The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1066-2243.htm

Social media advertising reactance Social media

advertising
model: a theoretical review reactance
model
Honghong Huo, Zhiyong Liu and Qingfei Min
School of Economics and Management, Dalian University of Technology,
Dalian, China
Received 12 February 2020
Abstract Revised 30 June 2020
Purpose – Research on social media advertising reactance (SMAR) is in the early stages. This paper intends to 13 November 2020
present a full picture of SMAR studies, introduce a comprehensive theoretical model (the social media Accepted 13 November 2020
advertising reactance model, SMARM) and provide insights into research and practice.
Design/methodology/approach – This review adopts the concept-driven systematic review approach,
identifying 92 articles from four primary academic databases – EBSCO, Elsevier, Web of Science and Google
Scholar.
Findings – First, this review offers overviews of five topics: publication trends, the journals publishing
research, research methodology, targeted platform and the main theories. Second, based on the framework of
psychological reactance, this study proposes the SMARM, identifying and elaborating on four components of
the nomological relationship to SMAR: related concepts, antecedents, moderators and consequences.
Practical implications – This research has implications for advertisers, social media platform operators
and policymakers by providing a whole picture of SMAR. Moreover, the SMARM could guide the
stakeholders to adopt a user-friendly advertising design for the sustainable development of social media
advertising (SMA).
Originality/value – By presenting an up-to-date review of SMAR-related research, this paper contributes to
the literature of social media, advertising and marketing. Through a comparison with traditional advertising,
this paper makes the characteristics of SMA clear. Meanwhile, the SMARM is developed to systematically
elaborate on all related elements of SMAR and explain their underlying causal relationships. Future research
directions are proposed.
Keywords Advertising reactance, Social media advertising, Psychological reactance theory
Paper type Literature review

1. Introduction
The emergence of social media has not only considerably changed the ways individuals
interact but also altered the digital marketing landscape. Social media has become a new
communication paradigm for company-to-consumer message delivery and attracted a great
deal of advertising investment (Tsimonis et al., 2020). Taking the United States as an
example, the total advertising budget for social media reached 32 billion US dollars in 2019,
with a growth rate of 19.4% (eMarketer, 2019). Using social media as a marketing tool is
effective in the early stage for promoting a large user base, high user engagement and low-
cost technology-based approaches. However, social media is now considered to go too far in
monetizing its service and receives increasing criticism. First, with more and more
advertising budgets rushing to social media, platforms are overloaded with advertisements
(Tsimonis et al., 2020). Second, advertisements leverage social media to break into users’ daily
lives unscrupulously (Wei et al., 2019). Third, social media advertising (SMA) can be
customized by accessing user data even without authorization, which triggers over-
customization or privacy concerns (Gironda and Korgaonkar, 2016, 2018). Fourth, as social
media has put too much effort into advertising, users often complain that social media has
deviated from its original social-oriented purpose (Hamby and Ilyuk, 2019).

This work was partly supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [71772022]; Internet Research
Philosophy and Social Science Planning Fund of Liaoning Province [L18CGL015]; the Fundamental © Emerald Publishing Limited
1066-2243
Research Funds for the Central Universities [DUT20RW119]. DOI 10.1108/INTR-02-2020-0072
INTR Although advertising is significant for both social platforms and advertisers to sustain
organizational growth, users are unwilling to accept the over-commercialization of social media.
This study adopts the term social media advertising reactance (SMAR) to describe the
unpleasant psychological state experienced by users and caused by SMA (Brehm and Brehm,
1981c). As a leading cause of low advertising efficiency and platform satisfaction, SMAR is a
challenge for both researchers and practitioners. Some efforts have been made to explore
SMAR-related issues, such as explaining phenomena and developing concepts and theories, but
several deficiencies and gaps still exist in the literature. First of all, social media has triggered
shifts in advertising. There remain theoretical gaps relating to the generalization of traditional
theories in the SMA context, and the influences of new features of SMA on the mechanism of
user reactance (Kelly et al., 2009). Second, many SMAR studies are based on ambiguous
conceptualizations of various reactance-related scenarios and relationships. A summary and
analysis of the core concepts of SMAR will provide a solid foundation for future research. Third,
existing studies on SMAR often provide fragmented conclusions and contradictory advice
for researchers and practitioners. A discussion based on a unified theoretical framework will
be helpful to show the whole picture of SMAR-related research and to understand and bridge
the differences. All the above gaps inspired us to provide this systematic SMAR review.
We searched four international academic databases, EBSCO, Elsevier, Web of Science and
Google Scholar, and identified 92 studies on SMAR. We present an up-to-date review of these
empirical studies to facilitate the exchange and integration of knowledge. This review
contributes by presenting a series of analyses of the articles identified, including publication
trends, the journals publishing the articles, targeted platforms, research methods and the
widely adopted theories. We then propose a theoretical model, the social media advertising
reactance model (SMARM), to consolidate all the fragmented results. This integrated review
provides a holistic reference for all the published research on SMAR and has implications for
both research and practice.

2. Conceptual background
2.1 Social media advertising
Many argue that the high involvement of native users in SMA blurs the line between
advertising and native content, so it is necessary to define the scope of SMA clearly. Islam and
Mahmood (2018) adopted SMA to refer generally to all advertisements that use social media
as their propagation medium. Alalwan (2018) held that SMA is a form of Internet ad, but
based on Web 2.0 and enabling users’ greater engagement (i.e. liking, re-sharing,
commenting, posting and learning). In practitioners’ view, SMA is an umbrella term
covering four typical advertising forms: (1) easily identifiable digital display ads, (2) “native”
or “in-stream” ads, (3) “influencer” ads and (4) user-generated marketing (Barker, 2018). Based
on these, we generally define SMA as a paid non-personal communication using social media
as a channel to persuade or influence users. This means that two essential elements are
necessary to SMA: the social media context and commercial nature. Three kinds of typical
marketing practices are involved: (1) marketer-generated content to promote or advertise
products, (2) user-generated content paid for by a clearly identified sponsor and (3) native
content for users’ personal brands. The content posted by a native user to promote their
personal brand, though without a sponsor, is also regarded as SMA as it is motivated by the
commercial benefits of subsequent purchases. Furthermore, to offer a holistic view of SMA,
we systematically compare it to traditional online advertising and traditional offline mass
media advertising in terms of three aspects, the media environment, the advertising format
and the interaction with individuals (see Table 1).
The new characteristics of SMA have made it the subject of various studies, even
literature reviews. For example, Paquette (2013) reviewed studies of retailer’s development
 Traditional online Traditional
Social media
Specific aspects Social media ads ads offline ads References advertising
reactance
Media Supporting Social media, web Web 1.0 online TV, radio,
environment medium 2.0 websites with websites newspapers, model
social functions magazines, etc.
Participation Two-way One-way One-way (Pelet et al.,
patterns dialogue information information 2016)
delivery system delivery system
Media type Paid media, Paid media, Paid media (Mattke
owned media, owned media et al., 2019)
earned media
Features of Personalization Social ads are Online behavioral Broadcast (Bakshy
advertising targeted to users ads (based on (without et al., 2012)
based on their records of users’ personalization)
profile data and online behaviors);
social network search engine ads
data (based on users’
search items)
Nature of Social and Commercial Commercial (Lee et al.,
advertisements commercial exchange exchange 2015)
exchange
Advertising Informativeness; Informativeness; Informativeness; (Miltgen
value entertainment; entertainment entertainment et al., 2019)
social value
Advertising Both firms and Mainly initiated All initiated by (Kelly
initiator native users can by firms firms et al., 2009)
initiate an ad
Features of Approach Mobile phone PC TV, radio, (Miltgen
interaction device newspapers, et al., 2019)
magazines etc.
Motivation to Create or Search for Gain (Celebi,
access the maintain information, gain entertainment 2015)
media relationships entertainment
Rituals and Social norms Commercial Commercial (Miltgen Table 1.
shared norms norms et al., 2019) A comparison of social
meaning of the media advertising and
media traditional advertising

when they use social media as an extension of their marketing strategy. Knoll (2015)
identified 51 studies on SMA and presented a review according to the research themes.
Besides, Alalwan et al. (2017) reviewed 144 articles and expanded the understanding of social
media in marketing. Just like the above examples, however, the majority of reviews
indiscriminately cover all studies of SMA and present their findings based on themes. In
contrast, our study focuses on a specific subfield of SMA, SMA reactance, which acutely
reflects the latest trend of shifting research from ad effectiveness to ad reactance.

2.2 Advertising reactance

The term “reactance” originated as a psychological construct, describing the unpleasant
motivational state hypothesized to occur when an individual’s freedom is eliminated (Brehm
and Brehm, 1981e). As advertising is designed to persuade and manipulate individuals to
think or act in certain ways, individuals often perceive reactance toward advertising
(

Akestam et al., 2017; Youn and Kim, 2019b). Concurrently, Li et al. (2002) conceptualized the
phenomenon of advertising reactance as intrusiveness. Advertising reactance is increasingly
INTR stressed on social media for its damaging effects on marketing goals. When individuals
experience advertising reactance, they may adopt either direct forms of resistance strategies,
such as avoiding, contesting and empowering (Fransen et al., 2015) or indirect forms of
restoration strategies like thinking poorly of or acting with hostility toward an ad or brand
(Brehm and Brehm, 1981c).
Advertising reactance is not a new concept in marketing. It has been conceptualized and
gained academic and practical attention since Brehm and Brehm (1981e) proposed
psychological reactance theory (PRT). Insights have come from various perspectives.
Some studies have dug into the nature of reactance and conceptualized it as a combination of
cognitive and affective reactions arising when freedom is threatened (Dillard and Shen, 2005;
Rains, 2013). Several studies have been devoted to summaries. For example, Amarnath and
Jaidev (2018) focused on the major theories and classified 41 empirical articles by research
methodology, context and sample. In another paper (2020), they constructed a stimulus-
organism-response (S-O-R) framework to explain the interrelationships between every S-O-R
element of consumer reactance. Riedel et al. (2018) adopted the term “advertising
intrusiveness” for reactance and examined its drivers and consequences. However, the
existing reviews on advertising reactance have not kept pace with the continuous
development of SMA. So, we aim to fill the blanks by reviewing the latest adverting
practices on social media and by proposing the SMARM.

