Computers in Human Behavior 62 (2016) 689e702

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Full length article

The role of persuasion knowledge, assessment of benefit and harm,

and third-person perception in coping with online behavioral
advertising
Chang-Dae Ham a, *, Michelle R. Nelson b
a
The Charles H. Sandage Department of Advertising, College of Media, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 330Gregory Hall, MC-462, 810 S. Wright
St., Urbana, IL, 61801, USA
b
The Charles H. Sandage Department of Advertising, College of Media, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 323Gregory Hall, MC-462, 810 S. Wright
St., Urbana, 61801, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Online behavioral advertising (OBA) provides Internet users with potential benefit (relevant ads) and
Received 6 February 2016 harm (privacy infringement) through personalized covert persuasion tactics, making it an interesting
Received in revised form case for understanding perceptions of media effects. In study 1 (survey), we found that subjective
22 March 2016
persuasion knowledge of OBA was positively related to third-person perception (TPP). Importantly, the
Accepted 24 March 2016
assessment of the potential harm and benefit of OBA mediated the relationship between subjective
persuasion knowledge and TPP. Objective persuasion knowledge however was only indirectly related to
TPP via subjective persuasion knowledge. TPP related to personal (accept, avoid OBA) but not social-level
Keywords:
Online behavioral advertising
(pro-regulation) coping measures. Study 2 (experiment) replicated study 1 and showed that the
Persuasion knowledge perceived effect of OBA on self (not others) drove the TPP and the responses to personal outcome
Third-person perception measures. Implications for understanding perceived media effects and response to OBA are discussed.
Benefit-harm assessment © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
“Consumers Conflicted About Privacy Vs. Personalization”
Marketing Daily (Mahoney, 2015)
This headline showcases the consumer ambivalence of the harm
and benefit of online behavioral advertising (OBA; Smit, van Noort,
& Voorveld, 2014). OBA tracks online behaviors and generates a
profile based on the user's interests, preferences, etc. (McDonald &
Cranor, 2010; van Noort, Smit, & Voorveld, 2013). The practice
benefits the audience by providing more relevant advertising (Nill &
Aalberts, 2014). Almost half of U.S. consumers surveyed about on-
line advertising agreed that: “Advertising that is tailored to my
needs is helpful because I can find the right products and services
more quickly” (Marshall, 2014). Indeed, attitudes toward person-
alized advertising have been found to predict purchases online
(Eastin, Brinson, Doorey, & Wilcox, 2016).
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: cdham317@illinois.edu (C.-D. Ham), nelsonmr@illinois.edu
(M.R. Nelson).
At the same time, the methods for targeting include collecting
individual-level behavior data, which consumers do not always like
(Nill & Aalberts, 2014). Baek and Morimoto (2012, p. 61) warn that
… “highly personalized ad messages may raise consumer fears
about loss of freedom to control the use of private information.”
Indeed, in the survey cited above, only about one third of those
same consumers agreed with this statement: “I use free services
online and on smartphones/tablets and don't mind if my data is
potentially also used for advertising purposes” (Marshall, 2014).
Consumers worry about the potential harm of the use of their
personal information, which is private (Okazaki, Li, & Hirose, 2009)
and they may not like the idea of being manipulated (Simonson,
2005). The irony is that “while some consumers see benefit in
tailored ads, most don't want their information to be used to tailor
them” (Marshall, 2014).
Given the ambivalent consumer attitudes toward OBA and
varying perceptions of its usefulness, OBA provides an interesting
context for studying perceived advertising effects. In general,
people do not want to believe that they personally are affected by
advertising although they believe that others may be affected
(Eisend, 2015). This perception is based on third-person perception
(TPP; Davison, 1983), which refers to differences in perceptions of

