Internet media personality: scale development and advertising ...

This article was downloaded by: [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] On: 08 July 2015, At: 15:01 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG

International Journal of Advertising: The Review of Marketing Communications Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rina20

Internet media personality: scale development and advertising implications a

Chang-Dae Ham & Hyung-Seok Lee

b

a

Charles H. Sandage Department of Advertising, University of Illinois, Urbana, USA b

Click for updates

Department of Advertising and Public Relations, Hanyang University, Ansan, Korea Published online: 02 Feb 2015.

To cite this article: Chang-Dae Ham & Hyung-Seok Lee (2015) Internet media personality: scale development and advertising implications, International Journal of Advertising: The Review of Marketing Communications, 34:2, 327-349 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2014.996195

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 15:01 08 July 2015

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

International Journal of Advertising, 2015 Vol. 34, No. 2, 327 349, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2014.996195

Internet media personality: scale development and advertising implications Chang-Dae Hama and Hyung-Seok Leeb*


a

Charles H. Sandage Department of Advertising, University of Illinois, Urbana, USA; bDepartment of Advertising and Public Relations, Hanyang University, Ansan, Korea (Received 9 January 2012; accepted 4 December 2014) This study explores the personality of Internet media and develops a multidimensional measurement scale to assess personality across diverse entities, including social networking sites, search engines, portals, and shopping sites. Through a series of qualitative and quantitative methods, including exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis, the present study identifies a set of 30 personality traits that represent five unique dimensions of Internet media personality: Intelligent, Amusing, Convenient, Sociable, and Confusing. This study found that different pairs of brand and Internet media personality dimensions yield different effects on attitude toward advertising brands. Practical implications for marketers and advertisers, as well as theoretical implications for advertising researchers, are discussed. Keywords: Internet media; media personality; brand personality; scale development; pairing effects

Introduction The digital revolution has brought tremendous changes to the advertising media environment. Internet media, also known as digital, online, or interactive media, has been at the centre of this digital transformation in advertising. As former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Microsoft Steve Ballmer claimed, ‘offline advertising will all be online within 10 years’ (Wall Street Journal 2008, B1). This statement suggests a paradigm shift in the advertising media market from print and broadcasting to Internet media. An increasing number of people read newspapers, watch television, and talk with friends and family through various Internet-based services (Mulhern 2009). Internet advertising expenditures have been continually growing, reaching $9.6 billion in the first quarter of 2013 (Internet Advertising Bureau 2013). Compared to $8.3 billion in the first quarter of 2012, this represents a 15.6% increase (Internet Advertising Bureau 2013). Internet advertising revenues surpassed those of newspapers in 2010, and the Internet has become the second largest revenue-generating advertisement medium after television (Gobry 2011). Internet media companies operate in competitive environments in which many startups launch new online services. At the same time, other companies have disappeared from the market. Twitter, Instagram, and Pinterest, for example, have become leading players within a few years of launching, while many leading Internet companies such as AltaVista and Lycos have disappeared. Such a highly competitive and rapidly changing environment requires media companies to successfully manage their brand image to distinguish themselves from competitors. Advertising is a critical factor in the success of *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] Ó 2015 Advertising Association


328

C.-D. Ham and H.-S. Lee

Internet companies; for example, 96% of Google’s revenue in 2011 was generated from advertising (Google 2010). Given that advertising revenue depends on the number, duration, and frequency of user visits, it is critical to create distinctive brand images that attract people to consistently use the medium instead of switching to competitors. As a critical element of brand image, media personality is an indispensable element used to ensure the success of the Internet media business. Marketers and advertising practitioners should recognize the importance of Internet media personality because brand placement or sponsorship marketing on contextually matched media leads to better attitudes, brand recall, credibility, and purchase decisions (e.g., D.A. Aaker and Brown 1972; Dahlen 2005; De Pelsmacker, Geuens and Anckaert 2002; Lee and Cho 2009; Sirgy 1982, 1985; Slabbinck and Roozen 2008). For instance, personality congruence between a sponsoring brand and a sporting event is positively related to individual attitudes towards the sponsoring brand, and is the most significant factor that affects attitudes (Lee and Cho 2009). People are more likely to accept advertising or sponsorship messages when the personality of a medium is contextually congruent with the brand. This strategy is imperative to help advertisers and brand marketers place their brand messages or sponsor-partnerships on the most contextually appropriate and effective medium. The identification of distinctive Internet media personality traits can help foster meaningful and consistent relationships between consumers and brands. However, few studies have examined the underlying dimensions of Internet media personality to identify their unique characteristics. Changes in Internet media usage may have made some of these earlier efforts obsolete. Thus, it is necessary to explore the personality of Internet media to discern distinctive personality dimensions. The purposes of this study are to explore the nature of Internet media personality dimensions and to develop a measurement scale for personality traits.

Literature review Human and brand personality Brand personality refers to ‘the set of human characteristics associated with a brand’ (J.L. Aaker 1997, 347). Through the symbolic use of brands, consumers imbue brands with human characteristics (J.L. Aaker 1997; Brown 1991; d’Astous and Lévesque 2003; Fournier 1998; Plummer 1985). Consumers view a brand as a person with whom they might want to build a relationship (J.L. Aaker 1997; Batra, Lehmann and Singh, 1993; Blackston 2000), and they can easily view a brand as having a distinct personality (Sweeny and Brandon 2006). Consumers view Coca-Cola as more ‘cool, all-American, and real,’ while Pepsi is viewed as more ‘young, exciting, and hip,’ and Dr. Pepper is viewed as more ‘nonconforming, unique, and fun’ (J.L. Aaker 1997, 348). The personality associated with a brand goes beyond basic functional product-related attributes. Consumers buy a product not only for its utilitarian value but for hedonic benefits as well. In contrast to attribute-based consumption that may serve consumers’ utilitarian needs, brand personality plays a role in satisfying consumers’ symbolic and selfexpressive desires (Keller 1993, 2003). Studies also found that when a brand personality distinctively and consistently describes a consumer’s actual and ideal self, they are more likely to prefer the brand because they tend to perceive it as consistent with their self (e.g., Malhotra 1981; Sirgy 1982). During the last two decades, researchers have tried to determine whether the Big Five human personality scale is applicable to brands. They have argued that brand personality


International Journal of Advertising

329

should be different from human personality because human personality traits are typically based on attitudes, dispositions, behaviours, and physical characteristics, while brand personality traits are mostly formed through consumers’ indirect or direct experience with the brand (J.L. Aaker 1997; Park 1986; Plummer 1985). Typically, researchers have found that personality could not be replicated, and that brands have their own distinctive personality trait dimensions (J.L. Aaker, 1997; Batra, Lehmann, and Singh, 1993; Caprara, Barbaranelli, and Guido, 2001; Levy 1959; Martineau 1958; Plummer 1985). The best-known effort to develop a scale to assess brand personality was performed by J.L. Aaker (1997). She developed a 42-item brand personality scale with five dimensions: ‘sincerity,’ ‘excitement,’ ‘competence,’ ‘sophistication,’ and ‘ruggedness.’ She argued that brand personality should be differentiated from human personality. Media brand personality Since J.L. Aaker (1997) developed the five original dimensions of brand personality, a number of studies have applied brand personality to other areas such as culture (J.L. Aaker, Benet-Martinez, and Garolera 2001; Y. Sung and Tinkham 2005), non-profit organizations (Venable et al. 2005), corporate social responsibility (Ragas and Roberts 2009), universities (M. Sung andYang 2008), tourism destinations (Ekinci and Hosany 2006), and sporting events (Lee and Cho 2009, 2012). Each study developed its own distinctive personality construct or modified J.L. Aaker’s personality measurement scale by considering the unique elements of the specific category. The concept of a brand personality scale extends to the area of mass media because many programmes are considered brands themselves. Because a programme is planned, packaged, and delivered in a different way depending on the mass media organization, it is plausible to apply the brand personality construct to mass media. For example, the personality of a broadcasting news programme is often characterized by its host’s personality (McDowell 2004). Media brand personality is also closely associated with audience profiles. The FOX news audience tends to prefer entertainment-oriented news, whereas CNN news viewers prefer news stories with more in-depth interviews (Morris 2005). Chan-Olmsted and Cha (2007) studied news media brand personalities and identified three distinctive personality dimensions (competence, timeliness, and dynamism) for six major television news brands (i.e., ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, MSNBC, CNN, and FOX News). They demonstrated that the media personality of network television news differed from that of cable network news. The audience’s prior perceptions of a television network influenced their opinions of its news media personality, which in turn affected their attitude towards, usage of, and loyalty to the news media (Chan-Olmsted and Cha 2008). Kim, Baek, and Martin (2010) recently developed news media personality dimensions by examining 16 national and three local news media brands, including TIME, New York Times, CNN, and PBS. They identified 48 news media personality traits and developed five personality dimensions of news media (trustworthiness, dynamism, sincerity, sophistication, and toughness). Interestingly, they found a slight difference between print and television news media personality. They concluded that the personality of a television news host is the main determinant of television news personality, whereas writing style is the main determinant of print news media personality. The five news media personality dimensions differ from those of Chan-Omsted and Cha (2010) by including multiple news media types rather than only television news. Although Kim et al. (2010) examined a variety of different news media, they did not examine Internet-based news media (e.g., CNN.com, FOXnews.com, MSNBC.com), which might have different personality traits.

