The Impact of Brand Awareness on Purchase Intention Among

Consumers Using Social Media

Dissertation Document Type

Presented to the Faculty of the Glenn R. Jones College of Business of Trident

University International, a Member of the American Intercontinental University
System

in Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in

Business Administration

by

RONALD ERIC COYLE

Chandler, Arizona

2022

Defended Month March 24, 2022

Approved by

Office of Academic Affairs

March 24, 2022

Dean: Dr. Lisa Mohanty

Director of Doctoral Studies: Dr. Indira Guzman

Committee Chair: Dr. Kenneth Cromer

Committee Member: Dr. Indira Guzman

Committee Member: Dr. Enrique Barreiro

 2

© 2022 Ronald Eric Coyle

 3

ABSTRACT

Brand awareness is quantitatively shown to positively impact consumers’ purchase intentions.

This dissertation assesses variables across complementing marketing and consumer behavior

models, specifically Robert Ducoffe’s advertising value model and HOE (Hierarchy-of-Effects)

theory. Specifically, this study looks at how brand awareness among social media users impacts

consumers’ purchase intention. Social media has been a staple in shoppers’ lives since the mid-

1990s; however, academic social media analysis is lacking. Practitioner marketers have been

using social media analysis incorporating data from a wide array of online (e.g., social platforms)

and since the mid-2000s. In contrast, academic marketing studies get more data more from

Facebook users than from other platforms. It is time for academia to expand social media data

collection beyond Facebook! Data was collected from 335 study participants via an online

questionnaire. Study participants were over 18 years old with a presence on other social media

platforms in addition to Facebook (e.g., TikTok, internet forums, Metaverse, etc…). Cleansed

data was analyzed using structural equation modeling via the software SmartPLS. Key findings

show that brand awareness impacts purchase intention among online consumers. Furthermore,

this study alludes to the importance of further study of demotivating variables. Future similar

research should continue to merge data across diverse social media sources.
 4

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Ronald Coyle resides in Colorado with his wife and two boys. He holds a Bachelor’s

degree in Marketing from Northern Kentucky University in Highland Heights, KY, as well as a

Master’s degree in Business Administration from Thomas More College in Crestview Hills, KY.

Ronald began his career as a social media research analyst with Intelliseek, a small start-up firm

(based in Cincinnati, OH) that was acquired in 2006 by New York-based BuzzMetrics and

several years later by Nielsen Holdings Inc. Ronald has more than 10 years professional

experience in marketing research and social media data analysis. He has had the privilege of

performing market research for many prominent organizations including (but not limited too) the

Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, the NFL (National Football League) and the United States

Army. Also, Ronald is a United States Army Veteran and a graduate of the United States Army

Air Assault School.

 5

PREFACE

Inspiration for this study comes continuous pursuit to better understand how social media

impacts consumers’ purchase decisions. Interest in social media research stems from time spent

at a small startup called Intelliseek between 2005 and 2012. Intelliseek was based in Cincinnati,

Ohio. Intelliseek was at the vanguard of online search and social media data analytics.

Contribution from this study merely provides incremental progress toward better use of

social media data, especially within academia. Furthermore, this study hopefully serves as a

starting point for future studies using data from social media users on platforms beyond

Facebook.

Attaining social media data is not simple. Furthermore, data from social media users is

difficult to fully assess, as many academic and practitioner researchers acknowledge. Further

progress toward better utilization of social media data is necessary — and certainly attainable.

This dissertation contains 36,817 number of words. None of this work has already been

published.
 6

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge my wonderful wife, Jennifer Haynes. She has been by my

side through the arduous journey to complete this dissertation. Furthermore, I would like to

thank the following people for helping preview drafts of this dissertation:

• Dr. Kenneth Cromer – Professor, Trident University International in Cypress, CA

• Sue MacDonald – Bachelor’s degree in English/Journalism from Miami University, OH

• Samantha Derosier – Bachelor’s degree in Marketing from Colorado State University,

Pueblo, CO
 7

Table of Contents
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................................. 3

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH......................................................................................................................................... 4
PREFACE ................................................................................................................................................................ 5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................................................... 6
List of Tables ....................................................................................................................................................... 11
List of Figures ...................................................................................................................................................... 12
Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................................ 13

