Editorial Board

A Refereed Monthly International Journal of Management

Factors Influencing Consumer’s Attitude towards Social Media Advertising: A Review

Author

ABSTRACT

Popularity of social media advertising has been growing with each day among business organizations as well as consumers. Several factors play important role in influencing the attitude of consumers toward social media advertising. Previous studies examined the impact of different factors on consumers’ attitude toward social media advertising (hereafter CATSMA). The literature available on this issue is although wide but largely fragmented. Less efforts have been done in the past for integrating the findings of previous studies and identifying the factors which have most significant influence upon CATSMA. In this study research papers related to advertising, marketing and management were collected from refereed journals for reviewing the literature. This study carried out a systematic literature review of the factors which influence CATSMA and literature is summarized by identifying the factors that primarily influence CATSMA. The paper will establish a strong base for future research on social media advertising.

Keywords: Social media advertising (SMA), Consumers’ attitude toward social media advertising (CATSMA), Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Social networking sites (SNS)

Introduction

Since past several years, social media has gained popularity among individuals as well as business organizations across the world. This new media i.e. social media which is an assimilation of those applications which are based on internet and made upon the technological and ideological foundations of Web 2.0, can create and facilitate the exchange of content which is generated by users (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010), is important because it facilitates interaction between people, enables asynchronous and quick communication which comparatively costs lower as compared to other forms of communication (Miller et al., 2009).

Advertising on social media not only provide opportunity to companies to communicate with their customers and vice-versa but entire nature of online advertising has been changed through it as consumers now besides being the end users of online advertising have become important players in the further dissemination of advertisements to their colleagues, friends and family members (Golan & Zaidner, 2008; Mangold & Faulds, 2009). As most of the people are now using social websites on daily basis and online social networks have made the sharing of information very easy, online advertisers have made social websites their main target to post ads of their products so that they can reach the maximum number of customers in lesser time frame. Companies of all sizes have started making use of social networks to advertise and promote their products (Aula, 2010; Hanna et al., 2011). Consumers are increasingly becoming dependent on advertising and various other types of promotional tools for seeking the information that can help them in buying decisions (Belch et al., 2013), however, advertising has undergone a sea change in last few years and social media and online advertising have provided numerous advantages over traditional advertising (Gao et al., 2013; Saxena & Khanna, 2013; Abzari et al., 2014).  Social media has the ability to influence customers’ attitude, decision making and purchase intention, thus it provide the managers opportunity to do conversations with the users for promoting their products (Kyriakopoulou & Kitsios, 2017). Thus, we came across extensive literature which focused on significant growth in social media and immense opportunities available for companies to advertise their brands through it. However, a number of factors play role in influencing attitude of consumers toward social media advertising. Several studies were conducted in the past for measuring the impact of different factors on CATSMA. The published literature on the impact of various factors in shaping the consumers’ attitude towards social media is although wide but largely fragmented. Inadequate efforts have been done in the past towards integrating the findings of these studies and determining the factors which have most significant influence upon CATSMA. In this study an elaborative literature survey is conducted to explore the major factors affecting CATSMA. Research papers related to advertising, marketing and management were collected from referred journals for reviewing the literature. The paper is designed as: Firstly, we define and explain the concept of CATSMA. Secondly, we describe the literature review procedure and present a summary of prior research on various factors affecting CATSMA. Thirdly, we identify the factors influencing CATSMA which are found to be common in most of the studies and present the quantitative summary of these major factors affecting CATSMA. We then conclude the paper by proposing suggestions for future studies.

Consumers’ Attitude toward Social Media Advertising (CATSMA)

