JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE ADVERTISING

2016, VOL. 16, NO. 1, 59–73

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2016.1160331

Understanding the Impact of Media Engagement on the Perceived Value and

Acceptance of Advertising Within Mobile Social Networks
Linwan Wu
The University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Mobile social networks (MSNs) have been adopted as an innovative advertising channel. This study Mobile social networks
proposes a conceptual model to explore the antecedents of MSN engagement and test the (MSNs); media engagement;
relationship between MSN engagement and advertising effectiveness. Results of an online survey utilitarian motivation; mobile
discover that utilitarian motivation, mobile convenience, and contextual perceived value (CPV) convenience; contextual
perceived value; advertising
significantly predict one’s engagement with MSN apps. Moreover, MSN engagement positively acceptance; advertising value
influences perceived advertising value, which in turn predicts consumers’ intention to accept
advertisements in MSNs. As the first one to investigate media engagement in the context of mobile
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 00:45 09 May 2016

social media, this study provides significant implications for both advertising researchers and
practitioners.

Communication scholars and professionals have been
exploring how to engage individuals with media content
(Chaffee and Schleuder 1986; Price and Zaller 1993;
Wang 2006). The rapid development of interactive
media, such as social media, provides one promising
solution to this inquiry. Interactive media are labeled as
“engagement-based” media (Morrissey 2009; Stanley
2013), reflecting the important role of media engagement
in the current media environment (Oh, Bellur, and Sun-
dar 2015).
Media engagement comes from experiencing media
content (Calder and Malthouse 2008). It is “the sum
of the motivational experiences consumers have with
the media product” (Calder and Malthouse 2008, p. 5).
Such experiences can be categorized into two groups:
utilitarian experiences and intrinsically enjoyable expe-
riences. The former indicates information acquisition
or task accomplishment, and the latter indicates enter-
tainment or escapism (Calder, Malthouse, and Schae-
del 2009).
Media engagement has been demonstrated to
greatly influence how individuals perceive media con-
tent (Bardzell et al. 2005; Sundar 2007), including
advertising messages. Previous research has confirmed
that media engagement positively affects advertising
effectiveness (Calder, Malthouse, and Schaedel 2009;
Wang and Calder 2009). In other words, when
consumers are engaged with a medium, they are
more likely to express favorable responses to adver-
tisements delivered by that medium. However, such
an effect has primarily been confirmed in traditional
media, such as magazines and televisions (Kilger and
Romer 2007). Although Calder, Malthouse, and
Schaedel (2009) took online media into consideration,
they mainly focused on banner ads on websites,
which are not as engaging as social media. That is to
say, the positive relationship between media engage-
ment and advertising effectiveness has received little
empirical support in the context of social media,
where media engagement is more likely to occur and
be intense.
It is necessary to investigate how users’ engagement
with social media influences advertising effectiveness,
because there is no guarantee that what has been
observed with traditional media still occurs on social
media. Actually, previous research has pointed out that
certain media experiences could drive consumers away
from advertisements on social media (Johnson 2013;
Kelly, Kerr, and Drennan 2010). It may result from the
fact that high engagement with social media makes users
perceive great intrusiveness of advertising messages.
Therefore, without empirical research, one cannot claim
that media engagement still positively influences adver-
tising effectiveness on social media.

CONTACT Linwan Wu linwanwu@ufl.edu The University of Florida, Department of Advertising, College of Journalism and Communications, 1885 Sta-
dium Road, P.O. Box 118400, Gainesville, FL 32611-8400.
Linwan Wu (MA, University of Florida) is a doctoral candidate, Department of Advertising, College of Journalism and Communications, The University of Florida.
© 2016 American Academy of Advertising
 60 L. WU
Currently, social media are migrating from personal
computer (PC)–based websites to mobile platforms due
to the increasing popularity of mobile devices. According
to Pew Research Center’s report of smartphone use in
2015, 64% of Americans are smartphone users (A. Smith
2015). Mobile devices are heavily used to access the
Internet. Users spend more time on the Internet using
mobile devices than using desktops (Bosomworth 2015).
Among different purposes, interacting with mobile social
networks (MSNs) is one of the top reasons for using
mobile devices (comScore 2014). Therefore, MSNs repre-
sent a current trend in social media (Humphrey and Lav-
erie 2011; Jabeur, Zeadally, and Sayed 2013; Wortham
2010). For example, Facebook reported 1,314 million
mobile monthly users worldwide in the second quarter
of 2015 (Statista 2015), and 80% of the accounts on Twit-
ter were accessed from mobile devices (C. Smith 2015).
Accordingly, MSNs have been considered as an impor-
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 00:45 09 May 2016
tant channel for advertising delivery, with two-thirds of
the total advertising expenditures on social media pre-
dicted to be on MSNs in 2018, leading to “a $9.1 billion
social-mobile market” (Hoelzel 2014). Although adver-
tisers have high expectations for MSNs as an advertising
channel, little empirical research has been conducted to
address MSN advertising (Ha, Park, and Lee 2014).
Therefore, the current study takes mobile social media
into account.
In addition, it is believed that MSNs are more
engaging than PC-based social networking sites (SNSs)
due to the highly interactive and intelligent features of
mobile apps (Bellman et al. 2011; Kim, Lin, and Sung
2013). While previous studies have shed light on the
antecedents of engagement with SNSs (Chu and Kim
2011; Tsai and Men 2013), little research has focused
on media engagement in the context of MSNs. It is
very likely that the factors that encourage users to
engage with MSNs are different from those with SNSs
because of the unique features of mobile media, such
as ubiquity, constant access, and personal nature
(Kaplan 2012).
Therefore, the goal of this study is twofold. One is to
test whether the positive effect of media engagement on
advertising effectiveness still holds in the context of
MSNs. The other is to examine the underlying mecha-
nism of MSN engagement by identifying its antecedents.
Advertising effectiveness in this study is examined by
assessing consumers’ intention of advertising acceptance
and perceived advertising value. Advertising acceptance
is selected because of its enormous importance in mobile
marketing (Amberg, Hirschmeier, and Wehrmann 2004;
Heinonen and Strandvik 2007). Advertising value is
adopted due to its strong ability to predict behaviors in
the online advertising context (Defever, Pandelaere, and
Roe 2011; Ha, Park, and Lee 2014). A conceptual model
is proposed and tested to fulfill the goal of this study.
MSN Engagement
Previous research has investigated individuals’ engage-
ment with traditional media (Kilger and Romer 2007),
websites (Calder, Malthouse, and Schaedel 2009; Kilger
and Romer 2007), and social media (Chu and Kim 2011;
Tsai and Men 2013). When investigating users’ engage-
ment with brand pages on SNSs, Tsai and Men (2013)
claimed that engagement could generate meaningful
relationships between consumers and brands. More
important, the antecedents of SNS engagement were
examined, including social media dependency, parasocial
interaction, and community identification (Tsai and Men
2013). Kim, Lin, and Sung (2013) expanded the investi-
gation of media engagement to the mobile platform; they
conceptualized mobile app engagement as “a set of
branded app experiences that motivates consumers to
try to make happen repeatedly in their lives” (p. 54).
They also confirmed that engagement with branded apps
facilitated consumers’ evaluations of the brands, because
engagement strengthened their brand relationships
(Kim, Lin, and Sung 2013).
The current study focuses on media engagement in
the context of MSNs. MSNs are defined as the “extension
of social networking where individuals with similar
interests converse and connect with one another through
their mobile phones and/or tablets” (Lu et al. 2014, p.
197). Current MSNs are primarily presented in the for-
mat of mobile apps (Lu et al. 2014), through which peo-
ple are able to share information, update status, and
interact with their social networks anytime and any-
where (Li and Chen 2009; Tussyadiah 2012). MSN
engagement has yet been investigated in communication
research. One might think that such a concept is a simple
equivalent to SNS engagement. However, the unique fea-
tures of mobile media make MSN engagement a theoreti-
cally different concept. One such feature is mobile
ubiquity (Okazaki and Mendez 2013). Compared to
SNSs, MSNs have the advantage of reaching users any-
time and anywhere. Moreover, MSNs are context aware,
meaning that users can receive tailored messages based
their locations and surroundings (Kaplan 2012). Users
also have more control over the content on MSNs due to
some advanced functions of smart mobile devices (Ha,
Park, and Lee 2014). Therefore, the underlying mecha-
nism of MSN engagement is believed to be different
from that of SNS engagement. The current study aims to
discover this underlying mechanism by examining the
antecedents of MSN engagement. Several antecedents
 JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE ADVERTISING 61