Other Theories Mentioned within Dissertation.................................................................................................. 13

Chapter 1 - Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 14

Background ................................................................................................................................. 15
Problem Statement...................................................................................................................... 17
Addressing Knowledge Gap ...................................................................................................................... 18
Novelty of Study ......................................................................................................................................... 19
Solidifying HOE with Ducoffe’s (1996) model......................................................................................... 20
Can the Variable ‘Brand Awareness’ Crossover between HOE and Ducoffe’s (1996) model? ............. 20
Tying Ducoffe’s (1996) model to HOE ..................................................................................................... 20

Purpose of Study ......................................................................................................................... 22

Research Questions (RQ) ........................................................................................................... 24
Definition of Key Terms ............................................................................................................. 26
Chapter 2: Literature Review .............................................................................................................................. 36

Theoretical Orientation and Conceptual Development........................................................... 41

Hierarchy of Effects (HOE) model ........................................................................................................... 41

Ducoffe’s (1996) Advertising Value model............................................................................................... 43

Why Utilize Variables Across Models? ..................................................................................................... 45
Why Focus Social Media Research Beyond Facebook? .......................................................................... 48
Why Focus Social Media Research Beyond a Student Population? ....................................................... 49
Why look at Demotivator Variables? ........................................................................................................ 49

Social Media History Background ............................................................................................ 50

Hypothesis Development ............................................................................................................ 55
 8

Purchase Intention ...................................................................................................................................... 55

Brand Awareness ....................................................................................................................................... 58
Informativeness ......................................................................................................................................... 61
Entertainment ............................................................................................................................................ 62
Credibility................................................................................................................................................... 64
Social Media Marketing [Advertising] Value ........................................................................................... 66
Irritation..................................................................................................................................................... 69
Chapter 3: Methodology ..................................................................................................................................... 75

Nature of Study ........................................................................................................................... 75

Research Design .......................................................................................................................... 76
Population and Sample ............................................................................................................... 76
G* Power Analysis..................................................................................................................................... 79
How was data be obtained? ....................................................................................................................... 81

Materials and Instrumentation .................................................................................................. 82

Variables and Operational Definitions ..................................................................................... 83
Demographics and Control Variables ....................................................................................... 85
Data Collection and Statistical Analysis ................................................................................... 85
Data Cleansing .......................................................................................................................................... 86
Statistical Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 86
Open Ended Questions ............................................................................................................................... 90

Assumptions................................................................................................................................. 91
Limitations ................................................................................................................................... 91
Delimitations................................................................................................................................ 92
Ethical Assurances ...................................................................................................................... 93
Chapter 4: Data Analysis and Results ................................................................................................................. 94

Data Screening ............................................................................................................................ 94

Descriptive of Sample Data ........................................................................................................ 95
Table 6 below details descriptive data for some demographic characteristics collected for
this study. Descriptive data shows that survey respondents are mostly female, under 40
 9

years old with a presence on Instagram, Twitter, Tik Tok, Snapchat and Pinterest in
addition to Facebook................................................................................................................... 95
Measurement Model ................................................................................................................... 96
Discriminant Validity ................................................................................................................. 99
Construct Descriptives.............................................................................................................. 101
Structural Model Analysis ....................................................................................................... 102
Bivariate Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 103
H1. Brand awareness positively impacts purchase intention.................................................................... 103
H2a. Brand awareness positively impacts informativeness. ..................................................................... 103

H2b. Brand awareness positively impacts entertainment. ........................................................................ 104

H2c. Brand awareness positively impacts credibility. .............................................................................. 104
H3. Informativeness positively affects social media marketing [advertising] value. ............................... 104
H4. Entertainment positively affects social media marketing [advertising] value. .................................. 105
H5. Credibility positively affects social media marketing [advertising] value. ....................................... 105
H6. Social media marketing [advertising] value positively affects purchase intention. ........................... 105
H7. Irritation moderates the relationship between social media marketing [advertising] value and
purchase intention..................................................................................................................................... 106

Brand awareness positively impacts purchase intention. ......................................................................... 107