         Attitude is the psychological evaluation and expression towards anything in accordance with the extent of favour or disfavour (Lassus, 2003). Attitude towards advertising is a learned predisposition by which people respond consistently either favourably or unfavourably towards any advertisement (Lutz, 1985). Consumers’ attitude towards social network advertising is a predisposition to respond either way- favourably or unfavourably towards the content advertised on social networking services (Nevarez & Torres, 2015). Earlier researches on social media advertising have verified that attitude of consumers towards SMA is a key factor for determining advertising effectiveness (Li et al., 2002; Chu et al., 2013). Consumers’ attitude toward Internet advertising has been found as a significant predictor of their behavioural response to advertising which in turn is influenced by affective and cognitive factors as well as behavioural experiences (Kim et al., 2016). A number of advertising models have been designed during the past century to represent the different phases of attitudes that the consumers undergo prior to their buying decision (Barry, 1987). Lavidge and Steiner (1961) highlighted that eventually, consumers reach each attitude phase, by moving through these stages simultaneously or in a different order and hence it is not necessary that stages are always equidistant. As evident from a number of researches, the multicomponent models are considered to be more valid over the single component models to assess advertising (Bagozzi & Burnkrant, 1980; Barry & Howard, 1990; Brown & Stayman, 1999). Belch et al. (2012) asserted that the tricomponent attitude model comprise of three attitudinal stages or components: cognitive component (beliefs of an individual about an object), affective component (positive or negative feelings of an individual towards the object) and the behavioural component (readiness of an individual to give behavioural response to the object). Duffet (2017) also explained that consumers pass through the following consecutive attitude phases: consumers’ getting aware about the existence of the brand and gaining knowledge about the offers of the brand (the cognitive attitude response); framing of liking or favourable predisposition towards that brand and expressing their brand preference in comparison to the other brands (the affective attitude response); deciding to buy a particular brand and finally buying it (the behavioral attitude response).

Attitudes toward advertising comprises of a proposed theory according to which favourable and positive attitude towards an advertisement leads to positive attitudes toward the brands, which favorably influences the buying intention (MacKenzie et al., 1986; Bruner & Kumar, 2000). Whereas Gensler et al. (2013) highlighted that consumers who are exposed to social media marketing communication are found to have formed not only favourable but also unfavourable attitude at times. Lukka and James (2014) found positive, negative as well as neutral attitudes toward social network advertising. Several studies have analysed the attitudinal responses of people toward different kinds of social media marketing communications. Sun and Wang (2010) found that consumers’ attitude toward online advertising is an important predictor of their responses towards it. Chu et al. (2013) found that attitude of consumers toward SMA affects their behavioural responses toward SMA and consequently their purchase intentions. Boateng and Okoe (2015) found that relationship between CATSMA and behavioural responses is significant. Duffet (2015) revealed that advertisements targeted through Facebook leads to favourable influence on the behavioural attitudes of consumers. Duffet (2017) found that advertising on social media had a favourable impact on cognitive (awareness, knowledge); affective (liking, preference) and; behavioural (intention-to-purchase, purchase) components.

Literature Identification and Analysis

Academic and peer reviewed journal papers published between 1965 and 2019, addressing the impact of factors influencing CATSMA were collected for this study. In total 133 papers were collected out of which 55 were found relevant to the topic. Findings of these identified papers were arranged systematically and then analysed to determine the factors which influence the CATSMA the most. We have carried out a systematic literature review of the factors influencing CATSMA and summarised the literature which can become a strong basis for future research on SMA.

Factors Influencing Consumers’ Attitude Toward Social Media Advertising (CATSMA)

There may be several factors contributing to the formation CATSMA. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) adopted from theory of reasoned action, given by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) states that a causal chain is formed between beliefs, attitudes, intentions and behavior. Davis (1989) TAM address the question that why information technology is accepted or rejected by users. TAM suggested two main determinants, viz: Perceived usefulness (hereafter PU) and Perceived ease of use (PEU) in predicting the attitudes of the users towards the technology, which further influence their intentions to use and imbibe the technology. Bell et al. (1965) people perceive usefulness if they get the useful information which they are looking for at lesser costs or with other benefits. Schmidt (1996) favourable PU leads to willingness of consumers to gather information.