330


Development: Internet media personality (IMP)


J.L. Aaker’s (1997) personality construct has been widely applied to understand and develop traditional media personalities, particularly news media brands. Despite its increasing importance, few studies have identified the unique personalities of Internet media. Many previous brand personality studies have created measures unique to a specific application rather than relying on J.L. Aaker’s (1997) general brand personality scale. This strategy was deemed appropriate here because in J.L. Aaker’s scale, primarily positively valenced traits were used because brands typically are linked to positive (versus negative) associations because the ultimate use of the scale is to determine the extent to which brand personality affects the probability that consumers will approach (versus avoid) products. (J.L. Aaker 1997, 350).

In agreement with J.L. Aaker (1997), Kim et al. (2010) intentionally did not include negative traits in their study because they were focusing on personality traits that cause consumers to approach (vs. avoid) brands. However, it is possible that negative personality traits impact advertisements on Internet media. Internet-based advertising makes use of the medium’s technological functions (e.g., cookies). Negative perceptions of media may transfer to the advertisements. For instance, website users can form negative perceptions about an advertisement and brand when they recognize they have been selected because of their personally identifiable information (PII). Such a perception may negatively influence the impact of the advertisement by provoking significant concerns about privacy, leading to greater skepticism and avoidance of advertisements (Baek and Morimoto 2010). Internet companies such as Google and Amazon are known to track the online behaviour of their users for marketing purposes (McDonald and Cranor 2010). Using cookie data, Internet advertising companies provide tailored messages to web users even though this can be perceived as a violation of personal privacy (Miyazaki 2008). In addition, rapidly changing digital technology applications sometimes confuse and overwhelm customers. For these reasons, a personality construct that includes negative attributes is considered necessary for determining Internet media personality. Previous studies have examined media-based personality. As mentioned, Kim, Baek, and Martin (2010) looked at news media personality across television (e.g., CNN), newspapers (e.g., New York Times), and magazines (e.g., TIME). However, they did not examine Internet news media such as CNN.com, NYTimes.com, and TIME.com. Chen and Rodgers (2006) developed the website personality scale (WPS) and identified five personality dimensions (intelligent, fun, organized, candid, and sincere) with 39 traits regarding corporate-owned websites. They recognized that corporate websites play a key role in developing and managing relationships with existing and potential customers. When the WPS was developed in 2006, many significant Internet sites had not been launched or had not reached a critical mass of users. Twitter was launched in 2006, Facebook launched its all-age version in September 2006, YouTube was launched in November 2005, Hulu.com was launched in March 2008, and Bing.com was launched in May 2009. These sites currently represent a large degree of Internet media usage. Given the recent technological advances in Internet media, it is imperative to develop a new comprehensive Internet media personality scale. For these reasons, a more up-to-date Internet media personality measurement scale has been developed here. This study conducted several validity tests to enhance its applicability. Given that Internet media is an indispensable aspect of contemporary advertising


331

and marketing, it is imperative to identify the dimensions of Internet media personality. The present study poses the following research question:


RQ 1: What are the dimensions of Internet media personalities? Previous studies proposed that media context is an important element in advertising and branding effectiveness. For example, a certain media characteristic may be more appropriate for some types of advertising than others (Dahlen 2005; DePelsmacker, Geuens and Anckaert 2002; Lee and Cho 2009; Perry et al. 1997). This includes not only cognitive congruence but also congruence between the medium and brand (e.g., Assmus 1978; Coulter 1998; Goldberg and Gorn 1987; Lord, Burnkrant, and Unnava 2001; Till and Busler 2000). The ad-media congruity effect also applies to online contexts, and congruity between a webpage and web ad increases advertising effectiveness (Janssens, DePelsmaker, and Geuens 2012; Müller 2008; Yang and Chen 2007). Studies have proposed that the personality of an online medium influences consumer attitudes toward the online brand through an image transfer process. Consumers use the perceived personality of an Internet medium to infer brand personality-related information about online ads (Yang and Chen 2007). Earlier research has investigated the paired effect of brand and media personality dimension in the context of sporting event sponsorship. The study found that when a certain brand personality dimension was paired with a sporting event personality dimension, the sponsoring brand was more favoured than with other pairs of personality dimensions (Lee and Cho 2009). The ‘sincerity’ brand personality dimension and ‘diligence’ sporting event personality dimension resulted in the most favoured attitude toward the sponsoring brand. The ‘sincerity’ brand personality dimension and ‘uninhibitedness’ sporting event dimension resulted in negative attitudes toward the sponsoring brand (Lee and Cho 2009). Accordingly, the following research question was generated: RQ 2: Which pairs of brand and Internet media personality dimensions have a stronger effect on attitude toward the advertising brand? Study 1: method To examine both research questions, two studies were conducted. In study 1, an Internet media personality was constructed. Using the results of study 1, the pairing effect of Internet media with brand personality was examined in study 2. To construct an Internet media personality (RQ1), a comprehensive list of Internet media brand personality traits was first identified. The identification procedure was executed following that of J.L. Aaker (1997), but was modified for Internet media. Before this process, two surveys were conducted to run exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in study 1. Generation of Internet media personality traits To develop a set of comprehensive personality traits representing all aspects of Internet media, this study followed a two-step process: (1) generation of a list of Internet media personality traits, and (2) purification of the traits. Generation of initial Internet media personality traits Two criteria were applied to generate a set of initial Internet media for this study, largely following J.L. Aaker’s (1997) procedure. A total of 389 personality traits were collected


332


through an extensive review of the literature on human personality, brand personality, news media brand personality, store brand personality, and website personality (J.L. Aaker 1997; Caprara, Barbaranelli, and Guido 2001; Chan-Olmsted and Cha 2007, 2008; Chen and Rodgers 2006; d’Astous and Lévesque 2003; Gwinner and Eaton 1999; John 1990; Malhotra 1981; McCrae and Costa 1989; Mount, Barrick, and Strauss 1994; Norman 1963; Piedmont, McCrae, and Costa 1991; Plummer 1985; Saucier 1994; Sweeney and Brandon 2006; Trapnell and Wiggins 1990; van Rekom, Jacobs and Verlegh 2006; Wells et al. 1957; Wiggins 1979). To capture unique personality traits closely related to Internet media brand, a free-association test was administered to a group of 32 undergraduate students (63.5% female, mean age D 21). All participants were asked to list any personality traits or associations that first came to mind when they thought of Internet media in general. They were then asked the same free-association question about the top 30 Internet companies from an index of the top Internet media in the US from Alexa.com (2010) and Nielsen online topline data (Nielsen Online 2010). After eliminating 62 duplicates using online synonym finders, a total of 399 provisional personality traits were generated through this procedure. Purification of personality traits Following Aaker (1997), the second step involved purification of the initial 399 personality traits to a manageable number for the final questionnaire. A convenience sample of 48 undergraduate students who had not participated in the previous test was recruited to identify unique personality traits that are particularly relevant to Internet media (68% female, mean age D 22). College students were invited for this process because they are the heaviest users of Internet media. Participants were told: ‘This study is not about any specific Internet medium; thus, try to think of as many different types of Internet media as possible in various categories, such as news, portals, search engines, shopping, and social networking sites, when you evaluate each trait.’ They were then asked to indicate the degree to which they thought each trait described Internet media in general, on a scale ranging from 1 (‘not at all descriptive’) to 7 (‘extremely descriptive’). The mean value for traits was 4.14, and a cut-off value of 5 was established for inclusion in the study. This yielded a final list of 67 personality traits (Table 1). Selection of Internet media sample A two-step procedure was applied to select a representative set of traits for the final instrument. First, the 30 most frequently visited Internet media were chosen based on an index of the top sites in the US from Alexa.com (2010) and Nielsen online topline data (Nielsen Online 2010). According to Internet traffic data analysis (Nielsen Online 2011), the most active Internet users in the US can be reached by targeting the top-ranking Internet media (e.g., 83.4% by Google, 73.5% by Facebook). Typically, Internet users visit a limited number of Internet sites daily. Advertising industry reports have indicated that 71% of all Internet advertising revenue was generated from the top 10 Internet media in 2009, while 82% of Internet advertising revenue was generated from the top 25 Internet media (Internet Advertising Bureau 2009). This concentrated revenue pattern has been consistent throughout the last decade. Thus, the top 30 Internet media are representative of Internet media use in general, and this list is appropriate for the purposes of the present study. In the second stage, three Internet advertising experts (an advertising professor who teaches digital advertising, and two digital advertising industry experts) excluded Internet


333

Table 1. Final 67 Internet media personality traits for exploratory factor analysis.


