The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Facebook versus television: advertising value perceptions among females
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to compare female students' perceptions of the value of advertising on social network sites (SNSs) to their perceptions of the value of television advertising. Design/methodology/approach: An online questionnaire was fielded among students from three major universities in the USA, as well as SNSs (Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter). The final sample (n=259) was comprised of female students who had used social media and television during the past month. The authors developed two structural equation models using Amos 18 statistical software. Findings: The analysis indicated that Ducoffe's Ad Value model does not provide a good fit for assessing advertising value in social media or television. While Irritation was a factor in assessing Attitude toward advertising, the respondents assessed ad value on the basis of Entertainment (higher for social media) and Informativeness (higher for television). Research limitations/implications: In examining the relative importance of each component of Ducoffe's model, it is clear that Entertainment and Informativeness play key roles in assessing advertising value for both traditional (television) and non‐traditional media (SNSs). While Irritation did not play a significant role in value assessment, it was found to directly impact attitude towards advertising, a critical juncture in the consumer purchase cycle. Practical implications: If practitioners seek to interact via SNSs with young female consumers they should focus on providing entertaining content in a format that makes brand engagement seamless while not impeding goals. Originality/value: This initial investigation provides the impetus for future research about consumers' perceptions of advertising value across all SNSs, in comparison to their traditional counterparts.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010) · Business Horizons · doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003 · Cited by 17,875
The Influence of Source Credibility on Communication Effectiveness
Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1086/266350 · Cited by 3,543
Uses and Gratifications Theory in the 21st Century
Ruggiero, T. E. (2000) · Mass Communication and Society · doi:10.1207/s15327825mcs0301_02 · Cited by 2,810
Personality and motivations associated with Facebook use
Ross, C., Orr, E. S., Sisic, M., Arseneault, J. M., Simmering, M. G., & Orr, R. R. (2009) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.024 · Cited by 1,728
Raacke, J., & Bonds-Raacke, J. (2008) · CyberPsychology & Behavior · doi:10.1089/cpb.2007.0056 · Cited by 1,577
How consumers assess the value of advertising
Ducoffe, R. H. (1995) · Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising · doi:10.1080/10641734.1995.10505022 · Cited by 774
The Effects of Media Context Experiences On Advertising Effectiveness
Malthouse, E. C., Calder, B. J., & Tamhane, A. (2007) · Journal of Advertising · doi:10.2753/joa0091-3367360301 · Cited by 122
Research works printed but not linked: 29
- Barnes, N.G. and Mattson, E. (2009), “Social media in the 2009 Inc. 500: new tools and new trends”, Journal of New Communication Research, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 70‐9.
- Bonds‐Raacke, J. and Raacke, J. (2010), “MySpace and Facebook: identifying dimensions of uses and gratifications for friend networking sites”, Individual Differences Research, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 27‐33.
- Brehm, J.W. (1966), A Theory of Psychological Reactance, Academic Press, New York, NY.
- Brown, S.P. and Stayman, D.M. (1992), “Antecedents and consequences of attitude toward the ad: a meta‐analysis”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 34‐51. · DOI · Paper page
- Calder, B.J., Malthouse, E.C. and Schaedel, U. (2009), “An experimental study of the relationship between online engagement and advertising effectiveness”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 321‐31. · DOI · Paper page
- Chatterjee, P. (2011), “Drivers of new product recommending and referral behaviour on social network sites”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 77‐101. · DOI
- Cho, C. (2003), “Factors influencing the clicking of banner ads on the WWW”, CyberPsychology & Behavior, Vol. 6, pp. 201‐15. · DOI
- Cho, C.‐H. and Cheon, H.J. (2004), “Why do people avoid advertising on the internet?”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 33, pp. 89‐97. · DOI · Paper page
- Chu, S. and Kim, Y. (2011), “Determinants of consumer engagement in electronic word‐of‐mouth (eWOM) in social networking sites”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 47‐75. · DOI · Paper page
- Coulter, R.A., Zaltman, G. and Coulter, K.S. (2001), “Interpreting consumer perceptions of advertising: an application of the Zaltman metaphor elicitation technique”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 30, pp. 1‐21. · DOI · Paper page
- Ducoffe, R.H. (1996), “Advertising value and advertising on the web”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 21‐35.