Earlier researches describe that TAM model can be applicable in determining users’ attitude towards social networking (Nevarez & Torres, 2015). However, over a period of time various researchers proposed alterations in the model. Legris et al. (2003) recommended that certain more variables especially which are related to the social change processes and that involve human factor need to be added to the TAM model to make the existing model more comprehensive. Subramanian (1994) examined the effect of TAM factors on the predicted future usage of Information Technology and found that PU is the determinant of predicted future usage but did not found significant impact of PEU on it. Igbaria et al. (1997) PEU explains both, PU and system usage, also PU strongly effects system usage, however, the effect of PEU is more than PU on system usage. Gefen et al. (2003) intention to use online shopping is influenced by trust, PU, as well as PEU. Also, PU was found as a stronger direct predictor of intention to use online shopping than trust. Heijden et al. (2003) PEU, PU, trust on online stores, and perceived risk are the factors influencing attitude towards online purchasing intention which further impact online purchase intention. Hajli (2013) omits the factor PEU by arguing that it indirectly influences user’s acceptance via PU, however, integrated the technology acceptance model with social media concepts and found that in comparison to trust, PU has greater influence on buying intentions. Nevarez and Torres (2015) in their model included two additional variables, perceived advertisement intrusiveness (hereafter PAI) and incentive offering (hereafter IO) along with the factors introduced by TAM to determine CATSMA and found that those social network users showed positive attitude who perceived social network advertising as “useful” and “easy to use”.

