) 4.63 (.19) 4.85 ( 2 2 ) 
Heavy M(SE) 4.80 (.18) 4.90 (.19) 5.26 (.22) 
Note: Within rows, means with no lower case subscript in common differ at p < .05 using Student- 
Newman-Keuls tests. 
of Ad) x 2 (Internet Use) general linear multivariate analysis of variance 
(MANOVA) was employed. This analysis revealed a significant multivari- 
ate main effect for story type, with Wilks’ A = .26, F(3, 245) = 231.73, p < 
.001. An examination of the univariate results showed significant main 
effects of story type on each of the three perception measures. Participants 
rated the hard news stories higher on news value (M = 5.15, S E = .08) and 
credibility (M = 4.93, S E = .08) than the soft news stories (news value: M 
= 2.56, S E = .08; credibility: M = 4.60, S E = .08), but rated the soft news sto- 
ries higher on entertainment value (M = 4.66, S E = .11) than the hard news 
stories (M = 4.24, S E = .11). F-results were, for news value, F(l, 247) = 
562.06, p < .001; for credibility, F(1, 247) = 8.66, p < .01; and for entertain- 
ment value, F(l, 247) = 7.31, p < .01. 
In addition to the aforementioned main effect for story type, this 
analysis also revealed a Story Type x Seriousness of Ad x Internet Use 
interaction, with Wilks’ A = .92,F(6, 490) = 3.28, p < .01. An examination 
of the univariate results revealed significant interactions for both ratings 
of news value and credibility: for news value, F(2,247) = 7.45, p < .001; and 
for credibility, F(2, 247) = 3.48, p < .05. Table 2 reports the means associat- 
.~ . __ 740 JOURNALISM 6 MASS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY 
 at CAPES on April 16, 2016jmq.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
Items 
Professionalism 
Professional 
Credible 
Trustworthy 
Inappropriateness 
Distracting 
Irritating 
Inappropriate 
Eigenvalue 
Proportion of Variance 
-- ~ ~ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - ~ -~ 
TABLE 3 
Factor Loadings of A d Perception Items 
Factor 1 
.89 
.87 
.86 
-.21 
.oo 
-.3Y 
2.48 
41.28 
Factor 2 
~~ 
-.08 
-.1Y 
-.22 
.87 
.86 
.66 
2.02 
33.61 
Note: Numbers in boldface type indicate primary loading of a given variable (row) on the corre- 
sponding factor (column). 
ed with these interactions. The effect of Seriousness of Ad on perceived 
news value was evident only among light Internet users in the hard news 
condition. Among these participants, the inclusion of silly ads resulted in 
the lowest news value scores, with no ads or serious ads receiving equal 
ratings. Similar patterns were observed for ratings of credibility, though 
no pairwise differences in means were detected.18 
To examine how the presence of advertising per se affected percep- 
tions of the news stories, regardless of the seriousness (silly or serious), a 
2 (Story Type) x 2 (Presence of Ad) x 2 (Internet Use) general linear multi- 
variate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was employed, with both the 
silly ad condition and the serious ad condition being collapsed. As with 
the previous analysis focusing on Seriousness of Ad, this analysis also 
revealed a significant multivariate Story Type x Presence of Ad x Internet 
Use interaction, with Wilks’ A = .94, F(3, 249) = 5.35, p < .001. An exami- 
nation of the univariate results revealed significant interactions for both 
ratings of news value and credibility: for news value, F(l, 251) = 10.31, p 
<c .001; and for credibility, F(l, 251) = 5.45, p < .01. The effect of Presence of 
Ad on perceived news value was evident only for the hard news condi- 
tion among light Internet users. Specifically, among light Internet users, 
the presence of ads (M = 4.90, SE = .14) resulted in lower news value 
scores than no ads (M = 5.60, S E = .18). Similar patterns were observed for 
ratings of credibility, though no pairwise differences in means were 
detected. 
