Cited by 62Digital Marketing and Social MediaMarketing and Advertising StrategiesPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection

Consumers’ persuasion knowledge of algorithms in social media advertising: identifying consumer groups based on awareness, appropriateness, and coping ability

Open access
Voorveld, Hilde A. M., Meppelink, Corine S., Boerman, Sophie C.·2024·International Journal of Advertising

Abstract

Advertising and brand communication in social media are increasingly driven by algorithms. Theoretically rooted in the Persuasion Knowledge Model, we aim to identify and investigate the prevalence of specific consumer groups that differ in their awareness levels, critical evaluations, and abilities to cope with such algorithmic persuasion in social media, as well as to investigate the predictors of these groups. By performing an online survey among a Dutch sample (n = 450) and a two-step cluster analysis, we identified four groups: the Control Paradox (the largest group), Fatigued, Uninformed but Critical, and Skilled and Critical. The four groups differed in respect to gender, age, education level, internet skills, self-reported knowledge of algorithms, privacy concerns, and perceived personalization of branded social media messages. Theoretically, this paper contributes to our understanding of algorithmic persuasion by proposing a consumer typology and discussing implications for the Persuasion Knowledge Model. Practically, this study provides evidence-based recommendations for policymakers on how to empower different types of consumers.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02650487.2023.2264045

Cites

96 of 96 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 97 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Voorveld, H. A. M., Meppelink, C. S., & Boerman, S. C.
Affiliations
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • Wageningen University & Research (NL)
Corresponding author
Voorveld, Hilde A. M.
Venue
International Journal of Advertising
Published
2023-10-12
Volume
43
Issue
6
Pages
960-986
ISSN
  • 0265-0487 (ISSN-L)
  • 1759-3948
OpenAlex
W4387579102
Cited by
62
References
97
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 8
FWCI
26.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Advertising (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Universiteit van Amsterdam
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Marketing and Social Media
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Marketing and Advertising Strategies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
Keywords
algorithmic persuasion, social media advertising, persuasion knowledge model, consumer typology, algorithm awareness, consumer coping, personalization, privacy concerns, internet skills, consumer groups

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review