 There are several ways by which the constructs introduced by TAM can be applied (Adams et al., 1992). Previous studies show that besides PU and PEU, there are other factors that can also influence CATSMA either along with or in absence of one or both TAM factors, that too in many combinations. Bauer and Greyser (1968) advertising with hedonic value seeks higher attention of consumers. Winters (1986) response of consumers depends upon company’s reputation as consumers when had a good experience with company and found it trustworthy as well as worthwhile to recommend to their relatives and friends, will respond favourably toward advertisements floated by the company on internet. Alwitt and Prabhaker (1992) positive hedonic messages or pleasurable advertising are source of entertainment and are more accepted by consumers. Yoon et al. (1993) highlighted that reputation of the company plays vital role in consumer’s decision making and purchase intention of consumers is linked to corporate reputation (hereafter CR). Ducoffe (1996) revealed that informativeness and entertainment values are positively associated to its overall advertising value which has strong relationship with attitude of consumers on web advertising but irritation is found negatively related with it. Corporate credibility, which forms a portion of corporation’s image affects consumers’ perception (Fombrun, 1996) and both, credibility of the company and conveyor of the message influence the credibility of company’s advertisement (Smith & Quelch, 1996). Goldsmith et al. (2000) also highlighted that company’s reputation and representative of the advertisement highly affects the credibility of the advertisement. Similarly, Jarvenpaa et al. (2000) concluded that consumers’ trust on the webstore depends upon their outlook toward reputation and size of the company. Li et al. (2002) highlighted that while engaged on internet, users are focused and tend to avoid any disruption and thus advertisements on internet are perceived by consumers even more intrusive as compare to traditional media. Wolin et al. (2002) factors like hedonic pleasure, product information, image and social role and positively influence attitude towards web advertising whereas value corruption, materialism and falsity/no sense are the factors that are negatively associated with attitudes. Berens and Riel (2004) asserted that people have different social expectations from companies which form the perceptions of people about reputation of companies. Gao and Koufaris (2006) consumers’ attitude toward the website is positively affected by perceived entertainment and informativeness whereas it is negatively affected by perceived irritation. Moreover, attitude toward the website significantly influences user's intention to revisit the site. Wais and Clemons (2008) in their study found that people have a positive perception of advertisements that they receive from others instead of a company and they would like to receive promotional messages from peers instead of the companies. Clemons et al. (2009) asserted that youth have been connected with the help of internet and technology and online friends as well as peers have significant influence on their decisions. Janusz (2009) found that advertisements on internet using the element of entertainment provide highly successful results as they attract internet users. Mengli (2010) asserted that three out of five factors explain the attitude towards online shopping, which are PEU, PU and trust excluding personal awareness of security and perceived risk. Sun and Wang (2010) entertainment, credibility, information seeking, economy and value corruption significantly influence attitudes toward online advertising. Sohn (2010) the strongest variable of advertising that causes avoidance of advertisements by social networking sites users is advertising intrusiveness as, if consumers find advertisements as interrupting in achievement of their goals are perceived intrusive by them. This increases the likelihood that such advertisements may get avoided by them. Sallam (2011) Consumers’ attitude toward online advertising and buying intention is influenced by consumers’ perception about company’s reputation as to evaluate the products of a company they consider trustworthiness for company as a valuable input. Taylor et al. (2011) found that entertainment, informativeness, PI and self- brand congruity showed the favourable impacts, whereas privacy concerns and invasiveness have negative influence on consumers’ acceptance of social networking sites and on their attitude toward SMA. Lewis et al. (2012) there is important role of peers in influencing the decisions of consumers on online social networks however it is affected by culture groups to which people belong or other similarity factors. Mir (2012) economy and information are determinants of CATSMA which influences consumers’ advertising clicking behavior thus influencing their online purchasing behavior. Wang et al. (2012) consumers have easy access to user-generated online product reviews, opinions and referrals of peers which is changing consumer decision making process and consumer information processing. Edwards et al. (2013) stated that ads when perceived as intrusive generated the feelings of irritation and hence advertisements are avoided by people. On the other hand, if advertisements are perceived informative and entertaining, there is less chance that intrusiveness emerges. Li-Ming et al. (2013) there is significant influence of factors like trust, usability and information on CATSMA. Mahmoud (2013) entertainment, social role, information, falsity, materialism, irritation and values corruption are factors that affects attitude which in turn have impact on decisions like to click ad or leave website. Saadeghvaziri et al. (2013) hedonic, product information, irritation and social role are factors that influence attitudes toward web advertising which in turn influence consumer's web advertising behavior and buying intention. Thoumrungroje (2014) there are direct as well as indirect (via eWOM) influences of the intensity of social media usage (hereafter ISMU) on consumers’ buying decisions related to conspicuous goods. Huang et al. (2014) highlighted that exposure to the content displayed by the friends on SNS has greater influence on adolescents’ usage of smoking and drinking than the frequency of SNS use and their number of friends on SNS. Vanauken (2014) concessions and coupons offering extra discounts via social media influences consumers’ purchase decisions in aviation industry. Amjad et al. (2015) factors affecting CATSMA include reliability, enjoyment, value crime, economic system, lifestyle, information seeking, objective obstacle and ad mess. Boateng and Okoe (2015) suggested that companies which are prone towards using SMA must improve their CR and should have empathy towards their customers and establish trust among them. Chua and Banerjee (2015) provision of incentives, vividness and interactivity of brand-posts on social networking sites affects consumers decisions. Duffet (2015) usage characteristics, duration of log-on, incidence of profile update and demographic variables also influence the purchase perceptions. Nevarez and Torres (2015) the ads should be targeted by the firms with as small as possible intrusiveness for the users. Whereas factors like incentive offering IO, PU, PEU positively impact consumers’ attitude toward social network advertising. Putro and Haryanto (2015) usefulness, ease of use and perceived risk affects consumer attitudes which in turn affect the intention to buy. Singh and Singh (2015) entertainment, informative, usability, trust and credibility significantly influence consumers’ attitude toward online advertising. Yilmaz and Enginkaya (2015) identified five significant motives of consumers that lead to their following of brands in social media viz. brand affiliation, opportunity seeking, conversation, entertainment and investigation. Jung et al. (2016) Peer influence (hereafter PI) and entertainment positively affects attitude and behavioural intention of users regarding brands being advertised on Facebook whereas attitudes and behavioural intention were negatively affected if advertisement invasiveness was increased. Kim et al. (2016) found that the perceived advertisement informativeness of Facebook advertising was strongly related to advertisement clicking whereas perceived advertisement irritation negatively influences it, and perceived advertisement entertainment (hereafter PAE) was not significantly associated to advertisement clicking. Intensity of Facebook usage also positively affect advertisement-clicking behavior. Sandu and Ianole (2016) developed a model on CR based on the idea that each stakeholder may perceive different dimension of reputation depending upon his interaction with the organization. Results revealed that company’s economic performance is dominating factor influencing individual’s buying, investing and working decisions related to a company and hence building CR. Wiese (2016) entertainment, economy, information and credibility influence the consumers attitude towards online advertising. Also, entertainment was found as strongest predictor of attitude towards online advertising via social network sites. Waheed et al. (2017) there are seven characteristics of behavior having direct influence on the usage of social networking viz. social affiliation, frequency of use, reciprocity, information control, self-orientation, social investigation and social boldness. Also, there are nine factors including social- influence, boredom, regret, emotions, self- control, self- esteem, ease of use, personality characteristics and gratification that have influence on user behavior while using social networking sites but cannot be measured directly as user behaviour. Stojanovic et al. (2018) intensity of use of social media positively influences consumers’ minds regarding value of the brand. Bevelander et al. (2018) social influence agents such as peers, friends, family and other role models on social networks affects youth behavior.