3. Method
We adopted a concept-driven systematic approach to identify relevant articles (Webster and
Watson, 2002), and retrieved peer-reviewed academic papers on four international databases,
EBSCO, Elsevier, Web of Science and Google Scholar. To be both comprehensive and
focused, we determined our keywords in three aspects. First, articles must relate to
advertising issues. So, one of the keywords must be “advertising,” “advertisement” or
“advertiser.” Second, to ensure relevance to social media, at least one of the following phrases
has to be found in the articles: “social media,” “social networking sites,” “Web 2.0,” “user-
generated content” and “electronic word of mouth.” Third, the articles must contain the term
“reactance” or synonyms and near-synonyms, like “intrusiveness,” “goal impediment,”
“invasiveness,” “irritation” and “annoyance.” Three experts in the field of marketing and
information system were involved in establishing keywords. The search fields included the
title, abstract and subject terms. Meanwhile, because the concept of Web 2.0 was first
proposed in 2004, and the first social science research on Facebook was published in 2005
(Wilson et al., 2012), we checked articles published from 2005 to the present.
The initial data set covered 304 articles. Then non-English papers, non-empirical
introductions and short conference introductions were removed. Moreover, we considered
reactance as the psychological mechanism by which advertising elicits a negative response,
instead of the negative response itself. Thus, we conducted a manual check and rejected some
articles which merely focus on an objective portrayal of advertisements. Ultimately, 92
articles were retained.

4. Preliminary analyses of these articles

As an integrative overview, this review contributes from two perspectives: statistical
analyses and a theoretical model. In this section, five significant aspects are discussed:
publication trends, the journals publishing articles, research methodology, targeted
platforms and important theories. These themes are consistent with previous literature
review studies and synthesize the research findings. In the next section, we propose a
theoretical model that integrates all the essential factors of SMAR.
4.1 Publication timeline Social media
Figure 1 illustrates the publication timeline of SMAR studies. As can be seen, the topic of advertising
SMAR first came to scholars’ attention in 2010 and followed an increasing publication trend.
In the first five years from 2010, two to four articles were published every year. Then in 2015,
reactance
with SMA usage becoming widespread, research on SMAR started to explode. This growing model
trend suggests that SMAR is a promising research topic, which is increasingly attracting the
interest of academics.

4.2 Journals of publication

SMAR is a typical multidisciplinary field, straddling several research areas, like
communication, marketing, information systems and advertising. As a result, 18
international conference proceedings and 48 journals are involved. Table 2 lists journals that
have published more than one article. These journals are perhaps pioneers of SMAR research.

4.3 Research methodology

Both qualitative and quantitative studies have been conducted on SMAR (see Figure 2). The
quantitative survey method dominates SMAR research, adopted by over 65% (n 5 60) of the
articles identified. Including mixed-method studies, seven take qualitative approaches, such
as focus group interview, in-depth interview, and semantic analysis (Deraz, 2019;
Kongsagoonwong and Ngamkroeckjoti, 2018; Mattke et al., 2018a; Riedel et al., 2018;

22 21

14
13 11

4
1 1 2 2

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Figure 1.
Publication timeline of
Note(s): One study published in 2020 is not included the literature

Journal Frequency

Computers in Human Behavior 7

International Journal of Advertising 4
American Behavioral Scientist 2
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 2
International Journal of E-Business Research 2
International Review of Management and Marketing 2
Internet Research 2
Journal of Advertising Research 2
Journal of Business Research 2
Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising 2 Table 2.
Journal of Interactive Advertising 2 Journals that have
Journal of Promotion Management 2 published more than
Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 2 one SMAR-related
Business Perspective 2 article
INTR Truong and Simmons, 2010; Tsimonis et al., 2020; Youn and Kim, 2019a). Additionally, seven
articles involve more than one study (Ahn et al., 2017; Belanche et al., 2017; Celebi, 2015;
Hamby and Ilyuk, 2019; Huang, 2019; Park et al., 2016; Tsimonis et al., 2020).

4.4 Targeted platforms

As the context where advertising takes place, platforms play an essential role in shaping
individuals’ responses (Beuckels et al., 2017). The selected studies are conducted on different
platforms, and 14 studies take two or more platforms into consideration, as illustrated in
Figure 3. Facebook, as the pioneer of social media, attracts the most attention. Forty-two
articles out of 87 (5 papers do not mention a platform) collected data on or about Facebook.
Besides Facebook and YouTube, several platforms that better meet various national
conditions are taken into consideration, like WeChat for China (Fan et al., 2017; Huo et al.,
2018), Kakao Talk for Korea (Wei et al., 2019), Tuenti for Spain (Guardia, 2015). Meanwhile, 27
articles focus on individuals’ general perceptions of SMAR.

4.5 Theories
The last part of this section will discuss the theories and theoretical frameworks used by the
articles in our data set. Based on a further examination, we find several theoretical emphases

60

12
4 4 7 5

Figure 2.
Research methods in
the literature

42

27

10
5 4 4
3 2 3 2
1 1 1 1 1 1

Figure 3.
The target social media
platforms
Note(s): There are 14 cross-platform studies involving more than
one platform
in addressing SMAR. First, to explore the inherently social nature of SMA, researchers gain Social media
insights from social-related theories, such as social comparison theory, social exchange advertising
theory, social identity theory, and social influence theory. Second, some theories highlight
individuals’ motives, benefits and values, like the privacy calculus theory, regulatory focus
reactance
theory and use and gratification theory. Finally, there is an interest in approaching SMAR by model
behavioral theories, such as the attention, interest, desire and action model; cognition process
theory; the technology acceptance model; and the theory of reasoned action. Please refer to
Appendix for definitions and descriptions of these theories.

5. Social media advertising reactance model (SMARM)

We systematically reviewed all fundamental elements of SMAR and proposed an integrative
model, the SMARM, to provide a coherent picture of the roles they play. Details of the
SMARM, including the theoretical framework, essential constructs and influencing
components, are discussed below.

5.1 Theoretical framework: psychology reactance theory

The construct of reactance derives from its namesake theory, psychological reactance theory
(PRT), a higher-level theory elaborating on the process and mechanism of user reactance
(Brehm and Brehm, 1981a). PRT is frequently used to study advertising reactance. It is a
three-stage framework with moderating variables, and we adapt it to organize the findings of
the literature and to integrate all the elements systematically. Figure 4 illustrates the outline
of our PRT framework. Generally, PRT is based on the free behavior assumption, which
claims that for a given person at a given time, there is a set of behaviors any one of which they
could engage in as they wish (Brehm and Brehm, 1981b). Anything making it difficult for
individuals to act on their own will be regarded as a threat to freedom. The perceived threat is
a trigger for the motivational state of reactance. Moreover, the level of reactance is influenced
by both objective environmental factors and subjective individual differences (Brehm and
Brehm, 1981c, e). Then perceived reactance leads to a series of cognitive and behavioral
resistance, accompanied by negative emotions (Rains, 2013).
Based on this framework, we propose a theoretical model, the SMARM. In this model, all
reviewing elements are divided into four main groups: the concepts used to reflect on SMAR,
antecedents covering external environmental threats, moderators covering individual
differences and consequences of SMAR (shown in Figure 5). Furthermore, a series of
taxonomies is employed for the clarity of our model.

5.2 The concepts of SMAR

Many concepts are developed to reflect advertising reactance, including intrusiveness,
invasiveness, goal impediment, irritation and annoyance. These concepts all derive from
explanations of advertising reactance scenarios, however, the definitions, emphasis and
connections of them sometimes are confusing and misused. Therefore, we provide a brief
introduction in this section to clarify the conceptualizations of SMAR.
All these concepts are extensions or concretizations of the general motivational state,
reactance. Some researchers try to narrow it down by highlighting its reasons, such as

Figure 4.
PRT outline
INTR

Figure 5.
Social media
advertising reactance
model (SMARM)

advertising (
Akestam et al., 2017) or over-personalization (White et al., 2008). Furthermore,

there is a growing consensus that reactance covers the aspects of both cognition and affect
(Dillard and Shen, 2005; Rains, 2013). From the cognitive approach, advertising reactance is
mainly defined from three perspectives: the interruption of individuals’ cognition processes
(Jain et al., 2018; Jung et al., 2015; Taylor et al., 2011), the clutter of media content (Ha and
McCann, 2008) and the activation of privacy concern (Ahn et al., 2017; Celebi, 2015; Gironda
and Korgaonkar, 2016, 2018). Based on these, three specific concepts are proposed:
intrusiveness, invasiveness and goal impediment. On the other hand, advertising irritation
and annoyance describe the negative emotional aspect of reactance (see Table 3). Instead of
working separately, the dual processes of reactance interact with each other (Rains, 2013).

