Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 283

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

Logan, Kelty, Bright, Laura F., Gangadharbatla, Harsha·2012·Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/17505931211274651

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 7 references

Research works printed but not linked: 29

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Brehm, J.W. (1966), A Theory of Psychological Reactance, Academic Press, New York, NY.
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. Cho, C. (2003), “Factors influencing the clicking of banner ads on the WWW”, CyberPsychology & Behavior, Vol. 6, pp. 201‐15. · DOI
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. Ducoffe, R.H. (1996), “Advertising value and advertising on the web”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 21‐35.
  12. Greyser, S.A. (1973), “Irritation in advertising”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 3‐10.
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. Schlinger, M.J. (1979), “A profile of responses to commercials”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 37‐46.
  23. 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
  24. 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.
  25. 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
  26. Stewart, D.W. (1999), “Advertising wearout: what and how you measure matters”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 39‐42.
  27. 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
  28. Zanot, E.J. (1984), “Public attitudes towards advertising”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 3, pp. 3‐15. · DOI
  29. Phillips, D. (2008), “The psychology of social media”, Journal of New Communication Research, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 79‐85.

Cited by

See all 283

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.