Discussions

Above studies highlight the various factors affecting CATSMA. It can be concluded from above section that there are many factors that have influence on the formation of CATSMA. Also, besides these factors there may be many other factors that can affect CATSMA. Factors like media usage, ethnicity, ad perceptions, gender, age and even mood are found to have an influence on the attitude toward advertising (MacKenzie and Lutz, 1989). However, after thorough review of literature 73 factors were found in total in different studies that have influence on CATSMA. During literature analysis it was also found that the factors that majorly affect CATSMA are PU, PEU, PAE, PAI, ISMU, PI, IO, and CR, as either of these eight factors are present in most of the studies and also their occurrences are found much higher than other factors examined during the literature survey. Moreover, it was also found during literature analysis that several terms have been used in different studies to represent a particular concept. Therefore, in this research similar terms have been grouped together and then allocated to a particular factor among identified factors which suitably represent the single concept. A concise description of each of these factors and their related terms are provided in Table-1.

Table-1: Description of various factors affecting consumers’ attitude toward social media advertising

Moreover, relevant studies related to the identified prominent eight factors are summarized in the Table-2.

Table-2: Studies related to factors influencing consumers’ attitude toward social media advertising

Conclusion and Suggestions for Future Research

The paper gives an overview of the existing status of knowledge regarding the factors affecting CATSMA. We identified the key factors i.e. PU, PEU, PAE, PAI, ISMU, PI, IO, and CR that majorly influence the CATSMA which in turn affects their purchase intentions. We consider that the study will provide substantial base and stimulation for carrying out future research on the influence of major factors on CATSMA by drawing the attention of researchers to these identified variables and their relation with CATSMA that can be further empirically investigated.

References

1.       Abzari. M, Ghassemi. R. A., & Vosta. L. N. (2014). Analysing the effect of social media on brand attitude and purchase intention: the case of Iran Khodro Company. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 143, 822-826.

2.       Adams, D. A., Nelson, R. R., & Todd, P. A. (1992). Perceived usefulness, ease of use, and usage of information technology: A replication. MIS Quarterly, 16 (2), 227-247.

3.       Sallam, M.A.A. (2011). The Impact of Source Credibility on Saudi Consumer’s Attitude toward Print Advertisement: The Moderating Role of Brand Familiarity. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 3(4), 63-77

4.       Alwitt, L., & Prabhaker, P. (1992). Functional and beliefs dimensions of attitudes to television advertising: Implications for copy testing. Journal of Advertising Research, 9, 30-42.

5.       Amjad, M., Javed, R., & Jaskani, N. H. (2015). Examining attitudes and beliefs towards online advertising in Pakistan. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, 6 (1), 463-480.          

6.       Aula, P. (2010). Social media, reputation risk and ambient publicity management. Strategy & Leadership, 38 (2), 43-49.

7.       Bagozzi, R.P., & Burnkrant, R.E. (1980). Single component versus multicomponent models of attitude: Some cautions and contingencies for their use. Advances in Consumer Research, 7, 339-344.

8.       Barry, T.E. (1987). The development of the hierarchy of effects: an historic perspective. Current Issues and Research in Advertising. 10 (2), 251-295.

9.       Barry, T.E., & Howard, D.J. (1990). A review and critique of the hierarchy of effects in advertising, International Journal of Advertising. 9 (2), 121-135.

10.    Bauer, R. A., & Greyser, S. A. (1968). Advertising in America: The Consumer View. Boston, MA: Harvard.

11.    Belch, G. E. Belch, M.A., & Purani, K. (2013). Advertising and Promotion: An Integrated Marketing Communication Perspective (13th Ed), McGraw-Hill, P. 6.

12.    Belch, G. E., Belch, M. A., & Dietzel, J. (2012). Advertising and Promotion: An Integrated Marketing Communications Perspective (9th ed). New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

13.    Bell, C.S., & Cochrane, W.W. (1965). The Economics of Consumption: Economics of Decision Making in the Household, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

14.    Berens, G., & Yan Riel, C. (2004). Corporate associations in the academic literature: three main streams of thought in the reputation measurement literature. Corporate Reputation Review, 7 (2), 161-178.