5.3 Antecedents: advertising structural factors

All factors of an advertising–consumer interaction episode can influence SMAR. For clarity,
we divide them into two main groups based on PRT. One concerns the external threats to
freedom and will be discussed in Section 5.3. The other is the subjective features of
individuals, which will be detailed as moderators in Section 5.4. Advertising structural
factors are usually used to identify and classify ads and are direct triggers for reactance.
There are more than 40 advertising structural elements in this part presented in six themes:
information quality, information format, platform feature, relevance, privacy and control.
Furthermore, the unique social factors in SMA practice are summarized and discussed
emphatically, which are highlighted in italic in Tables 4 and 5.
5.3.1 Information quality. The meaning of “information quality” about advertising is
users’ evaluation of advertisement content. First, the informativeness (the capability to offer
the necessary information to target users) and entertainment (the capability to provide
escapism, diversion, aesthetic enjoyment or emotional release to users) of ads may reduce
SMAR by satisfying users’ expectations for information or amusement, respectively (Wei
et al., 2019). When evaluating SMA, researchers have tried to add a new dimension, social
value. Social value is the degree to which users perceive a sense of closeness with an
advertisement and easily exchange information about it with acquaintances. The social value
of advertising stems from the integration of friends’ posts in commercial promotions (Huo
et al., 2018) and is embodied as social attributes (Ha et al., 2014), social interaction and social
integration (Ha et al., 2014; Wei et al., 2019).
5.3.2 Information format. Information format covers all aspects of the presentation of an
ad, which is considered as structural visual stimuli to individuals. Information format and
quality supplement each other to achieve better ad efficiency. Plenty of studies explore
suitable formats for SMA (Table 4). First of all, format plays an important role in capturing
Concepts Definitions and reference
Social media
advertising
Reactance Ad reactance is a situational reactance caused by the ad (
Akestam et al., 2017) reactance
Personalization reactance occurs when highly personalized messages lead consumers to feel
constrained for being too identifiable or observable by the firm (White et al., 2008) model
Intrusiveness From the perspective of cognition, intrusiveness refers to the degree to which a person views
the presentation of an advertisement as contrary to his/her goals or as disrupting his/her
thought processes or task performance (Li et al., 2002). Equal to invasiveness (Celebi, 2015; Jain
et al., 2018; Jung et al., 2015; Taylor et al., 2011) and goal impediment (Fan et al., 2017; Mattke
et al., 2018a; Wijenayake and Pathirana, 2019; Youn and Shin, 2019)
From the perspective of media content, intrusiveness is the degree to which ads in a media
vehicle interrupt the flow of an editorial unit (Ha and McCann, 2008)
From the perspective of privacy, intrusiveness is defined as invading an individual’s solitude,
including intrusion into his/her private affairs (Sipior and Ward, 1995). Equal to invasiveness
(Ahn et al., 2017; Gironda and Korgaonkar, 2016, 2018)
Irritation Ducoffe (1995) claimed that when advertising employs tactics that annoy, offend, or insult, or
that are overly manipulative, consumers perceive advertisements as irritating or invasive
(Alsamydai and Khasawneh, 2013; Antoniadis et al., 2019; Siregar, 2018)
Irritation is defined as provoking, annoying, displeasure and momentary impatience (Chen Table 3.
et al., 2018; Loureiro, 2018; Noprisson et al., 2016; Pelet et al., 2016; Thota, 2012). Equal to A summary of the
annoyance (Ahmed and Raziq, 2017; Ahmed et al., 2018) concepts and
Note(s): The three perspectives for defining intrusiveness are highlighted in italic definitions

users’ attention, which directly determines users’ exposure to ads and influences subsequent
cognitive processes (Kongsagoonwong and Ngamkroeckjoti, 2018). Advertising placement,
size and format are fundamental elements.
Furthermore, a way to reduce intrusiveness is to keep the format consistent between
advertising and native content. Generally, to achieve consistency, a native advertising
strategy is recommended (Aydin, 2018; Chen et al., 2018; Huang, 2019; Lee et al., 2016; Youn
and Kim, 2019a; Youn and Shin, 2019). And specifically, when designing SMA, it is wise to get
rid of the “sales channel” stereotype and show “proof of friendship” (Keller and Fay, 2012).
Presenting advertisements with a human figure (Hamby and Ilyuk, 2019; Huo et al., 2018) or in
an “exchange language style” (Lee et al., 2015) helps.
5.3.3 Platform features. Besides the advertising itself, the features of the platform that
host advertisements are also crucial to influencing users’ perception. In terms of general
features of social media platforms, sociability and ubiquity have been considered. Perceived
sociability is defined as the extent to which a computer-mediated communication
environment facilitates the emergence of social presence by allowing social affordance
(Fan et al., 2017). Ubiquity refers to accessing information from any location at any time and
has been highlighted as the most important and distinctive asset of mobile devices compared
with PCs (Wei et al., 2019). Additionally, several studies have explored the diversity of
platforms (Beuckels et al., 2017; Loureiro, 2018). As each platform has its characteristics, users
can experience varying degrees of reactance to the same ad on different platforms (Belanche
et al., 2019).
5.3.4 Relevance. The fourth theme is summarized as relevance (see Table 5), which reflects
the fact that SMA tailors information to users, rather than serving everyone with the same
messages (Aydin, 2018). Personalization (Pfiffelmann et al., 2019; Sam and Chatwin, 2019; Wei
et al., 2019) and customization (Gironda and Korgaonkar, 2016; Hanus, 2018; Wei et al., 2019)
are usually identified as the advantages of SMA. On social media, the data used to target ads
can be classified into two types: user profile information and social information. User profile
information refers to the records of users’ online profiles and behaviors, including personal
INTR Factors Definition or description

Advertising There are different positions to display SMA, like newsfeeds, fan pages, a timeline,
placement message streams and sidebars (Van Den Broeck et al., 2017); displaying before, during,
after or overlaying digital video content (Cheung and Ho, 2017)
Advertising size Increasing the size of ads may make them easier for users to notice (Cheung and Ho,
2017). Riedel et al. (2018) adopted the term “obtrusive” to refer to an ad that is large and
covers a significant proportion of the screen
Presence format A wide range of formats can be considered for SMA, such as video, carousel or photo
(Riedel et al., 2018); different levels of arousal (Belanche et al., 2017; Gracia et al., 2017);
content variation or repetition (Huang, 2019)
Format consistency Format consistency relates to the format similarity or congruence between
advertisements and native content. It is also known as “ad-context fit” (Hamby and
Ilyuk, 2019) and “presentation consistency” (Fan et al., 2017)
Native ad strategy Native advertising is defined as paid ads that are cohesive with the page content,
assimilated into the design and consistent with the platform behavior that the viewer
simply feels they belong (Aydin, 2018; Chen et al., 2018; Huang, 2019; Lee et al., 2016;
Youn and Kim, 2019a; Youn and Shin, 2019)
Humanized ad Humanized ad entails the attribution of human characteristics to nonhuman objects
and events (Hamby and Ilyuk, 2019; Huo et al., 2018)
Language style Two language styles can be chosen for SMA: the exchange style (commercial, including
Table 4. the product, price, and monetary benefits) and the communal style (unrelated to
Information format- financial gain or loss) (Lee et al., 2015)
related concepts Note(s): The unique social factors in SMA practice are highlighted in italic

Factors Definition or description

Personalization Personalization emphasizes that the system automatically tracks

personal information and delivers ad content that matches users’
preferences (Aydin, 2018; Sam and Chatwin, 2019; Wei et al., 2019)
Customization Customization allows users to choose their ad categories
according to their preferences (Gironda and Korgaonkar, 2016;
Wei et al., 2019)
Social context Social context is defined as a little snippet of text that shows
which friends have “liked” the page, event or application linked
with an ad (Mattke et al., 2019; Van Den Broeck et al., 2017). It is
also considered as the social endorsement (Huo et al., 2018), the
friends tagging (Jung et al., 2015)
Social location mobile ads This advertising refers to advertising information tailored to a
mobile user on social media platforms based on their location
(Lee, 2016, 2018)
Re-promoted ad/retargeted ad/pull ad/ This kind of ad is based on whether an item is promoted by
social impression/earned ad advertisers and marketers or re-promoted by users. An ad that is
generated by users or attached to social cues can be called a pull
ad (Truong and Simmons, 2010), a social impression ad (Jung
Table 5. et al., 2015), a re-promoted ad (Morris et al., 2016), earned
Relevance-related advertising (Park et al., 2016)
concepts Note(s): The unique social factors in SMA practice are highlighted in italic