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.076
0747-5632/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
690 C.-D. Ham, M.R. Nelson / Computers in Human Behavior 62 (2016) 689e702
the influence of communication on the self and on others (Chang,
Wei, & Lo, 2014). A robust body of literature has demonstrated
TPP effects across various kinds of media (Conners, 2005), including
online environments (e.g., Chen & Ng, 2016). However, a key
moderating variable of TPP is the message desirability (Sun, Pan, &
Shen, 2008). If the message is desirable, the perceptions are
reduced or reversed. As discussed above, consumers' perceptions of
the desirability of OBA may depend on their perception of the
benefit and harm associated with the persuasion tactic.
Ambivalent attitudes may be caused by the technological
complexity of OBA and consumers' lack of knowledge. Not many
consumers know details about OBA (Jai, Burns, & King, 2013) or
how such relevant ads are displayed to them (McDonald & Cranor,
2010; Smit et al., 2014). Thus, knowledge about OBA or how it
operates (e.g., “persuasion knowledge”; Friestad & Wright, 1994)
may relate to the propensity to exhibit TPP. Therefore, we examine
the role of persuasion knowledge of OBA in gauging OBA's
perceived effects on self and others. There may be differences in
how people process information, especially if it is technical infor-
mation, depending on if they have “objective” knowledge, which is
“accurate stored information that consumers possess” (Carlson,
Bearden, & Hardesty, 2007) or if they have “subjective” knowl-
edge (e.g., perception of having knowledge about the persuasion or
“persuasion knowledge”; Friestad & Wright, 1994).
Finally, consumers may cope with persuasion in many ways
(from accepting to resisting; Fransen, Verlegh, Kirmani, & Smit,
2015); therefore, we investigate multiple intended behavioral
outcome variables for TPP including personal coping responses
(e.g., blocking advertising) as well as “social” coping related to
support of OBA regulation. Understanding the coping mechanisms
is particularly timely because the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
is considering regulations for OBA (Nill & Aalberts, 2014). In the
meantime, increasing numbers of consumers are blocking adver-
tising, which may damage the advertising industry in the future
(Manjoo, 2015).
Typically, TPP research measures individuals' perceptions of
undesirable media effects on self and others to examine social
outcomes such as support for regulation (e.g., Shah, Faber, & Youn,
1999). Our research examines an ambivalent media context where
the assessment of harm and benefit is an important factors for
understanding perceptions of effects. In addition, we disentangle
perceived effects on self and others to discern which perceived ef-
fect drives social and personal outcome measures. Although some
studies have examined the relationship between knowledge and
TPP (e.g., Huh & Langteau, 2007; Driscoll & Salwen, 1997), scholars
have not yet investigated how different forms of knowledge
(objective, subjective) relate to TPP in this ambivalent media
context. Our research therefore contributes to the existing litera-
ture on PKM and TPP by examining more closely the relationships
between knowledge and perceptions of effects by assessing harm
and benefit and gauging the multiple personal and outcomes that
can occur in this context.
2. Literature review
2.1. Persuasion knowledge and third-person perception in OBA
Online behavioral advertising (OBA) is a technology-driven
advertising personalization method that enables advertisers to
deliver highly relevant ad messages to individuals (McDonald &
Cranor, 2010; van Noort et al., 2013). However, OBA's tracking on-
line activities, collecting behavioral data, and disseminating infor-
mation conflicts with consumer privacy because OBA's persuasion
mechanism is covert, not requiring consumers' recognition,
agreement, or permission (Nill & Aalberts, 2014). Such covertness
distinguishes OBA from other personalized advertising, in which
consumers know, agree, or permit prior to receiving (e.g., opt-in
personalized email messages). OBA's covert mechanism poten-
tially harms consumers when they are tracked without their
recognition of, or full agreement with, the potential risk of privacy
infringement.
As a form of advertising, OBA will likely elicit typical third-
person perception (TPP, i.e., people tend to overestimate commu-
nication effects on others whereas they underestimate effects on
themselves; Perloff, 1999). Individuals are motivated to enhance
their positive self-esteem by rejecting negative or undesirable
persuasion attempts as well as by accepting positive or desirable
ones, according to self-enhancement theory (Perloff, 1999). If OBA
is deemed to be undesirable, then there is presumed to be a larger
effect on others, whereas if it is perceived as desirable, the pre-
sumed effect might be reduced or reversed. However, desirability of
OBA seems ambivalent. More importantly, the complexity of OBA
may be an obstacle for consumers to determine whether OBA will
be beneficial or harmful. Thus, knowledge of how OBA works may be
a significant determinant in the perceived desirability of OBA.
Knowledge influences TPP. Studies typically show that it is the
perception of knowledge and the confidence that arises out of that
knowledge that may be driving TPP effects (e.g., Driscoll & Salwen,
1997; Huh & Langteau, 2007). People who perceived themselves as
more knowledgeable in a communication topic were more likely to
consider themselves as more capable of coping with the commu-
nication, but to consider others as less capable as they were,
resulting in eliciting greater TPP. Knowledge about persuasion
tactics has been explained by the Persuasion Knowledge Model
(PKM; Friestad & Wright, 1994). The PKM proposes that people (the
persuasion target) have their own knowledge or beliefs about how
persuasion works to help them cope with marketers' (persuasion
agents') persuasion tactics. When perceiving a hidden persuasion
intent, people are likely to activate this persuasion knowledge,
which enables them to actively cope with the tactic, either by
resisting or accepting the persuasion tactic. We propose that the
level of persuasion knowledge (PK) of the persuasion tactic (OBA)
will determine the magnitude of TPP: i.e., when consumers are
confronted with a covert advertising tactic, persuasion knowledge
influences their perceptions of the ad's effect on themself or others.
2.2. Objective and subjective persuasion knowledge
While we believe that PK will be positively associated with TPP,
we argue that we should look at how different dimensions of PK
may be associated with TPP. Although not specified in the original
PKM model (Friestad & Wright, 1994), Carlson et al. (2007) pro-
posed that objective persuasion knowledge (PK) should be distin-
guished from subjective persuasion knowledge (PK). Subjective PK is
an individual's self-assessed perception about how persuasion
works (e.g., “I know how OBA displays personalized ads to me”)
whereas objective PK is accurate information about a specific
persuasion tactic (e.g., “Consent is not required for marketers to
track users' online activities to display personalized ad messages”),
which is stored in long-term memory (Carlson et al., 2007). The fact
that an individual has subjective PK does not necessarily mean the
person has accurate or objective knowledge about a specific
persuasion tactic. Alba and Hutchinson (2000) argued that sub-
jective and objective knowledge are distinct and can produce
different effects on consumer assessment.
Past research shows mixed results with respect to the link be-
tween knowledge and TPP (e.g., Huh & Langteau, 2007; Driscoll &
Salwen, 1997; Wei & Lo, 2008), but no studies have examined
how objective PK, not knowledge of an object or topic, works on
TPP. Further, given that OBA may be a context for which consumers
 C.-D. Ham, M.R. Nelson / Computers in Human Behavior 62 (2016) 689e702
do not know objective technical information about how it works
(e.g., Smit et al., 2014), we pose a research question with respect to
the relationship between objective PK and TPP.
RQ1. How will be objective persuasion knowledge of OBA be
related to third-person perception?
Studies in TPP have typically shown that it is the perception of
knowledge (i.e., subjective knowledge) and the confidence that
arises out of that knowledge that may be driving TPP effects
(Driscoll & Salwen, 1997; Huh & Langteau, 2007). Relevant in our
context, we assume that subjective PK about OBA will elicit TPP,
assuming that as people gain subjective PK, they are more likely to
perceive the effect of OBA is larger on others than on themselves.
Beyond objective knowledge, subjective knowledge relates to the
knowledge about the tactic that respondents believe they have. In
response to a candy and a finance advertisement, Eisend (2015)
showed that as PK increased, TPP also increased. Thus, we posit.
H1. Subjective persuasion knowledge of OBA will be positively
associated with third-person perception.
2.3. Outcomes of persuasion knowledge: assessing harm and
benefits of OBA
Most PKM studies examined how persuasion knowledge leads
consumers to resist or reject persuasion attempts (Campbell &
Kirmani, 2008), but subjective PK does not always lead to resis-
tance against persuasion. For example, van Reijmersdal, Tutaj, and