are taken into consideration because of their (1) theoreti-
cal importance to social media engagement and (2) sig-
nificant salience to the mobile platform. The antecedents
of MSN engagement examined in this study include
engagement motivations, mobile convenience, contex-
tual perceived value, and MSN compatibility.
Engagement Motivations
Media engagement stems from the motivations of
experiencing media content (Calder and Malthouse
2008), that is to say a person will not engage with a
media vehicle if he or she is not motivated to consume
the media content at the first place. Therefore, to exam-
ine users’ motivations is always a reasonable start to
investigate media engagement. It is supported by the
uses and gratifications approach (U&G) (McQuail 1985;
Rubin 1984), which argues that people consume media
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 00:45 09 May 2016
the mobile platform. It is also a dominant motivation for
social media usage (Brandtzæg and Heim 2009).
Given previous research on people’s motivations for
using social media and becoming engaged with mobile
devices, it is reasonable to expect that utilitarian,
hedonic, and social motivations will lead to users’
engagement with mobile social media or MSNs.
H1: (a) Utilitarian, (b) hedonic, and (c) social motiva-
tion will positively influence MSN engagement.
Mobile Convenience
Although the examination of motivations is rooted in
strong theoretical foundations, it by no means presents a
holistic picture of users’ engagement with MSNs. The
utilitarian, hedonic, and social motivations explain indi-
viduals’ engagement with social media regardless of

media devices (Kim, Sohn, and Choi 2011; Whiting and

content to satisfy a diversity of needs (Katz, Blumler, and
Williams 2013). Because MSNs differ from traditional
Gurevitch 1974; Swanson 1987). Because media engage-
SNSs primarily in terms of allowing users to have access
ment describes one’s state of experiencing media content,
to their social networks on the mobile platform, an inves-
the U&G approach serves as the theoretical foundation
tigation of MSN engagement should take into account
for linking motivations to media engagement.
the antecedents that reflect the mobile nature of MSNs.
Media scholars have already paid sufficient attention
Moreover, a recent perspective of media engagement
to people’s motivations for using social media. Based on
emphasizes considering the characteristics of the media
the U&G approach, people are active users who seek
interface (Oh, Bellur, and Sundar 2015). Therefore, sev-
and use social media to reach their goals and fulfill their
eral antecedents that indicate the mobile features of
needs (Lariscy, Tinkham, and Sweetser 2011; Roy 2009).
MSN engagement are also included in this study.
The motivations of using social media identified by a
As mentioned, individuals using MSNs can access
number of researchers include information seeking,
their social networks without the limitation of time or
entertainment, social interaction, self-expression, pass-
space (Ha, Park, and Lee 2014). Such a characteristic is
ing time, profession development, and so on
labeled ubiquitous access (Okazaki and Mendez 2013),
(Brandtzæg and Heim 2009; Jung, Youn, and McClung
mobile convenience (Ha, Park, and Lee 2014), or mobil-
2007; Raacke and Bonds-Raacke 2008). Among these,
ity (Kim, Mirusmonov, and Lee 2010). The current study
information seeking, entertainment, and social interac-
adopts the term mobile convenience, which refers to
tion are the three primary motivations identified across
interacting with one’s social networks “anytime and any-
studies (Kim, Sohn, and Choi 2011; Whiting and Wil-
where with minimal effort” (Ha, Park, and Lee 2014, p.
liams 2013).
1335) by using MSN apps. Previous research has demon-
Moreover, the aforementioned three motivations have
strated that the convenience of mobile devices leads to
also been identified as antecedents of users’ engagement
more media usage and information sharing through
with mobile media (Kim, Kim, and Wachter 2013). Kim,
online social networks (Okazaki 2008). Other studies
Kim, and Wachter (2013) proposed the motivations of
have also confirmed the positive influence of mobility on
mobile user engagement (MoEN), including utilitarian,
consumers’ adoption of mobile payments (Kim, Mirus-
hedonic, and social motivations. The utilitarian motiva-
monov, and Lee 2010). In sum, mobile convenience
tion emphasizes users’ expectation of informational and
increases one’s frequency of interacting with media plat-
functional benefits when using mobile media. It overlaps
forms due to the lift of constraints of time and location.
with the information-seeking motivation identified in
Because media engagement results from frequent usage
previous social media research. The hedonic motivation
of media vehicles (Calder and Malthouse 2008), it is logi-
refers to an individual’s prospect that his or her mobile
cal to predict that mobile convenience will have a posi-
experience will generate intrinsic pleasure and enjoy-
tive influence on media engagement.
ment. It corresponds to the entertainment motivation
discussed previously. The social motivation reflects peo- H2: Mobile convenience will positively influence MSN
ple’s needs to interact with their social networks using engagement.
 62 L. WU
Contextual Perceived Value
In addition to mobile convenience, another salient
uniqueness of MSNs compared to SNSs is their inclusion
of location-based functions. Location-based services,
which refer to “services that depend on and are enhanced
by positional information of mobile device” (Dhar and
Varshney 2011, p. 122), are one of the most important
features of mobile apps (Jabeur, Zeadally, and Sayed
2013). The location-based function is realized by some
advanced technologies, such as global positioning system
(GPS), radio frequency identification, near-field commu-
nication gear, and so on (Jabeur, Zeadally, and Sayed
2013). By using these technologies, social network opera-
tors can identify MSN users’ locations and provide
neighborhood-related information, like recommenda-
tions for nearby stores and restaurants (Jabeur, Zeadally,
and Sayed 2013). One location-based feature of the
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 00:45 09 May 2016
mainstream MSN apps is the check-in function (Hum-
phrey and Laverie 2011). By checking in, a user publishes
his or her current location and status (Jabeur, Zeadally,
and Sayed 2013). People check in on MSNs to express
themselves (Kaplan 2012). Such a motivation is well
grounded in the theoretical frameworks of self-presenta-
tion and self-disclosure (Goffman 1959; Schau and Gilly
2003).
A similar concept regarding the location-based func-
tion is context awareness (Magedanz and Sim~oes 2009;
Tussyadiah 2012). Although these two terms are some-
times used interchangeably, the latter has a larger scale.
According to Tussyadiah (2012), contextual information
includes “the location of the user, the identity of people
near the user, the objects around, and the changes in
these elements” (p. 207). The context-aware function of
MSN apps can not only confirm users’ locations but
also provide all-round information about their current
environment, including nearby people and objects, as
well as time-sensitive events. Lee and Jun (2007) pro-
posed the construct of contextual perceived value
(CPV) to indicate mobile users’ evaluation of the con-
text-aware function. In the mobile commerce context,
CPV is defined as “the degree to which a person
believes that receiving context-relevant information or
services would enhance his or her purchase perfor-
mance” (Lee and Jun 2007, p. 343). It is confirmed that
CPV positively influences consumers’ perceived useful-
ness of mobile commerce and intention to use it (Lee
and Jun 2007). Similar to mobile convenience, CPV
leads to users’ frequent interaction with mobile media,
so that it has great potential to increase media engage-
ment. The current study borrows CPV from the mobile
commerce context and applies it to social media. Specif-
ically, CPV in this study indicates the extent to which
users perceive that receiving context-relevant informa-
tion would increase the quality of interacting with their
online social networks. Therefore, users with high CPV
tend to interact with MSNs more frequently, so that
they are more likely to engage with MSNs.
H3: Contextual perceived value will positively influence
MSN engagement.
MSN Compatibility
The final antecedent of MSN engagement examined in
this study is media compatibility, and specifically MSN
compatibility. The concept of compatibility originates
from innovation diffusion theory (IDT; Rogers 2003). It is
defined as “the degree to which an innovation is perceived
as being consistent with the existing values, past experi-
ence, and needs of potential adopters” (Rogers 2003, p.
224). Compared to PC-based SNSs, MSNs are still consid-
ered an innovative media platform which is currently
developing, along with the rapid growth of smart portable
devices. Before adopting MSNs, people already have exist-
ing motivations for and experiences using social media.
The adoption behavior reflects that a user perceives the
features of MSNs (including mobile convenience and con-
text awareness) to be compatible with their motivations
and previous experience using social media (such as infor-
mation seeking, entertainment, and social interaction).
Therefore, the factor of MSN compatibility links the afore-
mentioned antecedents of MSN engagement (motivations,
mobile convenience, and CPV) together conceptually, and
also reflects the transitional process of users migrating
from SNSs to MSNs.
Previous research has confirmed that perceived
compatibility encourages individuals to adopt innova-
tive media due to a high degree of fitness between
media characteristics and users’ values, experience,
and lifestyles. For example, Park and Chen (2007) dis-
covered that the compatibility of a smartphone could
positively predict one’s attitude toward smartphone
usage. Jung, Sung, and Lee (2013) confirmed that
smartphone compatibility was also positively related to
one’s acceptance of mobile advertisements. The cur-
rent study focuses on MSN compatibility, which indi-
cates the extent to which the mobile nature of MSNs
is consistent with an individual’s motivations and
experiences using social media. When users see a high
potential of mobile convenience and context awareness
fitting their lifestyles with social media, they are more
likely to adopt MSNs and use them frequently, leading
to high MSN engagement.
H4: MSN compatibility will positively influence MSN
engagement.
 JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE ADVERTISING 63