- Greyser, S.A. (1973), “Irritation in advertising”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 3‐10.
- Ha, L. and James, E.L. (1998), “Interactivity reexamined: a baseline analysis of early business web sites”, Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, Vol. 42 No. 4, p. 456. · DOI · Paper page
- Hoffman, D.L. and Novak, T.P. (2012), “Towards a deeper understanding of social media”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 2012, pp. 69‐70. · DOI
- Johnson, T.J. and Kaye, B.K. (1998), “Cruising is believing? Comparing internet and traditional sources on media credibility measures”, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, Vol. 75 No. 2, pp. 325‐40. · DOI · Paper page
- Krugman, H.E. (1965), “The impact of television advertising: learning without involvement”, Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 349‐56. · DOI · Paper page
- Laczniak, R.N. and Muehling, D.D. (1993), “The relationship between experimental manipulations and tests of theory in an advertising message involvement context”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 59‐74. · DOI
- Lee, D., Kim, H.S. and Kim, J.K. (2011), “The impact of online brand community type on consumer's community engagement behaviors: consumer‐created vs. marketer‐created online brand community in online social‐networking web sites”, CyberPsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, Vol. 14 Nos 1/2, pp. 59‐63. · DOI · Paper page
- MacKenzie, S.B. and Lutz, R. (1989), “An empirical examination of the structural antecedents of attitude toward the ad in an advertising pretesting context”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 48‐65. · DOI · Paper page
- Muntinga, D.G., Moorman, M. and Smit, E.G. (2011), “Introducing COBRAs”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 13‐46. · DOI · Paper page
- Pavlou, P.A. and Steward, D.W. (2000), “Measuring the effects and effectiveness of interactive advertising: a research agenda”, Journal of Interactive Advertising, Vol. 1 No. 1. · DOI · Paper page
- Schlinger, M.J. (1979), “A profile of responses to commercials”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 37‐46.
- Shamdasani, P.H., Stanaland, A.J.S. and Tam, J. (2001), “Location, location, location: insights for advertising placement on the web”, Journal of Advertising Research, July/August, pp. 7‐21. · DOI · Paper page
- Shavitt, S., Lowrey, P. and Haefner, J. (1998), “Public attitudes toward advertising: more favorable than you might think”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 7‐22.
- Shimp, T.A. (1981), “Attitude toward the ad as a mediator of consumer brand choice”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 9‐48. · DOI · Paper page
- Stewart, D.W. (1999), “Advertising wearout: what and how you measure matters”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 39‐42.
- Taylor, D.G., Lewin, J.E. and Strutton, D. (2011), “Friends, fans, and followers: do ads work on social networks”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 258‐75. · DOI · Paper page
- Zanot, E.J. (1984), “Public attitudes towards advertising”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 3, pp. 3‐15. · DOI
- Phillips, D. (2008), “The psychology of social media”, Journal of New Communication Research, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 79‐85.
Cited by
Hollebeek, L. D., & Macky, K. (2019) · Journal of Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2018.07.003 · Cited by 978
Social media marketing: Comparative effect of advertisement sources
Shareef, M. A., Mukerji, B., Dwivedi, Y. K., Rana, N. P., & Islam, R. (2019) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.11.001 · Cited by 587
Bui, H. T. (2026) · Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1108/jrim-02-2025-0066 · Cited by 34
Green intentions, green actions: the power of social media and the perils of greenwashing
Nazish, M., Khan, Z., Khan, A., Naved Khan, M., & Ramkissoon, H. (2025) · Journal of Global Marketing · doi:10.1080/08911762.2024.2429517 · Cited by 28
Pourazad, N., Stocchi, L., & Simmonds, L. (2025) · Information Technology & Tourism · doi:10.1007/s40558-025-00330-6 · Cited by 22
Metadata
- Authors
- Logan, K., Bright, L. F., & Gangadharbatla, H.
- Venue
- Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2012-08-17
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 164-179
- ISSN
- 2040-7122 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2035642978
- Cited by
- 283
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 17.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.emerald.com/insight/site-policies (tdm)
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Facebook versus television: advertising value perceptions among females. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/17505931211274651
- The paper
- Logan, K., Bright, L. F., & Gangadharbatla, H. (2012). Facebook versus television: advertising value perceptions among females. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1108/17505931211274651
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.