Boerman (2013) found that subjective persuasion knowledge,
which was activated by a sponsorship disclosure in a movie, did not
result in more skeptical attitudes toward product placements.
Similarly, Campbell, Mohr, and Verlegh (2013) showed that sub-
jective PK did not elicit significant attitude correction in a negative
manner when the persuasion tactic was disclosed to the viewers
before they saw the covert tactic in a TV show. Finally, Boerman,
van Reijmersdal and Neijens (2012) found that sponsorship dis-
closures did not directly lead to consumers' skepticism or disliking
of a tactic, but indirectly influenced these outcomes through sub-
jective PK. All of these examples support the idea that subjective PK
may not always lead to attitudinal and behavioral change. We as-
sume that there should be mediating variables.
In this regard, Kirmani and Campbell (2004) argued that in-
dividuals actively interact with persuasion agents to achieve their
goals, rather than simply accepting or resisting persuasion at-
tempts. Persuasion knowledge allows people to infer the persua-
sion's potential cooperative and manipulative intent, resulting in
taking either a compliance or resistance strategy. When a persuasion
attempt is assessed as beneficial to achieve the goal, activated PK
would not lead to resistance but to a compliance strategy; activated
PK would generate a resistance strategy when the persuasion is
assessed as harmful, however (Kirmani & Campbell, 2004). We
conceptualize these inferences e the perception of harm or benefit
- as an outcome of PK, and propose that the perception mediates
the effect of PK on coping behaviors. This construct relates to tar-
gets' beliefs about how the persuasion attempts influence them
representing “the nature of the causal relationship between an
agent's actions, and the psychological effects those actions produce
in targets” (Friestad & Wright, 1994, p. 5) and “the idea about what
makes persuasion tactics effective” (Kirmani & Campbell, 2009, p.
302). Upon these definitions, we specify that this construct is goal-
pursuing individuals' intuitive knowledge that enables them to
assess how and to what extent the persuasion attempt will be
beneficial or harmful to them. Benefit/harm assessment is con-
sumers' general response to any persuasion situation. Accordingly,
691
this knowledge will be activated after inferring the persuasion
intent/tactic (subjective PK) and will significantly influence their
coping responses.
This benefit-harm assessment should significantly influence
third-person perception. Gunther and Mundy (1993) asserted “the
concept of harmful vs. beneficial outcome is a central one in
theoretical research on the optimistic bias phenomenon e the
tendency for people to think that they are less likely to have
negative or undesirable experiences than others” (p. 60). In
essence, people tend to boost their ego by thinking they are smarter
than others and consider others to be more vulnerable to harmful
persuasion attempts. The researchers found that TPP is largely
influenced by the result of benefit-harm assessment. People pre-
dicted the media effect was greater on others than on themselves
when an outcome was predicted to be more harmful than benefi-
cial. Thus, we assume that once consumers have PK about OBA, they
will weigh OBA's benefits (e.g., relevance of advertising) versus
perceptions of harm (e.g., privacy infringement; Nill & Aalberts,
2014), which will determine a negative or positive association
with TPP. Thus, we posit:
H2a, b. Assessment of (a) benefits (relevance) will be negatively,
whereas their assessment of (b) harm (privacy infringement) will
be positively, associated with third-person perceptions.
In addition to individual-level predictions for PK and TPP, we
examine relationships among the multiple dimensions of persua-
sion knowledge and TPP. First, objective knowledge about a specific
persuasion tactic should be a basis for eliciting and elaborating
subjective PK. Online persuasion tactics such as OBA, in particular,
require some basic technological knowledge to correctly recognize
and understand how the tactic works (e.g., third-party cookie,
behavioral tracking, etc.). Most studies have revealed a positive
relationship between objective and subjective knowledge (e.g.,
Brucks, 1985; Carlson et al., 2007). Therefore, we expect that
objective PK will be related to subjective PK, which in turn, is
associated with TPP, assuming that subjective PK will mediate the
relationship in between. We however do not hypothesize but ask if
objective PK is related to TPP. Thus, we ask a research question
instead of hypothesis.
RQ2. Will subjective persuasion knowledge mediate the rela-
tionship between objective persuasion knowledge and third-
person perception?
Second, we postulate that subjective PK will relate to assess-
ments of the privacy harm and relevance benefit because, as we
proposed, both assessments are outcomes of PK. Goal-pursuing
individuals actively manage a marketplace interaction, choosing
the best response strategies to cope with persuasion attempts, once
they perceive the persuasion intent (Kirmani & Campbell, 2004);
thus, subjective PK is an antecedent to assess benefit/harm. Taken
together, we expect that subjective PK is positively related to
benefit and harm assessment, which in turn, is associated with TPP,
assuming that the assessment of the privacy harm and relevance
benefit will mediate the relationship between subjective PK and
TPP. Thus, we posit that.
H3. Assessment of benefit and harm will mediate the relationship
between subjective persuasion knowledge and third-person
perception.
2.4. Third-person perception and social and personal level coping
responses
Most studies have shown that third-person perception is
692 C.-D. Ham, M.R. Nelson / Computers in Human Behavior 62 (2016) 689e702
positively associated with social protective behaviors (Perloff, 1999)
such as intention to support censorship of alcohol ads (Shah et al.,
1999) and sexually explicit media (Lee & Yang, 1996). The perceived
threat of such undesirable messages motivated individuals to pro-
tect more vulnerable and susceptible others in the society, called
“gullible publics,” (Gunther, 1995; Gunther & Hwa, 1996; Salwen,
1998). Paternalism, defined as acting like parents to protect chil-
dren from potential harm, explains why people are willing to
protect others who are perceived as more vulnerable than them-
selves (McLeod, Eveland, & Nathanson, 1997) and to support
censorship (Chia, Lu, & McLeod, 2004).
Not all the studies supported such a positive relationship,
however (e.g., Price, Tewksbury, & Huang, 1998; Driscoll & Salwen,
1997). The positive relationship was not observed when pater-
nalism was not sufficiently evoked. Even a negative relationship can
occur (between TPP and social protective actions) when the
persuasion is considered a personal level issue; that is, when the
perceived harm was expected to significantly influence the self
(e.g., H1N1 swine flu), individuals were more concerned about their
own rather than others' safety, resulting in them being less likely to
take social level protective actions (Liu & Lo, 2014).
OBA presents an interesting case for examining the relationship
between TPP and behavioral coping. Consumers' coping responses
will be determined by whether they perceive OBA's negative effect
as a social (i.e., affects others more than self) or a personal (affects self
more than others) issue, and further, whether the effects are
considered to be beneficial or harmful. When individuals perceive
the OBA effect is more a personal issue than social, they will be more
concerned about their own personal rather than others' risk or
benefit. People could enlist their own personal responses to
respond to persuasion tactics, which range from acceptance to
resistance (e.g., Fransen et al., 2015), by accepting or actively
avoiding, ignoring or blocking the ads. Since the desirability of the
OBA effect is determined by individuals' persuasion knowledge and
assessment of harm and benefit (rather than simply being a priori
positive or negative), we propose the following research questions,
rather than establishing a hypothesis, for how people cope with
OBA in both social (intent to support regulation) and personal (intent
to block) responses across behavioral (intent) and perceptual
(avoidance and acceptance) levels.
RQ3a-d. How will third-person perception be related to (a) intent
to support OBA regulation, (b) intent to block OBA, (c) acceptance of
OBA, and (d) avoidance of OBA? Specifically, will the perceived
effect on self or effect on others be a stronger predictor of those
coping responses?
Combining all the hypotheses and research questions together,
we visualize a holistic conceptual model that we postulate in this
study (see Fig. 1).
3. Study 1 (survey) e method
3.1. Participants
Using convenience sampling, we collected 378 samples across
two demographic groups. Students (N ¼ 191) were recruited from a
Midwestern university in exchange for course extra credit, and
non-students (N ¼ 187) were recruited via Amazon Mechanical
Turk (non-student U.S. residents) in return for a small monetary
compensation. Age varied from 18 to 76 (M ¼ 28.11; SD ¼ 11.53);
females (N ¼ 243; 64.3%) outnumbered males (N ¼ 133; 35.4%); and
Caucasian (N ¼ 240; 63.5%) was the major ethnicity, followed by