information disclosure, websites visited, articles read, videos watched and purchase records.
In this regard, SMA is similar to online behavior advertising.
Social information is a particular advantage of social media. Social media is a pioneer of
presenting ads alongside social signals or social cues, such as social endorsements (Huo et al.,
2018), and friend tagging (Jung et al., 2015). These signals indicate peers’ engagement with the Social media
ad, which may increase its credibility (Mattke et al., 2019; Park et al., 2016) and reduce advertising
perceived reactance (Huo et al., 2018; Morris et al., 2016). Meanwhile, a series of concepts have
been developed to describe ads with social information, like re-promoted social marketing
reactance
and advertising communications (Morris et al., 2016), earned advertising (Park et al., 2016), model
earned media (Mattke et al., 2019), and social impression (Jung et al., 2015), retargeted ad
(Hamby and Ilyuk, 2019).
5.3.5 Privacy. One of the main reasons that users resist ads is privacy concerns. Users
prefer personalized and relevant information to make better decisions, but they feel
uncomfortable with many industry practices that involve the use of their personal
information without permission. Researchers describe this phenomenon as the
personalization-privacy paradox (Aydin, 2018; Gironda and Korgaonkar, 2018; Hamby and
Ilyuk, 2019; Wei et al., 2019; Youn and Kim, 2019a). Because of the unprecedented amount of
data recorded by social media, privacy issues are more severe for SMA. Users perceive
reactance because the data in ads is sensitive (Van Den Broeck et al., 2017), too personal (Youn
and Kim, 2019a) or used by industries that are perceived as high-risk, like banks and medical
institutions (Van Den Broeck et al., 2017).
5.3.6 Control. The last but not least important factor is user control. Unlike traditional one-
way broadcast mass media, social media empowers users to affect the communication of
advertising (Cheung and Ho, 2017). This two-way communication makes it important for
users to perceive that they can actively control the conversation. Two main dimensions of
control are identified: engagement control and privacy control. Engagement control also
called “active control”, refers to “a user’s ability to participate involuntarily and
instrumentally influence a communication” (Ha et al., 2014). For this, skippable ads
(Belanche et al., 2017; Gracia et al., 2017) and permission-based ads (Truong and Simmons,
2010) are recommended. Moreover, Gironda and Korgaonkar (2018) describe privacy control
as an individual’s belief in his or her ability to manage the release and dissemination of
personal information. Research shows that advertising strategies that enable users to feel in
control may reduce SMAR.

5.4 Moderators: individual difference factors

Next, we turn to a discussion of individual difference factors. In most cases, individuals
engage passively with ads, but they can autonomously adjust their mind or mood to deal with
them. PRT indicates that when faced with a threat, different individuals or one individual in
different situations may experience varying degrees of reactance (Brehm and Brehm, 1981d).
Thus, we consider these factors as moderators in our model. For better organization, we
divide them into two categories: individual characteristics and contextual features.
5.4.1 Individual characteristics. Individual characteristics describe individuals’ lasting and
stable tendencies, such as demographics and personality traits. Six variables are identified
from our article set: age (Arora and Agarwal, 2019; Belanche et al., 2019; Taylor et al., 2011;
Van Der Goot et al., 2016; Youn and Kim, 2019a), gender (Belanche et al., 2019; Huhmann and
Limbu, 2016; Taylor et al., 2011; Tsimonis et al., 2020), culture (Abu-Ghosh et al., 2018; Deraz,
2018; Deraz and Awuah, 2015; Mansour, 2015; Muralidharan et al., 2015; Van Der Goot et al.,
2016), trait reactance, regulatory and disposition to value privacy (see Table 6).
5.4.2 Contextual features. Contextual features describe individuals’ cognitive or emotional
states that are induced by or attributed to a specific stimulus. Typically, contextual features
arise as reactions to a contextual event. They are short-lived, existing only as long as the
supporting cognition, perceptions or other elicitors are activated and vanishing as soon as the
individual is no longer in that situation. Motivation, product involvement, cognitive load and
social exclusion are found in our articles set (see Table 7).
INTR 5.5 Consequences
In this final section, we are going to discuss all the consequences of SMAR. For the sake of
clarity, all the variables are reviewed along two dimensions: hierarchy of effects model
(cognition, emotion or behavior) and object (advertising, brands or social media platforms).
All the factors are mapped into the matrix in Table 8.
Cognitive responses to SMA are made through individuals’ rational processes. Once
individuals experience SMAR, they consciously reduce the cognitive resources they allocate to
an advertising message, which will lead to low cognitive involvement (Li et al., 2017) and
cognitive avoidance (Dodoo and Wen, 2019; Youn and Kim, 2019b). As essential complements
to cognition, emotional responses can be evoked by SMAR. Corresponding to cognitive
outcomes, affective involvement (Li et al., 2017) and affective avoidance (Dodoo and Wen, 2019)
are emotional responses resulting from SMAR. Finally, regarding individuals’ behavioral
responses to SMAR, behavior avoidance refers to all actions aimed at reducing exposure to ads.

6. Discussion
Through a concept-driven systematic review methodology, we identified 92 empirical articles
on SMAR and reviewed them from several perspectives. Section 4 provides an overview of
the current status of research on SMAR: several statistical analyses have been conducted on
publication trends, the journals publishing SMAR studies, targeted platforms, research

Factors Definition or description

Trait reactance Trait reactance refers to the personality disparity that causes individuals’
resistance to persuasive messages (Lee et al., 2015). Trait reactance is higher for
individuals who value their autonomy and independence
Regulatory focus Regulatory focus theory proposes that individuals’ motivations fall into two
categories: the seeking of pleasure and avoidance of pain. Compared with
prevention-focused individuals, promotion-focused ones tend to give less weight to
negative outcomes of customized ads (Ozcelik and Varnali, 2018)
Disposition to value It is defined as an individual’s general tendency to preserve or restrain disclosure of
Table 6. privacy his or her private information across a broad spectrum of situations and contexts.
Factors of individual Users disposed to value their privacy are more likely to treat personalized SMA as
characteristics privacy invasion (Gironda and Korgaonkar, 2018)

Factors Definition or description

Motivation Motivation is a reflection of goal-oriented arousal which effectively guides individuals’

behaviors. Two motivations are frequently discussed on social media: consumption and
connection motivations (Mao and Zhang, 2015). Motivation can be inferred from users’
browsing mode, goal-oriented, playful and unconcerned mode (Celebi, 2015; Fan et al.,
2017; Mattke et al., 2018b)
Product It is defined as an individual’s perception of the relevance of a product based on inherent
involvement needs, interests and values (Belanche et al., 2017, 2020; Mao and Zhang, 2015; Mattke
et al., 2019; Van Den Broeck et al., 2017)
Cognitive load Cognitive load, similar to load capacity, is defined as the total amount of cognitive
resources required by an ongoing task when an advertisement is seen (Beuckels et al.,
2017; Lee, 2018)
Table 7. Social exclusion When individuals’ social needs go unsatisfied, they may experience a particular
Factors of contextual psychological state, social exclusion. Social exclusion would enhance the decreasing
features effect of social cues on perceived intrusiveness (Huo et al., 2018)
 For advertising
Cognitive Efficiency (Belanche et al., 2020;
response Kongsagoonwong and
Ngamkroeckjoti, 2018); Attitude
(Aydin, 2016, 2018; Lin and Kim,
2016; Muralidharan et al., 2015);
Value (Deraz et al., 2015a, b and c;
Firat, 2019; Logan et al., 2012;
Saxena and Khanna, 2013);
Cognitive avoidance (Belanche
et al., 2020; Guardia, 2015); Ad
skepticism (Loureiro, 2018)
Emotional Appeal, engagement,
response empowerment (Morris et al.,
2016); Affective involvement (Li
et al., 2017); Affective avoidance
(Dodoo and Wen, 2019)
Behavioral Behavioral avoidance (Cheung
response and Ho, 2017); Intentions (click,
visit, eWOM or share) (Belanche
et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2016; Kumar
and Pandey, 2016; Mir, 2015;
Thota, 2012; Trichob and
Ngamkroeckjoti, 2018; Tsao,
2019; Youn and Kim, 2019a); Lack
of memory (Riedel et al., 2018)
For advertisers For platforms
Social media
advertising
Loyalty (Arli, 2017) Satisfaction (Alsamydai reactance
Attitude (Ahn et al., 2017; and Khasawneh, 2013);
Arora and Agarwal, 2019; Social media fatigue model
Gaber et al., 2019; Huang, (Bright and Logan, 2018)
2019; Mattke et al., 2019;
Ozcelik and Varnali, 2018)
- -
The intention of eWOM Discontinue usage (Ha
(Belanche et al., 2020; Pelet et al., 2014; Riedel et al.,
et al., 2016) 2018)
Purchase rate (Arli, 2017;
Aziza and Astuti, 2018;
Huang, 2019; Jain et al.,
2018; Pelet et al., 2016) Table 8.
The consequence
matrix of SMAR

methods and the major theories. On the other hand, Section 5 presents the development of a
comprehensive theoretical model, the SMARM, based on the framework of psychological
reactance theory. In the SMARM, we classified all relevant elements into four groups: the core
concepts of SMAR (cognitive aspects and emotional aspects), advertising structural
antecedents (information quality, information format, platform features, relevance, privacy
and control), individual differences (individual characteristics and contextual features) and
the consequences (cognition, affection and behavior). Furthermore, the unique social factors
in the SMA context have been summarized and discussed. By doing this work, this review
has implications for both researchers and practitioners.