MSN Engagement and Advertising Effectiveness and Romer (2007) investigated the relationships between
consumers’ engagement with three types of media
Social media have already been adopted as an effective
(television, magazine, Internet) and their responses to
advertising channel by marketing professionals (Dao
advertisements on these media platforms. Results indi-
et al. 2014; Mangold and Faulds 2009; Okazaki and Tay-
cated that, regardless of media types, there was a positive
lor 2013; Tuten and Solomon 2012). However, existing
relationship between media engagement and advertising
studies of social media advertising have primarily
effectiveness, with more engaging consumers expressing
focused on PC-based SNSs. So far, little attention has
greater likelihood of purchasing the products in the
been paid to MSN advertising (Ha, Park, and Lee 2014).
advertisements (Kilger and Romer 2007). The similar
In general, advertisements on MSNs refer to the advertis-
results were also observed in Calder, Malthouse, and
ing messages that users are exposed to when interacting
Schaedel’s (2009) study on banner ads. The excitation
with their social networks on mobile devices. Examples
transfer theory (Bryant and Miron 2003; Zillmann 1983)
of MSN advertisements include sponsored posts in the
may explain such a positive relationship. Consumers’
Facebook app, promoted tweets in the Twitter app, and
positive feelings toward a certain media platform due to
promoted pins in the Pinterest app.
the engaging experience can be transferred to the adver-
The current study aims to figure out what influences
tising messages presented on that platform. Media con-
the effectiveness of MSN advertising. Advertising effec-
text can prime individuals’ cognitive responses or make
tiveness is indicated in this study by the constructs of
certain affective responses more available (Dahlen 2005).
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 00:45 09 May 2016

advertising acceptance and perceived advertising value.

Thus, consumers’ reactions to advertisements are likely
These two constructs are believed to better reflect indi-
to be directly influenced by their experience with the
viduals’ real-life responses to MSN advertisements than
media.
mere “attitudes,” which are widely used to indicate
However, the relationship between media engage-
advertising effectiveness in nonmobile media (Brackett
ment and advertising effectiveness has yet to be empir-
and Carr 2001; Bright and Daugherty 2012; Chen and
ically tested in the context of MSNs. Given the
Wells 1999). The importance of advertising acceptance
accelerating prevalence of MSN advertising (Ha, Park,
in mobile marketing has been confirmed by previous
and Lee 2014; Hoelzel 2014) and MSNs’ great potential
research (Amberg, Hirschmeier, and Wehrmann 2004;
for engaging users, it is necessary to test whether the
Heinonen and Strandvik 2007). Because people consider
positive influence of media engagement on advertising
mobile devices to be very private (Tahtinen and Salo
effectiveness still holds in MSNs. Specifically, it is pre-
2003), they tend to reject unrequested advertising mes-
dicted in this study that MSN engagement will posi-
sages (Mir 2011; Godin 2001; Tsang, Ho, and Liang
tively influence consumers’ perception of advertising
2004), leading to a low acceptance rate of mobile ads in
value as well as their advertising acceptance in MSN
general (Merisavo et al. 2007). Thus, the success of
apps. Moreover, advertising value that indicates “the
mobile advertising is greatly determined by users’ inten-
relative worth or utility of advertising to consumers”
tions to accept mobile media as an advertising delivery
(Ducoffe 1995, p. 1) has been confirmed to positively
channel (Bauer et al. 2005). Advertising value is believed
predict ad-related behavioral intention in social media
to be another valid estimate of MSN advertising effec-
(Dao et al. 2014; Saxena and Khanna 2013) and mobile
tiveness (Ha, Park, and Lee 2014). Because individuals
media (Choi, Hwang, and McMillan 2008; Zeng,
are motivated to use social media for various needs,
Huang, and Dou 2009). Ha, Park, and Lee (2014) also
including information seeking and entertainment
discovered that advertising value was positively related
(Kim, Sohn, and Choi 2011; Whiting and Williams
to intention to continuously use MSNs to receive
2013), it is likely they also expect advertising messages
advertisements. Therefore, advertising value is also
on social media to deliver similar values, such as infor-
expected to positively influence advertising acceptance
mativeness and entertainment (Ducoffe 1995). There-
in MSN apps. Figure 1 presents the conceptual model
fore, examining both advertising acceptance and
with all the variables discussed.
perceived value as estimates of advertising effectiveness
manifests the nature of MSNs as combining social media H5: MSN engagement will positively influence percep-
and the mobile platform. tion of advertising value in MSN apps.
Previous research has long confirmed that media
H6: MSN engagement will positively influence advertis-
engagement facilitates advertising effectiveness (Bronner
ing acceptance in MSN apps.
and Neijens 2006; Calder, Malthouse, and Schaedel 2009;
Cunningham, Hall, and Young 2006; Gallagher, Foster, H7: Advertising value will positively influence advertis-
and Parsons 2001; Nicovich 2005). For example, Kilger ing acceptance in MSN apps.
 64 L. WU
Figure 1. A conceptual model of mobile social network (MSN) advertising.
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 00:45 09 May 2016
Method
Procedure
An online survey was conducted among MSN users who
were recruited from several undergraduate courses in the
College of Journalism and Communications at a large U.S.
university. Majors of these respondents included journalism,
advertising, public relations, and telecommunication.
Respondents received an invitation e-mail with a link to the
survey, in which they were asked about their experience
using MSN apps and opinions of advertisements on MSNs.
Participants
A total of 198 undergraduate students were recruited to
participate in this study. All of the respondents reported
to have used MSN apps on their smartphones or tablets;
22.7% of them (N D 45) were male and 77.3% (N D 153)
were female. Age ranged between 17 and 39, with 20.5 as
the mean age; 62.1% of the respondents were white
(Nwhite D 123), 23.2% were Hispanic (NHispanic D 46),
and 8.6% were African American (NAfrican American D 17).
It is believed that to use a student sample is appropri-
ate when investigating MSN advertising. Millennials are
heavy users of smartphones in the United States. Around
85% of people aged 18 to 34 have smartphones, and
spend 14.5 hours per week on them (Perez 2014). About
20% of these millennials use mobile only, doing all Inter-
net-related activities on their smartphones or tablets
(Lella 2014). In addition, existing studies have showed
that millennials’ usage of social media is going mobile. In
a survey conducted by Pew Research Center (2014), 67%
of the respondents aged 18 to 29 reported using social
media on their mobile devices. Respondents in this study
reported similar results: 87.88% (N D 174) of them iden-
tified MSN apps were their most frequently used apps.
Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube, and Twitter
were the top apps used by these respondents.
Measures
MSN engagement (eight items, 7-point scale) was mea-
sured by adopting items from Calder, Malthouse, and
Schaedel (2009). MSN compatibility (four items, 7-point
scale) was measured by adopting items from Teo and Pok
(2003). CPV (six items, 7-point scale) was measured by
adopting items from Lee and Jun (2007) and Merisavo
et al. (2007). Mobile convenience (six items, 7-point scale)
was measured by adopting items from Ko, Cho, and Rob-
erts (2005) and Kim, Sohn, and Choi (2011). Utilitarian
(three items, 7-point scale), hedonic (three items, 7-point
scale), and social motivation (two items, 7-point scale)
were measured by adopting items from Kim, Kim, and
Wachter (2013). Advertising value (three items, 7-point
scale) was measured by adopting items from Ducoffe
(1995). Advertising acceptance was measured by adopting
items from Merisavo et al. (2007) and Bauer et al. (2005).
All the items were modified to specifically reflect the con-
text of MSNs.
Data Analysis
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using AMOS 21 was
conducted to establish construct reliability and validity.
Structural equation modeling (SEM) using AMOS 21
was conducted to test the model fit of the conceptual
model and test each hypothesis. Previous research indi-
cates a minimum sample size for SEM is between 100
 JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE ADVERTISING 65