Asian (N ¼ 66; 17.5%), Asian American (N ¼ 27; 7.1%), African
American (N ¼ 17; 4.5%), Hispanic (N ¼ 11; 2.9%), and others
(N ¼ 17; 4.4%). Internet experience varied from 2 to 20 years
(M ¼ 12.7; SD ¼ 4.85).
3.2. Procedure
Participants visited the online survey website (Qualtrics.com)
where they agreed with the consent form, read the definition and
examples of OBA, and answered questions about OBA. They first
answered two screening questions that asked if they knew OBA and
if they experienced OBA in the last six months. Those who
answered ‘no’ in either screening question (32 students, 53 non-
students) were guided to exit the survey and were excluded.
3.3. Measurements
Each instrument was slightly modified for the OBA context and
measured with 7-point Likert scales (1: strongly disagree; 7:
strongly agree) except Objective PK. It was measured by eight items,
adopted from previous studies (FTC, 2009; McDonald & Cranor,
2010; Turow, King, Hoofnagle, Bleakley, & Hennessy, 2009) and
screened by two industry experts. A point was allocated to the right
answer among three choices (true; false; I don't know); points were
accumulated to represent individuals' objective PK. Subjective PK
was measured by six items (M ¼ 4.97; SD ¼ 1.07; Cronbach's
a ¼ 0.811) modified from Bearden, Hardesty, and Rose (2001).
Privacy harm (six items; M ¼ 5.24; SD ¼ 1.35; Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.921)
and benefit (six items; M ¼ 3.85; SD ¼ 1.47; Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.936)
were modified from Woon, Tan, and Low (2005). Third-person
perception was calculated by subtracting the perceived OBA effect on
others (two items; M ¼ 4.33; SD ¼ 1.37; Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.920) from
that of OBA on self (two items; M ¼ 3.34; SD ¼ 1.65; Cronbach’s
a ¼ 0.905), following prior research (e.g., Tewksbury et al., 2004).
Intention to support OBA regulation (two items; M ¼ 4.96;
SD ¼ 1.60; Cronbach's a ¼ 0.922) was modified from Paradise and
Sullivan (2012) and Golan and Banning (2008); Intention to block
OBA (three items; M ¼ 4.96; SD ¼ 1.63; Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.951) was
modified from Paradise and Sullivan (2012); OBA acceptance (two
items; M ¼ 4.11; SD ¼ 1.62; Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.792) was modified
from McDonald and Cranor (2010) and Turow et al. (2009); OBA
avoidance (five items; M ¼ 4.56; SD ¼ 1.50; Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.900)
was modified from Cho and Cheon (2004) and Speck and Elliott
(1997). In the questionnaire, objective PK was measured first, fol-
lowed by subjective PK, assessment of benefit and harm, third-
person perception, and coping responses. Descriptive statistics,
measurement items, and reliability indices are described in Table 1.
Finally, inter-construct validity was checked by bivariate correla-
tions. The results are found in Table 2.
4. Study 1 e results
Research question 1 and Hypotheses 1 and 2 ab examined how
objective PK, subjective PK, and outcomes of PK (benefit and harm
assessment) were related to TPP. We ran a hierarchical regression
analysis with model 1 in which demographic variables were
controlled, and model 2 in which objective PK, subjective PK, and
harm and benefit assessment were tested. In model 1 (R2 ¼ 0.059;
F ¼ 5.82; p < 0.001), Internet experience (b ¼ 0.166; p < 0.01) and
student status (b ¼ 0.159; p < 0.05) were significant and controlled.
More experienced people (years of using Internet) and non-
students (vs. students) showed greater TPP. First, the result of
model 2 (R2 changes ¼ 0.150; F ¼ 12.11; p < 0.001) answered RQ1
that objective PK was not significantly associated with TPP
(b ¼ 0.006; n.s.); see Table 3.
Second, the result of the H1 test revealed that subjective PK (in
model 2: b ¼ 0.175; p < 0.001) was positively associated with TPP.
People who perceived that they have more PK about OBA perceived
 C.-D. Ham, M.R. Nelson / Computers in Human Behavior 62 (2016) 689e702
Fig. 1. Conceptual model.
greater TPP. Thus, H1 was supported. Post-hoc analysis (each hi-
erarchical analysis for effect on others and on self: see Table 3)
revealed that subjective PK was positively associated with the effect
on others (b ¼ 0.122; p < 0.05) but not with the effect on self
(b ¼ 0.047; n.s.). The positive subjective PK-TPP association
occurred mainly due to a greater perceived effect on others.
Third, the result of the H2a test showed that the perceived
(relevance) benefit (b ¼ 0.329; p < 0.001) was negatively related
with TPP. Follow-up post-hoc analyses (see Table 3) revealed that
the perceived (relevance) benefit positively related to both
perceived effects on others and on self, but the magnitude of effects
was greater on self (b ¼ 0.690; p < 0.001) than on others (b ¼ 0.490;
p < 0.001). The negative relationship between benefit assessment
and TPP occurred mainly because the benefit was perceived to be
greater on self than on others. On the other hand, the result of the
H2b test showed that the perceived (privacy) harm (b ¼ 0.100;
p < 0.05) was positively associated with TPP. Post-hoc analyses
revealed that (privacy) harm was only positively associated with
effect on others (b ¼ 0.071; p < 0.05) but not with effects on self
(b ¼ 0.026; n.s.). The positive harm-TPP relationship occurred
mainly due to a greater perceived harm effect on others. Thus, both
H2a and H2b were supported.
Fourth, mediation (RQ2) was examined using the Preacher and
Hayes' (2008) PROCESS macro. The result revealed that objective
PK was not significantly related to TPP as we found in RQ1, so the
mediation was not established. But we found that objective PK was
significantly related to subjective PK (r ¼ 0.20; P < 0.001). The
answer to RQ2 was that subjective PK did not mediate the rela-
tionship between objective PK and TPP. Next, multiple mediation
(benefit and harm) analyses for H3 was tested using the Preacher
and Hayes' (2008) bootstrapping analysis with the PROCESS
macro. As seen in Fig. 2, subjective PK was significantly related to
the assessment of benefits (r ¼ 0.17; p < 0.05) and harm (r ¼ 0.35;
p < 0.001); benefit (r ¼ 0.28; P < 0.001) and harm (r ¼ 0.12;
p < 0.05) were significantly related to TPP; when the dependent
variable (TPP) was regressed on both the independent (PK) and
mediating variables (benefit: 0.37 to 0.17; harm: 0.02 to 0.21),
PK's relationship with TPP was still significant but weakened
(r ¼ 0.24; p < 0.01). The result revealed that assessments of benefit
and harm partially mediated the relationship between subjective
PK and TPP. Specifically, benefit negatively and harm positively
mediated the relationship. Thus, H3 was supported (see Fig. 2).
Research questions 3a to d asked how TPP related to (RQ2a)
693
intent to support OBA regulation, (RQ2b) intent to block OBA,
(RQ2c) acceptance of OBA, and (RQ2d) avoidance of OBA. After
controlling demographic variables in model 1 and persuasion
knowledge variables in model 2, the relationships of TPP with
coping responses were tested in model 3 (see Table 3).
The result of RQ2a showed that TPP was not significantly related
to regulation intention (in model 3: b ¼ 0.105; n.s.). The result of
the RQ2b test demonstrated that TPP was positively related to
intent to block OBA (model 3: b ¼ 0.152; p < 0.01). Post-hoc ana-
lyses showed that the positive relationship was caused mainly by a
perceived effect on self (b ¼ 0.251; p < 0.001) but not by an effect
on others (b ¼ 0.088; n.s.). Considering that effect on self was
perceived as more beneficial (post-hoc analysis of H3ab), we
concluded that respondents perceiving greater TPP (i.e., perceiving
lesser beneficial effect on self) were more likely to block OBA.
The result of the RQ2c test showed that TPP was positively
related to OBA avoidance (in model 3: b ¼ 0.150; p < 0.001). Post-
hoc analyses showed that the positive relationship was caused
mainly by a perceived effect on self (b ¼ 0.272; p < 0.001) but not
by the effect on others (b ¼ 0.067; n.s.). If they perceived greater TPP
(i.e., as they perceived that OBA was a less beneficial effect on self),
respondents were more likely to avoid OBA. The result of the RQ2d
test showed that TPP was negatively related to OBA acceptance (in
model 3: b ¼ 0.124; p < 0.01). Post-hoc analyses revealed that the
negative relationship was caused mainly by effect on self (b ¼ 0.209;
p < 0.001) but not by effect on others (b ¼ 0.069; n.s.). If they
perceived less TPP (i.e., as they perceived a greater beneficial effect
on self), respondents were more likely to accept OBA.
5. Study 1 e discussion
Given that OBA is a persuasion tactic, we used persuasion
knowledge (PK) as the type of knowledge with two constructs:
objective and subjective PK. Whereas objective PK was positively
related to subjective PK, only subjective PK was positively related to
TPP. Consistent with Eisend (2015), the greater the subjective PK,
the larger the TPP gap. We, however, found that objective PK (i.e.,
what people actually know about OBA) was not directly related to
consumers' TPP but indirectly related via subjective PK. This finding
is similar to Lasorsa (1989) who showed that those people who had
real (objective) political knowledge did not exhibit TPP effects
about a television series, whereas those with perceived knowledge
demonstrated TPP effects. The belief that people know about the
694 C.-D. Ham, M.R. Nelson / Computers in Human Behavior 62 (2016) 689e702