6.1 Theoretical implications

This structured review is among the first theoretical reviews on SMAR-related research. It
integrates all empirical evidence and proposes a theoretical framework that breaks the
barriers among various concepts in different articles, and lays a common conceptual
foundation for the understanding of SMAR. To begin with, this review gives a complete
comparison of SMA and traditional advertising practices. This comparison identifies and
highlights the characteristics of SMA, offering comprehensive insights into the complex
phenomenon and conceptualizations of SMA and facilitating the generalization of traditional
advertising reactance theories in the SMA context. Second, this review explains the
discrepancies in the literature and synthesizes consistent findings with differing
conceptualizations found in different studies. The literature review thus presents a
coherent summarization of the research on SMAR so far and serves as a roadmap of
SMAR research, which provides a foundation to understand the inconsistent concepts and
conclusions in different articles and facilitates the exchange and integration of knowledge on
SMAR. Third, this review proposes a comprehensive theoretical model (SMARM) to elaborate
INTR on the process and mechanism of user reactance and provide a systematic understanding of
SMAR. The SMARM integrates the relevant factors, empirical evidence and findings from
existing studies into a systematic framework. It provides a common conceptual and
theoretical foundation for future research and practices. Fourth, by consolidating the
predictors and consequences of SMAR, the SMARM has the power to explain and predict.
Theoretical gaps, practical opportunities and new reactance-related concepts or relationships
can be identified by this model, to inspire future research and practices.
According to this review, several issues are promising for future investigation:
(1) The development of new concepts and measurements. Five concepts, intrusiveness,
invasiveness, goal impediment, irritation and annoyance, have been used in the
literature to explain the mechanism of advertising reactance. These concepts are
mainly built upon traditional advertising theories and cannot reflect the new features
of SMA. The variation in SMA requires efforts to redefine concepts and validate
robust scales.
(2) Keeping pace with the practical innovations of SMA. As SMA is continuously and
quickly changing, it is highly recommended that researchers and practitioners pay
attention to the forefront of SMA innovation and provide timely insights.
(3) Theory development on the unique social features of SMA. It is worth noting that
SMAR research is still in the early stages, so there is a lack of well-established theories
on SMA. Taking social influencer as an example, it is an innovation for SMA to identify
ordinary users as influencers when promoting sales. And the efficiency of social
influencers in advertising has been proven. However, as they are significantly different
from traditional types of endorsers, such as celebrities, experts or opinion leaders, this
phenomenon cannot be well explained by the traditional advertising theories.
(4) The diversity of social media platforms. According to our review, the studies on
SMAR mainly concentrate on several large platforms, such as Facebook and
YouTube. However, the scope of social media is broad and complex: Aichner and
Jacob (2015) provided a typology that distinguishes 13 different types of social media;
Kietzmann et al. (2011) divided social media into seven categories according to
functional building blocks. In the research on advertising reactance, the diversity of
platforms increases the complexity of the SMAR phenomenon, which should be
further considered.

6.2 Practical implications

Owing to its novelty and diversity, SMA lacks codes of best practices, industry guidelines
and standards that fit mature types of advertising. Consequently, all stakeholders have
operated so far under the vague expectation that SMA will yield better user engagement and
brand promotion. This review opens the “black box” of SMAR and provides implications for
the three main groups of stakeholders, including advertisers, platform operators and
policymakers. This study offers important implications for a better understanding of user
attitude and behavior, and the long-term and healthy development of SMA.
For advertisers, it is common to advertise on social media to obtain competitive advantages
in the market. However, SMA may backfire. To reduce users’ reactance to SMA, the model
proposed in this paper provides advertisers valuable and practical suggestions in six aspects.
The suggestions include promoting advertising information quality, adopting a suitable
advertising format, considering the features of platforms, tailoring advertising content to
achieve high user relevance, avoiding privacy invasion and leaving proper control to users.
There are successful cases in this respect, such as Audi’s “Traction Tuesday” campaign which
was considered the best in its month by Unmetric (a social media intelligence firm) (Unmetric,
2017). Audi invited users to post images of their cars on Instagram, and each post had a chance Social media
of being re-shared by Audi officially. Following the perspective of the SMARM, this advertising
advertising campaign reduced users’ reactance and was a hit for several reasons. First, the
sharing of user-generated content improved information quality by ensuring the
reactance
entertainment value and social value of this advertising campaign. Second, by adopting a model
communal language unrelated to financial gain or loss, in its presentation format, this ad
avoided the “sale channel” stereotype. Third, by getting users involved, this ad improved its
relevance to users. Finally, Audi leveraged users’ active disclosure to achieve its commercial
purpose, while showing respect for users’ privacy and right of control. It is instructive for
advertisers to pay attention to the above aspects in designing user-friendly advertisements.
Platform operators are always struggling between user satisfaction and advertising
revenue. By synthesizing the insights of many studies, this review suggests that operators
take advantage of the social information accumulated on social media platforms to generate a
win-win solution. Facebook and WeChat are good examples to illustrate the usage of data on
users’ social relationships, although they differ in running patterns and cultural
backgrounds. Facebook and WeChat are pioneers in the commercialization of social
information. They have both proposed social advertising systems that match ads to
consumers who have peers that are connected to the brand, product or organization being
advertised (Bakshy et al., 2012). Considering users’ relationships as channels for advertising
leverages users’ homophily in connections and reduces the possibility of advertising
reactance. Facebook and WeChat also encourage target users to interact with ads by liking,
commenting and sharing, and then, while explicitly showing these interactions as social cues
or social endorsements. These social cues deliver reference signals from users to influence one
another. Facebook develops social mobile location ad services, which tailor ads to users based
on their location (Lee, 2018). Analogously, WeChat offers information about the popularity of
ads to users, which indicates how many of their friends have clicked on, liked or followed an
ad. In a word, platform operators should note the social nature of their services and adapt
proper advertising campaigns.
For policymakers, promoting users’ awareness of the benefits and risks associated with
SMA is still challenging. SMA, in terms of its presentation, content and user experiences, is a
very different phenomenon than a traditional advertising campaign. By covering studies
from 2010 to 2020 and combining insights with the latest SMA practices, this review provides
guides for policymakers to keep pace with recent SMA developments. Meanwhile, two
specific suggestions are provided:
(1) SMA intends to improve its credibility by employing social signals from users.
Sometimes users are confused or even misled by SMA while they are unfamiliar with
this new form of advertising. Further directions on standardizing and regulating
SMA, in terms of its presentation form, content relevance, etc., will be important issues.
(2) Because personal information is collected by social media and can be used for
advertising purposes with or without permission, regulations for privacy protections
are still needed, such as requiring transparency in advertising targeting, empowering
users to control their data usage and so on. For a long-term and healthy development
of the industry, policies and executable guidelines should be formulated, with full
consideration of users’ attitudes and behaviors toward SMA.

6.3 Limitations
This research has some limitations. First, although the current review was designed to cover
all studies on SMAR and used a broad range of keywords, we cannot be sure that all relevant
publications were included. Second, the SMARM is organized based on the framework of
INTR PRT. PRT addresses an essential motivational process that is assumed to be ubiquitous and
universal. It is a qualified theoretical framework for analyzing the factors related to
advertising reactance on social media. However, it is not the only choice for addressing these
issues. There are other theories and models, such as the persuasion knowledge model and the
AIDA model, which may provide different perspectives to approach SMAR. Third, this study
adopted a qualitative method, and the results may be limited by this method. It is necessary to
conduct quantitative studies to verify the conclusions of this review.

References
Abu-Ghosh, D.H., Al-Dmour, H., Alalwan, A.A. and Al-Dmour, R.H. (2018), “Factors affecting
Jordanian consumers’ attitudes towards Facebook advertising: case study of tourism”, in
Dwivedi, Y.K., Rana, N.P., Slade, E.L., Shareef, M.A., Clement, M., Simintiras, A. and Lai, B.
(Eds), Emerging Markets from a Multidisciplinary Perspective, Springer International
Publishing, Cham, pp. 285-302, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-75013-2_22.
Ahmed, Q.M. and Raziq, M.M. (2017), “The social media advertising model (SMAM): a theoretical
framework”, Journal of Managerial Sciences, Vol. XI No. 3, pp. 117-144.
Ahmed, Q.M., Raziq, M.M. and Goreja, A.B. (2018), “The impact of consumer beliefs on consumers’
attitude: a social media advertising perspective”, Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities,
Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 78-103.
Ahn, S.J.G., Phua, J. and Shan, Y. (2017), “Self-endorsing in digital advertisements: using virtual selves
to persuade physical selves”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 71, pp. 110-121, doi: 10.1016/j.
chb.2017.01.045.
Aichner, T. and Jacob, F. (2015), “Measuring the degree of corporate social media use”, International
Journal of Market Research, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 257-276, doi: 10.2501/IJMR-2015-018.