and 200 (Boomsma 1982, 1985) or 10 cases per variable
(Nunnally 1967). Thus, using SEM to analyze a sample
of 198 respondents in this study is justified.
Results
Measurement Validation
A first-order CFA was conducted to test the fitness of the
measurement model for the latent variables. The initial
model fit for the CFA model was not good, so the stan-
dardized regression weights were examined for each
item. Three MSN engagement items, one CPV item, one
mobile convenience item, and one hedonic motivation
item were deleted because they did not exceed the rec-
ommended .70 threshold weight. The final scales are pre-
sented in appendix. The revised CFA model had
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 00:45 09 May 2016
Standardized loading, Cronbach’s alpha, composite
reliabilities (CRs), and average variance extracted (AVE)
estimates were used to assess reliability and convergent
validity of the measures (see Table 1). The loadings
ranged from 0.72 to 0.97, which were highly significant.
Cronbach’s alpha ranged from 0.82 to 0.96, all exceeding
the minimum limit of 0.70 (Chin 1998). CRs ranged
from 0.83 to 0.97, all exceeding the minimum limit of
0.70 (Hair 2010). AVE estimates ranged from 0.66 to
0.87, all exceeding the recommended minimum limit of
0.50 (Fornell and Larcker 1981). Therefore, all factors in
the measurement model had sufficient reliability and
convergent validity.
Pearson correlations revealed significant, strong cor-
relations among all of the variables, with a few excep-
tions, suggesting possible multicollinearity issues (see
Table 2). Variance inflation factor (VIF) tests discovered
that the multicollinearity issues were not a problem. In

acceptable model fit based on the recommendation from

particular, in the worst case, the VIF was less than 5
Hair (2010). In specific, goodness of fit indices for the
(Hair 2010).
revised CFA model (x2 D 888.03, df D 522, x2/df D 1.70,
CFI D 0.95, TLI D 0.94, RMSEA D 0.06) indicated satis-
factory fit for the data.
Model Testing

Table 1. Measures of construct reliability and validity. The proposed conceptual model was tested using SEM
(Bollen 1989). The following indices were used to esti-
Constructs Items Standardized Loadings a CR AVE
mate the model fit: x2/df (less than 3) (Carmines and
MSN engagement ME-1 0.84 0.91 0.93 0.68 McIver 1981), GFI (close to 1.00) (Kang 2014), NFI
ME-2 0.88
ME-3 0.77 (greater than 0.90) (Bentler 1992), CFI (greater than
ME-4 0.82 0.90) (Bentler 1992), and RMSEA (less than 0.08) (Hu
ME-5 0.74
Contextual CPV-1 0.72 0.89 0.92 0.66
and Bentler 1999).
perceived value CPV-2 0.80 The goodness-of-fit indices for this model were x2/df D
CPV-3 0.74 1.499, GFI D 0.849, NFI D 0.902, CFI D 0.965, RMSEA D
CPV-4 0.84
CPV-5 0.87 0.050. All model-fit indices exceed the suggested accep-
Mobile convenience MOC-1 0.78 0.92 0.94 0.73 tance levels in previous research, demonstrating that the
MOC-2 0.82
MOC-3 0.82 model presented a good fit with the selected sample.
MOC-4 0.92 Therefore, the path coefficients were then examined for
MOC-5 0.88
MSN compatibility MSC-1 0.85 0.96 0.96 0.87 the conceptual model.
MSC-2 0.94
MSC-3 0.97
MSC-4 0.96
Utilitarian motivation UM-1 0.80 0.87 0.87 0.70 Hypotheses Testing
UM-2 0.90
UM-3 0.80 Hypothesis 1 predicts that (a) utilitarian, (b) hedonic,
Hedonic motivation HM-1 0.87 0.89 0.88 0.79
HM-2 0.91
and (c) social motivation positively influence MSN
Social motivation SM-1 0.92 0.82 0.83 0.70 engagement. Results indicated that utilitarian motivation
Advertising value
SM-2
AV-1
0.75
0.93 0.92 0.93 0.81
positively affected MSN engagement (b D 0.193, p <
AV-2 0.93 .01). However, hedonic motivation (b D ¡0.029, p >
AV-3 0.83 .05) and social motivation (b D ¡0.128, p > .05) did not
Advertising AA-1 0.87 0.96 0.97 0.77
acceptance AA-2 0.87 have significant effects on MSN engagement. Therefore,
AA-3 0.88 hypothesis 1(a) was supported, but hypotheses 1(b) and
AA-4 0.90
AA-5 0.86 1(c) were not supported.
AA-6 0.91 Hypothesis 2 predicts that mobile convenience posi-
Note. CR D composite reliabilities; AVE D average variance extracted; MSN D tively influences MSN engagement. Results indicated
mobile social network. that mobile convenience positively affected MSN
 66 L. WU

Table 2. Factor correlation matrix.

MSN Context Mobile MSN Utilitarian Hedonic Social Advertising Advertising
Engagement Perceived Value Convenience Compatibility Motivation Motivation Motivation Value Acceptance

MSN engagement 1
Context perceived value 0.64 1
Mobile convenience 0.70 0.63 1
MSN compatibility 0.70 0.68 0.77 1
Utilitarian motivation 0.66 0.63 0.64 0.65 1
Hedonic motivation 0.61 0.59 0.73 0.68 0.74 1
Social motivation 0.49 0.48 0.59 0.49 0.72 0.67 1
Advertising value 0.14 0.35 0.25 0.29 0.28 0.29 0.26 1
Advertising acceptance 0.05 0.32 0.151 0.217 0.163 0.19 0.13 0.79 1
M 5.54 4.88 5.73 5.34 5.58 5.37 5.52 4.05 3.55
SD 1.20 1.12 1.13 1.29 1.12 1.17 1.23 1.44 1.43

Note. MSN D mobile social network.


p < 0.01; p < 0.05.

engagement (b D 0.377, p < .001). Therefore, hypothesis Hypothesis 6 predicts that MSN engagement posi-
2 was supported. tively influences advertising acceptance. Results indi-
Hypothesis 3 predicts that CPV positively influences cated that MSN engagement did not have a significant
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 00:45 09 May 2016

MSN engagement. Results indicated that CPV positively
affected MSN engagement (b D 0.584, p < .001). There-
fore, hypothesis 3 was supported.
Hypothesis 4 predicts that MSN compatibility posi-
tively influences MSN engagement. Results indicated
that MSN compatibility did not have a significant effect
on MSN engagement (b D 0.039, p > .05). Therefore,
hypothesis 4 was not supported.
Hypothesis 5 predicts that MSN engagement posi-
tively influences perceived advertising value. Results
indicated that MSN engagement positively affected
advertising value (b D 0.546, p < .001). Therefore,
hypothesis 5 was supported.
effect on advertising acceptance (b D ¡0.098, p > .05).
Therefore, hypothesis 6 was not supported.
Hypothesis 7 predicts that advertising value positively
influences advertising acceptance. Results indicated that
advertising value positively affected advertising accep-
tance (b D 0.907, p < .001). Therefore, hypothesis 7 was
supported. Figure 2 depicts the structural model with
path coefficients.
Discussion
Due to the increasing prevalence of mobile devices,
mobile social networks represent the developing trend in

Figure 2. The structural model with path coefficients; MSN D mobile social network. Note. Dashed paths indicate nonsignificant rela-
tionships. p < .001; p < .01; p < .05.