Internet media personality traits Accessible Achievement Active Alerting Appealing Attractive Awesome Busy Changeable Cluttered Colorful Communicative

Competent Complex Comprehensive Concise Confident Confusing Convenient Conversational Cooperative Creative Dramatic Easy

Efficient Emotional Energetic Enjoyable Entertaining Exciting Exploitative Expressive Fast Favorable Flashy Fun

Helpful Imaginative Informational Innovative Intelligent Interactive Interesting Irritating Knowledgeable Modern Multi-cultural Overwhelming

Popular Powerful Practical Real Reliable Searchable Showy Social Networking Sophisticated Straightforward Strategic

Structured Successful Technical Useful Valuable Various Youthful

media that were not considered appropriate for a broad range of advertised brands. A final set of 17 Internet media were selected as the target stimuli (Table 2).

Categorization of Internet media sample To reduce the response bias that potentially occurs with long survey questionnaires, the 17 selected Internet media were placed into one of four stimulus groups (Table 2). Groups were formed by carefully considering each medium’s basic service category (e.g., social network media, news media, and portal sites) to avoid allocating similar media within a particular category to any given group. For example, Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter were allocated to different groups. Thus, 16 Internet media were divided into four groups (four media per group). Google.com was added to all four groups. This provided a common reference to ensure that there were no differences solely due to participant heterogeneity (J.L. Aaker 1997). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) results showed no statistically significant differences for the mean rating of Google.com across four groups who rated 67 personality traits on a 7-point semantic differential scale (1 D not at all descriptive, 7 D extremely descriptive). For example, there was no mean difference in the ‘accessible’ personality trait across the four groups (group 1: M D 5.74; group 2: M D 5.98; group 3: M D 5.16; group 4: M D 5.72; F (3, 198) D 1.84, p > 0.05). All other comparisons of the 67 traits regarding Google.com indicated that there were no differences solely due to the heterogeneity of the 4 groups. Table 2. Four Internet media groups for personality evaluation (17 sites). Groups 1 2 3 4 Common

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

Yahoo.com CNN.com Twitter.com Hulu.com Google.com

Nytimes.com Wikipedia.org Amazon.com Bing.com Google.com

AOL.com eBay.com ESPN.com Facebook.com Google.com

Youtube.com MSN.com Myspace.com Foxnews.com Google.com

334



Participation and procedure Two surveys were conducted to determine the number and nature of Internet media personality dimensions. Data from the first survey were analysed for initial exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and data from the second survey were analysed for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). For the first survey, a total of 1120 cases were obtained from 224 college students at a large university in the southeastern United States. Students participated in exchange for extra course credit. Approximately one third of the participants were male (35.8%). Ages ranged from 18 to 32, and the average age was 21.3. The Pew Internet and American Life Project (2011) reported that the heaviest Internet user group is between ages 18 and 29, with 95% Internet use compared to 78% use for all US adults. The student sample is homogeneous, making it appropriate to test a theory-driven model (Huang, Schrank and Dubinsky, 2004; Keen 1999). The most prevalent ethnic group was Caucasian (75.0%), followed by Latin American (12.1%), African American (5.0%), Asian American (4.9%), and Native American (2.9%). Each participant was randomly assigned to one of the four groups (Table 2). First, participants assessed their knowledge, experience, and familiarity with each given website by answering the following questions using a 7-point Likert scale: How much do they know about the site?; How frequently do they use the site?; How familiar are they with the site? The mean value for all 17 sites was 6.3 out of 7.0 (lowest: MBing.com D 3.61; highest: MGoogle D 6.99).’ In addition, an ‘I don’t know’ option was included for each personality trait question. If the participant did not know a site well enough to answer to the personality trait question, they could answer, ‘I don’t know.’ This was considered a missing value and excluded from the analysis. A total of 1120 cases (224 participants rating five Internet media) were obtained from this process and analysed for EFA. For the second survey, a total of 1030 cases were obtained from 206 undergraduate and graduate students at the same university in the United States. Students participated in exchange for extra credit (male 30.7%; aged from 18 to 32, mean age D 21.93). Those who participated in the first survey were not allowed to participate in the second survey and were excluded from analysis. The most prevalent ethnic group was Caucasian (82.0%), followed by Latin American (8.1%), African American (3.2%), and Asian American (6.7%). The second survey followed the same process as the first survey, and a total of 1030 cases were analysed for the CFA.

Study 1: results Dimensions of Internet media personality (IMP) Before carrying out a series of exploratory factor analyses (EFAs), several assumptions were tested to ensure the appropriateness of conducting factor analysis, using Kaiser– Meyer–Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s tests. These tests clearly demonstrated that sufficient items were predicted by each factor (KMO D 0.955) and that variables were sufficiently correlated (Bartlett’s test of sphericity: χ² D 7045.85, df D 435, p < 0.0001) to provide a reasonable basis for factor analysis. All evaluations of the 67 personality traits were entered into a principal component factor analysis with a Varimax rotation. Items were deleted if they did not meet the criteria of high factor loading (± 0.6 or higher) on one factor and low factor loadings (± 0.4 or lower) on all other factors. This resulted in five extracted factors with eigenvalues ranging from 1.01 to 13.33. The five factors were composed of 30 traits and accounted for 67.5% of total variance (Table 3).


335

Table 3. Exploratory factor analysis of Internet media brands.


Traits Knowledgeable Intelligent Comprehensive Competent Sophisticated Confident Reliable Concise Fun Imaginative Enjoyable Colorful Creative Entertaining Exciting Energetic Accessible Easy Searchable Popular Convenient Networking Social Conversational Interactive Communicative Irritating Cluttered Overwhelming Confusing Eigenvalue % of Variance Cronbach's α

Factor 1: Intelligent

Factor 2: Amusing

0.74 0.73 0.73 0.72 0.72 0.71 0.69 0.67 0.17 0.36 0.37 0.37 0.29 0.32 0.45 0.42 0.3 0.3 0.34 0.23 0.38

0.1 0.28 0.23 0.27 0.27 0.31 0.19 0.26 0.74 0.67 0.64 0.62 0.61 0.58 0.56 0.54 0.22 0.29 0.17 0.38 0.32 0.24 0.27 0.2 0.25 0.22

0.2 0.16 0.36 0.36

0.17

0.15

0.13 0.21

0.17

¡0.34

0.17 0.15

0.81 0.80 0.77 0.73

13.33 44.44 0.92

3.04 10.13 0.92

1.81 6.04 0.89

1.05 3.51 0.85

1.01 3.39 0.81

0.17 0.23 0.21 0.31

Factor 3: Convenient 0.35 0.24 0.22 0.25 0.21 0.37 0.11 0.25 0.19 0.32 0.17 0.22 0.29 0.21 0.23 0.75 0.70 0.68 0.66 0.63

Factor 4: Sociable

Factor 5: Confusing

0.24 0.18 0.17

0.14

0.15 0.28 0.27 0.16 0.23 0.16 0.34 0.36 0.29 0.24 0.2 0.22 0.19 0.21 0.23 0.77 0.75 0.73 0.64 0.60 0.11

0.11 0.19 0.21 0.1

0.12

0.29 0.2 0.15

Note: Bolded/italicized numbers mean that they have high factor loading values and belong to a group.

The five extracted factors were named: Intelligent (average loading D 0.72), Amusing (average loading D 0.62), Convenient (average loading D 0.68), Sociable (average loading D 0.69), and Confusing (average loading D 0.76). The Intelligent dimension was composed of seven traits: knowledgeable, intelligent, comprehensive, competent, sophisticated, reliable, and concise. The Amusing dimension included eight traits: fun, imaginative, enjoyable, colorful, creative, entertaining, exciting, and energetic. Convenient was made up of five characteristics: accessible, easy, searchable, popular, and convenient. The Sociable dimension included five characteristics: networking, social, conversational,

336


interactive, and communicative. Finally, the Confusing dimension was comprised of irritating, cluttered, overwhelming, and confusing (Table 3).


Confirmation of the five dimensions Although EFAs allowed determination of scale dimensionality, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA using maximum likelihood method; AMOS 21.0) was performed to confirm that the five-factor model indeed provided the best description of the data. This analysis used the second survey data set (N D 206; 1030 cases). CFA results demonstrated that all five dimensions were well specified (Table 4). All other model fit assessments suggested overall good model fit (χ² D 1414.018, df D 395, p < 0.001; CFI: 0.939; NFI: 0.918; Table 4. Confirmatory factor analysis for five dimensions of Internet media personality. Personality dimensions Intelligent

Amusing

Convenient

Sociable

Confusing

Indicators

M

SD

Confirmatory factor loadings

Knowledgeable Intelligent Comprehensive Competent Sophisticated Confident Reliable Concise Fun Imaginative Enjoyable Colorful Creative Entertaining Exciting Energetic Accessible Easy Searchable Popular Convenient Networking Social Conversational Interactive Communicative Irritating Cluttered Overwhelming Confusing

4.92 4.82 4.88 4.80 4.48 4.80 4.87 4.59 4.61 4.65 4.82 4.69 4.70 4.89 4.61 4.66 5.43 5.13 5.14 5.31 5.15 4.57 4.85 4.69 4.92 5.12 3.68 4.19 3.84 3.46

1.73 1.75 1.58 1.66 1.76 1.73 1.73 1.64 1.80 1.73 1.71 1.69 1.72 1.81 1.76 1.71 1.56 1.62 1.67 1.86 1.64 1.84 1.79 1.76 1.77 1.65 1.84 1.72 1.76 1.75

0.84 b 0.87 b 0.83 b 0.84 b 0.80 b 0.80 a 0.84 b 0.80 b 0.86 b 0.84 b 0.88 b 0.75 b 0.82 b 0.86 a 0.86 b 0.82 b 0.82 a 0.78 b 0.78 b 0.79 b 0.87 b 0.72 a 0.79 b 0.75 b 0.78 b 0.81 b 0.68 a 0.64 b 0.72 b 0.70 b

Cronbach's α 0.95

0.95

0.91

0.88

0.77

Note: a Loading was set to 1.0 to fix construct variance; b factor significance: P < 0.01, χ² = 1414.018, df = 395, p < 0.001; CFI: 0.939; NFI: 0.918; IFI: 0.939; RMSEA: 0.050; SRMR: 0.058.