Akestam, N., Rosengren, S. and Dahlen, M. (2017), “Advertising ‘like a girl’: toward a better
understanding of ‘femvertising’ and its effects”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 8,
p. 795(12), doi: 10.1002/mar.21023.
Alalwan, A.A., Rana, N.P., Dwivedi, Y.K. and Algharabat, R. (2017), “Social media in marketing: a
review and analysis of the existing literature”, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 34 No. 7,
pp. 1177-1190, doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2017.05.008.
Alalwan, A.A. (2018), “Investigating the impact of social media advertising features on customer
purchase intention”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 42, pp. 65-77, doi:
10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.06.001.
Alsamydai, M.J. and Khasawneh, M.H.A. (2013), “Antecedents and consequences of e-Jordanian
consumer behavior regarding Facebook advertising”, International Journal of Business
Management and Research, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 41-60.
Amarnath, D.D. and Jaidev, U.P. (2018), “Consumer reactance: a review of research methodologies”,
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 118 No. 18, pp. 4449-4467.
Amarnath, D.D. and Jaidev, U.P. (2020), “Toward an integrated model of consumer reactance: a
literature analysis”, Management Review Quarterly, in press. doi: 10.1007/s11301-020-00180-y.
Antoniadis, I., Assimakopoulos, C. and Koukoulis, I. (2019), “Attitudes of college students towards
online advertisement in social networking sites: a structural equation modelling approach”,
International Journal of Internet Marketing and Advertising, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 137-154, doi: 10.
1504/IJIMA.2019.099496.
Arli, D. (2017), “Does social media matter? Investigating the effect of social media features on
consumer attitudes”, Journal of Promotion Management, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 521-539, doi: 10.1080/
10496491.2017.1297974.
Arora, T. and Agarwal, B. (2019), “Empirical study on perceived value and attitude of millennials Social media
towards social media advertising: a structural equation modelling approach”, Vision: The
Journal of Business Perspective, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 56-69, doi: 10.1177/0972262918821248. advertising
Aydin, G. (2016), “Attitudes towards digital advertisements: testing differences between social media
reactance
ads and mobile ads”, International Journal of Research in Business Studies and Management, model
Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 1-11.
Aydin, G. (2018), “Role of personalization in shaping attitudes towards social media ads”, International
Journal of E-Business Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 54-76, doi: 10.4018/IJEBR.2018070104.
Aziza, D.N. and Astuti, R.D. (2018), “Evaluating the effect of YouTube advertising towards young
customers’ purchase intention”, Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research,
Vol. 72, pp. 93-98.
Bakshy, E., Eckles, D., Yan, R. and Rosenn, I. (2012), “Social influence in social advertising: evidence
from field experiments”, Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce,
Valencia, Spain, pp. 146-161.
Barker, A. (2018), “Online advertising trends, benefits and risks for consumers”, available at: https://
www.oecd.org/going-digital (accessed 13 May 2019).
Belanche, D., Flavian, C. and Perez-Rueda, A. (2017), “Understanding interactive online advertising:
congruence and product involvement in highly and lowly arousing, skippable video ads”,
Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 37, p. 75, doi: 10.1016/j.intmar.2016.06.004.
Belanche, D., Cenjor, I. and Perez-Rueda, A. (2019), “Instagram stories versus Facebook Wall: an
advertising effectiveness analysis”, Spanish Journal of Marketing - ESIC, Vol. 23 No. 1,
pp. 69-94, doi: 10.1108/SJME-09-2018-0042.
Belanche, D., Flavian, C. and Perez-Rueda, A. (2020), “Consumer empowerment in interactive
advertising and eWOM consequences: the PITRE model”, Journal of Marketing
Communications, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 1-20, doi: 10.1080/13527266.2019.1610028.
Beuckels, E., Cauberghe, V. and Hudders, L. (2017), “How media multitasking reduces advertising
irritation: the moderating role of the Facebook Wall”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 73,
pp. 413-419, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.069.
Brehm, S.S. and Brehm, J.W. (1981a), “Clinical applications”, Psychological Reactance: A Theory of
Freedom and Control, Elsevier, New York, pp. 299-326.
Brehm, S.S. and Brehm, J.W. (1981b), “Determinants of the magnitude of reactance: characteristics of the
threat”, Psychological Reactance: A Theory of Freedom and Control, Elsevier, New York, pp. 57-97.
Brehm, S.S. and Brehm, J.W. (1981c), “Freedoms and threats to freedoms”, Psychological Reactance:
A Theory of Freedom and Control, Elsevier, New York, pp. 11-36.
Brehm, S.S. and Brehm, J.W. (1981d), “Individual differences in psychological reactance”, Psychological
Reactance: A Theory of Freedom and Control, Elsevier, New York, pp. 213-228.
Brehm, S.S. and Brehm, J.W. (1981e), “Introduction: freedom, control, and reactance theory”,
Psychological Reactance: A Theory of Freedom and Control, Elsevier, New York, pp. 1-7.
Bright, L.F. and Logan, K. (2018), “Is my fear of missing out (FOMO) causing fatigue? Advertising,
social media fatigue, and the implications for consumers and brands”, Internet Research, Vol. 28
No. 5, pp. 1213-1227, doi: 10.1108/IntR-03-2017-0112.
Celebi, S.I. (2015), “How do motives affect attitudes and behaviors toward internet advertising and
Facebook advertising?”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 51, pp. 312-324, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.
2015.05.011.
Chen, T.-Y., Yeh, T.-L. and Chang, C.-I. (2018), “How different advertising formats and calls to action
on videos affect advertising recognition and consequent behaviors”, Service Industries Journal,
Vol. 40 Nos 5-6, pp. 358-379, doi: 10.1080/02642069.2018.1480724.
INTR Cheung, M.Y. and Ho, S.Y. (2017), Characteristics of Advertisements and Interactivity of
Videos in Online Video Websites, Special Interest Group on Human-Computer Interaction,
Seoul, pp. 1-6.
Dehghani, M., Niaki, M.K., Ramezani, I. and Sali, R. (2016), “Evaluating the influence of YouTube
advertising for attraction of young customers”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 59,
pp. 165-172, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.01.037.
Deraz, H. and Awuah, G.B. (2015), “The assessments of social networking advertisements as perceived
by brand communities consumers”, International Journal of Current Research, Vol. 7 No. 8,
pp. 19787-19796.
Deraz, H., Awuah, G.B. and Abraha, D.G. (2015a), “The effect of culture on the consumers’ assessment
of advertisements on social networking sites: cross-cultural analysis”, Fifth International
Conference on Digital Information Processing and Communications, Sierre, Switzerland,
pp. 127-135, doi: 10.1109/ICDIPC.2015.7323018.
Deraz, H., Awuah, G.B. and Gebrekidan, D.A. (2015b), “Assessing the value of social network sites’
advertisements”, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on E-Technologies and
Business on the Web, Paris, France, pp. 89-101.
Deraz, H., Awuah, G.B. and Gebrekidan, D.A. (2015c), “Factors predicting consumers’ assessment of
advertisements on social networking sites”, International Journal of Digital Information and
Wireless Communications, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 111-123, doi: 10.17781/P001671.
Deraz, H. (2018), “Users’ assessment of the value of advertisements on social networking sites: a
conceptual study”, International Review of Management and Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 32-40,
doi: 10.32479/irmm.7117.
Deraz, H. (2019), “Factors contributing to consumers’ assessment of advertisement value on social
networking sites: a cross-cultural focus group study”, International Review of Management and
Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 13-25, doi: 10.32479/irmm.7118.
Dillard, J.P. and Shen, L. (2005), “On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health
communication”, Communication Monographs, Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 144-168, doi: 10.1080/
03637750500111815.
Dodoo, N.A. and Wen, J.T. (2019), “A path to mitigating SNS ad avoidance: tailoring messages to
individual personality traits”, Journal of Interactive Advertising, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 116-132, doi:
10.1080/15252019.2019.1573159.
Ducoffe, R.H. (1995), “How consumers assess the value of advertising”, Journal of Current Issues and
Research in Advertising, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 1-18, doi: 10.1080/10641734.1995.10505022.
eMarketer (2019), “US digital display advertising 2019”, available at: http://www.eMarketer.com
(accessed 10 May 2020).
Fan, S., Lu, Y. and Gupta, S. (2017), “Social media in-feed advertising: the impacts of consistency and
sociability on ad avoidance”, Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Langkawi,
Malaysia, p. 190.
Firat, D. (2019), “YouTube advertising value and its effects on purchase intention”, Journal of Global
Business Insights, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 141-155, doi: 10.5038/2640-6489.4.2.1097.
Fransen, M.L., Verlegh, P.W.J., Kirmanic, A. and Smit, E.G. (2015), “A typology of consumer strategies
for resisting advertising, and a review of mechanisms for countering them”, International
Journal of Advertising, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 6-16, doi: 10.1080/02650487.2014.995284.
Gaber, H.R., Wright, L.T. and Kooli, K. (2019), “Consumer attitudes towards Instagram advertisements
in Egypt: the role of the perceived advertising value and personalization”, Cogent Business and
Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, doi: 10.1080/23311975.2019.1618431.
Gironda, J.T. and Korgaonkar, P.K. (2016), “Personalized advertising, invasiveness, and consumers’
attitudes: a structured abstract”, in Kim, K.K. (Ed.), proceedings of the 2015 Academy of
Marketing Science (AMS) Annual Conference, pp. 165-169.
Gironda, J.T. and Korgaonkar, P.K. (2018), “iSpy? Tailored versus invasive ads and consumers’ Social media
perceptions of personalized advertising”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications,
Vol. 29, pp. 64-77, doi: 10.1016/j.elerap.2018.03.007. advertising
Gracia, D.B., Blanco, C.F. and Perez-Rueda, A. (2017), Video Design Adaptation to YouTube Advertising
reactance
Formats, XXIX Congreso Internacional de Marketing AEMARK, Sevilla, pp. 368-374. model
Guardia, F.R. (2015), “A generalization of advertising avoidance model on social network”, available
at: https://dee.uib.es/digitalAssets/312/312676_rejon.pdf (accessed 12 March 2019).
Ha, L. and McCann, K. (2008), “An integrated model of advertising clutter in offline and online media”,
International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 569-592, doi: 10.2501/S0265048708080153.
Ha, Y.W., Park, M.-C. and Lee, E. (2014), “A framework for mobile SNS advertising effectiveness: user
perceptions and behaviour perspective”, Behaviour and Information Technology, Vol. 33 No. 12,
pp. 1333-1346, doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2014.928906.
Hamby, A. and Ilyuk, V. (2019), “A wolf in sheep’s clothing: how humanized, retargeted ads intrude in
social contexts”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 1167-1191, doi: 10.1111/joca.12222.
Hanus, M.D. (2018), “Distinguishing user experience when customizing in a user-generated content
advertising campaign and subsequent effects on product attitudes, reactance and source
credibility”, Journal of Interactive Advertising, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 74-85, doi: 10.1080/15252019.
2018.1548316.
Hassan, M.U., Fatima, S., Akram, A., Abbas, J. and Hasnain, A. (2013), “Determinants of consumer
attitude towards social-networking sites advertisement: testing the mediating role of
advertising value”, Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 319-330, doi:
10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2013.16.03.11659.
Huang, G. (2019), “Variation matters: how to curb ad intrusiveness for native advertising on
Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram”, Internet Research, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 1469-1484, doi: 10.1108/
INTR-12-2017-0524.
Huhmann, B.A. and Limbu, Y.B. (2016), “Influence of gender stereotypes on advertising offensiveness
and attitude toward advertising in general”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 35 No. 5,
pp. 846-863, doi: 10.1080/02650487.2016.1157912.
Huo, H., Liu, Z., Min, Q. and Liu, S. (2018), “Social cues in SNS advertising”, Pacific Asia Conference on
Information Systems, Yokohama, Japan, p. 118.
Islam, S. and Mahmood, M.I. (2018), “A qualitative study on the outcomes of social media advertising”,
Advances in Journalism and Communication, Vol. 06, pp. 61-73, doi: 10.4236/ajc.2018.62006.
Jain, G., Rakesh, S. and Chaturvedi, K.R. (2018), “Online video advertisements’ effect on purchase
intention: an exploratory study on youth”, International Journal of E-Business Research, Vol. 14
No. 2, pp. 87-101, doi: 10.4018/IJEBR.2018040106.
Jung, J., Shim, S.W., Jin, H.S. and Khang, H. (2015), “Factors affecting attitudes and behavioral
intention towards social networking advertising: a case of Facebook users in South Korea”,
International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 248-265, doi: 10.1080/02650487.2015.
1014777.
Keller, E. and Fay, B. (2012), “Word-of-mouth advocacy: a new key to advertising effectiveness”,
Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 52 No. 4, p. 459(6).
Kelly, L., Kerr, G.F. and Drennan, J. (2009), “‘Try hard’: attitudes to advertising in online social
networks”, Proceedings of the Australia and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference 2009,
Melbourne, Victoria, doi: 10.1109/MPE.2014.2331891.
Kietzmann, J.H., Hermkens, K., Mccarthy, I.P. and Silvestre, B.S. (2011), “Social media? Get serious!
Understanding the functional building blocks of social media”, Business Horizons, Vol. 54 No. 3,
pp. 241-251, doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2011.01.005.