To summarize, H1 that explored the effects of silly ads on lower 
newsworthiness and quality evaluations of hard news stories obtained 
partial support, with the expected effects obtained for light Internet users 
EXPLORING T H E E F ~ E C T S OF ONLINE ADVERTISING ON READERS’PERCEPTIONS OF ONLINE NEWS 741 - _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ 
 at CAPES on April 16, 2016jmq.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
I--- ___ 
TABLE 4 
Main Effects for Story Type, Seriousness of Ad, and Ad Format on Ad Perceptions 
IV DV Univariate F 
~~ 
Story Type Professionalism 7.52** 
Inappropriateness 3.74 
Seriousness of Ad Professionalism 25.64*** 
Inappropriateness 7.74** 
Ad Format Professionalism 2.02 
Inappropriateness 23.02*** 
Internet Use Professionalism .01 
Inappropriateness 1.56 
** p < .01; *** p i. 001 
M (SE) 
snft Hard 
~ ~~ ~~ ~ 
3.49 (.13) 2.96 (.15) 
5.08 (.14) 5.49 (.16) 
&& Serious 
2.73 (.14) 3.72 (.14) 
5.58 (.15) 4.99 (.15) 
Banner Pop-up 
3.36 (.14) 3.09 (.13) 
4.78 (.15) 5.79 (.14) 
3.23 (.14) 3.22 (.14) 
5.41 (.15) 5.15 (.15) 
only, whereas H2 that predicted the effects of silly ads on heightened 
newsworthiness and quality evaluations of soft news stories received no 
support in this study. Alternately, H3 that examined the effects of Internet 
experience on news perceptions obtained partial support, with the expect- 
ed effects obtained only for hard news stories among light Internet users. 
Ad perception items were subjected to an 
exploratory principal components analysis with varimax rotation that 
yielded two factors: professionalism and inappropriateness. Profession- 
alism was composed of three items (professional, credible, and trustwor- 
thy; alpha = .87), and inappropriateness was composed of three items 
(distracting, irritating, and inappropriate; alpha = .75). Table 3 reports the 
factor loadings for the ad perception items. Scales for both factors were 
computed by averaging the scores of the items that loaded highly on a 
given factor. Consequently, scores could range from 1 to 7. 
A 2 (Story Type) x 2 (Seriousness of Ad) x 2 (Ad Format) x 2 (Internet 
Use) general linear multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was 
employed to examine viewers’ ad perceptions. This analysis revealed sig- 
nificant multivariate main effects for story type, seriousness of ad, and ad 
format. For story type, Wilks’ A = .94, F(2,147) = 4.34, p < .05; for serious- 
ness of ad, Wilks’ A = .85, F(2, 147) = 13.46, p < .001; and for ad format, 
Wilks’ A = 37, F(2,147) = 11.44, p < .001. Table 4 reports the results of uni- 
variate tests for each main effect, illustrating that participants rated the 
ads in soft news stories as more professional than the ads in hard news 
Ad Perceptions. 
JOURNALISM b MASS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY 
~~ 
 at CAPES on April 16, 2016jmq.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
TABLE 5 
Perceived Professionalism of Ad: Seriousness of A d x A d Format 
Ad Format 
Seriousness of Ad 
Silly M (SE) 
Banner Pop-up 
3.05 (.20), 2.41 ( . 1 9 ) a 
Serious M (SE) 3.67 (20) 3.76 (.18) 
Nofe: Within rows, means with no lower case subscript in common differ at p i .05 using Student- 
Newman-Keuls tests. 
stories, rated the serious ads as more professional than the silly ads, and 
rated the pop-up ads as more inappropriate than the banner ads. 
In addition to main effects, this analysis also revealed a Seriousness 
of Ad x Ad Format interaction, with Wilks’ A = .96, F(2,147) = 3.40, p < .05. 
An examination of the univariate results revealed no significant interac- 
tion for inappropriateness, with F(l, 148) = 1.16, p = .28, but a marginally 
significant interaction for professionalism, with F(l, 148) = 3.63, p = .06. 
Table 5 reports the means associated with this interaction, illustrating that 
whereas ad format had no discernable effect on perceptions of the serious 
ads, silly ads that were pop-ups were rated as significantly less profes- 
sional than were silly ads that were banners. 
Finally, this analysis revealed a Story Type x Seriousness of Ad x 
Internet Use interaction, with Wilks’ A = .95, F(2, 147) = 3.49, p < .05. An 
examination of the univariate results revealed no significant interaction 
for ad inappropriateness, with F(l, 148) = 1.39, p = .24, but a marginally 
significant interaction for professionalism, with F(l, 148) = 3.48, p = .06. 