337

IFI: 0.939; RMSEA: 0.050; SRMR: 0.058), indicating a reasonable degree of fitness for the measurement model (Table 4).


Reliability and validity of the five dimensions Based on confirmation of overall model fitness, the reliability and validity of personality dimensions were tested. First, the internal consistency of the five Internet media personality dimensions was calculated with Cronbach’s α (Nunnally 1979). The resulting reliability coefficients were all considered acceptable (Intelligent D 0.95; Amusing D 0.95; Convenient D 0.91; Sociable D 0.88; Confusing D 0.77). Second, convergent validity was examined by the statistical significance of factor loading. All standardized factor loadings were significant (p < 0.001) in an acceptable range between 0.64 and 0.88 (Table 4). Convergent validity was also tested based on the criteria of Fornell and Larker (1981), which recommend that the average variance extracted should be larger than 0.50. The result confirmed that all average variance extracted values (AVE) were larger than 0.50 for all dimensions (Intelligent D 0.683; Amusing D 0.696; Convenient D 0.657; Sociable D 0.597; Confusing D 0.542). Discriminant validity was also confirmed by comparing the AVE of each construct with the squared shared variance between each construct pair. Results indicated that all AVEs were greater than their MSVs and ASVs with other dimensions, establishing the discriminant validity of the five dimensions. The five dimensions of personality traits were confirmed as reliable and valid dimensions of Internet media personality. The internal consistency of the five Internet media personality dimensions was calculated with Cronbach’s alpha (Nunnally 1979). The resulting reliability coefficients were all considered acceptable, with magnitudes ranging from 0.81 to 0.92 (Table 3). A measurement invariance test was then conducted to confirm scale stability across genders (male: 70; female: 113; missing: 23). Using confirmatory factor analysis with AMOS 21.0, the multi group model fit and chi-square difference between fully constrained and unconstrained models were examined. Results demonstrated that the multi group model fit was acceptable, and the chi-square difference between constrained and unconstrained models was not significantly different (Unconstrained model: x2 D 1587.786, df D 790; constrained model: x2 D 1595.877, df D 798; Δ x2 D 8.091, D df D 8, p > 0.1). Following a configural invariance test, structural factor loading invariance tests were conducted. The results showed that more than two factor loadings in each construct were invariant across two groups, while a few loadings did not show invariance. Hair et al. (1998) proposed that partial metrics invariance, which requires at least two factor loading invariances for each construct, is considered sufficient. Thus, the model applies across both male and female groups. Each of the 17 website personalities was analysed to demonstrate which scored highest on each of the five personality dimensions. A set of summated scales for each established dimension was created, and the mean and standard deviation for each website was calculated. Results demonstrated that the most intelligent Internet medium was Google.com (M D 5.52, SD D 1.07), followed by Hulu.com, NYTimes.com, and Bing. com. The most Amusing Internet medium was Hulu (M D 5.59, SD D 0.87), followed by YouTube and ESPN. Google (M D 5.86, SD D 1.11) was considered the most Convenient, followed by YouTube and Wikipedia. Facebook was rated the most Sociable (M D 5.94, SD D 0.94), followed by Twitter and YouTube. Finally, CNN (M D 4.78, SD D 1.40) was perceived as the most Confusing, followed by Twitter and NYTimes (Table 5).

338



Table 5. Mean scores for personality dimension of Internet media brands. Intelligent

Amusing

Convenient

Sociable

Confusing

Internet media brand

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

Yahoo.com CNN.com Twitter.com Hulu.com Nytimes.com Wikipedia.org Amazon.com Bing.com Facebook.com AOL.com eBay.com ESPN.com YouTube.com MSN.com MySpace.com FoxNews.com Google.com Portal (3) Social networking (3) Search engine (2) News (4) Shopping (2) Online video (2) Wiki (1)

4.89 5.25 4.49 5.48 5.32 4.83 5.00 5.31 4.17 4.65 4.68 5.22 4.60 4.97 3.76 4.40 5.52 4.85 4.07 5.50 5.06 4.85 4.77 4.83

0.89 0.92 1.26 0.84 1.03 1.20 0.98 0.91 1.31 1.53 1.16 1.22 1.16 1.20 1.39 1.23 1.07 1.19 1.35 1.05 1.15 1.07 1.15 1.20

4.75 4.75 5.12 5.59 4.77 4.81 4.89 4.90 4.94 4.28 4.77 5.21 5.38 4.61 4.02 4.13 5.15 4.58 4.63 5.12 4.71 4.83 5.42 4.81

1.06 1.11 1.22 0.87 1.25 1.14 1.32 0.98 1.12 1.43 1.29 1.25 1.09 1.22 1.30 1.39 1.18 1.22 1.29 1.16 1.30 1.30 1.04 1.14

5.33 5.07 5.04 5.35 5.09 5.60 5.35 5.46 5.45 4.71 5.40 5.49 5.65 4.97 4.50 4.36 5.86 5.04 5.03 5.82 5.00 5.37 5.59 5.60

0.94 1.22 1.33 1.14 1.29 1.18 1.05 0.83 1.18 1.43 1.04 1.40 1.14 1.24 1.27 1.40 1.11 1.22 1.30 1.09 1.37 1.03 1.14 1.18

5.01 4.87 5.35 5.02 4.90 4.62 4.62 4.67 5.94 4.71 4.34 4.77 5.20 4.71 4.72 4.40 4.94 4.83 5.38 4.91 4.74 4.49 5.16 4.62

1.30 1.18 1.28 0.74 1.19 1.25 1.35 0.94 0.94 1.28 1.34 1.28 1.12 1.22 1.47 1.37 1.25 1.16 1.33 1.23 1.25 1.34 1.12 1.25

3.81 4.78 4.59 4.42 4.53 4.00 4.52 4.13 4.06 3.90 4.28 3.69 3.66 3.87 4.00 4.04 3.71 3.86 4.13 3.75 4.28 4.41 3.81 4.00

1.30 1.40 1.17 1.58 1.58 1.54 1.55 1.69 1.36 1.74 1.20 1.53 1.27 1.43 1.20 1.10 1.53 1.46 1.27 1.55 1.46 1.40 1.36 1.54

Note: Bolded number means the top scored medium in each personality dimension. Internet media group categorization: portals (Yahoo, AOL, MSN); social networking (Facebook, MySpace, Twitter); search engines (Google, Bing); news (NYTimes, FoxNews, CNN, ESPN); shopping (Amazon, eBay); wikis (Wikipedia); online video (YouTube, Hulu). (): Number of media in group.

This study also analysed which category of Internet media best represents each of the five personality dimensions. A total of 17 Internet media were categorized into seven groups (portals; social networking sites (SNS); search engines; news; shopping; wikis; online videos) and analysed to determine which group best represents each personality dimension (Table 5). Search engines scored highest on both the Intelligent (M D 5.50; SD D 1.05) and Convenient dimensions (M D 5.82; SD D 1.09). Online videos were rated highest on the Amusing dimension (M D 5.42; SD D 1.04). The most Sociable of website categories was social networking sites (M D 5.38; SD D 1.33). The most Confusing group was shopping sites (M D 4.41; SD D 1.40) (Table 5). Study 2: method Using the study 1 results, study 2 was conducted using a third survey. The purpose of study 2 was to examine the pairing effect of brand and Internet media personality dimensions on attitudes toward advertising brands (RQ 2). A total of 273 undergraduate



339

students at a large university in the southeastern US participated in the survey. Subjects consisted of 197 female (72.2%) and 76 male (27.8%) college students (mean age D 22.4, SD D 4.25) who volunteered in exchange for extra course credit. First, the five brand personality and Internet media personality dimensions were combined to form 25 possible different pairs for brands and Internet media. For example, the Sincerity dimension of a brand personality was combined with the Intelligent, Amusing, Convenient, Sociable, or Confusing dimension of an Internet media personality, resulting in five pairs. The Excitement dimension of brand personality was then matched with the same five Internet media personality dimensions to produce five other pairs. This process generated a total of 25 brand-Internet media personality dimension pairs. Second, each brand personality dimension and each Internet media dimension was combined to form all possible pairs of brands and Internet media. To minimize response bias resulting from fatigue due to a large number of target stimuli, each respondent was randomly assigned to one of two different groups. Each group had five different brand-medium pairs, so each subject responded to a total of 25 (5 × 5) different brand and Internet medium pairings (Table 6). Finally, brand and Internet media combinations (a brand advertised on an Internet medium) were presented. Attitudes towards each of the 25 pairs of brand–Internet media were measured using four 7-point semantic differential scale items – ‘Overall, my attitude toward the (brand name) advertised in (Internet medium) is’: negative/positive, unfavourable/favourable, bad/good, or dislikable/likable.