social media. With mobile ubiquity, context awareness,
and other intelligent features of mobile apps, MSNs have
greater potential to engage users than PC-based social
networking sites. Based on previous research on media
engagement, this study investigates the concept of MSN
engagement and demonstrates its important role in
influencing advertising effectiveness in mobile social
media. The following sections highlight the contributions
and implications of the findings.
One significant contribution of this study is the con-
ceptual model of media engagement in mobile social
media. The data demonstrate that a three-factor model
of MSN engagement is of high reliability and validity. In
other words, utilitarian motivation, mobile convenience,
and CPV are significant contributors to engagement
with MSNs. Such a finding is consistent with the most
updated perspective of media engagement, which
emphasizes the importance of both content-level and
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 00:45 09 May 2016
interface-level factors (Oh, Bellur, and Sundar 2015).
Specifically, utilitarian motivation is a content-level fac-
tor. It indicates one’s expectation of the functional bene-
fits of messages in MSNs. Mobile convenience and CPV
are interface-level factors. They highlight the characteris-
tics of mobility and context awareness of the MSN inter-
face. Therefore, MSN engagement not only results from
users’ absorption with the media content but also from
their interactions with different features provided by the
mobile interface. The consideration of interface-level fac-
tors makes MSN engagement different from engagement
with PC-based social media.
Previous research on audience engagement with tradi-
tional media primarily focused on audience members’
experiences with media content (Heath 2009). The
neglect of interface-related factors is largely due to the
fact that interfaces of traditional media provide audien-
ces with little control over the media content. Digital
media differ from traditional media in terms of high
interactivity, which provides users with greater informa-
tion control (Kalyanaraman and Sundar 2008; Kalya-
naraman and Wojdynski 2015). Thus, interface factors
are of great importance to define user experience with
digital media (Oh, Bellur, and Sundar 2015). Findings of
the current study support this argument by showing that
interface factors predict users’ engaging experience when
using MSN apps. Future research can take this a step fur-
ther to investigate whether the attraction of a MSN inter-
face will facilitate users’ absorption with media content.
The notion that interface-level engagement leads to con-
tent-level engagement has been substantiated in the con-
text of websites (O’Brien and Toms 2010; Oh, Bellur,
and Sundar 2015). To test the relationships between
interface factors and content factors will expand our
understanding of media engagement within MSNs.
JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE ADVERTISING 67
It should be noted that these three factors vary in
importance depending on social media platforms. That
is to say one factor may have greater influence on users’
engagement than others due to the characteristics of a
specific MSN app. For example, the Swarm app focuses
on check-in activities (Garun 2015), so and individual’s
engagement with this app may be driven by CPV. Other
MSN apps are primarily used for instant messaging, such
as Snapchat and Facebook Messenger. Therefore, mobile
convenience may be the main factor of engagement with
these apps. In addition, some social media platforms are
known for their informational value, for example, Linke-
dIn for professional information and Twitter for break-
ing news. Therefore, engagement with these apps
probably results from users’ utilitarian motivation.
Future research using the three-factor model identified
in this study should take the unique features of specific
MSN platforms into consideration.
In addition to characteristics of MSN platforms,
future research of this three-factor model may also want
to consider different levels of social media use. Mun-
tinga, Moorman, and Smit (2011) proposed several social
media use patterns, including consuming content, con-
tributing to online activities, and creating user-generated
content. These patterns range from light and passive
usage of social media to heavy and active usage (Tsai and
Men 2013). It is very likely that the importance of the
three factors to MSN engagement vary depending on dif-
ferent levels of MSN use. Light users consume informa-
tional content, so that utilitarian motivation may play an
important role for this group of users. To heavy and
active users, mobile convenience and CPV may be rela-
tively more important, because mobility and context
awareness of MSNs enable them to keep up with online
activities and update user-generated content without
being limited by time and location. Future studies are
encouraged to test the impact of use patterns on MSN
engagement.
Another significant contribution of this study is the
confirmation of the positive influence of media engage-
ment on advertising effectiveness in the context of mobile
social media. This finding is more than just a replication
of what has been confirmed by previous research of adver-
tising on traditional media. Traditional media, like televi-
sion and radio, are “impression based” (Morrissey 2009).
The goal of advertising is to reach as many people as pos-
sible. Digital media, especially those on the mobile plat-
form (like MSNs), are “engagement based” (Stanley 2013).
Simply reaching a large number of people cannot guaran-
tee the success of an advertisement. Only users with high
engagement stay with the media and potentially will be
influenced by advertising messages. That is to say, con-
sumers’ high media engagement is the icing on the cake
 68 L. WU
for advertisements on traditional media, but it is necessary
for advertisers who want to be successful with digital
media. Future studies may investigate the moderators that
influence the relationship between MSN engagement and
advertising effectiveness. The identification of boundary
conditions will provide practitioners with more specific
guidelines of MSN advertising.
In spite of the aforementioned contributions, some
predicted relationships are not confirmed in the final
findings. First, there is no direct relationship between
MSN engagement and advertising acceptance. Instead,
perceived advertising value affects this relationship. This
showcases the process of how media engagement con-
tributes to advertising effectiveness in mobile social
media. Users’ engaging experiences with MSN apps will
first influence their value perception of the ads, which
will in turn determine their final acceptance decision.
Second, hedonic and social motivations are not signifi-
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 00:45 09 May 2016
cant predictors of MSN engagement. It is possible that
users do not think the entertainment elements of the con-
temporary MSN apps are engaging. Future research may
explore how to make MSNs more entertaining. As to
social motivation, the nonsignificant relationship may
result from the fact that people take the social function of
MSNs as granted. For most people, the primary purpose
of using MSNs is to interact with their social networks. It
may be so basic that users do not count it as a contributor
to their engaging experience. Third, the influence of MSN
compatibility on MSN engagement is not confirmed. It
indicates that users’ engaging experiences with social
media via mobile platform are independent from their
previous experiences with PC-based social media. This
indirectly confirms that MSNs are an independent media
platform rather than a duplication of SNSs.
Implications
Theoretically, this study adds to the literature of
media effects and advertising in the digital age. As to
media effects, this study confirms that it is important
to examine user experience with digital media by con-
sidering both content- and interface-related factors.
This content-plus-interface model is proved to have
high validity in the context of MSNs. MSN engage-
ment as a unique concept is investigated, with its
antecedents identified for the first time. As to adver-
tising research, this study substantiates the power of
media engagement on advertising effectiveness in
mobile social media. Moreover, the process underly-
ing this relationship is discovered, with media engage-
ment first influencing value perception, which in turn
affects advertising acceptance.
Managerially, this study provides some useful sug-
gestions for MSN advertising. In general, advertisers
should work closely with MSN providers to identify
high-engaging users. In particular, advertisers should
pay more attention to users who seek news and infor-
mation on MSNs, use a lot of mobile data, or fre-
quently check in to publish their locations. According
to this study, these users are more likely to become
engaged with MSNs than the average user is, and
therefore tend to respond favorably to MSN advertise-
ments. Moreover, personalization is an important
strategy for MSN advertising. It is suggested that
advertisers tailor advertising messages based not only
on MSN users’ online profiles but also on their offline
locations. In addition, to increase the functional value,
advertisers can link MSN ads to their own branded
apps. Because branded apps always provide certain
functions, this strategy will meet users’ functional
expectations.
Limitations
This study is not without limitations. First, because it was
an online survey, the researcher had no control over the
environment in which participants completed the ques-
tionnaire. Second, the present study asks only about
advertising acceptance in MSNs in general. It is possible
that individuals have different opinions of advertise-
ments in different MSN platforms. Thus, future studies
may investigate the same topic by separating MSN apps
into different groups. It is possible that consumers may
have different attitudes toward advertisements in micro-
blog apps (such as Twitter) versus advertisements in
video-sharing apps (such as YouTube). Third, no exist-
ing typology of MSN advertisement exists. A potential
direction for future research in this field is to review
existing MSN ads and come up with a complete categori-
zation framework.
Conclusions
In sum, MSN engagement is an important media-effect
concept influenced by both the content- and interface-
related antecedents. The three-factor model (utilitarian
motivation, mobile convenience, CPV) represents the
underlying mechanism of MSN engagement and indi-
cates the uniqueness of this concept. MSN engagement
is of great importance to advertisers because of its strong
power of predicting advertising effectiveness. The process
of this effect is captured by this study. MSN engagement
first positively influences users’ value perception of the
ads, which in turn increases their intention of accepting
advertisements on mobile social media. This study not