Table 6 reports the means associated with the interaction for professional- 
ism. As in the news perceptions analysis, the effect of Story Type on per- 
ceived professionalism was evident only among light Internet users in the 
silly ad condition. Among these participants, silly ads presented with soft 
news were rated as significantly more professional than were silly ads 
presented with hard news. - ~ ~ _ _ _ _ ~~~ - - -~ 
Do perceptions of online news stories vary as a function of the pres- Discussion 
ence or seriousness of online advertising? Do the effects of online adver- 
tising on perceptions of news stories vary as a function of Internet use 
(light versus heavy)? Given the differences in both viewer experience and 
presentation styles between television news and online news, this study 
tried to explore Postman’s arguments and to extend Biocca et al.’s 
research to the context of online news. AlthoughBiocca et al. failed to 
show unambiguous effects of television commercials on news percep- 
tions, this study provided evidence for Postman’s arguments in the con- 
743 -~ EXPLORING THE EFFECTS OF ONLINE ADVERTISING O N READERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF O N L I N E NEWS _ _ _ -. . _ _ _ _ _ ~ - . 
 at CAPES on April 16, 2016jmq.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
___ ~ _ _ ~~~~~ __ 
TABLE 6 
Perceived Professionalism of Ad: Story Type x Seriousness of Ad x lnternet Use 
Storv Type 
Seriousness of Ad Internet Use Soft Hard 
~ ~- ~ 
Silly Light M (SE) 3.51 (.28)b 2.43 (.27), 
Heavy M (SE) 2.57 (.27) 2.42 (.29) 
Serious Light M (SE) 3.59 (.23) 3.40 (.30) 
Heavy M (SE) 4.29 (.25) 3.58 (.30) 
Note: Within rows, means with no lower case subscript in common differ at p i .05 using Student- 
Newman-Keuls tests. 
~ ~~ 
text of online news.19 Advertising interruptions can have a negative 
impact on perceptions of news, though only for some users. Specifically, 
light Internet users exposed to ads (and particularly silly ads) tended to 
perceive hard news stories as less newsworthy. Additionally, among light 
Internet users, advertisements embedded in hard news stories were per- 
ceived as significantly less professional than were advertisements embed- 
ded in soft news stories. 
The findings have practical implications for both news providers 
and advertisers. Insofar as advertising may lead to inappropriate charac- 
terizations of serious or hard news content, online newspapers may be 
well advised to place advertisements in separate sections than those that 
feature important and serious news content. Similarly, insofar as silly ads 
are perceived as particularly inappropriate when paired with serious 
news, advertisers of products that depend on humorous strategies may 
opt to have their advertisements placed in news sections that feature soft 
news or other content that is of a less serious tone. 
In addition, findings of this study may also raise concerns over how 
news stories are selected and covered in news organizations. If advertis- 
ers begin to recognize that silly or trivial ads are perceived more negative- 
ly when paired with serious or important news, greater pressure may be 
exerted on news agencies to include more soft news or human interest 
stories that are more amenable to advertisers’ interests. As Gunter point- 
ed out, although online news providers must produce attractive sites that 
will appeal as much to advertisers as to readers, this business strategy 
may lead to concern for the quality of online journalism.2o 
The difference between light and heavy Internet users in avoiding 
advertising raises another concern. The fact that inexperienced Internet 
users are less adept at avoiding online advertising and more influenced 
by advertising in their perceptions of news stories than are experienced 
users may affect the future of the Internet as a news medium. That is, 
 at CAPES on April 16, 2016jmq.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
novice users' inability to ignore Internet advertising or their aggravation 
with commercialization may lead them to avoid the Internet for news 
information. 
More important, though, the combination of advertising and news 
content on the Internet may have implications that go beyond just percep- 
tions of news stories themselves. One concern is that the combination of 
online news and advertising may ultimately have effects on viewers' per- 
ceptions of issues. For example, if viewers perceive news stories as lack- 
ing news value when paired with silly online advertising, this may imply 
that the issues themselves are less important. Commercialization of the 
Internet may make the medium another culprit in trivializing important 
and serious information and discourse in society. 
Despite general support for the hypothesized effects of advertising 
on news perceptions, there are several limitations that deserve considera- 
tion. First, this study did not consider source effects; i.e., the same ficti- 
tious Web news company and masthead were employed across experi- 
mental conditions. However, source-related variables (e.g., source credi- 
bility, source reputation, etc.) are obviously critical factors in message per- 
ceptions. For example, research has shown that messages from high-cred- 
ibility sources are generally more readily accepted by consumers and 
encourage greater attitude change than do messages from low-credibility 
sources.Z1 Consequently, future research that examines the effects of 
advertising on news perceptions could incorporate different sources as 
another variable. 