Brand awareness positively impacts informativeness. ............................................................................. 107
Brand awareness positively impacts entertainment. ................................................................................. 107
Brand awareness positively impacts credibility. ...................................................................................... 107
Informativeness positively affects social media marketing [advertising] value. ...................................... 107
Entertainment positively affects social media marketing [advertising] value. ......................................... 107

Credibility positively affects social media marketing [advertising] value. .............................................. 107

Multivariate Analysis................................................................................................................ 107

Additional Analysis ................................................................................................................... 112
Control Variable Interaction ................................................................................................... 118
Evaluation of Findings.............................................................................................................. 118
H1. Brand awareness positively impacts purchase intention.................................................................. 119

H2b. Brand awareness positively impacts entertainment.......................................................................... 119

H2c. Brand awareness positively impacts credibility. .............................................................................. 119
 10

H3. Informativeness positively affects social media marketing [advertising] value. .............................. 120
H4. Entertainment positively affects social media marketing [advertising] value. ................................. 120
H5. Credibility positively affects social media marketing [advertising] value. ...................................... 120
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 123

Interpretation of Results (by research question) ................................................................... 123

Implications for Theory ............................................................................................................ 125
Implications for Practice .......................................................................................................... 126
Implications for Research ........................................................................................................ 128
Recommendations for Future Research ................................................................................. 129
What Drives Brand Awareness? ............................................................................................................... 131

Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 131

References ........................................................................................................................................................ 133

Appendix A: Survey Instrument ........................................................................................................................ 148

Appendix B: Letter of Informed Consent .......................................................................................................... 154
Appendix C: IRB Training Certificate ................................................................................................................. 156
Appendix D: Letters of Permission.................................................................................................................... 157
Permission to Conduct Survey (Letter) ........................................................................................................ 157
Permission to Conduct Survey (Response from moderator)....................................................................... 159
 11

List of Tables

Table 1 Sales Funnel Topics vs HOE Theory Stages…………………………………………..37

Table 2 Number of Social Media Users by Social Media Platform……………………............40
Table 3 Hypotheses Summary………………………………………………………………….71
Table 4 Variables and Items Scale With Past Reliability………………………………………84
Table 5 Validity Assessment for Measurement Model…………………………………….......88
Table 6 Descriptives of Sample………………………………………………………………..95
Table 7 Measured Variable Factor Loading and Scale Reliability……………………….........98
Table 8 Construct Reliability and Convergent Validity………………………………………..99
Table 9 Discriminant Validity (Fornell-Larcker Criterion)…………………………………..100
Table 10 Discriminant Validity (Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio – HTMT)……………………...101
Table 11 Construct and Variable Descriptives and Normality………………………………...102
Table 12 Bivariate Analysis……………………………………………………………………107
Table 13 Multivariate Analyses -
Mediation……………………………………………….............................................................108
Table 14 What do you dislike about advertising of a brand (or brands) that you follow on
social media…………………………………………………………………………………….116
Table 15 What do you like about advertising of a brand (or brands) that you follow on
social media…………………………………………………………………………………….117
Table 16 What other factors (whether online or offline) may influence your decision
to make a purchase……………………………………………………………………………...118
 12

List of Figures

Figure 1 Ducoffe’s (1996) Structural Model for Advertising Value…………………………..47

Figure 2 Proposed Conceptual Model……………………………………………………….....73
Figure 3 G* Power Analysis…………………………………………………………………...78
Figure 4 Hypothesis 7 Moderation Simple Slope Analysis…………………………………..111
Figure 5 Structural Model Analysis Results………………………………………………….112
Figure 6 Structural Model Analysis Results with Irritation as a Mediator…………………...114
 13

Acronyms

Other Theories Mentioned within Dissertation

Knowing which theories are associated with topics of interest in this study may
help guide future research as literature review demonstrates the necessity to further
integrate like models.