Kim, Y., Kang, M., Choi, S.M. and Sung, Y. (2016), “To click or not to click? Investigating antecedents
of advertisement clicking on Facebook”, Social Behavior and Personality: International Journal,
Vol. 44 No. 4, p. 657(11), doi: 10.2224/sbp.2016.44.4.657.
INTR Knoll, J. (2015), “Advertising in social media: a review of empirical evidence”, International Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 266-300, doi: 10.1080/02650487.2015.1021898.
Kongsagoonwong, T. and Ngamkroeckjoti, C. (2018), “A reflection of mid-roll YouTube advertising
effectiveness (MYAe): a case study in Thailand”, The 8th National and International
Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences, Prince of Songkla University, Phuket, Thailand,
pp. 205-213.
Kumar, A. and Pandey, M. (2016), “Indian consumers’ beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral responses
towards advertising on social networking sites”, Media Watch, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 244-255, doi: 10.
15655/mw/2016/v7i2/98729.
Lee, E., Kim, Y.J., Lim, Y.S. and Kim, M. (2015), “Trait reactance moderates Facebook users’ irritation
with brand communication”, Social Behavior and Personality, Vol. 43 No. 5, p. 829(16), doi: 10.
2224/sbp.2015.43.5.829.
Lee, J., Kim, S. and Ham, C.-D. (2016), “A double-edged sword? Predicting consumers’ attitudes toward
and sharing intention of native advertising on social media”, American Behavioral Scientist,
Vol. 60 No. 12, pp. 1425-1441, doi: 10.1177/0002764216660137.
Lee, Y.-C. (2016), “Determinants of effective SoLoMo advertising from the perspective of social
capital”, Aslib Journal of Information Management, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 326-346, doi: 10.1108/
AJIM-10-2015-0155.
Lee, Y.-C. (2018), “Comparing factors affecting attitudes toward LBA and SoLoMo advertising”,
Information Systems and E-Business Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 357-381, doi: 10.1007/
s10257-017-0364-9.
Li, H., Edwards, S.M. and Lee, J.-H. (2002), “Measuring the intrusiveness of advertisements: scale
development and validation”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 37-47, doi: 10.1080/
00913367.2002.10673665.
Li, Y., Oh, L.-B. and Wang, K. (2017), “Why users share marketer-generated contents on social
broadcasting websites: a cognitive–affective involvement perspective”, Journal of
Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 342-373, doi: 10.1080/
10919392.2017.1363595.
Lin, C.A. and Kim, T. (2016), “Predicting user response to sponsored advertising on social media via
the technology acceptance model”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 64, pp. 710-718, doi: 10.
1016/j.chb.2016.07.027.
Logan, K., Bright, L.F. and Gangadharbatla, H. (2012), “Facebook versus television: advertising value
perceptions among females”, Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 3,
pp. 164-179, doi: 10.1108/17505931211274651.
Loureiro, S.M.C. (2018), “Tell what you want but do not irritate me: a senior perspective about
advertising”, Journal of Promotion Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 198-214, doi: 10.1080/
10496491.2017.1360825.
Luna-Nevareza, C. and Torres, I.M. (2015), “Consumer attitudes toward social network advertising”,
Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 1-19, doi: 10.1080/
10641734.2014.912595.
Mansour, I.H.F. (2015), “Beliefs and attitudes towards social network advertising: a cross-cultural
study of Saudi and Sudanese female students”, Journal of Arab and Muslim Media Research,
Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 255-269, doi: 10.1386/jammr.8.3.255_1.
Mao, E. and Zhang, J. (2015), “What drives consumers to click on social media ads? The roles of
content, media, and individual factors”, 48th Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences, Hawaii, pp. 3405-3413, doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2015.410.
uller, L. and Maier, C. (2018a), “Why do individuals avoid social media advertising:
Mattke, J., M€
a qualitative comparison analysis study”, European Conference on Information Systems,
Portsmouth, UK, pp. 1-16.
 uller, L., Maier, C. and Graser, H. (2018b), “Avoidance of social media advertising: a latent
Mattke, J., M€ Social media
profile analysis”, Proceedings of the 2018 ACM SIGMIS Conference on Computers and People
Research, Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY, USA, p. 50(8), doi: 10.1145/3209626.3209705. advertising
uller, L. and Maier, C. (2019), “Paid, owned and earned media: a qualitative comparative
Mattke, J., M€
reactance
analysis revealing attributes influencing consumer’s brand attitude in social media”, model
Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii,
pp. 802-811.
Miltgen, C.L., Cases, A.-S. and Russell, C.A. (2019), “Consumers’ responses to Facebook advertising
across PCs and mobile phones a model for assessing the drivers of approach and avoidance of
Facebook ads”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. 414-432, doi: 10.2501/JAR-
2019-029.
Mir, I. (2015), “Effects of beliefs and concerns on user attitudes toward online social network
advertising and their ad clicking behavior”, Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce, Vol. 20
No. 2, pp. 1-25.
Morris, J.D., Choi, Y. and Ju, I. (2016), “Are social marketing and advertising communications (SMACs)
meaningful?: a survey of Facebook user emotional responses, source credibility, personal
relevance, and perceived intrusiveness”, Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising,
Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 165-182, doi: 10.1080/10641734.2016.1171182.
Muralidharan, S., La Ferle, C. and Sung, Y. (2015), “How culture influences the ‘social’ in social media:
socializing and advertising on smartphones in India and the United States”, Cyberpsychology,
Behavior, and Social Networking, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 356-360, doi: 10.1089/cyber.2015.0008.
Nguyen, T.D., Cao, T.H. and Tran, N.D. (2014), “Structural model for the adoption of online advertising
on social network in Vietnam”, 2014 International Conference on Advances in Computing,
Communications and Informatics, New Delhi, India, pp. 38-43, doi: 10.1109/ICACCI.2014.6968653.
Noprisson, H., Husin, N., Zulkarnaim, N., Rahayu, P., Ramadhan, A. and Sensuse, D.I. (2016),
“Antecedent factors of consumer attitudes toward SMS, E-mail and social media for
advertising”, 2016 International Conference on Advanced Computer Science and Information
Systems, Malang, Indonesia, pp. 165-170, doi: 10.1109/ICACSIS.2016.7872742.
Ozcelik, A.B. and Varnali, K. (2018), “Effectiveness of online behavioral targeting: a psychological
perspective”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 33, doi: 10.1016/j.elerap.2018.
11.006.
Paquette, H. (2013), “Social media as a marketing tool: a literature review”, Major Papers by Master of
Science Students, Paper 2, available at: http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/tmd_major_papers/2
(accessed 11 April 2019).
Park, J.Y., Sohn, Y. and Moon, S. (2016), “Power of earned advertising on social network services: a
case study of friend tagging on Facebook”, Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on
Web and Social Media, Cologne, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany, pp. 299-308.
Pelet, J.-E., Ettis, S., Hammami, S. and Schwob, A. (2016), “Social networks and online advertising:
should companies promote their brand fan page or their brand website?”, in Groza, M.D. and
Ragland, C.B. (Eds), Marketing Challenges in a Turbulent Business Environment, Developments
in Marketing Science: Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, Cham,
pp. 549-562, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-19428-8_137.
Pfiffelmann, J., Dens, N. and Soulez, S. (2019), “Personalized advertisements with integration of names
and photographs: an eye-tracking experiment”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 111,
pp. 196-207, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.08.017.
Rains, S.A. (2013), “The nature of psychological reactance revisited: a meta-analytic review”, Human
Communication Research, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 47-73, doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2012.01443.x.
Riedel, A.S., Weeks, C.S. and Beatson, A.T. (2018), “Am I intruding? Developing a conceptualisation of
advertising intrusiveness”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 34 Nos 9-10, pp. 750-774,
doi: 10.1080/0267257X.2018.1496130.
INTR Sam, K.M. and Chatwin, C.R. (2019), “Understanding WeChat users’ motivations, attitudes and
intention of reading promotional material”, Journal of Information Technology Management,
Vol. XXX No. 1, pp. 25-37.
Saxena, A. and Khanna, U. (2013), “Advertising on social network sites: a structural equation
modelling approach”, Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 17-25, doi:
10.1177/0972262912469560.
Shareef, M.A., Mukerji, B., Dwivedi, Y.K., Rana, N.P. and Islam, R. (2019), “Social media marketing:
comparative effect of advertisement sources”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
Vol. 46, pp. 58-69, doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.11.001.
Sipior, J. and Ward, B. (1995), “The ethical and legal quandary of email privacy”, Communications of
the ACM, Vol. 38 No. 12, pp. 48-54, doi: 10.1145/219663.219679.
Siregar, E. (2018), “Young attitudes towards F-commerce advertising”, 2018 7th International
Conference on Industrial Technology and Management, Oxford, pp. 218-223, 10.1109/ICITM.
2018.8333950.
Taylor, D.G., Lewin, J.E. and Strutton, D. (2011), “Friends, fans, and followers: do ads work on social
networks? How gender and age shape receptivity”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 51
No. 1, p. 258.
Thota, S.C. (2012), “A resolution model of consumer irritation consequences and company strategies:
social networking and strategy implications”, Journal of Applied Business and Economics,
Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 114-124.
Trichob, P. and Ngamkroeckjoti, C. (2018), “Sequential exploratory design of factors affecting FMVAs
viewers’ response”, Kasem Bundit Journal, Vol. 19, pp. 244-260.
Truong, Y. and Simmons, G. (2010), “Perceived intrusiveness in digital advertising: strategic
marketing implications”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 239-256, doi: 10.1080/
09652540903511308.
Tsao, W.-Y. (2019), “Do irritations of ads in line really matter?”, International Business Research,
Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 53-68, doi: 10.5539/ibr.v12n5p53.
Tsimonis, G., Dimitriadis, S. and Omar, S. (2020), “An integrative typology of relational benefits and
costs in social media brand pages”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 62 No. 2,
pp. 216-233, doi: 10.1177/1470785318822270.
Unmetric (2017), “Engagement meter: June’s top social-media brand campaigns and posts”, available
at: https://www.campaignasia.com/article/engagement-meter-junes-top-social-media-brand-
campaigns-and-posts/437673 (accessed 10 November 2020).
Van Den Broeck, E., Poels, K. and Walrave, M. (2017), “A factorial survey study on the influence of
advertising place and the use of personal data on user acceptance of Facebook ads”, American
Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 61 No. 7, pp. 653-671, doi: 10.1177/0002764217717560.
Van Den Broeck, E., Zarouali, B. and Poels, K. (2019), “Chatbot advertising effectiveness: when does
the message get through?”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 98, pp. 150-157, doi: 10.1016/j.
chb.2019.04.009.
Van Der Goot, M.J., Rozendaal, E., Opree, S.J., Ketelaar, P.E., and Smit, E.G. (2016), “Media generations
and their advertising attitudes and avoidance: a six-country comparison”, International Journal
of Advertising, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 289-308, doi: 10.1080/02650487.2016.1240469.
Webster, J. and Watson, R.T. (2002), “Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature
review”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. xiii-xxiii.
Wei, X., Ko, I. and An, N. (2019), “An exploratory study for perceived advertising value in the
relationship between irritation and advertising avoidance on the mobile social platforms”,
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, pp. 370-379.
White, T., Zahay, D., Thorbjørnsen, H. and Shavitt, S. (2008), “Getting too personal: reactance to
highly personalized email solicitations”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 39-50, doi: 10.1007/
s11002-007-9027-9.
Wiese, M., Martınez-Climent, C. and Botella-Carrubi, D. (2020), “A framework for Facebook advertising Social media
effectiveness a behavioral perspective”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 109, pp. 76-87, doi: 10.
1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.041. advertising
Wijenayake, S. and Pathirana, I.R. (2019), “A study on factors influencing online behavioral
reactance
advertising avoidance (OBA): special reference to Sri Lankan online advertising”, Management model
Science Letters, Vol. 9 No. 8, pp. 1281-1288, doi: 10.5267/j.msl.2019.4.014.
Wilson, R.E., Gosling, S.D. and Graham, L.T. (2012), “A review of Facebook research in the social
sciences”, Perspectives on Psychological Science, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 203-220, doi: 10.1177/
1745691612442904.
Yang, K.-C., Huang, C.-H., Yang, C. and Yang, S.Y. (2017), “Consumer attitudes toward online video
advertisement: YouTube as a platform”, Kybernetes, Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 840-853, doi: 10.1108/K-
03-2016-0038.
Youn, S. and Kim, S. (2019a), “Newsfeed native advertising on Facebook: young millennials’
knowledge, pet peeves, reactance and ad avoidance”, International Journal of Advertising,
Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 651-683, doi: 10.1080/02650487.2019.1575109.
Youn, S. and Kim, S. (2019b), “Understanding ad avoidance on Facebook: antecedents and outcomes of
psychological reactance”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 98, pp. 232-244, doi: 10.1016/j.
chb.2019.04.025.
Youn, S. and Shin, W. (2019), “Teens’ responses to Facebook newsfeed advertising: the effects of
cognitive appraisal and social influence on privacy concerns and coping strategies”, Telematics
and Informatics, Vol. 38, pp. 30-45, doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2019.02.001.