only supports the content-plus-interface model of media
engagement in the digital age but also offers researchers
and practitioners a useful tool to assess user experience
with MSN apps as well as advertising effectiveness on
this media platform.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers
and editor Dr. Terry Daugherty for their invaluable assistance
during the review process.
References
Amberg, Michael, Markus Hirschmeier, and Jens Wehrmann
(2004), “The Compass Acceptance Model for the Analysis
and Evaluation of Mobile Services,” International Journal of
Mobile Communications, 2 (3), 248–59.
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 00:45 09 May 2016
Bardzell, Jeffrey, Shaowen Bardzell, Tyler Pace, and Jeremi
Karnell (2005), “Intuitive Interaction Applied to Interface
Design,” International Design Congress, IASDR 2005, Dou-
liou, Taiwan, November.
Bauer, Hans H., Stuart J. Barnes, Tina Reichardt, and Marcus
M. Neumann (2005), “Driving Consumer Acceptance of
Mobile Marketing: A Theoretical Framework and Empirical
Study,” Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 6 (3),
181–92.
Bellman, Steven, Robert F. Potter, Shiree Treleaven-Hassard,
Jennifer A. Robinson, and Duane Varan (2011), “The Effec-
tiveness of Branded Mobile Phone Apps,” Journal of Inter-
active Marketing, 25 (4), 191–200.
Bentler, Peter M. (1992), “On the Fit of Models to Covariances
and Methodology to the Bulletin,” Psychological Bulletin,
112 (3), 400–404.
Bollen, Kenneth A. (1989), Structural Equations with Latent
Variables, New York: Wiley.
Boomsma, Anne (1982), “Robustness of LISREL against Small
Sample Sizes in Factor Analysis Models,” in Systems under
Indirection Observation: Causality, Structure, Prediction
(Part I), Karl G. Joereskog and Herman O.A. Wold, eds.,
Amsterdam, the Netherlands: North Holland, 149–73.
——— (1985), “Nonconvergence, Improper Solutions, and
Starting Values in LISREL Maximum Likelihood Estima-
tion,” Psychometrika, 50, 229–42.
Bosomworth, Danyl (2015), “Mobile Marketing Statistics
Compilation,” Smart Insights, http://www.smartinsights.
com/mobile-marketing/mobile-marketing-analytics/
mobile-marketing-statistics/.
Brackett, Lana K., and Benjamin N. Carr (2001), “Cyberspace
Advertising vs. Other Media: Consumer vs. Mature Student
Attitudes,” Journal of Advertising Research, 41 (5), 23–32.
Brandtzæg, Petter Bae, and Jan Heim (2009), “Why People Use
Social Networking Sites,” Lecture Notes in Computer Sci-
ence, 5621, 143–52.
Bright, Laura F., and Terry Daugherty (2012), “Does Customi-
zation Impact Advertising Effectiveness? An Exploratory
Study of Consumer Perceptions of Advertising in Custom-
ized Online Environments,” Journal of Marketing Commu-
nications, 18 (1), 19–37.
JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE ADVERTISING 69
Bronner, Fred, and Peter Neijens (2006), “Audience Experien-
ces of Media Context and Embedded Advertising: A Com-
parison of Eight Media,” International Journal of Market
Research, 48 (1), 81–100.
Bryant, Jennings, and Dorina Miron (2003), “Excitation-
Transfer Theory,” in Communication and Emotion, Jen-
nings Bryant, David R. Roskos-Ewoldsen, and Joanne Can-
tor, eds., Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 31–59.
Carmines, Edward G., and John P. McIver (1981), “Analyzing
Models with Unobservable Variables,” in Social Measure-
ment: Current Issue, George W. Bohrnstedt and Edgar F.
Borgatta, eds., Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 65–115.
Calder, Bobby J., and Edward C. Malthouse (2008), “Media
Engagement and Advertising Effectiveness,” in Kellogg on
Advertising and Media, Bobby J. Calder, ed., Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley, 1–36.
———, ———, and Ute Schaedel (2009), “An Experimental
Study of the Relationship between Online Engagement and
Advertising Effectiveness,” Journal of Interactive Marketing,
23 (4), 321–31.
Chaffee, Steven H., and Joan Schleuder (1986), “Measurement
and Effects of Attention to Media News,” Human Commu-
nication Research, 13 (1), 76–107.
Chen, Qimei, and William D. Wells (1999), “Attitude
toward the Site,” Journal of Advertising Research, 39 (5),
27–37.
Chin, Wynne W. (1998), “Issues and Opinion on Structural
Equation Modeling,” MIS Quarterly, 22 (1), 7–16.
Choi, Yung Kyun, Jang-Sun Hwang, and Sally J. McMillan
(2008), “Gearing Up for Mobile Advertising: A Cross-Cul-
tural Examination of Key Factors That Drive Mobile Mes-
sages Home to Consumers,” Psychology and Marketing, 25
(8), 756–68.
Chu, Shu-Chuan, and Yoojung Kim (2011), “Determinants of
Consumer Engagement in Electronic Word-of-Mouth
(eWOM) in Social Networking Sites,” International Journal
of Advertising, 30 (1), 47–75.
comScore (2014), “The U.S. Mobile App Report,” comScore,
August 21, https://www.comscore.com/Insights/Presenta
tions-and-Whitepapers/2014/The-US-Mobile-App-Report.
Cunningham, Todd, Amy Shea Hall, and Charles Young
(2006), “The Advertising Magnifier Effect: An MTV Study,”
Journal of Advertising Research, 46 (4), 369–80.
Dahlen, Micael (2005), “The Medium as a Contextual Cue:
Effects of Creative Media Choice,” Journal of Advertising,
34 (3), 89–98.
Dao, William Van-Tien, Angelina Nhat Nanh Le, Julian Ming-
Sung Cheng and Der Chao Chen (2014), “Social Media
Advertising Value: The Case of Transitional Economies in
Southeast Asia,” International Journal of Advertising, 33
(2), 271–94.
Defever, Christine, Mario Pandelaere, and Keith Roe (2011),
“Inducing Value-Congruent Behavior through Advertising
and the Moderating Role of Attitudes toward Advertising,”
Journal of Advertising, 40 (2), 25–38.
Dhar, Subhankar, and Upkar Varshney (2011), “Challenges
and Business Models for Mobile Location-Based Services
and Advertising,” Communications of the ACM, 54 (5),
121–28.
Ducoffe, Robert H. (1995), “How Consumers Assess the Value
of Advertising,” Journal of Current Issues and Research in
Advertising, 17 (1), 1–18.
 70 L. WU
Fornell, Claes, and David F. Larcker (1981), “Structural Equa-
tion Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement
Error: Algebra and Statistics,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 19, 39–50.
Gallagher, Katherine, K. Dale Foster, and Jeffrey Parsons
(2001), “The Medium Is Not the Message: Advertising
Effectiveness and Content Evaluation in Print and on the
Web,” Journal of Advertising Research, 41 (4), 57–70.
Garun, Natt (2015), “Swarm Now Lets You Check In Belatedly
Based on Your GPS History,” The Next Web, September 22,
http://thenextweb.com/apps/2015/09/22/swarm-now-lets-
you-check-in-belatedly-based-on-your-gps-history/#gref.
Godin, Seth (2001), Permission Marketing: Turning Strangers
into Friends and Friends into Customers, Munich: Finanz-
Buch-Verlag.
Goffman, Erving (1959), The Presentation of Self in Everyday
Life, New York: Doubleday Anchor Press.
Ha, Young Wook, Myeong-Cheol Park, and Euehun Lee
(2014), “A Framework for Mobile SNS Advertising Effec-
tiveness: User Perceptions and Behaviour Perspective,”
Behaviour and Information Technology, 33 (12), 1333–46.
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 00:45 09 May 2016
Hair, Joseph F. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, Upper Sad-
dle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Heath, Robert (2009), “Emotional Engagement: How Televi-
sion Builds Big Brands at Low Attention,” Journal of Adver-
tising Research, 49 (1), 62–73.
Heinonen, Kristina, and Tore Strandvik (2007), “Consumer
Responsiveness to Mobile Marketing,” International Jour-
nal of Mobile Communications, 5 (6), 603–17.
Hoelzel, Mark (2014), “The Social-Media Advertising Report:
Growth Forecasts, Market Trends, and the Rise of Mobile,”
Business Insider, November 13, http://www.businessinsider.
com/social-media-advertising-industry-trends-2014-11.
Hu, Li-Tze, and Peter M. Bentler (1999), “Cutoff Criteria for
Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional
Criteria versus New Alternatives,” Structural Equation
Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6 (1), 1–55.
Humphrey, William F., Jr., and Debra A. Laverie (2011), “Driv-
ing Frequency with Mobile Social Networks (MSN) and the
Mediating Effects of Price and Quota Promotions,” Interna-
tional Journal of Mobile Marketing, 6 (2), 46–59.
Jabeur, Nafa^a, Sherali Zeadally, and Biju Sayed (2013), “Mobile
Social Networking Applications,” Communications of the
ACM, 56 (3), 71–79.
Johnson, Justin P. (2013), “Targeted Advertising and Advertising
Avoidance,” RAND Journal of Economics, 44 (1), 128–44.
Jung, Jong-Hyuok, Yongjun Sung, and Wei-Na Lee (2013),
“Smart Choice: Smartphone Users’ Intentions to Accept
Mobile Advertising,” Online Journal of Communication and
Media Technologies, 3 (2), 187–202.
Jung, Taejin, Hyunsook Youn, and Steven McClung (2007),
“Motivations and Self-Presentation Strategies on Korean-
Based ‘Cyworld’ Weblog Format Personal Homepages,”
CyberPsychology and Behavior, 10 (1), 24–31.
Kalyanaraman, Sriram, and Shyam S. Sundar (2008), “Impres-
sion Formation Effects in Online Mediated Communica-
tion,” in Mediated Interpersonal Communication, Elly A.
Konijn, Sonja Utz, Martin Tanis, and Susan B. Barnes, eds.,
New York, NY: Routledge, 217–33.
———, and Bartosz W. Wojdynski (2015), “Affording Control:
How Customization, Interactivity, and Navigability Affect
Psychological Responses to Technology,” in The Handbook
of the Psychology of Communication Technology, S. Shyam
Sundar, ed., Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 425–45.
Kang, Seok (2014), “Factors Influencing Intention of Mobile
Application Use,” International Journal of Mobile Commu-
nications, 12 (4), 360–79.
Kaplan, Andreas M. (2012), “If You Love Something, Let It Go
Mobile: Mobile Marketing and Mobile Social Media 4£4,”
Business Horizons, 55 (2), 129–39.
Katz, Elihu, Jay G. Blumler, and Michael Gurevitch (1974), The
Uses and Gratifications Approach to Mass Communication,
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Kelly, Louise, Gayle Kerr, and Judy Drennan (2010), “Avoid-
ance of Advertising in Social Networking Sites: The Teen-
age Perspective,” Journal of Interactive Advertising, 10 (2),
16–27.
Kilger, Max, and Ellen Romer (2007), “Do Measures of Media
Engagement Correlate with Product Purchase Likelihood?,”
Journal of Advertising Research, 47 (3), 313–25.
Kim, Changsu, Mirsobit Mirusmonov, and In Lee (2010), “An
Empirical Examination of Factors Influencing the Intention
to Use Mobile Payment,” Computers in Human Behavior,
26 (3), 310–22.
Kim, Eunice, Jhih-Syuan Lin, and Yongjun Sung (2013), “To
App or Not To App: Engaging Consumers via Branded
Mobile Apps,” Journal of Interactive Advertising, 13 (1),
53–65.
Kim, Yoojung, Dongyoung Sohn, and Sejung Marina Choi
(2011), “Cultural Difference in Motivations for Using Social
Network Sites: A Comparative Study of American and
Korean College Students,” Computers in Human Behavior,
27 (1), 365–72.
Kim, Young Hoon, Dan J. Kim, and Kathy Wachter (2013), “A
Study of Mobile User Engagement (MoEN): Engagement
Motivations, Perceived Value, Satisfaction, and Continued
Engagement Intention,” Decision Support Systems, 56, 361–
70.
Ko, Hanjun, Chang-Hoan Cho, and Marilyn S. Roberts (2005),
“Internet Uses and Gratifications: A Structural Equation
Model of Interactive Advertising,” Journal of Advertising,
34 (2), 57–70.
Lariscy, Ruthann Weaver, Spencer F. Tinkham, and Kaye D.
Sweetser (2011), “Kids These Days: Examining Differences
in Political Uses and Gratifications, Internet Political Partic-
ipation, Political Information Efficacy, and Cynicism on the
Basis of Age,” American Behavioral Scientist, 55 (4), 749–64.
Lee, ThaeMin, and JongKun Jun (2007), “The Role of Contex-
tual Marketing Offer in Mobile Commerce Acceptance:
Comparison between Mobile Commerce Users and Nonus-
ers,” International Journal of Mobile Communications, 5
(3), 339–56.
Lella, Adam (2014), “Why Are Millennials so Mobile?,” com-
Score, February 7, http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Blog/
Why-Are-Millennials-So-Mobile.
Li, Nan, and Guanling Chen (2009), “Multi-Layered Friend-
ship Modeling for Location-Based Mobile Social Networks,”
presented at the Sixth Annual International Conference on
Mobile and Ubiquitous Systems: Computing, Networking,
and Services, Toronto, Canada, July.
Lu, Xinjiang, Zhiwen Yu, Bin Guo, and Xingshe Zhou (2014),
“Predicting the Content Dissemination Trends by Repost
Behavior Modeling in Mobile Social Networks,” Journal of
Network and Computer Applications, 42, 197–207.