Theory as Mentioned in Dissertation First page

mentioned
Uses & Gratifications Theory……………………………………21
Consumer Culture Theory……………………………………….39
Web Advertising Attitudes Model……………………………….46
Theory of Reasoned Action……………………………………...47
Flow Theory……………………………………………………..47
Theory of Planned Behavior……………………………………..47
Consumer Acceptance Theory…………………………………...49
 14

Chapter 1 - Introduction

Social media analysis is lacking. This is true especially within academia. Academia

appears to lead the way in many fields (e.g., medical, law, etc…) of study; however, this does

not necessarily be the case for utilizing data from social media users. In the early 2000s, at the

beginning of the Internet era, start-up firms like Intelliseek were using social media data-mining

technology for social listening to provide consumer insights via social media research findings to

companies, services and brands (Baker, 2004). Companies such as Hubspot (Hubspot.com),

Radian6 by Salesforce (Salesforce.com), Sprout Social (Sproutsocial.com) and Talkwalker

(Talkwalker.com) are now leading the way with social analytics solutions on the practitioner

side. The social media analysis landscape can be expected to evolve.

Data from social media users, whether collected using data-mining technologies or

through traditional marketing research methods (e.g., surveys, focus groups, etc…), can provide

useful results which marketers can leverage to better support customers and organizational

opportunities. Studies, such as one by Zagheni and Polimis et al. (2018), are starting to

showcase initiatives that combine social media with traditional market research methods (e.g.,

surveys); however, much is still desired in this area of research. Some practitioner marketers can

merge online data against other useful metrics (e.g., online discussion trends versus sales).

Finding ways to increase revenues is perhaps a leading goal of marketing from both a

practitioner and academic standpoint. This can be acknowledged by Hutter and Hautz et al.

(2013), who look at variables that impact consumers’ purchase intention. Practitioner marketers

also point out the importance of driving revenues (Lake, 2019). This dissertation looks at the

relationship between brand awareness toward social media marketing [advertising] value and
 15

purchase intention within the context of Ducoffe’s (1996) advertising value model and HOE

(Hierarchy-of Effects) theory.

Existing studies assessing the link between social media marketing [advertising] value to

purchase intention are missing the mark. For example, many social media studies focus too

much on the social media platform Facebook or lack demotivator variables (e.g., irritation) for

their potential mediating and/or moderating abilities (Florenthal, 2019). Weilbacher (2001)

alludes to issues of a lack of quantitative analysis around marketing topics. Twenty years have

passed since Weilbacher (2001) presented his argument in the Journal of Advertising Research.

Quantitative academic marketing studies are becoming more frequent; however, many still fall

short of marketing practitioner research capabilities. This can be evidenced through the several

quantitative studies cited since 2016 within this paper. Much work remains, especially for

marketers seeking to better integrate social media and upcoming Web 3.0 platforms (e.g.,

Metaverse) into marketing strategy.

Background

It is the year 2022. Facebook launched in 2004. Many new social media platforms have

risen since 2004. Facebook continues to be a premier social media platform used for social

media analysis, especially within the academic realm (Florenthal, 2019). In contrast, the private

sector has potentially been utilizing social media data better than academia and U.S. government

agencies since approximately 2005. This is evidenced through research startups like Intelliseek

using social media data mining technology to provide social media insights and data-based

recommendations gleaned from thousands of social platforms including (but not limited too)

Facebook, Twitter, internet forums, USENET groups and blogs since the early 2000s (Baker,

2004).
 16

This study will address how social media marketing [advertising] value drives

consumers’ purchase decisions while bridging social media analysis between users on Facebook

and newer social media platforms that have launched since 2004 including (but not limited too):

• YouTube (launched 2005)

• Twitter (launched 2006)

• Pinterest (launched 2009)

• Instagram (launched 2010)

• Snapchat (launched 2011)

• Tik Tok (launched 2016)

• Metaverse (2021)

Sources: Maryville University (2021) & Kessler (2021).

This study uses a hybrid theory-based, exploratory model that merges valid variables

from the Lavidge & Steiner (1961) HOE model as used in Hutter & Hautz et al. (2013). It does

so in conjunction with Robert Ducoffe’s (1996) advertising value model against responses about

purchase intention from people using SMSs (Social Media Sites) in addition to Facebook.

Using variables across complementing marketing models is a popular research approach used by

researchers such as Almohaimmed (2019), Phan and Pham et al. (2020), Sharma and Singh et al.

(2020), Duffett (2020) and Cuesta-Valino and Rodriguez et al. (2020), among others.

HOE looks at shoppers’ journey from first hearing about a brand through actual purchase.