15.    Bevelander, K.E., Smit, C.R., Woudenberg, T.J., Buijs, L., Burk, W.J., & Buijzen, M. (2018). Youth’s social network structures and peer influences: study protocol. MyMovez project- Phase I.  BMC Public Health, 1-13.

16.    Boateng, H., & Okoe, A. F. (2015). Consumers’ attitude towards social media advertising and their behavioural response. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 9 (4), 299-312.

17.    Brown, S., & Stayman, D. (1999). Antecedents and consequences of attitude toward the ad: a meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 24-51.

18.    Bruner, G.C., & Kumar, A. (2000). Web commercials and advertising hierarchy-of-effects. Journal of Advertising Research, 40(1-2), 35-42.

19.    Chu, S., Kamal, S., & Kim, Y. (2013). Understanding consumers’ responses toward social media advertising and purchase intention toward luxury products. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, 4 (3), 158-174.

20.    Chua, A.Y.K., & Banerjee, S. (2015). International Multi Conference of Engineers and Computer Scientists 2015 Vol 1, IMECS 2015, March 18-20, 2015, Hong Kong

21.    Clemons, E. K., Barnett. S., Ben-Zaken, I., Clemons, J. C., Magdoff, J., Shulman, G., & Wais, T. (2009). Touch me often but not deeply: understanding the interpersonal style of the petites digerati. In: Sprague R (ed) Proceedings of 42nd Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Waikoloa, HI, IEEE Computing Society Press, Los Alamitos.

22.    Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.

23.    Ducoffe, R. H. (1996). Advertising value and advertising on the Web. Journal of Advertising Research, 36, 21-35.

24.    Duffet, R. G. (2015). Facebook advertising’s influences on intention-to-purchase and purchase amongst Millennials. Internet Research. 25 (4), 498-526.

25.    Duffet, R. G. (2017). Influence of social marketing communications on young consumers’ attitudes. Young Consumers, 18 (1), 19-39.

26.    Edwards, S. M., Li, H. & Lee. J. (2013). Forced exposure and psychological reactance: antecedents and consequences of the perceived intrusiveness of pop-up ads. Journal of Advertising, 31 (3), 83-95.

27.    Fishbein, M., & Azen, I. (1975). Beliefs, attitudes, intention, and behaviour: An introduction to the theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

28.    Fombrun, C. J. (1996). Reputation: realizing value from the corporate image. Boston: Harvard Business S l Press.

29.    Gao, J., Sheng, B., Chang, L., & Shim, S. (2013). Online Advertising- Taxonomy and Engineering Perspectives. San Jose State University, Publicazione, online, USA, 1-2.

30.    Gao, Y., & Koufaris, M. (2006). Perceptual antecedents of user attitude in electronic commerce. The Database for Advances in Information Systems, 37 (2), 42-50.

31.    Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: an integrated model. MIS Quarterly, 27 (1), 51-90.

32.    Gensler, S., Völckner, F., Liu-Thompkins, Y., & Wiertz, C. (2013). Managing brands in the social media environment. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 27 (4), 242-256.

33.    Golan Guy, J., & Zaidner, L. (2008). Creative Strategies in Viral Advertising: An Application of Taylor’s Six-Segment Message Strategy Wheel. Journal of Computer- Mediated Communications, 13, 959-972.

34.    Goldsmith, R.E., Lafferty, B.A., & Newell, S.J. (2000). The Impact of Corporate Credibility and Celebrity on Consumer Reaction to Advertisements and Brands. Journal of Advertising, 29 (3), 43-54.

35.    Hajli, N.M. (2013). A study of the impact of social media on consumers. International Journal of Market Research, 56(3), 387-404.

36.    Hanna, R., Rohm, A., & Crittenden, V. L. (2011). We’re all connected: The power of the social media ecosystem. Business Horizons, 54, 265-273.

37.    Heijden, H. V. D., Verhagen, T., & Creemers, M. (2003). Understanding online purchase intentions: contributions from technology and trust perspectives. European Journal of Information Systems, 12 (1), 41-48.