Magedanz, Thomas, and Jose Sim~oes (2009), “What Happens
When You Mix Social Networks, Contexts, and Mobile
Advertising in the Same Glass?,” International Journal of
Mobile Marketing, 4 (2), 52–60.
Mangold, W. Glynn, and David J. Faulds (2009), “Social
Media: The New Hybrid Element of the Promotion Mix,”
Business Horizons, 52 (4), 357–65.
McQuail, Denis (1985), “Gratifications Research and Media
Theory: Four Models or One,” in Media Gratification
Research: Current Perspectives, Karl Erik Rosengren, Law-
rence A. Wenner, and Philip Palmgreen, eds., Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage, 149–67.
Merisavo, Marko, Sami Kajalo, Heikki Karjaluoto, Ville Virta-
nen, Sami Salmenkivi, Mika Raulas, and Matti Lepp€aniemi
(2007), “An Empirical Study of the Drivers of Consumer
Acceptance of Mobile Advertising,” Journal of Interactive
Advertising, 7 (2), 41–50.
Mir, Imran (2011), “Consumer Attitude towards M-Advertis-
ing Acceptance: A Cross-Sectional Study,” Journal of Inter-
net Banking and Commerce, 16 (1), 1–23.
Morrissey, Brian (2009), “Thinking Beyond The Online Ban-
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 00:45 09 May 2016
ner,” Adweek, June 7, http://www.adweek.com/news/tech
nology/thinking-beyond-online-banner-99508.
Muntinga, D.G., M. Moorman, and E.G. Smit (2011), “Intro-
ducing COBRAs: Exploring Motivations for Brand-Related
Social Media Use,” International Journal of Advertising, 30
(1), 13–46.
Nicovich, Stefan G. (2005), “The Effect of Involvement on Ad
Judgment in a Video Game Environment: The Mediating
Role of Presence,” Journal of Interactive Advertising, 6 (1),
29–39.
Nunnally, Jum C. (1967), Psychometric Theory, New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
O’Brien, Heather L., and Elaine G. Toms (2010), “The Devel-
opment and Evaluation of a Survey to Measure User
Engagement,” Journal of the American Society for Informa-
tion Science and Technology, 61 (1), 50–69.
Oh, Jeeyun, Saraswathi Bellur, and S. Shyam Sundar (2015),
“Clicking, Assessing, Immersing, and Sharing: An Empiri-
cal Model of User Engagement with Interactive Media,”
Communication Research, advance online publication,
doi:10.1177/0093650215600493
Okazaki, Shintaro (2008), “Determinant Factors of Mobile-
Based Word-of-Mouth Campaign Referral among Japanese
Adolescents,” Psychology and Marketing, 25 (8), 714–31.
———, and Felipe Mendez (2013), “Perceived Ubiquity in
Mobile Services,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 27 (2),
98–111.
———, and Charles R. Taylor (2013), “Social Media and Inter-
national Advertising: Theoretical Challenges and Future
Directions,” International Marketing Review, 30 (1), 56–71.
Park, Yangil, and Jengchung V. Chen (2007), “Acceptance and
Adoption of the Innovative Use of Smartphone,” Industrial
Management and Data Systems, 107 (9), 1349–65.
Perez, Sarah (2014), “Millennials Are the Largest Group of
Smartphone Owners, and Adoption Is Still Growing,” Tech-
Crunch, September 5, http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/05/
millennials-are-the-largest-group-of-smartphone-owners-
and-adoption-is-still-growing/.
Pew Research Center (2014), “Social Networking Fact Sheet,”
http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/social-networking-
fact-sheet/.
JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE ADVERTISING 71
Price, Vincent, and John Zaller (1993), “Who Gets the News?
Alternative Measures of News Reception and Their Impli-
cations for Research,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 57 (2),
133–64.
Raacke, John, and Jennifer Bonds-Raacke (2008), “MySpace
and Facebook: Applying the Uses and Gratifications Theory
to Exploring Friend-Networking Sites,” Cyberpsychology
and Behavior, 11 (2), 169–74.
Rogers, Everett M. (2003), Diffusions of Innovations, 5th ed.,
New York, NY: Free Press.
Roy, Sanjit Kumar (2009), “Internet Uses and Gratifications: A
Survey in the Indian Context,” Computers in Human
Behavior, 25 (4), 878–86.
Rubin, Alan M. (1984), “Ritualized and Instrumental Tele-
vision Viewing,” Journal of Communication, 34 (3),
67–77.
Saxena, Anant, and Uday Khanna (2013), “Advertising on
Social Network Sites: A Structural Equation Modeling
Approach,” Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective, 17
(1), 17–25.
Schau, Hope Jensen, and Mary C. Gilly (2003), “We Are What
We Post? Self-Presentation in Personal Web Space,” Journal
of Consumer Research, 30 (3), 385–404.
Smith, Aaron (2015), “U.S. Smartphone Use in 2015,” Pew
Research Center, April 1, http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/
04/01/us-smartphone-use-in-2015/.
Smith, Craig (2015), “By the Numbers 30 Amazing Twitter
Mobile Statistics,” DMR, February 26, http://expandedram
blings.com/index.php/twitter-mobile-statistics/.
Stanley, Terry L. (2013), “Is CPE the Best Way to Quantify
ROI?,” Mashable, December 9, http://mashable.com/2013/
12/09/cost-per-engagement-metrics/.
Statista (2015), “Number of Mobile Monthly Active Face-
book Users Worldwide from 1st Quarter 2009 to 2nd
Quarter 2015 (in Millions),” http://www.statista.com/sta
tistics/277958/number-of-mobile-active-facebook-users-
worldwide/.
Sundar, Shyam S. (2007), “Social Psychology of Interactivity in
Human-Website Interaction,” in The Oxford Handbook of
Internet Psychology, Adam N. Joinson, ed., Oxford, United
Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 89–104.
Swanson, David L. (1987), “Gratification Seeking, Media Expo-
sure, and Audience Interpretations: Some Directions for
Research,” Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 31
(3), 237–54.
Tahtinen, Jaana, and Jari Salo (2003), “Special Feature of
Mobile Advertising and their Utilization,” Hawaii: Market-
ing, University of Oulu.
Teo, Thompson S.H., and Siau Heong Pok (2003), “Adoption
of WAP-Enabled Mobile Phones among Internet Users,”
Omega, 31 (6), 483–98.
Tsai, Wan-Hsiu Sunny, and Linjuan Rita Men (2013), “Moti-
vations and Antecedents of Consumer Engagement with
Brand Pages on Social Networking Sites,” Journal of Inter-
active Advertising, 13 (2), 76–87.
Tsang, Melody M., Shu-Chun Ho, and Ting-Peng Liang
(2004), “Consumer Attitudes toward Mobile Advertising:
An Empirical Study,” International Journal of Electronic
Commerce, 8 (3), 65–78.
Tussyadiah, Iis P. (2012), “A Concept of Location-Based Social
Network Marketing,” Journal of Travel and Tourism Mar-
keting, 29 (3), 205–20.
 72 L. WU
Tuten, Tracy, and Michael Solomon (2012), Social Media Mar-
keting, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Wang, Alex (2006), “Advertising Engagement: A Driver of
Message Involvement on Message Effects,” Journal of
Advertising Research, 46 (4), 355–68.
Wang, Jing, and Bobby J. Calder (2009), “Media Engagement and
Advertising: Transportation, Matching, Transference, and
Intrusion,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19 (3), 546–55.
Whiting, Anita, and David Williams (2013), “Why People Use
Social Media: A Uses and Gratifications Approach,” Qualita-
tive Market Research: An International Journal, 16 (4), 362–69.
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 00:45 09 May 2016
Wortham, Jenna (2010), “Telling Friends Where You Are (or
Not),” New York Times, March 14, http://www.nytimes.
com/2010/03/15/technology/15locate.html.
Zeng, Fue, Li Huang, and Wenyu Dou (2009), “Social Factors
in User Perceptions and Responses to Advertising in Online
Social Networking Communities,” Journal of Interactive
Advertising, 10 (1), 1–13.
Zillmann, Dolf (1983), “Transfer of Excitation in Emotional
Behavior,” in Social Psychophysiology: A Sourcebook, John
T. Cacioppo and Richard E. Petty, eds., New York: Guilford
Press, 215–40.
 JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE ADVERTISING 73