Second, although the current study intended to explore perceived 
credibility of news stories as a function of the presence or seriousness of 
online advertising, it should be noted that perceived credibility of source 
may also vary as a function of online ads. For example, news readers 
exposed to unwanted, bothersome ads in a news site may evaluate the 
news site or news organization more negatively than do news readers 
who are not distracted by advertising. As such, future research might 
want to explore how various online ads affect the perceived credibility of 
the online news sites or organizations per se, in addition to perceived 
credibility of the stories themselves. 
Third, this study employed college students as online news readers, 
separating them into high- and low-experience groups. However, college 
students likely have more expertise in Internet use than does the general 
population. Consequently, the low-experience group may differ from 
low-experience groups in the population of Internet users. Future 
research that employs noncollege samples may find more pronounced 
effects than those obtained here. 
Finally, while the procedures used in the data-collection process 
maximized natural Internet-use settings by allowing users to participate 
in the setting and the time of their choosing, such a procedure clearly 
involves loss of some experimental control. That is, because researchers 
were not present with the participants during their viewing of the stimu- 
lus materials and their completion of the questionnaire, there is no way to 
discern the types of distractions that may or may not have been present. 
Of course, although there are no a priori reasons to suspect that such dis- 
EXPLORING THE EFFECTS OF O N L I N E ADVERTISING O N R E A D E R S ' P E R C E P T ~ O N S OF ONLINE NEWS 745 
~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ 
 at CAPES on April 16, 2016jmq.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
tractions or other variations differed systematically between experimen- 
tal conditions, such variations do introduce “noise” or additional error 
variance. Consequently, future research that examines similar effects in a 
more controlled environment may find stronger effects than those 
obtained here, though sacrificing the extent to which such effects can be 
generalized to more natural Internet-use situations. 
In spite of these limitations, this study suggests that people’s per- 
ception of online advertisements and news stories can have mutual 
impact on each other. Considering the rapid development in online 
advertising techniques, the reciprocal effects between advertising and 
news could open a new research avenue for both advertising and journal- 
ism. In particular, the time is ripe for journalism researchers to think seri- 
ously about the role of the Internet as a news medium, as we witness 
more and more that, in cyberspace, news information runs the risk of giv- 
ing way to commercial messages and being packaged as entertainment. 
NOTES 
1. Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age 
of Show Business (NY Penguin, 1986). 
2. Frank Biocca, Prabu David, Adrienne Dion, Sabrina Goodson, 
Michele Lashley, and Hong-Im Tan, ”The Effect of Commercials on 
Memory and PerceivedImportance of Television News,” Mass Comm 
Review 19 (1992): 14-20. 
3. See, for example, V. Carter Broach, Jr., Thomas J. Page, Jr., and R. 
Dale Wilson, ”Television Programming and Its Influence on Viewers’ 
Perceptions of Commercials: The Role of Program Arousal and 
Pleasantness,” Journal of Advertising 24 (winter 1989): 45-54; Paul M. Herr, 
”Priming Price: Prior Knowledge and Context Effects,” Journal of 
Consumer Research 16 (June 1989): 67-75; E. Tory Higgins and Gillian A. 
King, ”Accessibility of Social Constructs: Information Processing 
Consequences of Individual and Contextual Variability” in Personality, 
Cognition, and Social Interaction, ed. Nancy Cantor and John F. Kihlstrom 
(Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1981), 69-122; Claire E. Norris and 
Andrew M. Colman, ”Context Effects on Memory for Television 
Advertisements,” Social Behavior and Personality 21 (1993): 279-96; Claire E. 
Norris and Andrew M. Colman, ”Effects of Entertainment and Enjoyment 
of Television Programs on Perception and Memory of Advertisements,” 
Social Behavior and Personality 22 (1994): 365-76; Christopher P. Puto, “The 
Framing of Buying Decisions,” Journal of Consumer Research 14 (December 
1987): 301-316; Gerald E. Smith, ”Framing in Advertising and the 
Moderating Impact of Consumer Education,” Journal of Advertising 
Research 36 (September /October 1996): 49-64; and Arch G. Woodside and 
Alan E. Singer, ”Social Interaction Effects in the Framing of Buying 
Decisions,” Psychology €+ Marketing 11 Oanuary / February 1994): 27-35. 