Corresponding author
Qingfei Min can be contacted at: minqf@dlut.edu.cn
INTR Appendix
Theories/models
Attention, interest, desire, and
action model
Cognition process theory
Elaboration- likelihood model
Limited capacity model
Persuasion knowledge model
Priming theory
Privacy calculus theory
Psychological reactance theory
Regulatory focus theory
Social comparison theory
Social exchange theory
Social identity theory
Social influence theories
Technology acceptance model
Theory of reasoned action
Use and gratification theory
Table A1.
Theoretical
foundations in the
literature
Description
The model proposes a sequence-based framework to explain persuasive
communication processes (Belanche et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2018; Gracia
et al., 2017)
The theory elaborates on individuals’ cognitive processes and divides the
process into several stages (Huo et al., 2018; Kongsagoonwong and
Ngamkroeckjoti, 2018)
This model states that ads are viewed by consumers based on their
motivation and understanding of the message (Belanche et al., 2017; Lee,
2018; Mao and Zhang, 2015; Van Den Broeck et al., 2017, 2019)
States that individuals’ cognitive resources are limited, which means that
attention is given to one task at the expense of attention to another task
(Beuckels et al., 2017; Fan et al., 2017)
Offers a valuable framework for explaining how consumers assess, react to
and cope with advertisers’ commercial intent and tactics (Ahn et al., 2017;
Chen et al., 2018; Fan et al., 2017; Hamby and Ilyuk, 2019; Youn and Kim,
2019a)
Priming mainly explains that the processing of a stimulus encountered for
the first time is shown to influence responses to subsequently encountered
stimuli (Belanche et al., 2017, 2019; Thota, 2012)
Posits that an individual’s privacy decision process can be thought of as a
set of cost-benefit analyses (Gironda and Korgaonkar, 2016, 2018; Youn
and Shin, 2019)
The theory suggests that reactance is a motivational state that energizes
and directs an individual’s behavior (Aziza and Astuti, 2018; Belanche
et al., 2019; Cheung and Ho, 2017; Dehghani et al., 2016; Riedel et al., 2018;
Youn and Kim, 2019a, b)
The theory suggests that human motivation is rooted in the seeking of
pleasure and the avoidance of pain (Ozcelik and Varnali, 2018; Wiese et al.,
2020)
The theory posits that individuals tend to compare their life with those of
others to make conclusions about themselves (Beuckels et al., 2017)
The theory proposes that social behavior is the result of an exchange
process designed to maximize the benefits and minimize the costs of social
relationships (Li et al., 2017; Miltgen et al., 2019)
This theory holds that individuals’ behaviors often are connected and
driven by identifying personal consciousness for affiliation with peers
(Shareef et al., 2019)
These theories explain how one’s feelings, opinions, or behaviors are
impacted by others (Wiese et al., 2020)
The model explains the potential user’s behavioral intention to use
technological innovation (Arli, 2017; Luna-Nevareza and Torres, 2015;
Nguyen et al., 2014)
Explains the relationship between attitudes and behaviors in human
actions (Ahmed and Raziq, 2017; Arli, 2017; Nguyen et al., 2014; Yang et al.,
2017)
Cognitive needs, affective needs, personal and social integrative needs and
relaxation needs are considered fundamental “needs and gratification”
categories (Ahmed and Raziq, 2017; Aydin, 2016, 2018; Celebi, 2015; Deraz,
2018, 2019; Gaber et al., 2019; Hassan et al., 2013; Miltgen et al., 2019; Taylor
et al., 2011)