Table 1
Measurement and descriptive statistics.

Construct and measurement items M(SD)

Objective Persuasion Knowledge

When a user visits some websites, the same ads will be displayed as when someone else visits the same websites 243/64.3%a
Consent is not required for marketers to track users' online activities to display personalized ad messages 117/31.0%a
Internet users can select an opt-out choice to stop advertisers from tracking their online activities 285/75.4%a
Users can choose to select the type of online activity data that can be collected by marketers 271/71.7%a
If a user does not accept cookie tracking, advertisers are not able to tell where the user has browsed on the web 122/32.3%a
If the same ad is consistently displayed while a user browses the web, that means the user's online activities are being tracked by marketers 186/49.2%a
Advertisers can use cookie files on multiple websites in order to learn which websites the user visits 288/76.2%a
Now there is a federal law that regulates online marketers' tracking of users' online browsing history 31/8.2%a
Subjective Persuasion Knowledge (M ¼ 4.97; SD ¼ 1.07; Cronbach's a ¼ 0.811)
I know how OBA displays personalized ads to me 4.75(1.59)
I can tell OBA has strings attached, requiring my online behavioral information 0.96(1.44)
I understand how a marketer shows the personalized ads to me using behavior tracking 4.87(1.50)
I know how online marketers offer the tailored information to me 5.28(1.27)
I can see through ad personalization technology used to get me to buy in the online advertising 4.99(1.30)
I can separate benefit and harm for the persuasion tactic of OBA 4.96(1.06)
Privacy Harm Assessment (M ¼ 5.24; SD ¼ 1.35; Cronbach's a ¼ 0.921)
I feel uncomfortable when my online behaviors are tracked without permission 5.44(1.57)
I am concerned about misuse of my online behaviors 5.38(1.61)
It bothers me to receive too much advertising material through tracking of my online behaviors 5.23(1.61)
I fear that my online behavior information may not be safe while stored 5.06(1.63)
I believe that my online behavioral data is often misused 5.02(1.59)
I think companies share my online behavioral data without permission 5.29(1.54)
Relevance Benefit Assessment (M ¼ 3.85; SD ¼ 1.47; Cronbach's a ¼ 0.936)
By disclosing my online browsing history in OBA, I could get more relevant information 4.42(1.63)
By disclosing my online browsing history in OBA, I could get more relevant entertainment 4.19(1.68)
By disclosing my online browsing history in OBA, I could get more relevant messages to my social image 4.11(1.67)
OBA allows me to get more valuable information 4.02(1.65)
OBA allows me to get more exciting entertainment 3.26(1.74)
OBA allows me to improve my social image 3.27(1.79)
Third-person perception (me: M ¼ 3.34; SD ¼ 1.65; others: M ¼ 4.33; SD ¼ 1.37; Cronbach's a: me ¼ 0.905; others ¼ 0.920)
How much influence do you think OBA has on you? (1: not at all e 7: very much) 3.57(1.74)
OBA has a powerful effect on me 3.11(1.70)
How much influence do you think OBA has on others in this society? (1: not at all e 7: very much) 4.33(1.42)
OBA has a powerful effect on others in this society 4.34(1.43)
Intention to support OBA regulation (M ¼ 4.96; SD ¼ 1.60; Cronbach's a ¼ 0.922)
I'm willing to support that government should regulate OBA 4.98(1.67)
My willingness to support government's regulation of OBA is (1: very unlikely e 7: very likely) 4.94(1.64)
Intention to block OBA (M ¼ 4.96; SD ¼ 1.63; Cronbach's a ¼ 0.951)
How much are you willing to block OBA?
(1: unlikely e 7: likely) 4.85(1.78)
(1: impossible e 7: possible) 5.16(1.57)
(1: improbable e 7: probable) 4.86(1.77)
Ad (OBA) Acceptance (M ¼ 4.11; SD ¼ 1.62; Cronbach's a ¼ 0.792)
I prefer OBA that target my interests 4.50(1.72)
It's okay to see OBA that are based on my online surfing history 3.74(1.85)
Ad (OBA) Avoidance (M ¼ 4.56; SD ¼ 1.50; Cronbach's a ¼ 0.900)
I intentionally ignore OBA delivered by behavioral targeting tactics 4.56(1.82)
I hate OBA message delivered by behavioral targeting tactics 4.10(1.81)
It would be better if there were no OBA, behavior-tracking advertising 4.41(1.79)
I discard (leave the webpage of, scroll down to hide) OBA's behavioral tracking 4.88(1.76)
I intend to ask OBA marketers to take me off their behavioral targeting lists 4.85(1.69)
a
Note: No. of right answers/% of right answer; OBA: online behavioral advertising (the abbreviation is only used in the table); Correct answer: 1(no); 2(yes); 3(yes); 4(no);
5(no): 6(yes); 7 (yes); 8 (no).

Table 2
Correlation matrix of constructs.

Objective PK Subjective PK Impact on Impact on Relevance benefit Privacy harm Intent to Intent to Avoidance Acceptance
self others regulate block

Objective PK 1
Subjective PK 0.196** 1
Impact on self 0.077 0.013 1
Impact on others 0.024 0.208** 0.587** 1
Relevance benefit 0.070 0.093 0.691** 0.467** 1
Privacy harm 0.003 0.246** 0.229** 0.011 0.286** 1
Intent to regulate 0.099 0.039 0.04 0.007 0.014 0.222** 1
Intent to block 0.012 0.107* 0.368** 0.093 0.359** 0.557** 0.351** 1
Avoidance 0.096 0.152** 0.517** 0.197** 0.548** 0.577** 0.214** 0.676** 1
Acceptance 0.072 0.055 0.607** 0.298** 0.624** 0.461** 0.091 0.486** 0.641** 1
*** **
Note: p < 0.001; p < 0.01; *p < 0.05; PK: Persuasion Knowledge.
 C.-D. Ham, M.R. Nelson / Computers in Human Behavior 62 (2016) 689e702 695

Table 3
Summary of hierarchical regression analyses.

Third-person perception (Impact on Others) (Impact on Self) Intent to support Intent to block OBA Avoidance of OBA Acceptance of OBA
OBA regulation

Control (model 1)
Age 0.036 0.055 0.091 0.055 0.091 0.024 0.017
Gender 0.034 0.018 0.026 0.018 0.026 0.004 0.014
Student status 0.159* 0.228** 0.224** 0.228** 0.224** 0.191** 0.100
Experience 0.166** 0.094 0.092 0.094 0.092 0.152** 0.213***
R2 0.059 0.039 0.047 0.039 0.047 0.066 0.070
F 5.824*** 3.718* 4.541** 3.718* 4.541** 0.024 6.988***
Predictors (model 2)
Objective PK 0.006 0.064 0.012 0.064 0.012 0.065 0.021
Subjective PK 0.175*** 0.122* ¡0.047 0.038 0.011 0.029 0.037
Outcomes of PK
Relevance benefit ¡0.329*** 0.490*** 0.690** 0.037 0.222*** 0.426*** 0.657***
Privacy harm 0.100* 0.071* ¡0.026 0.227*** 0.481*** 0.426*** 0.257***
R2 changes 0.150 0.050 0.321 0.050 0.321 0.446 0.540
F 12.111*** 4.444*** 26.598*** 4.444*** 26.598*** 48.074*** 71.619***
Predictors (model 3)
Third-person Perception ¡0.105 0.152** 0.150*** ¡0.124**
(on others) ¡0.095 0.088 0.067 ¡0.069
(on self) 0.135 ¡0.251*** ¡0.272*** 0.209***
R2 changes 0.009 0.018 0.012 0.018
F 4.725*** 25.476*** 66.816*** 45.764***

Note: ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05; ap < 0.1; N ¼ 378; PK: Persuasion Knowledge; Gender (1: male; 2: female); Student status (1: student; 2:non-student); (Effect on
others) and (Effect on self) are results of post-hoc tests; Bold numbers are used for result interpretations.