Table 6. Brand and Internet media parings. Group 1 (5 × 5) Brand

Internet medium

Hallmark (Sincerity) CNN.com (Intelligent) Hallmark (Sincerity) YouTube.com (Amusing) Hallmark (Sincerity) YAHOO.com (Convenient) Hallmark (Sincerity) twitter.com (Sociable) Hallmark (Sincerity) amazon.com (Confusing) Pepsi (Excitement) CNN.com (Intelligent) Pepsi (Excitement) YouTube.com (Amusing) Pepsi (Excitement) YAHOO.com (Convenient) Pepsi (Excitement) Twitter.com (Sociable) Pepsi (Excitement) Amazon.com (Confusing) Sony (Competence) CNN.com (Intelligent) Sony (Competence) YouTube.com (Amusing) Sony (Competence) YAHOO.com (Convenient) Sony (Competence) Twitter.com (Sociable) Sony (Competence) Amazon.com (Confusing) Lexus (Sophistication) CNN.com (Intelligent) Lexus (Sophistication) YouTube.com (Amusing) Lexus (Sophistication) YAHOO.com (Convenient) Lexus (Sophistication) Twitter.com (Sociality) Lexus (Sophistication) Amazon.com (Confusing) Lee (Ruggedness) CNN.com (Intelligent) Lee (Ruggedness) YouTube.com (Amusing) Lee (Ruggedness) YAHOO.com (Convenient) Lee (Ruggedness) Twitter.com (Sociable) Lee (Ruggedness) Amazon.com (Confusing)

Group 2 (5 × 5) Brand

Internet medium

Kodak (Sincerity) NYTimes.com (Intelligent) Kodak (Sincerity) Hulu.com (Amusing) Kodak (Sincerity) Bing.com (Convenient) Kodak (Sincerity) Facebook.com (Sociable) Kodak (Sincerity) eBay.com (Confusing) Lego (Excitement) NYTimes.com (Intelligent) Lego (Excitement) Hulu.com (Amusing) Lego (Excitement) Bing.com (Convenient) Lego (Excitement) Facebook.com (Sociable) Lego (Excitement) eBay.com (Confusing) Amex (Competence) NYTimes.com (Intelligent) Amex (Competence) Hulu.com (Amusing) Amex (Competence) Bing.com (Convenient) Amex (Competence) Facebook.com (Sociable) Amex (Competence) eBay.com (Confusing) Olay (Sophistication) NYTimes.com (Intelligent) Olay (Sophistication) Hulu.com (Amusing) Olay (Sophistication) Bing.com (Convenient) Olay (Sophistication) Facebook.com (Sociality) Olay (Sophistication) eBay.com (Confusing) LEVI’S (Ruggedness) NYTimes.com (Intelligent) LEVI’S (Ruggedness) Hulu.com (Amusing) LEVI’S (Ruggedness) Bing.com (Convenient) LEVI’S (Ruggedness) Facebook.com (Sociable) LEVI’S (Ruggedness) eBay.com (Confusing)

340



Study 2: results To assess the pairing effects between brand and Internet media personality dimensions on attitudes towards advertised brands (RQ 2), two Internet media with high mean scores were initially chosen for each of the five dimensions. NYTimes.com (M D 5.32) and CNN.com (M D 5.25) were selected as representative websites for the Intelligent personality dimension, Hulu (M D 5.59) and YouTube (M D 5.38) were chosen for the Amusing dimension, Bing.com (M D 5.46) and YAHOO.com (M D 5.33) were chosen for the Convenient dimension, Facebook.com (M D 5.94) and Twitter (M D 5.35) were chosen for the Sociable dimension, and Amazon.com (M D 4.52) and eBay.com (M D 4.28) were chosen for the Confusing dimension. Some Internet media with mean scores ranked at the highest level across multiple dimensions were excluded from the list (e.g. Google.com). This maintained the study criterion that each selected Internet medium should hold a relatively high mean score for one dimension and low mean scores for the other dimensions. This step resulted in 10 Internet media for analysis. Ten brands representing each of Aaker’s (1997) five brand personality dimensions were borrowed from the previous study (Lee and Cho 2009). In their study (2009), Lee and Cho identified two representative brands for each brand personality dimension (e.g., Sincerity: Hallmark and Kodak; Excitement: Pepsi and Lego; Competence: Sony and Amex; Sophistication: Lexus and Olay; Ruggedness: Lee and Levi’s). This selection process yielded 10 brands and 10 Internet media to represent five brand personality dimensions and five Internet media personality dimensions. A series of repeated measures ANOVA was performed to assess the pairing effects. This evaluated whether there were mean differences in different pairs of brand and Internet media personality on attitudes toward advertising brands. Internet media personality (five dimensions: Intelligent, Amusing, Convenient, Sociable, and Confusing) was used as the independent variable, while dependent variables were attitudes toward advertising brands that represented the five brand personality dimensions (Sincerity, Excitement, Competence, Sophistication, and Ruggedness). For example, attitudes toward Kodak or Hallmark (Sincerity brand personality dimension) advertised on CNN.com or NY Times. com (Intelligent Internet media personality dimension) were compared to attitudes towards those brands advertised on YouTube.com or Hulu.com (Amusing), YAHOO.com or Bing.com (Convenient), Twitter.com or Facebook.com (Sociable), and Amazon.com or eBay.com (Confusing). Overall, statistically significant differences were found in four brand personality dimensions (Sincerity: F (4, 1088) D 3.01, p < 0.17, η2 D 0.01 with sphericity assumed; Excitement: F (3.80,1035.66.) D 10.28, p < 0.001, η2 D 0.036 with Greenhouse–Geisser correction; Competence: F (3.76,1023.80) D 4.74, p < 0.001, η 2 D 0.017 with Greenhouse–Geisser correction; and Ruggedness: F (3.85,1048.24) D 4.65, p < 0.001, η2 D 0.017 with Greenhouse–Geisser correction). However, no statistically significant differences were found in the Sophistication (e.g., Lexus and Olay) brand personality dimension. Table 7 illustrates the mean scores and standard deviations for attitudes toward advertising brands (Table 7). As shown in Table 7, the mean score of attitudes toward advertising brands was highest when brands with a ‘competence’ personality (e.g., Sony and AMEX) were paired with Internet media demonstrating an ‘amusing’ personality (e.g., YouTube and Hulu; M D 4.80). The lowest mean score resulted when brands with a ‘ruggedness’ personality (e.g., Lee and Levi’s) were paired with an ‘intelligent’ Internet media personality dimension (e.g., CNN and NYTimes; M D 3.92).


341

Table 7. Attitude toward advertising brand: pairing of brand and Internet media personality.


Brand personality

Brands

Sincerity

Hallmark/Kodak

Excitement

Pepsi/Lego

Competence

Sony/AMEX

Sophistication

Lexus/Olay

Ruggedness

Lee/Levi’s

Internet media personality Intelligent Amusing Convenient Sociable Confusing Intelligent Amusing Convenient Sociable Confusing Intelligent Amusing Convenient Sociable Confusing Intelligent Amusing Convenient Sociable Confusing Intelligent Amusing Convenient Sociable Confusing

Internet media

Mean

SD

CNN.com/NYTimes.com YouTube.com/Hulu.com Yahoo.com/Bing.com Twitter.com/Facebook.com Amazon.com/eBay.com CNN.com/NYTimes.com YouTube.com/Hulu.com Yahoo.com/Bing.com Twitter.com/Facebook.com Amazon.com/eBay.com CNN.com/NYTimes.com YouTube.com/Hulu.com Yahoo.com/Bing.com Twitter.com/Facebook.com Amazon.com/eBay.com CNN.com/NYTimes.com YouTube.com/Hulu.com Yahoo.com/Bing.com Twitter.com/Facebook.com Amazon.com/eBay.com CNN.com/NYTimes.com YouTube.com/Hulu.com Yahoo.com/Bing.com Twitter.com/Facebook.com Amazon.com/eBay.com

4.46 4.56 4.54 4.76 4.68 4.00 4.62 4.38 4.38 4.50 4.73 4.80 4.59 4.47 4.79 4.41 4.47 4.39 4.37 4.42 3.92 4.15 4.10 4.13 4.32

1.36 1.57 1.53 1.78 1.61 1.60 1.63 1.59 1.67 1.51 1.50 1.52 1.55 1.66 1.66 1.58 1.54 1.50 1.60 1.51 1.53 1.54 1.48 1.68 1.51

For Hallmark and Kodak (representing the Sincerity brand personality dimension), the attitude toward advertising brands was higher when the brands were paired with Internet media possessing a Sociable personality dimension (e.g., Twitter and Facebook; M D 4.76) than when paired with Confusing Internet media (e.g., Amazon and eBay; M D 4.68), Amusing Internet media (e.g., YouTube and Hulu; M D 4.56), Convenient Internet media (e.g., Yahoo and Bing; M D 4.54), or Intelligent Internet media (e.g., CNN and NYTimes; M D 4.46). To identify mean differences among the five groups of Internet media personality dimensions, a paired-samples t-test was conducted. The results indicated statistically significant mean differences in attitudes toward advertising brands among the groups (sociable a; confusing a,b,c,d; amusing b,c,d,e; convenient b,c,d,e; intelligent b,c,d,e; p < 0.05). For Lego and Pepsi (representing the Excitement brand personality dimension), mean attitudes toward the advertising brands were higher with Amusing Internet media (e.g., YouTube and Hulu; M D 4.62) than with Confusing Internet media (e.g., Amazon and eBay; M D 4.50), Convenient Internet media (e.g., Yahoo and Bing; M D 4.38), Sociable Internet media (e.g., Twitter and Facebook; M D 4.38), or Intelligent Internet media (e.g., CNN and NYTimes; M D 4.00). To identify mean differences among the five groups of Internet media personality dimensions, a paired-samples t-test was conducted.