38.    Huang, G. C., Unger, J. B., Soto, D., Fujimoto, K., Pentz, M.A., Jordan-Marsh, M., and Valente, T.W. (2014). Peer Influences: The Impact of Online and Offline Friendship Networks on Adolescent Smoking and Alcohol Use. Journal of Adolescent Health, 54, 508-514.

39.    Igbaria, M., Zinatelli, N., Cragg, P., & Cavaye, A. L. M. (1997). Personal computing acceptance factors in small firms: A structural equation model. MIS Quarterly, 21 (3), 279-305.

40.    Janusz, T. (2009). Marketing on Social Networks: Twitter, MySpace and Facebook Demystified. Key Words, 17 (4), 124-125.

41.    Jarvenpaa, S.L., Tractinsky, N., & Vitale, M. (2000). Consumer trust in an internet store. Information Technology and Management, 1 (1), 45-71.

42.    Jung, J., Shim, S. W., Jin. H. S., & Khang, H. (2016). Factors affecting attitudes and behavioural intention towards social networking advertising: a case of Facebook users in South Korea. International Journal of Advertising, 35 (2), 248-265.

43.    Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53 (1), 59-68.

44.    Kevin Lewis, Marco Gonzalez, and Jason Kaufman (2012). Social selection and peer influence in an online social network. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109 (1), 68-72.

45.    Kim, Y., Kang, M., Choi, S. M., & Sung, Y. (2016). To click or not to click? Investigating antecedents of advertisement clicking on Facebook. Social Behaviour and Personality, 44 (4), 657-668.

46.    Kyriakopoulou, E., & Kitsios, F. (2017). The influence of social media on consumers’ behavior Conference: 6th International Symposium and 28th National Conference on Operation Research/ OR in the digital era – ICT challenges / June 8-10, 2017 / Thessaloniki, Greece, 62-66

47.    Lassus, C. (2003). Children and attitude towards the website: designing and testing a measurement scale. In XIXth International Congress of the French Marketing Association: acts. Volume 1 Paper presented at XIXth International Congress of the French Marketing Association, Tunis, Tunisia (pp. 123-137). DRM Publications.

48.    Lavidge, R. J., & Steiner, G. A. (1961). A model for predictive measurements of advertising effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 25 (4), 59-62.

49.    Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the Technology Acceptance Model. Information & Management, 40 (3), 191-204.

50.    Li, H., Edwards, S. M., & Lee, J. H. (2002). Measuring the intrusiveness of advertisements: Scale development and validation. Journal of Advertising, 31 (2), 37-47.

51.    Li-Ming, A.K., Teoh B.W., Mazitah, H. & Nik, K.M. (2013). The Predictors of Attitude towards Online Advertising. International Journal of Applied Psychology, 3 (1), 7-12.

52.      Lukka, V., & James, P. T. J. (2014). Attitudes toward Facebook. Journal of Management and Marketing Research, 14, 1-26.

53.      Lutz, Richard. J., (1985). Affective and Cognitive Antecedents of Attitude toward the Ad: A conceptual framework. Psychological Processes and Advertising Effects: Theory, Research, and Applications, Linda Alwitt and Andrew Mitchell, eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

54.    MacKenzie, S. B., & Lutz, R. J. (1989). An Empirical Examination of the Structural Antecedents of Attitude toward the Ad in an Advertising Pretesting Context. Journal of Marketing, 53 (2), 48-65.

55.    MacKenzie, S. B., Lutz, R. J., & Belch, G. E. (1986). The role of attitude toward the ad as a mediator of advertising effectiveness: A test of competing explanations. Journal of Marketing Research, 23 (2), 130-143.

56.    Mahmoud, A.B. (2013). Syrian consumers: beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral responses to internet advertising. Verslas: Teorija ir praktika Business: Theory and Practice, 14 (4), 297-307.

57.      Mangold, W. G., & Faulds, D. J. (2009). Social media: The new hybrid element for promotion mix. Business Horizons, 52 (4), 357-365.

58.    Mengli, M. (2010). A study on factors affecting consumers’ attitude towards online shopping and online shopping intention in Bangkok, Thailand. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Innovation & Management, 1842-1853.

59.    Miller, K. D., Fabian, F., & Lin, S. J. (2009). Strategies for online communities. Strategic Management Journal, 30 (3), 305-322.