Fig. 2. Results of a Mediation Analysis (Study 1: H3).

tactic is driving the TPP effects more than what they really know.
Post-hoc analysis, in addition, revealed that subjective PK-TPP
relationship was mainly driven by the perceived effect on others.
These findings replicate past research (e.g., Eisend, 2015) with a
new form of advertising, which is perceived as ambivalent in its
desirability (having both benefit and harm). We however extend
this past research by demonstrating processing effects. We show
how the perceived effects of OBA - the assessment of harm (privacy
infringement) versus benefit (relevant messages) - mediate the
relationship between PK and TPP. We revealed that the perceived
benefit of OBA was negatively, whereas the perceived harm was
positively, associated with TPP. This first finding indicates a first-
person perception effect. That is, as people recognize the personal
benefits of OBA, they believe that they would be more influenced
(because it is ‘smart’ to know this) than others would be. The sec-
ond finding indicates third-person perception when people believe
that OBA may cause harm; this harm may impact others more than
it would impact themselves. These constructs fit with the self-
enhancement explanation. When it is ‘smart’ to be persuaded
(because of benefits), effects on self are imagined, but when it is
‘not smart’ to be persuaded (due to harm), effects on others are
imagined. As a whole, these constructs add a nuanced
understanding of the PK-TPP relationship for a form of advertising
that has beneficial and harmful aspects for consumers.
Finally, TPP was not significantly associated with social-level
coping (intent to support OBA regulation) but was positively
related with personal-level coping (e.g., intent to block OBA). Most
TPP studies have hypothesized TPP-social level regulation (e.g.,
Shah et al., 1999) in response to controversial media effects. Other
studies have reported that when individuals perceived the impact
of the media on self was greater than that on others, it is the impact
on self that is driving the protective actions (e.g., Liu & Lo, 2014;
Price et al., 1998). We, however, added new implications: when
individuals perceived the media effect on self was greater than that
on others, the impact on self is driving the actions (acceptance).
That is, for personal coping actions, when OBA was perceived as
more impactful on self than on others, and as the impact is
perceived as more beneficial than harmful, individuals were more
likely to accept, and less likely to avoid, OBA. These findings suggest
that the links between TPP and coping mechanisms are not
straightforward; the consideration of how the media affects the self
is similar or more important than the consideration of media effects
on others, particularly when the media effect is perceived as being
more beneficial than harmful.
696 C.-D. Ham, M.R. Nelson / Computers in Human Behavior 62 (2016) 689e702
Despite the interesting positive relationships noted among the
variables in this study, a survey does not allow an examination of
causal relationships. In addition, our survey measured dispositional
PK, but we were interested in examining the PK impact that is
elicited in a situation when the behavioral tracking tactic is dis-
closed. Therefore, we designed a follow-up study, using an exper-
imental approach, to test some of the relationships among
variables. We wondered, for example, if respondents empirically
experienced a persuasion situation where they were exposed to
OBA, how their activated subjective persuasion knowledge might
relate to perceptions of effects on self and others and subsequent
coping mechanisms.
6. Study 2 (experiment) e hypotheses
To see the causal relationship, we manipulate different levels of
situational PK by disclosing how the relevant ad message is deliv-
ered (behavior-tracking vs. default exposure) in an empirical situ-
ation. Dispositional PK refers to the individual's lifetime developed
knowledge about a certain persuasion tactic (e.g., OBA) whereas
situational PK is an individual's inference of how a hidden
persuasion tactic works in a particular situation (Ham, Nelson, &
Das, 2015). In Study 2, we create a situation in which the same
relevant ad is shown to goal-pursuing consumers (who search for a
specific information) across two conditions, but those in the
experimental condition were informed that the relevant ad was
delivered by behavior tracking (OBA-persuasion tactic) whereas
those in control condition were notified that it was a default
exposure (without using any persuasion technology). The default
exposure is a general display ad format, not using any technological
tactic to deliver relevant ad messages; so we use ‘default exposure’
to represent the “no persuasion knowledge activation” condition. In
this experiment, first, we retest H2 (relationship between subjec-
tive PK and TPP), positing that consumers will perceive a greater
impact of OBA on others than on themselves when a relevant ad
message was shown by behavioral tracking tactic (vs. default).
Thus, we posit:
H4. When behavioral tracking (vs. default exposure) is disclosed
in receiving the relevant ad, respondents will exhibit greater third-
person perception.
Second, we retest Hypotheses 3 (b-d) in an experimental setting,
predicting that subjective PK will influence the assessment of
benefit and harm of OBA, which in turn will influence TPP. In Study
1, we found that the assessment of benefits of OBA was negatively,
and harm was positively, associated with TPP because people are
likely to perceive that beneficial effects are more significant on self,
but the harmful effect is greater on others. In Study 2, we posit the
same relationships except reversed PK-benefit assessment because
the behavioral tracking tactic is disclosed in a certain situation
when the benefit is already given (i.e., relevant ad). Thus, we posit:
H5a-c. When behavioral tracking (vs. default exposure) is dis-
closed in receiving the relevant ad, respondents will exhibit (a)
lower perceived benefit and (b) higher perceived harm; (c) the
effect of disclosure (behavior tracking vs. default exposure) on
third-person perception will be mediated by the assessment of
benefit and harm.
Third, we re-assess research question 2 (a-d) to see if there is a
causal relationship between subjective PK and coping responses
throughout TPP. In Study 1, consumers were more concerned about
the OBA effect on self than others; accordingly, they coped with
OBA more personally than socially. We, therefore, expect that
behavioral tracking disclosure (vs. default) will lead consumers to
cope with OBA in a personal way rather than a social way. In this
study, we will test intent to click the ad and intent to close the ad page
because these measures are more realistic responses in an experi-
mental situation.
RQ3a-d. When people see a relevant display ad, how will the
behavioral tracking disclosure (vs. default exposure) influence (a)
intent to support OBA regulation, (b) intent to block OBA, (c) intent
to close OBA page (avoidance), and (d) intent to click OBA (accep-
tance)? If significant, will third-person perception mediate the
relationship between the disclosure and each coping response?
7. Study 2 e method
7.1. Participants
We ran a one-condition between-subject design experiment
using an online survey. The experimental setting was created
similar to a real OBA situation. It provided a website browsing sit-
uation in which participants visited various websites to search for
specific information about a computer, and then they saw a related
display banner ad when they visited a YouTube website. The situ-
ation was pretested and found to be one of college students'
habitual web browsing (visiting YouTube) and information-seeking
(seeking information about a laptop computer) behaviors. Using
convenience sampling, 178 students from a Midwestern university
participated for extra credit. Females (N ¼ 94; 51.9%) slightly out-
numbered males (N ¼ 85; 47.0%) and age varied from 18 to 24
(M ¼ 21).
7.2. Procedure and stimuli
After signing a consent form, participants were randomly
assigned into one of the two conditions (behavior-tracking disclo-
sure: N ¼ 89; default exposure: N ¼ 89). To create such an OBA
situation, participants were requested to imagine that they had
searched information to buy a new laptop computer, browsing
many websites related to laptop computers (e.g., Apple.com;
lenovo.com) during the last couple of days. After that, they were
guided to visit a fictitiously created YouTube main page where the
same fictitiously created laptop ad (a fictitious brand - Willy's
computer: see Appendix) was displayed for both groups. In the ad,
the same relevant message was displayed to the participants (“We
offer the cheapest price with the best quality of all types of lap-
tops”). After they saw the ad on the web page, the following pop-up
messages were shown to the behavior tracking disclosure group:
“the banner ad was selectively shown to you because ad network
companies tracked your online surfing behaviors and inferred that
you are interested in the laptop (OBA)” and to the default exposure
group: “the banner ad was displayed to everyone who visits this
website like you.”
7.3. Measures
Most measures used the same instruments as Study 1. Item
reliability (Cronbach's a) was: benefit assessment (a ¼ 0.89), harm
assessment (a ¼ 0.92), third-person perception (effect on me:
a ¼ 0.93; effect on others: a ¼ 0.96), intent to support regulation
(a ¼ 0.92), and intent to block ads (a ¼ 0.83). Subjective PK
(a ¼ 0.91) was measured by the same items used in Study 1 but
slightly modified from ‘OBA in general’ to ‘this ad.’ Intent to close
the OBA page (avoidance) was measured by two items (I'm willing
to close the webpage of the banner ad that appeared; I'm willing to
immediately leave the webpage when the ad is exposed; 7-point
Likert scale; Cronbach's a ¼ 0.94) modified from Cho and Cheon
 C.-D. Ham, M.R. Nelson / Computers in Human Behavior 62 (2016) 689e702
(2004). Intent to click the OBA (Cronbach's a ¼ 0.90) was measured
by three items (My intention to click the banner ad is: unlikely-
likely; impossible e possible; improbable-probable; 7-point se-
mantic differential scale; Cronbach's a ¼ 0.95) modified from
Mackenzie, Lutz, and Belch (1986). In the questionnaire, coping
responses (intent to click; intent to close page; intent to block;
intent to support regulation) were asked first, followed by third-
person perceptions (effect on self and others, by random order),
perceived benefit and harm, subjective PK, and manipulation check
items, respectively.
8. Study 2 e results
8.1. Manipulation check
One-way ANOVA revealed that the behavioral tracking group
showed significantly higher subjective PK (M ¼ 5.41; SD ¼ 1.62)
than the default group (M ¼ 3.82; SD ¼ 1.90); thus, the PK
manipulation was successful (F ¼ 30.42; p < 0.001).
8.2. Hypotheses testing
Hypothesis 4 examined the main effect of PK on TPP. The
repeated measure MANOVA showed a significant interaction effect
(Wilky's Lambda: F ¼ 10.65; p < 0.001) such that the effect on others
was not significantly different across behavior tracking disclosure
(M ¼ 4.48; SD ¼ 1.26) and default exposure (M ¼ 4.56; SD ¼ 1.50)
conditions, but the effect on self was significantly lower in the
behavior tracking disclosure (M ¼ 2.83; SD ¼ 1.78) than in the
default exposure condition (M ¼ 3.64; SD ¼ 1.90). Thus, H4 was
supported (see Fig. 3).
Hypotheses 5a and b examined the effect of PK on the benefit
and harm assessment. The results of two ANOVAs showed that the
perceived benefit was significantly lower (F ¼ 10.19; p < 0.05) in the
behavior tracking (M ¼ 3.30; SD ¼ 1.67) than default (M ¼ 4.09;
SD ¼ 1.60) condition; perceived harm was significantly higher
(F ¼ 7.85; p < 0.01) in behavior tracking (M ¼ 5.42; SD ¼ 1.50) than
default (M ¼ 4.75; SD ¼ 1.69) condition. H5a and b were supported.
Upon these results, we ran multiple mediation analyses for H5c
using the Preacher and Hayes' (2008) bootstrapping (5000 boot-
strap samples) analysis with the PROCESS macro. Fig. 4(a) indicates
that both benefit and harm are significant mediators, as the 95%
bias-corrected confidence intervals of the two variables do not
contain zero (0.086e0.484 for benefit; 0.011 to 0.280 for harm).
Specifically, tracking disclosure (PK) was a significant predictor of
the assessment of benefits (r ¼ 0.78; p < 0.01) and harm (r ¼ 0.67;
p < 0.01); assessments of benefit (r ¼ 0.32; P < 0.001) and harm
(r ¼ 0.14; p < 0.05) were significant predictors of TPP; when the
Fig. 3. Results of repeated-measure MANOVA (study 2: H4).
697
dependent variable (TPP) was regressed on both the independent
(PK) and mediating variables (benefit and harm), the independent
variable's (PK) effect on the dependent variable became non-
significant (r ¼ 0.39; n.s.). Assessments of benefit and harm fully
mediated the effect of subjective PK on TPP. Specifically, benefit
negatively and harm positively mediated the relationship. Thus,
H5c was supported (see Fig. 4(a)).
Research questions 3a-d examined the effect of PK on coping
responses, and, if significant, was followed by mediation analyses. A
series of ANOVAs revealed that the PK effect was (1) not significant
on intent to support OBA regulation (F ¼ 0.35; n.s.; tracking:
M ¼ 5.16; SD ¼ 1.81; default: M ¼ 5.30; SD ¼ 1.62); but (2) sig-
nificant on intent to block OBA (F ¼ 6.17; p < 0.05; tracking:
M ¼ 5.57; SD ¼ 1.44; default: M ¼ 4.98; SD ¼ 1.71); (3) significant
on intent to close the ad webpage (F ¼ 8.93; p < 0.01; tracking:
M ¼ 5.25; SD ¼ 1.52; default: M ¼ 4.55; SD ¼ 1.58); and (4) sig-
nificant on intent to click the ad (F ¼ 15.198; p < 0.001; tracking:
M ¼ 3.37; SD ¼ 1.95; default: M ¼ 4.50; SD ¼ 1.95). In sum, the
effect of tracking disclosure (PK) led to a greater intent to block OBA
(RQ3b) and to close the OBA webpage (RQ3c), but a lesser intent to
click the OBA (RQ3d).
We then ran three mediation analyses, which examined the
mediation role of effect on self and on others between PK and coping
responses, using the Preacher and Hayes' (2008) bootstrapping
(5000 bootstrap samples) analysis with the PROCESS macro. First,
as presented in Fig. 4(b), only effect on self was a significant medi-
ator between PK and intent to block OBA, as the 95% bias-corrected
confidence interval of the variable did not contain zero
(0.143e0.724) but did for effect on others (0.129 to 0.064). When
the mediators were added, the effect of PK on the intent to block
disappeared (direct: r ¼ 0.59; P < 0.05; indirect: r ¼ 0.22; n.s.). The
relationship between PK and intent to block OBA was fully medi-
ated by the perceived effect on self but not by effect on others.
Similarly, only effect on self was a significant mediator between
PK and intent to close the OBA page, as the 95% bias-corrected
confidence intervals of the variable did not contain zero
(0.142e0.732 for effect on self; .080 to 0.040 for effect on others).
When the mediators were added, the effect of PK on the intent to
close disappeared (direct: r ¼ 0.70; P < 0.05; indirect: r ¼ 0.27; n.s.).
The relationship between PK and intent to close the OBA page was
fully mediated by the perceived effect on self (see Fig. 4(c)). Finally,
only effect on self was a significant mediator between PK and intent
to click OBA, as the 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals of the
variable did not contain zero (0.927 to 0.170 for effect on
self; 0.112 to 0.029 for effect on others). When the mediators were
added, the effect of PK on intent to click significantly weakened
(direct: r ¼ 1.14; p < 0.001; indirect: r ¼ 0.63; n.s.). The
perceived effect on self partially mediated the PK's impact on the
click intent but the effect on others did not mediate (see Fig. 4(d)).
9. Study 2 e discussion
In an experimental setting, we identified causal relationships for
some of the descriptive relationships noted in Study 1. First, sub-
jective PK significantly impacted TPP. Specifically, we found that
perceptions of effects on self created a larger self-other TPP gap for
those with PK. PK also affected respondents' perceptions of benefits
(lower in behavior tracking) and harm (greater in behavior
tracking).
Second, in line with Study 1 findings, the assessment of harm
and benefit mediated the relationship between PK and TPP effects.
Therefore, it appears that the direct link between PK and TPP is
mediated by the ways that individuals perceive the impact of the
tactics (benefit/harm). The only difference in study 1 (survey) from
study 2 (experiment) is the negative relationship between PK and
698 C.-D. Ham, M.R. Nelson / Computers in Human Behavior 62 (2016) 689e702