4. Yih Hwai Lee and Charlotte Mason, ”Responses to Information 
Incongruency in Advertising: The Role of Expectancy, Relevancy and 
Humor,” Journal of Consumer Research 26 (September 1999): 156-69; 
746 / O U R N A L I S M 6 M A S ? COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY 
~~~~ 
 at CAPES on April 16, 2016jmq.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
Gabriele S. Haberland and Peter A. Dacin, "The Development of a 
Measure to Assess Viewers' Judgments of the Creativity of an 
Advertisement," in Advances in Consumer Research 19, ed. J. F. Sherry Jr. 
and B. Sternthal (Provo, U T Association for Consumer Research, 1992): 
5. David W. Stewart and Scott Ward, "Media Effects on Advertising," 
in Media EfJects, ed. Jennings Bryant and Dolf Zillmann (Hillsdale, NJ: 
Lawrence Erlbaum, 1994), 315-63. For examples of studies exploring the 
effects of ads on viewers' perceptions or attitudes about media content, 
see Stephen D. Perry, "Commercial Humor Enhancement of Program 
Enjoyment: Gender and Program Appeal as Mitigating Factors," Muss 
Communication G. Society 4 (winter 2001): 103-116; Stephen D. Perry, Stefan 
A. Jenzowsky, Joe Bob Hester, Cynthia M. King, and Huiuk Yi, "The 
Influence of Commercial Humor on Program Enjoyment and 
Evaluation," Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 74 (summer 
6. Arjun Chaudhuri and Ross Buck, "Affect, Reason, and Persuasion: 
Advertising Strategies That Predict Affective and Analytic-Cognitive 
Responses," Human Communication Research 21 (March 1995): 422-41. 
7. Barrie Gunter, Poor Reception: Misunderstanding and Forgetting 
Broadcast News (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1987). 
8. Biocca et al., "The Effect of Commercials." 
9. Jan Panero Benway and David M. Lane, "Banner Blindness: Web 
Searchers Often Miss Obvious Links," In ternetworking, 5 December 1998, 
(26 January 2002). thttp:/ /www.internettg.org/newsletter/dec98/ban- 
ner-blindness.htmb. 
10. Xavier Dreze and Francois-Xavier Hussherr, "Internet Advertising: 
Is Anybody Watching?" <http: / /www.xdreze.org /Publications /internet 
- advertising-3.l.pdk. 
11. Micael Dahlen, Ylva Ekborn, and Natalia Momer, "To Click or Not 
to Click An Empirical Study of Response to Banner Ads for High and 
Low Involvement Products," Consumption, Markets and Culture 4 
(November 2000): 1-20. 
12. It should be noted that it is impossible to analyze the effects of both 
Seriousness of Ad and Ad Format on news perceptions because the con- 
trol condition contained no ads, whereas it is possible to analyze the 
effects of both variables on ad perceptions because the control condition 
that contained no ads is not included during the analysis. Consequently, 
the factor of Ad Format will not be included in news perception analysis, 
whereas it will be included in ad perception analysis as a factor along 
with other factors including Seriousness of Ad. 
13. The JavaScript employed for the random assignment was the 
"Math.random()" method. Assignment to experimental conditions was 
fairly evenly distributed using the method. For example, among 260 par- 
ticipants, 123 (47.3%) were assigned to the hard news condition, whereas 
137 (52.7%) were assigned to the soft news condition. In addition, 82 
(31.5%) were assigned to the silly ad condition, 83 (31.9%) were assigned 
to the serious ad condition, and 95 (36.5%) were assigned to the no ad 
condition. 
81 7-825. 
1997): 388-99. 
747 
~~ ~~ - ~~ E X P L O R I N G T H t EFFECTS OF O N L I N E ADVtRTISINC: O N READERS' PERCEPTIONS 01- O N L l N t NEWS 
 at CAPES on April 16, 2016jmq.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
14. Although Biocca et al. ("The Effect of Commercials") were interest- 
ed in the effects of "humorous" commercials on news perceptions, the 
current study employed the term "silly" rather than "humorous" to 
describe the online ads. Considering the general nature of online adver- 
tising, whose main strategy is to grab users' attention using image ele- 
ments rather than to provide story plots, the adjective of "silly" rather 
than "humorous" appears appropriate for online ads. 