342


The results indicate statistically significant mean differences in attitudes toward advertising brands among the groups (amusing a; confusing a,b,c,d; convenient b,c,d; sociable b,c,d; intelligent e, p < .05). For Competence brands (Sony and AMEX), the mean attitude score towards advertising brands was the highest when brands were paired with Amusing Internet media (YouTube and Hulu: M D 4.80), while the lowest mean score resulted when brands were paired with Sociable Internet media (Twitter and Facebook; M D 4.47). A paired-samples t-test indicated statistically significant mean differences in attitudes toward sponsoring brands among the groups (amusing a; confusing a,b,c; intelligent a,b,c,d; convenient d,e; sociable d,e; p < 0.05). For Sophistication brands (Lexus/Olay), mean attitude scores were the greatest when paired with Amusing Internet media (YouTube and Hulu: M D 4.47). Attitude scores were the lowest when paired with Sociable Internet media (Twitter and Facebook; M D 4.37). A paired-samples t-test showed statistically significant mean differences (amusing a ; confusing a,b,c; intelligent a,b,c,d; convenient d,e; sociable d,e; p < 0.05). For Ruggedness brands (Lee and Levi’s), mean attitude toward advertising brands was the highest when brands were paired with Confusing Internet media (Amazon and eBay: M D 4.32) and lowest when brands were paired with Intelligent Internet media (CNN and NYTimes: M D 3.92). A paired-samples t-test indicated statistically significant mean differences in attitude toward the advertising brands among groups (confusing a; amusing a,b,c,d; sociable b,c,d; convenient b,c,d; intelligent e; p < 0.05). Discussion and conclusion The present study identified multidimensional characteristics of Internet media personality (IMP) and developed an instrument for measuring it. Five dimensions with 30 personality traits that described the unique characteristics of Internet media personality were found: Intelligent, Amusing, Convenient, Sociable, and Confusing. The Intelligent dimension likely stems from the important function of some Internet media as information providers. The accessibility of information has increased rapidly in the last several years, particularly as an increasing number of people use search engines. It is not surprising that search engines such as Google and Bing, and news sites such as the New York Times and CNN.com scored highly in this dimension. The Amusing dimension includes traits such as entertaining, enjoyable, fun, imaginative, and creative. It is understandable that entertainment media featuring videos, such as YouTube and Hulu, were rated highly in this dimension. A third dimension, Convenient, represents ease of use and accessibility. Internet media that provide a wide range of content and help direct access to desired information tended to score highly on this dimension. The Sociable dimension has become an important characteristic because the Internet has become a central way for many people to interact with others. Social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, scored highly on this dimension. The Confusing dimension is composed of traits such as irritating, cluttered, overwhelming, and confusing. Interestingly, news media such as CNN.com and NYTimes.com scored highly on this dimension. Twitter and Amazon also scored highly on the Confusing dimension. These sites might be perceived as intrusive and irritating because they frequently interrupt users by sending messages or notifications rather than only remaining active when users request it. The Confusing dimension is similar to the Toughness dimension in Kim, Baek, and Martin’s (2010) news media personality study. According to Kim and colleagues, a tough image is closely associated with aggressive images of reporters or



343

news anchors. Many people view news as confusing, and its frequent focus on negative events might be considered irritating. Although Kim and colleagues did not examine webbased news channels (e.g., CNN.com and MSNBC.com), the characteristics of their reporters and chat rooms would impact the IMP because such images are reflected on Internet news channels (e.g., CNN.com, FOX news.com, NYTimes.com). Internet media personalities demonstrated four distinctive personality dimensions (e.g., Intelligent, Amusing, Convenient, and Sociable) that differ from those of Kim, Baek, and Martin (2010). Two of the dimensions discussed here for IMP are similar to dimensions found in the WPS (Chen and Rodgers 2006): Intelligent (WPS – Intelligent) and Amusing (WPS – Fun). Though the purposes of the IMP and WPS are distinctive (IMP: Internet media as paid media; WPS: corporate websites as owned media), consumers sometimes use both Internet media and corporate websites to gratify similar motives. According to Severin and Tankard (1997), people tend to gratify their needs for intelligence and entertainment (e.g., Ko, Cho, and Roberts 2005; Papacharissi and Rubin 2000; Rodgers and Sheldon 2002; Stafford and Stafford 2001). Given that personal motives and personality are closely correlated, users tend to identify similar personality traits regarding Internet media and corporate websites. Despite this similarity, subjects nominated distinctive personality traits for Internet media personality compared to the WPS. The Sociable (e.g., networking, social, conversational) and Convenient (e.g., popular, accessible, convenient) dimensions of the IMP did not appear in the WPS. The primary reason for distinctive dimensions is that Internet media include distinctive entities that are not prevalent in WPS. Popular social networking sites (SNS) such as Facebook were not analysed in WPS but are now among the most popular sites. SNS provide users with opportunities to easily network and socialize (e.g., Facebook), to share content with others (e.g., YouTube), and to conveniently communicate to a broad audience (e.g., Twitter). However, SNS are not just important for maintaining interpersonal contacts. The prominence of brands using SNS reflects the growing importance of maintaining constant contact with consumers and developing a stronger emotional connection between people and brands. This suggests that the Sociable dimension of a website may be of increasing importance to brands in the coming years. The WPS also did not reflect the Convenient functions of current web usage, such as content sharing (e.g., RSS, tweeting), information searching (e.g., Bing, Wikipedia), and video watching (e.g., Hulu, YouTube). The abilities to share, search, and view on demand are likely to become increasingly important dimensions of Internet media personality in the future. The two distinctive dimensions (Sociable; Convenient) primarily represent why and how people use Internet media compared to other entities such as corporate websites or news media. Corporate websites are fundamentally designed for marketing and branding purposes, while the purpose of Internet media is to provide convenient routes to interactively communicate with others. These different purposes and functions presumably influence the personality perception of corporate websites and Internet media. The Sociable and Convenient dimensions are unique dimensions in the IMP that were not included in news media personality analysed by Kim, Baek, and Martin (2010). The five IMP dimensions were determined to have internal consistency, convergent and discriminant validity, and reliability. These findings support the potential value of the Internet media brand personality scale for future research. This study revealed that attitudes toward advertising brands are influenced by different pairings of brand and Internet media personality dimensions. Brand personality is distinct from Internet media personality; thus, a certain brand personality dimension does


344


not necessarily match that of an Internet media personality. However, better matches between personality dimensions are expected to yield more favourable attitudes toward an advertising brand. For example, Lee and Cho (2009) found that a certain pair of brand and sporting event personality dimensions yielded better attitudes toward the sponsoring brand. This idea was applied here to the Internet advertising context such that a certain pair of ad and Internet media personality dimensions produced more favourable attitudes toward the advertising brand. The Sincerity (e.g., Hallmark and Kodak) brand personality dimension yielded the most favourable attitude toward an advertising brand when paired with the Sociable (e.g., Facebook and Twitter) dimension of Internet media personality, and the least favourable attitudes when paired with the Intelligence (e.g., CNN.com and NYTimes.com) dimension. Hallmark and Kodak (Sincerity) are perceived as sharing cheerful moments with wholesome people in sincere and honest ways (Sincere is represented by honest, wholesome, cheerful, and down-to-earth), which matches well with the Social dimension of Internet media personality (Twitter and Facebook). However, the Sincere brand personality trait did not match well with the Intelligent (CNN.com and NYTimes) dimension trait (competent, concise, knowledgeable, and so on), which tends to represent independent individuals and is not a social trait. The Excitement brand personality dimension (Pepsi and Lego) yielded the most favourable attitude toward advertising brands when paired with the Amusing (YouTube and Hulu) dimension, and the least favourable attitude when paired with the Intelligent (CNN.com and NYTimes) dimension. Traits of the Excitement brand dimension (imaginative, up-to-date, spirited, daring) were best matched with Amusing media (fun, enjoyable, entertaining, creative, etc.), resulting in the most favourable advertising attitudes. This did not extend to the Intelligent (CNN.com and NYTimes) dimension (competent, concise, knowledgeable, etc.), which represents a more rational, non-emotional trait. The Ruggedness (Lee and Levi’s) brand personality dimension had the most favourable brand attitudes when matched with Confusing (Amazon and eBay), and the least favourable attitudes when matched with the Intelligent (CNN.com; NYTimes.com) dimension. Given that brand personality is distinct from Internet media personality, the other results are not clearly explained by personality matching. Sophistication (Lexus and Olay) brand personality did not show a significant difference among the personality pairs, although it demonstrated the best match with Amusing (YouTube and Hulu) and the worst match with Sociable (Twitter and Facebook) dimensions. The Competence brand dimension (Sony and AMEX; reliable, intelligent, successful) matched best with the Amusing (YouTube and Hulu) Internet media dimension. This result is interpreted in a different way. J.L. Aaker’s methods (1997) considered the personalities of Sony and AMEX to be reliable, intelligent, and successful. This is no longer the case in 2014, because Sony is not a leading electronic brand any more. Thus, Sony may not clearly represent the reliable and successful traits. Only a small number of people had AMEX in 1997 while its enrollment is less strict in 2014. Sony’s current entertainment image presumably stems from Sony PlayStation and Sony Pictures, to match better with the Amusing (YouTube and Hulu) Internet media dimension. However, more research is necessary to better understand this relationship. Implications of study findings This study has important implications that would be helpful for both practitioners and academic researchers. First, the development of a multidimensional personality