Appendix

Constructs Item-Code Items

MSN engagement ME-1 I bring up things I have seen on MSN apps in conversations with many other
people.
ME-2 MSN apps often gives me something to talk about.
ME-3 I use things from MSN apps in discussion or arguments with people I know.
ME-4 Using MSN apps is part of my routine.
ME-5 I always check MSN apps anytime I am using my smartphones or tablets.
Contextual perceived value CPV-1 MSN apps are useful because they provide me with packets of information I am
interested in.
CPV-2 The location-specific packets of information offered by MSN apps would
improve my performance in various contexts.
CPV-3 Using MSN apps would enable me to accomplish a task more effectively,
because they offer optimal information or a service that is contextually
relevant to me.
CPV-4 I would view information in MSN apps related to me being in a specific location
as useful.
CPV-5 I would view information in MSN apps related to a specific time or date as
useful.
Mobile convenience MOC-1 Using MSN apps is convenient because I can use them anytime.
MOC-2 Using MSN apps is convenient because the phone is usually with me.
MOC-3 I can obtain what I want for less effort from MSN apps.
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 00:45 09 May 2016

MOC-4 It’s convenient to use MSN apps.

MOC-5 I can use MSN apps anytime, anywhere.
MSN compatibility MSC-1 Using MSN apps is compatible with all aspects of my lifestyle.
MSC-2 Using MSN apps is completely compatible with my current situation.
MSC-3 I think that using MSN apps fits well with the way I live my life.
MSC-4 Using MSN apps fits well with my lifestyle.
Utilitarian motivation UM-1 I use MSN apps to try and find new and different things.
UM-2 I use MSN apps to keep me informed and updated.
UM-3 I use MSN apps because they offer a variety of ways to communicate with
others.
Hedonic motivation HM-1 I use MSN apps to enjoy the variety of contents offered in the apps.
HM-2 I use MSN apps to enjoy what I like in the apps.
Social motivation SM-1 I use MSN apps to keep in touch/share news with my friends and family.
SM-2 I use MSN apps to tell my friends and family about what I learned/read/heard.
Advertising value AV-1 In general, advertising in MSN apps is valuable.
AV-2 In general, advertising in MSN apps is useful.
AV-3 In general, advertising in MSN apps is important.
Advertising acceptance AA-1 I feel positive about advertising in MSN apps.
AA-2 I am willing to receive advertising in MSN apps in the future.
AA-3 I would read advertising messages I receive in MSN apps in the future.
AA-4 My general intention to accept advertising in MSN apps is very high.
AA-5 I will think about accepting advertisements in MSN apps.
AA-6 I will accept advertisements in MSN apps in the future.

Note. MSN D mobile social network.