15. The manipulation of "Seriousness of A d (silly versus serious) con- 
ceptually includes not only what ad appeal techniques are used but also 
what brands are advertised. Although advertised brands are not identical 
across silly and serious conditions, those different brands should not be 
understood as a confounding variable because this study is not interested 
in the separate effects of ad appeal techniques or brands advertised per se. 
In other words, there is no theoretical need for this study to specify two 
different variables (i.e., ad appeal techniques and brands advertised) con- 
sidering the main purpose of the current study. 
16. It is impossible to articulate the exact size of the ads in absolute 
dimensions (e.g., inches) because a pixel is a purely relative measurement. 
That is, the size of the ads (300 x 250 pixels) may be seen in a variety of 
sizes in inches according to monitor resolution settings. In a typical reso- 
lution of 1,024 x 768 pixels on a 17-inch monitor, the size corresponds to 
approximately 3.5 x 3 inches. 
17. S. Shy am Sundar, "Exploring Receivers' Criteria for Perception of 
Print and Online News," lournalism €+ Mass Communication Quarterly 76 
(summer 1999): 373-86. 
18. It is impossible to analyze both Ad Format and Seriousness of Ad 
in the same analysis given that the control condition contained no ads. 
Given that the purpose of this research was to extend prior studies that 
have examined the valence of ads (rather than their format), the present 
study opted to focus attention on Seriousness of Ad (silly or serious) 
rather than the Ad Format (banner or pop-up). However, it is possible to 
explore the effects of Ad Format (banner or pop-up), instead of 
Seriousness of Ad (silly or serious), using a 2 (Story Type) x 3 (Ad Format) 
x 2 (Internet Use) MANOVA. As with the previous analysis focusing on 
Seriousness of Ad, this alternative analysis also revealed a significant 
multivariate Story Type x Ad Format x Internet Use interaction, Wilks' A 
= .93, F(6, 490) = 2.97, p < .01. An examination of the univariate results 
revealed significant interactions for both ratings of news value and cred- 
ibility: news value: F(2, 247) = 7.51, p < .001; credibility: F(2, 247) = 3.84, p< .05. As in the previous analysis, for ratings of news value, ad inclusion 
had no effect on ratings of the soft news stories. In contrast, for the hard 
news stories, the inclusion of advertising (and particularly banner adver- 
tising) resulted in lower news value ratings, but only among the light 
Internet users (No Ads: M = 5.60, SE = .18; Banner: M = 4.80, SE = .23; Pop- 
up: M = 4.96, SE = .18). For heavy internet users, the inclusion of advertis- 
ing had no appreciable effect on ratings of the hard news stories. Similar 
patterns were observed for ratings of credibility among light Internet 
users in the hard news condition (No Ads: M = 5.14, SE = .18; Banner: M 
= 4.53, SE = .24; POP-UP: M = 4.83, SE = .18). 
~ O U R N A L I S M 6 MASS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY 
~~~ ~~~ ~ . _ _ 
 at CAPES on April 16, 2016jmq.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
19. Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death; Biocca et al., ”The Effect of 
Commercials.” 
20. Barrie Gunter, News and the Net (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 
2003), 50-51. 
21. See, for example, Robert R. Harmon and Kenneth A. Coney, “The 
Persuasive Effects of Source Credibility in Buy and Lease Situations,” 
Journal of Marketing Research 19 (May 1982): 255-60; Brian Sternthal, Ruby 
Dholakia, and Clark Leavitt, ”The Persuasive Effect of Source Credibility: 
A Test of Cognitive Response Analysis,” Journal of Consumer Research 4 
(March 1978): 252-60; and Brian Sternthal, Lynn W. Philips, and Ruby 
Dholakia, ”The Persuasive Effect of Source Credibility: A Statistical 
Analysis,” Public Opinion Quarferly 42 (fall 1978): 285-314. 
E X P L O R I N G T H E EFFKTS a& O N L I N E ADVERTISING ON RLADERS’ P E R ~ L P T I O N ~ OF ONLINE Ntws 
~~~ ~ ~~ ~ 
 at CAPES on April 16, 2016jmq.sagepub.comDownloaded from