345

framework for Internet media (IMP) provides a meaningful theoretical schema to understand unique personality characteristics. Although there is some overlap with dimensions found in other brand personality studies, the five dimensions of Internet media personality (IMP) identified here were largely distinct from those of prior studies. These traits likely reflect unique attributes of Internet media as they currently exist. This finding is particularly important when considering current status quo Internet technology and culture. The top-ranking Internet vehicles have changed greatly within a short period of time, and the ways people use the Internet have also rapidly changed. Web 2.0 has brought about a tremendous change in the Internet in which users are more engaged in interactive behaviours. The study results do not reflect just different types of Internet media usage, but also differences in how people classify and view Internet media in general. This is suggested by the differences in personality dimensions between Internet media personality identified in this study and corporate website personality identified by Chen and Rodgers (2006). Methodologically, this study proposed a new way of selecting brand samples (i.e., media) that is specialized for the area of research. Internet media can record the number of users in real time, and personality traits reflect the most frequently visited media on the Internet. Unlike previous brand and media personality scale development studies (J.L. Aaker 1997; Chen and Rodgers 2006), brand samples (i.e., Internet media) were chosen based on their traffic rankings. The highest traffic media presumably reflect the current usage status of Internet media in general. Traffic-based sample selection increases the generalizability and validity of measurements. Compared to the random selection method usually employed for personality development research (e.g., J.L. Aaker 1997; Chen and Rodgers 2006), a selection method based on audience usage is more appropriate for the study of media brand personality development because media that are more frequently used represent media in general. This study also provides practical implications for media brand managers and advertising practitioners. From a marketing perspective, it is imperative to create a unique brand image that differentiates a company from its competitors (Ha and Chan-Omsted 2000). Similar to traditional media businesses, many Internet companies improve their business values by increasing their number of users. Advertising revenue, a major profit resource for Internet media companies, is generally increased by increasing the number of users. Advertising costs are generally determined by the number of users (i.e., unique visitors), visits (i.e., impression), and clicks (i.e., click-through rate). The creation and maintenance of users is an important matter for Internet media companies. Brand image management based on brand personality is imperative for Internet media companies. This study demonstrated which pairs of brand and Internet media personality dimensions yield more favourable outcomes. This finding helps advertisers understand which Internet media personality dimensions they should consider when selecting an Internet medium to advertise their brand. As proposed (e.g., Slabbinck and Roozen 2008; Yang and Chen 2007), advertising effectiveness may increase when the personality of an advertised brand is similar to that of the media channel where the advertisement is placed. Consistent with this concept, the IMP can provide advertisers with a practical alternative instrument to select appropriate vehicles for advertising. Consideration of the Internet media and brand personalities can supplement demographically determined media choices. The IMP can help advertisers select more appropriate Internet media for advertising or sponsorship. Advertising practitioners may want to consider specific personality dimensions when making media choices. For example, an Internet medium that represents the Intelligent

346



dimension would be a good choice for technological products because people tend to use brands and media that represent their own personality. However, consumer annoyance stemming from confusing content may be transferred to the associated advertising brands. Such confusion may deplete the attention and cognitive resources of consumers, leaving only limited resources available to process the advertising message. Finally, the IMP can also be used by a newly launched Internet medium to evaluate how its personality compares with those of similar media. If an Internet medium’s personality scores higher on the Confusing dimension than others, its content should possibly be redesigned. By contrasting their medium with those of competitors, new companies can gain insight on how best to position themselves to both consumers and advertisers.

Limitations and future research One obvious limitation of this study is that the data is based on responses from a convenience sample of college students. This sampling method raises some concerns about the generalizability of findings to the broader population. However, it should be noted that college students are among the heaviest and most active Internet users. Additionally, the subsample (females vs. males) stability test demonstrated that the generalizability of the five dimensions is robust. Future research studies should use probability sampling of the general population to ensure representation across demographic dimensions such as gender, age, household income, ethnicity, and geographic location. Internet media personality should be tracked regularly to reflect the latest changes in Internet technology and culture. Only 5 years ago, most of the currently dominant social networking sites (e.g., Twitter and Facebook), online video entertainment sites (e.g., Hulu.com), and newer search engines (e.g., Bing.com) were not widely used. Likewise, we cannot predict how our Internet usage will change or how our perceptions of Internet media personality will evolve. This study demonstrates that such changes will likely affect the critical dimensions of Internet media personality. Future research should examine whether these changes also alter the way people evaluate Internet advertising. For example, as social networking becomes more important, do people consider the social aspects of brands more (e.g., beer brands or music band preferences among young adults)? The changing nature of media technology and use may have important implications for advertising. Brand personality may help to better understand these effects.

Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References Aaker, D.A., and K. Brown. 1972. Evaluating vehicle source effects. Journal of Advertising Research 12, no. 4: 11–6. Aaker, J.L. 1997. Dimension of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research 34, no. 3: 347– 56. Aaker, J.L., V. Benet-Martinez, and J. Garolera. 2001. Consumption symbols as carriers of culture: A study of Japanese and Spanish brand personality constructs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81, no. 3: 492–508. Alexa.com 2010. Top site in the US: Top 100 sites in the United States. Available online at http:// www.alexa.com/topsites/countries/US (accessed 29 June 2010).



347

Assumus, G. 1978. An empirical investigation into the perception of vehicle source effects. Journal of Advertising 7, no. 1: 4–10. Baek, T.H., and M. Morimoto. 2010. Stay away from me: Examining the determinants of consumer avoidance of personalized advertising. Journal of Advertising 41, no. 1: 59–76. Batra, R., D.R. Lehmann, and D. Singh. 1993. The brand personality component of brand goodwill: Some antecedents and consequences. In Brand equity and advertising, ed. D.A. Aaker and A. Biel A., 83 96. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Blackston, M. 2000. Observations: building brand equity by managing the brand’s relationships. Journal of Advertising Research 40, no. 6: 101–105. Brown, D.E. 1991. Human universals. New York: McGraw-Hill. Caprara, G.V., C. Barbaranelli, and G. Guido. 2001. Brand personality: How to make the metaphor fit? Journal of Economic Psychology 22: 377–95. Chan-Olmsted, S.M., and J. Cha. 2007. Branding television news in a multichannel environment: An exploratory study of network news brand personality. The International Journal of Media Management 9, no. 4: 135–50. Chan-Olmsted, S.M., and J. Cha. 2008. Exploring the antecedent and effects of brand images for television news: An application of brand personality construct in a multichannel news environment. The International Journal of Media Management 10: 32–45. Chen, Q., and S. Rodgers. 2006. Development of an instrument to measure website personality. Journal of Interactive Advertising 7, no. 1: 1–19. Coulter, K.S. 1998. The effects of affective responses to media context on advertising evaluations. Journal of Advertising 27, no. 4: 41–51. Dahlen, M. 2005. The medium as a contextual cue. Journal of Advertising 34, no. 3: 89–98. d’Astous, A., and M. Lévesque. 2003. A scale for measuring store personality. Psychology & Marketing 20, no. 5: 455–69. De Pelsmacker, P., M. Geuens, and P. Anckaert. 2002. Media context and advertising effectiveness: The role of context appreciation and context/ad similarity. Journal of Advertising 31, no. 2: 49–61. Ekinci, Y., and S. Hosany. 2006. Destination personality: An application of brand personality to tourism destinations. Journal of Travel Research 45, no. 2: 127–39. Fornell, C., and D.F. Larcker. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 48, 39–50. Fournier, S. 1998. Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research 24, no. 4: 343–73. Gobry, P.-E. 2011. It’s official: Internet advertising is bigger than newspaper advertising. Business Insider, 14 April. Available online at: http://www.businessinsider.com/internet-advertising-big ger-than-newspaper-advertising-2011-4 (accessed 10 August 2013). Goldberg, M.E., and G.J. Gorn. 1987. Happy and sad TV programs: How they affect reactions to commercials. Journal of Consumer Research 14: 387–403. Google 2010. Form 10-K, Annual Report, Filing date: 26 January 2012. Available online at: http:// pdf.secdatabase.com/44/0001193125-12-025336.pdf (accessed 4 August 2013). Gwinner, K.P., and J. Eaton. 1999. Building brand image through event sponsorship: The role of image transfer. Journal of Advertising 28, no. 4: 47–57. Ha, L., and S.M. Chan-Olmsted. 2000. Enhanced TV as brand extension: TV viewers’ perception of enhanced TV features and TV commerce on broadcast networks’ web sites. International Journal of Media Management 3, no. 4: 202–13. Hair, J.F. Jr., R.E. Anderson, R.L. Tatham, and W.C. Black. 1998. Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice-Hall. Huang, W., H. Schrank, and A. Dubinsky. 2004. Effect of brand name on consumer: Risk perceptions in online shopping. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 4, no. 1: 40–50. Internet Advertising Bureau. 2009. IAB Internet advertising revenue report: 2009 second-quarter and first six months results. Available online at: http://www.iab.net/media/file/IAB-Ad-Reve nue-Six-month-2009.pdf (accessed 14 August 2011). Internet Advertising Bureau. 2013. IAB Internet advertising revenue report conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC). Available online at: http://www.iab.net/about_the_iab/recent_press_ releases/press_release_archive/press_release/pr-060313 (accessed 10 August 2013). Janssens, W., P. DePelsmaker, and M. Geuens. 2012. Online advertising and congruency effects: It depends on how you look at it. International Journal of Advertising 31, no. 3: 579–604.