Fig. 4. Results of Mediation Analyses (Study 2: H5 & RQ3).

benefit assessment in study 2. It is likely because behavioral
tracking (vs. default exposure) was disclosed in a situation in which
people already gained the benefit (i.e., relevant ad); thus, the
disclosure negatively impacted the perceived benefit but positively
impacted the perceived harm. In a situation when the desirability of
a persuasion is ambivalent (like OBA), a significant PK-TPP rela-
tionship does not always occur; rather, we found that the assess-
ment of benefit/harm mediates this relationship. Based on the idea
of Kirmani and Campbell (2004), we argue that consumers do not
simply perceive that persuasion knowledge automatically leads to
third-person perception, but more deeply process the persuasion
tactic and its benefit and harm to cope with the tactic. How and
when they do this may be variable depending on the perceptions of
benefit or harm and their own personal goals.
Finally, similar to Study 1, we found that subjective PK
significantly impacted personal coping responses to the OBA (i.e.,
avoidance: intent to block or close; or acceptance: intention to
click) but not social-level coping (support to regulate). In addition,
the impact of PK on all three personal coping responses was
mediated only by effect on self.
10. General discussion
Third-person perception (TPP) presents a well-known phe-
nomenon where individuals believe others are affected by media
more than they themselves are affected (Perloff, 1999). Such effects
are moderated by social desirability of the message (e.g., Sun et al.,
2008) and influenced by individuals' knowledge (Davison, 1983).
Online behavioral advertising (OBA) presents an interesting case to
understand perceived media effects for two reasons: (1) due to its
 C.-D. Ham, M.R. Nelson / Computers in Human Behavior 62 (2016) 689e702
technological complexity and covertness, OBA presents a context
where people's knowledge is limited; accordingly, their coping
strategy and the perceived effects on others and self appear to vary
by their knowledge level; (2) the tactic offers potential benefits
(relevant messages) and harm (privacy infringement) so OBA is not
clearly undesirable or desirable. Therefore, across two studies, we
tested how people's knowledge about OBA and their assessments of
harm and benefit influenced perceptions of effects on self and
others and subsequent personal and social coping behaviors. Our
research extends the TPP and PKM relationship in a new context
that works by decomposing PK and examining the role of both
objective and subjective PK and highlighting the mediating role of
harm and benefit assessment in the PK-TPP relationship and its
effects on a greater range of personal coping responses.
Based on TPP studies (e.g., Gunther & Thorson, 1992), we iden-
tified how knowledge influenced TPP. Across a survey and experi-
ment, we found that people's assessment of their own knowledge
about how OBA works (subjective PK) is significant in determining
the direction and magnitude of TPP in the OBA context. That is, the
greater the PK, the larger the gap in self-other perceptions of ef-
fects. Interestingly, the gap revealed less perceived effect on self
when persuasion knowledge was manipulated through disclosure
of OBA (vs. Default) in Study 2.
The outcomes of PK related to individuals' assessments of the
psychological effects and effectiveness of OBA. Across both studies,
we found that individuals' assessments of the potential harm
(privacy infringement) and benefits (relevant messages) played a
strong role in assessing perceived effects of OBA on self and others.
That is, whereas past research has shown the PK-TPP link (Eisend,
2015), we demonstrated how perceived outcomes of PK in harm
and benefit assessment mediate the relationship between PK and
TPP. Interestingly but consistent with TPP's underlying self-
enhancing motive, we identified that the perceived benefit drove
the effect on self, but the perceived harm drove the effect on others;
combined together which formed TPP. In addition, it appears to be
the perceived effects on self and not effects on others that show the
most influence for predicting personal coping responses. Such
findings imply that activated persuasion knowledge may allow
consumers to actively elaborate the benefit and harm, processing
the perception of effect on self more systematically and taking more
personal level coping responses.
Different from typical TPP studies, which showed social pre-
ventive behaviors (such as likelihood to support regulation) as a
result of TPP, we identified that individuals are more concerned
about personal coping, when they perceived the media effect was
more significant on self than on others. When effect on self is
perceived more significant than effect on others, TPP leads to more
personal than social coping responses. Importantly, these re-
sponses are not always preventive but also represent some proac-
tive coping responses (e.g., accept advertising) particularly when
the tactic is perceived as more beneficial than harmful.
10.1. Implications
First, our model helps explain the relationship between
knowledge and TPP by highlighting the mediating role of perceived
benefits and harm. Whereas past TPP studies use messages that are
clearly undesirable or desirable, OBA presents a message that may
be harmful and beneficial. We show that it is the assessment of
those benefits or harm that explain the relationship between
knowledge and TPP. Perloff (1999) asks, “Do people consider it
acceptable to be influenced just when they perceive potential
personal benefits?” (p. 361). It appears that may be the case. As
Kirmani and Campbell (2004) proposed, a goal-pursuing self more
actively assesses whether a persuasion tactic benefits or harms
699
them rather than simply resisting it. In a social exchange situation
such as the marketplace, consumers tend to provide their resources
(e.g., privacy-related personal information; White, 2004) only to
the extent that the benefit is equal to or greater than their loss. We
identified that persuasion knowledge, assessment of harm and
benefit, and TPP play a role in determining consumers' coping
mechanisms for the tactic (e.g., accept, avoid).
Second, the effect of objective persuasion knowledge on third-
person perception was examined for the first time. Despite the
importance, objective persuasion knowledge has only been exam-
ined in the pricing tactic context (Carlson et al., 2007). We propose
that objective knowledge in a specific context (e.g., OBA) should be
considered because persuasion knowledge is context-specific, and
objective knowledge is significantly associated with subjective
persuasion knowledge. In developing coping strategies and third-
person perceptions, we identified that the subjective confidence
of how persuasion works plays a more important role than the
objective knowledge of what consumers really know, particularly
when the objective knowledge was not sufficient to fully under-
stand how the persuasion works. We however, found that objective
knowledge indirectly affected TPP through subjective persuasion
knowledge, which in turn influenced benefit and harm assessment.
This knowledge processing structure implies that different di-
mensions of “knowledge of how persuasion works” operate
differently in perceiving the persuasion's effect on self and others.
On a practical note, our studies revealed that social coping (i.e.,
support for regulation) is not supported yet for OBA, but consumers
may take several personal coping mechanisms for OBA. The FTC has
considered setting a law to regulate behavior tracking and profiling,
but only industry self-regulation and ethical guidelines are rec-
ommended, not dictated, for years (Nill & Aalberts, 2014). In the
meantime, more and more consumers are installing ad blockers to
avoid tracking and profiling personal data (Manjoo, 2015). Our re-
sults suggest that consumers perceive personal data tracking as
more of a personal issue rather than a social issue; thus, their social
voice to regulate OBA may not yet be significant, but their personal
coping (e.g., blocking) is silently but consistently increasing,
resulting in a potential cost to the ad industry in the near future. In
2012, regulation in the UK dictated that websites disclose cooking
tracking behavior to users (Whittaker, 2012). One example of this
disclosure, with an opt-in or out feature, reads, “The cookie settings
on this website are set to ‘allow all cookies’ to give you the very best
experience. If you continue without changing these settings, you
sent to this e but if you want, you can change your settings at any
time at the bottom of this page.” Such controllability can enhance
self-confidence, which is positively associated with subjective
persuasion knowledge (Bearden et al., 2001). However, when
persuasion knowledge is activated through disclosure, consumers
may actively elaborate on the benefit and harm, processing the
perception of effect on self more systematically and resulting in
taking more personal level coping responses. When persuasion
knowledge is not sufficiently activated, on the other hand, con-
sumers may be less likely to elaborate benefit-harm assessments,
processing both perceptions of effect on self and effect on others not
critically. Accordingly, then, the consumers seem to simply resist
OBA.
Future research could systematically test these explanations. As
Eisend (2015) identified, simple persuasion knowledge (without
elaborating benefit-harm assessments) increases TPP primarily by
overestimating effect on others, which in turn would elicit more
social-level coping responses (e.g., regulation). In effect, the
disclosure of OBA, if the disclosure conveys or reinforces benefits of
the practice, may actually help consumers to accept OBA. Educating
consumers by disclosing benefit and harm can allow them to more
systematically process the message and assess whether the
700 C.-D. Ham, M.R. Nelson / Computers in Human Behavior 62 (2016) 689e702

message can help them to achieve their marketplace goals, required disclosure of tracking cookies similar to regulation in the
resulting in assisting them to decide whether they accept or avoid UK. Despite these limitations, we hope that our study spurs addi-
OBA. tional research in this area.

11. Conclusion
10.2. Limitations

OBA is a special form of media that is desirable and undesirable

This study has several limitations. First, we used convenience
because it offers benefits and potential harm to consumers. Our
sampling. Second, we used hierarchical regression analyses, even
findings show that consumers' perception of their knowledge
though most variables were measured by ordinal scale. Third, our
about OBA (“subjective PK”) relates to how much they believe they
study tested only behavioral intention but not real behaviors.
personally (vs. others) are affected by the persuasion tactic (i.e., TPP
Although behavioral intentions are typically an antecedent of
effect). Further, our results uniquely capture an important mediator
behavior, especially in situations within the individuals' control
between the PK and TPP relationship: namely, it is the assessment
(e.g., Ajzen, 1985), future study could propose a theoretical rela-
of the potential harm and benefit of OBA that mediates the rela-
tionship between TPP and real behaviors, and to test direct re-
tionship between subjective persuasion knowledge and TPP.
sponses of real behaviors (e.g., click or avoid banner ads).
Importantly, it is the perceived effect on self in TPP that relates to
Fourth, our experiment included only one information search
personal coping behaviors (e.g., accepting or avoiding OBA). No
and advertising scenario. Also, the presumption that TPP operates
significant relationships or effects were found for social level
on individuals' self-esteem is common in the TPP literature (Perloff,
coping such as support for regulation. In sum, this research expands
1999), yet this construct is rarely measured. Future research could
on and links the growing body of research on PK and the research
measure or manipulate self-esteem and see its role in the model.
on TPP in the online advertising context.
For example, if respondents believed they had low (rather than
high) persuasion knowledge, would TPP be the same? Across two
studies we did not find social-level coping with respect to regula- Appendix. Example of stimulus in study 2.
tion. Yet, the regulation measures used were rather vague. Future
research could ask specific questions regarding, for example,
 C.-D. Ham, M.R. Nelson / Computers in Human Behavior 62 (2016) 689e702 701