60.    Mir, I. A. (2012). Consumer attitudinal insights about social media advertising: a South Asian perspective. The Romanian Economic Journal, 15 (45), 265-288.

61.    Nevarez, C. L., & Torres, I. M. (2015). Consumer attitudes toward social network advertising. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 36, 1-19.

62.    Putro, H.B. & Haryanto, B. (2015). Factors Affecting Purchase Intention of Online Shopping in Zalora Indonesia. British Journal of Economics, Management & Trade, 9 (1), 1-12.

63.    Saadeghvaziri, F., Dehdashti, Z., & Askarabad, M. R. K. (2013). Web advertising: Assessing beliefs, attitudes, purchase intention and behavioral responses. Journal of Economic and Administrative Sciences, 29 (2), 99-112.

64.    Sandu, M., & Ianole, R. (2016). What really matters for a good corporate reputation? A Structural Equational Modelling View. Journal of Social and Economic Statistics, 5 (2), 16-32.

65.    Saxena, A., & Khanna, U. (2013). Advertising on social network sites: a structural equation modelling approach, Vision, the Journal of Business Perspective, 17 (1) 17-25.

66.    Schmidt, J.B., & Spreng, R.A. (1996). A proposed model of external consumer information search. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24 (3), 246-56.

67.    Singh, M., & Singh, V. (2015). A Perceptual Study of Factors Affecting the Online Advertising. International Journal of Engineering and Management Research, 5 (4), 39-44.

68.    Smith, N.C., and Quelch, J.A. (1996). Ethics in marketing. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

69.    Sohn, R. (2010). The study on predictors of advertising avoidance in SNS advertising, Master’s thesis, Dongguk University, Seoul. 

70.    Stojanovic, I., Andreu, L., & Curras-Perez, R. (2018). Effects of the intensity of use of social media on brand equity: An empirical study in a tourist destination. European Journal of Management and Business Economics, 27 (1), 83-100.

71.    Subramanian, G.H. (1994). A replication of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use measurement. Decision Sciences, 25 (5/ 6), 863-874.

72.    Taylor, D. G., Lewin, J. E., & Strutton, D. (2011). Friends, fans, and followers: Do ads work on social networks? How gender and age shape receptivity. Journal of Advertising Research, 51, 258-275.

73.    Thoumrungroje, A. (2014). The influence of social media intensity and EWOM on conspicuous consumption. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 148, 7-15.

74.    Vanauken, K. (2014). Using social media to improve customer engagement and promote products and services. Airport Management, 9 (2), 109-117.

75.    Waheed, H., Anjum, M., Rehman, M., & Khwaja, A., (2017). Investigation of user behaviour on social networking sites. PLOS ONE, 12 (2), 1-19.

76.    Wais, J. S., and Clemons, E. K. (2008). Understanding and implementing mobile social advertising. International Journal of Mobile Marketing, 3 (1), 12-18.

77.    Wang, X., Yu, C., & Wei, Y. (2012). Social Media Peer Communication and Impacts on Purchase Intentions: A Consumer Socialization Framework. Article in Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26 (4), 198-208.

78.    Wang, Y. & Sun, S. (2010). Examining the role of beliefs and attitudes in online advertising: a comparison between USA and Romania, International Marketing Review, 27 (1), 88-107.

79.    Wiese, M. (2016). Beliefs and Attitudes Towards Online Advertising in a Social Network Context. In: Groza M., Ragland C. (eds) Marketing Challenges in a Turbulent Business Environment. Developments in Marketing Science: Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science. Springer, Cham

80.    Winters, L.C. (1986). The effect of brand advertising on company image-implications for corporate advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 26 (2), 54-59.

81.    Wolin, L., Korgaonkar, P., & Lund, D. (2002). Beliefs, attitudes and behaviour towards web advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 21 (1), 87-113.

82.    Yilmaz, H., & Enginkaya, E. (2015). Brand followers: motivations and attitudes of consumers to follow brands in social media, Int. J. Internet Marketing and Advertising, 9 (1), 3-20.

Yoon, E., Guffey, H. J., & Kijewski, V. (1993). The effects of information and company reputation on intentions to buy a business service. Journal of Business Research, 27 (3), 215-228.