348


John, O. 1990. The ‘big five’ factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the natural language and in questionnaires. In Handbook of personality: Theory and research, ed. L.A. Pervin, 66– 100. San Francisco: Harper. Keen, C.N. 1999. The attribute structure of internet shopping: What is important and what tradeoffs are possible between internet, retail, and catalog formats? PhD diss., Purdue University. Keller, K.L. 1993. Conceptualizing, measuring and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing 57, no. 1: 1–22. Keller, K.L. 2003. Strategic brand management. Upper Saddle, NJ: Pearson Education. Kim, J., T.H. Baek, and H.J. Martin. 2010. Dimensions of news media brand personality. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 87, no. 1: 117–34. Ko, H., C.H. Cho, and M.S. Roberts. 2005. Internet uses and gratifications: A structural equation model of interactive advertising, Journal of Advertising 34, no. 2: 57–70. Lee, H., and C. Cho. 2009. The matching effect of brand and sporting event personality: Sponsorship implications. Journal of Sport Management 23: 41–64. Lee, H., and C. Cho. 2012. Sporting event-personality: Scale development and sponsorship implications. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship 14, no. 1: 51–68. Levy, S.J. 1959. Symbols for sales. Harvard Business Review 37, no. 4: 117–24. Lord, K.R., R.E. Burnkrant, and H.R. Unnava. 2001. The effects of program induced mood states on memory for commercial information. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising 23, no. 1: 1–15. Malhotra, N.K. 1981. A scale to measure self-concepts, person concepts and product concepts. Journal of Marketing Research 18, no. 4: 456–64. Martineau, P. 1958. The personality of the retail store. Harvard Business Review 36, no. 1: 47–55. McCrae, R.R., and P.T. Costa, Jr. 1989. The structure of interpersonal traits: Wiggins’s Circumflex and Five-Factor Model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56, no. 4: 586–95. McDonald, A.M., and L.F. Cranor. 2010. American’s attitudes about Internet behavioral advertising practices. In WPES 10: Proceedings of the 9th annual ACM workshop on privacy in the electronic society, 63–72. New York: ACM. McDowell, W. 2004. Exploring a free association methodology to capture and differentiate abstract media brand associations: A study of three cable news networks. Journal of Media Economics 17: 309–20. Miyazaki, A.D. 2008. Online privacy and the disclosure of cookie use: Effects on consumer trust and anticipated patronage. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 27, no. 1: 19–33. Morris, J.S. 2005. The Fox news factor. Harvard International Journal of Press-Politics 10, no. 3: 56–79. Mount, M.K., M.R. Barrick, and J.P. Strauss. 1994. Validity of observer ratings of the big five personality factors. Journal of Applied Psychology 79, no. 2: 272–80. Mulhern, F. 2009. Integrated marketing communications: From media channels to digital connectivity. Journal of Marketing Communications 15, no. 2–3: 85–101. Müller, B. 2008. Consistency between brand image and website image: Does it matter? International Journal of Internet Marketing and Advertising 4, no. 4: 350–61. Nielson Online. 2010. Nielsen insight: Top 10 US Web parent companies, home & work. Available online at: http://en-us.nielsen.com/rankings/insights/rankings/internet (accessed 29 June 2010). Nielson Online. 2011. Nielsen news & insight in the Internet: Top 10 US Web parent companies, total. Available online at: http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/top10s/internet.html (accessed 21 June 2011). Norman, W.T. 1963. Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attribute: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 66, 574–83. Nunnally, J.C. 1979. Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Papacharissi, Z, and A.M. Rubin. 2000. Predictors of internet use. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 44, no. 2: 175–96. Park, B. 1986. A method for studying the development of impressions of real people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51, no. 5: 907–17. Perry, S.D., S.A. Jenzowsky, C.M. King, and H. Yi. 1997. Using humorous programs as a vehicle for humorous commercials. Journal of Communication 47, no. 1: 20–39.



349

Pew Internet and American Life Project. 2011. Who’s online: Internet user demographics. Available online at: http://www.pewinternet.org/Trend-Data/Whos-Online.aspx (accessed 28 October 2011. Piedmont, R.L., R.R. McCrae, and P.T. Costa, Jr. 1991. Adjective check list scales and the fivefactor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60, no. 4: 630–7. Plummer, J.T. 1985. Brand personality: A strategic concept for multinational advertising. In Marketing Educators’ Conference, 1–31. New York: Young & Rubicam. Ragas, M., and M. Roberts. 2009. Communicating corporate social responsibility and brand sincerity: A case study of Chipotle Mexican Grill’s ‘Food with Integrity’ program. International Journal of Strategic Communication 3, no. 4: 264–80. Rodgers, S., and K.M. Sheldon. 2002. An improved way to characterize internet users. Journal of Advertising Research 42, no. 5: 85–94. Saucier, G. 1994. Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg’s unipolar big five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment 63, no. 3: 506–16. Severin, W.J., and J.W. Tankard. 1997. Communication theories: Origins, methods, and uses in the mass media. 4th ed. White Plains, NY: Longman. Sirgy, M.J. 1982. Self-concept in consumer behavior: A critical review. Journal of Consumer Research 9, no. 3: 287–300. Sirgy, M.J. 1985. Self-image/product image congruity and consumer decision making. International Journal of Marketing 2, 49–63. Slabbinck, H., and I.T.M. Roozen. 2008. The relationship between brand- and media personality characteristics. Review of Business and Economics February: 161–170. Stafford, T.F., and M.R. Stafford. 2001. Identifying motivations for the use of commercial web sites. Information Resources Management Journal 14, no. 1: 22–30. Sung, M., and S. Yang. 2008. Toward the model of university image: The influence of brand personality, external prestige, and reputation. Journal of Public Relations Research 20, no. 4: 357–76. Sung, Y., and S.F. Tinkham. 2005. Brand personality structures in the United States and Korea: Common and culture-specific factors. Journal of Consumer Psychology 15, no. 4: 334–50. Sweeney, J., and C. Brandon. 2006. Brand personality: Exploring the potential to move from factor analytical to circumplex models. Psychology & Marketing 23, no. 8: 639–63. Till, B.D., and M. Busler. 2000. The math-up hypothesis: Physical attractiveness, expertise, and the role of fit on brand attitude, purchase intent and brand beliefs. Journal of Advertising 29, no. 3: 1–13. Trapnell, P.D., and J.S. Wiggins. 1990. Extension of the interpersonal adjective scales to include the big five dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59, no. 4: 781–90. van Rekom, J., G. Jacobs, and P.W.J. Verlegh. 2006. Measuring and managing the essence of a brand personality. Market Letter 17: 181–92. Venable, B.T., G.M. Rose, V.D. Bush, and F.W. Gilbert. 2005. The role of brand personality in charitable giving: An assessment and validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 33, no. 3: 295–312. Wall Street Journal. 2008. Ballmer on his big bet: Aiming for next level. February 4, B1. Wells, W.D., F.J. Andriuli, F.J. Goi, and S. Seader. 1957. An adjective check list for the study of ‘product personality.’ Journal of Applied Psychology 41, no. 5: 317–19. Wiggins, J.S. 1979. A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37, no. 3: 395–412. Yang, X., and J. Chen. 2007. Website image transfer: Perception of uninformative online ads. Advances in Consumer Research 34: 448–9.