References Lasorsa, D. L. (1989). Real and perceived effects of ‘Amerika’. Journalism Quarterly,
66(2), 373e378.
Lee, C., & Yang, S. (1996). Third-person perception and support for censorship of
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl,
sexually explicit visual content: a Korean case. In Paper presented to the Asso-
& J. Backmann (Eds.), Action-control: From Cognition to Behavior (pp. 11e39).
ciation for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Anaheim, CA.
Heidelberg: Springer.
Liu, X., & Lo, V. H. (2014). Media exposure, perceived personal impact, and third-
Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (2000). Knowledge calibration: what consumers know
person effect. Media Psychology, 17(4), 378e396.
and what they think they know. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(2), 123e156.
MacKenzie, S. B., Lutz, R. J., & Belch, G. E. (1986). The role of attitude toward the ad
Baek, T., & Morimoto, M. (2012). Stay away from me. Journal of Advertising, 41(1),
as a mediator of advertising effectiveness: a test of competing explanations.
59e76.
Journal of Marketing Research, 23(2), 130e143.
Bearden, W. O., Hardesty, D. M., & Rose, R. L. (2001). Consumer self-confidence:
Mahoney, S. (2015). Consumers conflicted about privacy vs. personalization. http://
refinements in conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Consumer
www.mediapost.com/publications/article/245405/consumers-conflicted-
Research, 28(1), 121e134.
about-privacy-vs-personaliza.html/ Accessed 15.01.17.
Boerman, S. C., van Reijmersdal, E. A., & Neijens, P. C. (2012). Sponsorship disclosure:
Manjoo, F. (2015). Ad blockers and the nuisance at the heart of the modern web. http://
effects of duration and persuasion knowledge and brand response. Journal of
www.nytimes.com/2015/08/20/technology/personaltech/ad-blockers-and-the-
Communication, 62(6), 1047e1064.
nuisance-at-the-heart-of-the-modern-web.html?_r¼0 Accessed 15.09.18.
Brucks, M. (1985). The effects of product class knowledge on information search
Marshall, J. (2014). Do consumers really want targeted ads?. http://blogs.wsj.com/
behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(1), 1e16.
cmo/2014/04/17/do-consumers-really-want-targeted-ads/ Accessed 15.02.10.
Campbell, M. C., & Kirmani, A. (2008). I know what you’re doing and why you're
McDonald, A. M., & Cranor, L. F. (2010). An empirical study of how people perceive
doing it: the use of the persuasion knowledge model in consumer research. In
online behavioral advertising. In Proceedings of the 10' workshop on privacy in
C. P. Haugtvedt, P. M. Herr, & F. R. Kardes (Eds.), The handbook of consumer
the electronic society (WPES'10) (pp. 63e72).
psychology (pp. 549e573). New York, NY: Erlbaum.
McLeod, D. M., Eveland, W. P., Jr., & Nathanson, A. I. (1997). Support for censorship
Campbell, M. C., Mohr, G. S., & Verlegh, P. W. J. (2013). Can disclosures lead con-
of violent and misogynic rap lyrics: an analysis of the third-person effect.
sumers to resist convert persuasion? the important roles of disclosure timing
Communication Research, 24(2), 153e174.
and type of response. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(4), 483e495.
Nill, A., & Aalberts, R. J. (2014). Legal and ethical challenges of online behavioral
Carlson, J. P., Bearden, W. O., & Hardesty, D. M. (2007). Influences on what con-
targeting in advertising. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 35(2),
sumers know and what they think they know regarding marketer pricing
126e146.
tactics. Psychology & Marketing, 24(2), 117e142.
Okazaki, S., Li, H., & Hirose, M. (2009). Consumer privacy concerns and preference
Chang, C., Wei, R., & Lo, V. H. (2014). Ambivalent versus univalent voters: perceived
for degree of regulatory control. Journal of Advertising, 38(4), 63e77.
media influences and third-person perceptions. Media Psychology, 17(4), 420e450.
Paradise, A., & Sullivan, M. (2012). (In)visible threats? the third-person effect in
Chen, G. M., & Ng, M. Y. M. (2016). Third-person perception of online comments: civil
perceptions of the influence of Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
ones persuade you more than me. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 736e742.
Networking, 15(1), 55e60.
Chia, S. C., Lu, K. H., & McLeod, D. M. (2004). Sex lies, and video compact disc: a case
Perloff, R. M. (1999). The third-person effect: a critical review and synthesis. Media
study on third-person perception and motivations for censorship. Communi-
Psychology, 1(4), 353e378.
cation Research, 31(1), 109e130.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for
Cho, C. H., & Cheon, H. J. (2004). Why do people avoid advertising on the internet?
assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior
Journal of Advertising, 33(4), 89e97.
Research Methods, 40(3), 879e891.
Conners, J. L. (2005). Understanding the third-person effect. Communication
Price, V., Tewksbury, D., & Huang, L. N. (1998). Third-person effects on publication of
Research Trend, 24(2), 2e22.
a holocaust-denial advertisement. Journal of Communication, 48(2), 3e26.
Davison, W. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion
Salwen, M. B. (1998). Perceptions of media influence and support for censorship:
Quarterly, 47(1), 1e15.
the third-person effect in the 1996 presidential election. Communication
Driscoll, P. D., & Salwen, M. B. (1997). Self-perceived knowledge of OJ Simpson trial:
Research, 25(3), 259e285.
third-person perception and perceptions of guilt. Journalism & Mass Commu-
Shah, D. V., Faber, R. J., & Youn, S. (1999). Susceptibility and severity: perceptual di-
nication Quarterly, 74(3), 541e556.
mensions underlying the third-person effect. Communication Research, 26(2),
Eastin, M. S., Brinson, N. H., Doorey, A., & Wilcox, G. (2016). Living in a big data
240e267.
world: predicting mobile commerce activity through privacy concerns. Com-
Simonson, I. (2005). Determinants of customers' responses to customized offers: con-
puters in Human Behavior, 58, 214e220.
ceptual framework and research propositions. Journal of Marketing, 69, 32e45.
Eisend, M. (2015). Persuasion knowledge and third-person perceptions in adver-
Smit, E. G., van Noort, G., & Voorveld, H. A. M. (2014). Understanding online
tising: the moderating effect of regulatory competence. International Journal of
behavioural advertising: user knowledge, privacy concerns and online coping
Advertising, 34(1), 54e69.
behavior in Europe. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 15e22.
Fransen, M. L., Verlegh, P. W. J., Kirmani, A., & Smit, E. G. (2015). A typology of
Speck, P. S., & Elliott, M. T. (1997). Predictors of advertising avoidance in print and
consumer strategies for resisting advertising, and a review of mechanisms for
broadcast media. Journal of Advertising, 26(3), 61e76.
countering them. International Journal of Advertising, 34(1), 6e16.
Sun, Y., Pan, Z., & Shen, L. (2008). Understanding the third-person perception: ev-
Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: how people
idence from a meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 58(2), 280e300.
cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 1e31.
Tewksbury, D., Moy, P., & Weis, D. S. (2004). Preparations for Y2K: revisiting the
FTC. (2009). FTC staff revises online behavioral advertising principles. http://www.ftc.
behavioral component of the third-person effect. Journal of Communication,
gov/opa/2009/02/behavad.shtm/ Accessed 14.05.21.
54(1), 138e155.
Golan, G. J., & Banning, S. A. (2008). Exploring a link between the third-person effect
Turow, J., King, J., Hoofnagle, C. J., Bleakley, A., & Hennessy, M. (2009). Americans
and the theory of reasoned action: beneficial ads and social expectations.
reject tailored advertising and three activities that enable it. http://papers.ssrn.
American Behavioral Scientists, 52(2), 208e224.
com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id¼1478214 Accessed 14.05.21.
Gunther, A. C., & Mundy, P. (1993). Biased optimism and the third-person effect.
van Noort, G., Smit, E. G., & Voorveld, H. A. (2013). The online behavioural adver-
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 70(1), 58e67.
tising icon: two user studies. Advances in Advertising Research, 4, 365e378.
Gunther, A. C. (1995). Overrating the x-rating: the third-person perception and
van Reijmersdal, E. A., Tutaj, K., & Boerman, S. C. (2013). The effects of brand
support for censorship of pornography. Journal of Communication, 45(1), 27e38.
placement disclosures on skepticism and brand memory. Communications e The
Gunther, A. C., & Hwa, A. P. (1996). Public perceptions of television influence and
European Journal of Communication Research, 38(2), 127e146.
opinions about censorship in Singapore. International Journal of Public Opinion
Wei, R., & Lo, V. H. (2008). News media use and knowledge about 2006 US midterm
Research, 8(3), 248e265.
elections: why exposure matters in voter learning. International Journal of Public
Gunther, A. C., & Thorson, E. (1992). Perceived persuasive effects of product com-
Opinion Research, 20(3), 347e362.
mercials and public service announcements: the third-person effect in new
White, T. B. (2004). Consumer disclosure and disclosure avoidance: a motivational
domains. Communication Research, 19(5), 574e596.
framework. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1), 41e51.
Ham, C., Nelson, M. R., & Das, S. (2015). How to measure persuasion knowledge.
Whittaker, Z. (2012). UK ‘cookie law’ takes effect: What you need to know. http://
International Journal of Advertising, 34(1), 17e53.
www.zdnet.com/article/uk-cookie-law-takes-effect-what-you-need-to-know/
Huh, J., & Langteau, R. (2007). Presumed influence of DTC prescription drug advertising:
Accessed 15.03.12.
do experts and novices think differently? Communication Research, 34(1), 25e52.
Woon, R., Tan, G. W., & Low, R. (2005). Protection motivation theory approach to how
Jai, T., Burns, L. D., & King, N. J. (2013). The effect of behavioral tracking practices on
wireless security. In Proceeding of 26th international conference on information sys-
consumers' shopping evaluations and repurchase intention toward trusted
tems. available at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2005/31 (accessed August 30, 2014).
online retailers. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 901e909.
Kirmani, A., & Campbell, M. C. (2004). Goal seeker and persuasion sentry: how
consumer targets respond to interpersonal marketing persuasion. Journal of
Consumer Research, 31(3), 573e582. Chang-Dae Ham (Ph.D., University of Missouri) is assistant professor in the Charles H.
Kirmani, A., & Campbell, M. C. (2009). Taking the target's perspective: the Sandage Department of Advertising at the University of Illinois-Urbana. His research
persuasion knowledge model. Social Psychology of Consumer Behavior, 297e316. interests are motivation, persuasion and persuasion knowledge relate to advertising
702 C.-D. Ham, M.R. Nelson / Computers in Human Behavior 62 (2016) 689e702

in digital area. Chang-Dae has published in International Journal of Advertising, Journal
of Consumer Behaviour, Current Psychology etc.
Michelle R. Nelson (Ph.D., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) is associate
professor in the Charles H. Sandage Department of Advertising at the University of
Illinois-Urbana. Her research and public engagement endeavors relate to adver-
tising/persuasion literacy and product placement. Nelson has published in
leading advertising (JA, IJA, JAR, JCIRA, JIAD), consumer research (JCP), and
communication (JMCQ) journals. She is on the editorial board of JA and is an
Associate Editor of IJA.