It assesses the direction of consumers’ decision to buy, or not buy something. HOE illustrates an

advancement of shoppers’ buying decisions through cognitive, affective and conative stages

(Hutter and Hautz et al., 2013). Ducoffe’s (1996) advertising model is a pinnacle study cited
 17

across hundreds of marketing studies. In essence, Ducoffe (1996) shows how variables

encompassing informativeness, entertainment and irritation influence how consumers attain

value (whether perceived or real) through advertising.

Recent studies, such as The YouTube Marketing Communication Effect on Cognitive,

Affective, and Behavioral Attitudes among Generation Z Consumers by Duffett (2020)

successfully link variables across both HOE and Ducoffe’s (1996) model. Despite excitement

over merging concepts across popular consumer behavior and marketing models, many recent

studies have failed to fully nudge social media analytics into the next echelon of advanced social

media academic research. This is largely due to an inability to a) collect data beyond Facebook,

b) further study demotivator variables for potential mediation and/or moderation qualities and c)

expand sampling beyond student populations as mentioned by Florenthal (2019), Johnston and

Khalil et al. (2018), Lee and Lee et al. (2017), Dehghani and Niaki et al. (2016), Murillo and

Merion et al. (2016), among many others.

The purpose of this study is to therefore bring academic social media marketing research

up to speed slightly with data from users on newer social media platforms using sound

advertising and marketing theory and/or models that tie social media to purchase intention.

Through this study, academia and practitioner marketers stand to gain a better understanding of

social media’s potential to drive sales.

Problem Statement

Understanding how brand awareness among social media users can potentially help

salespersons and practicing marketers better achieve their goals. The problem to be addressed by

this study is to examine the relationship of brand awareness toward purchase intention. This

exploratory study, based on HOE in conjunction with Ducoffe’s (1996) advertising value model,
 18

seeks to ascertain the impact of brand awareness among social media users toward purchase

intention.

Goh and Ang et al. (2020) state that advertising value offers a clue about whether

consumers do or do not prefer a brand. Previous similar studies advocate that social media

marketing [advertising] value positively affects purchase intention (Kim and Han, 2014),

(Martins et al., 2019), (Sheth and Kim, 2017), (Rodgers and Thorson, 2018) and

(Almohaimmeed, 2019). Goh and Ang et al. (2020), Kim and Han et al. (2014) and Martins et

al. (2019) rely on Ducoffe’s (1996) model (which does not include purchase intention as a

variable of interest) as their baseline though. Hutter and Hautz et al. (2013) assess social media

marketing variables that influence purchase intention but still adhere to the HOE model. The

HOE model includes the variable brand awareness. Recent studies better emphasize variables

from both Ducoffe’s (1996) study and HOE, but they do not fully advance social media

marketing analysis.

Failure to not conduct this study may lead to continued assessments yielding similar

results. Looking at previously studied variables, albeit in slightly different ways, can potentially

expand knowledge around HOE and Ducoffe’s (1996) advertising value model within the social

media realm. This study provides both academic and real-world marketing implications because

of what is researched. Practitioner marketers with interests in sales funnels should find this

research as useful as that conducted by Cabrera (2017).

Addressing Knowledge Gap

This area of study, being a review of either HOE or advertising value, does not

necessarily suffer from a lack of research. In contrast, literature review shows that HOE and

Ducoffe’s (1996) advertising model have been well critiqued. Florenthal (2019) identifies some
 19

of the more prominent weaknesses arising from past social media studies. Florenthal (2019)

specifically mentions limitations including a) excessive emphasis on Facebook, b) social media

studies lacking mediator and moderator variables and c) few social media studies fully

expanding Ducoffe’s (1996) model, especially in relation to furthering research around

demotivator variables (e.g., irritation).

Other researchers echo a similar agenda within recommendations to advance social media

research. Addressing past study limitations can help move future social media analysis

incrementally in the right direction.

Novelty of Study

The crossover of variables among some of the leading consumer behavior theories

featured in recent social media studies appears to be leading to more fruitful findings.

Unfortunately, much more work is necessary (e.g., including research on potential mediator and

moderator variables) to really move the “proverbial” needle within the social media marketing

[advertising] value domain. This study is novel in that it looks at responses from study

participants using SMSs in addition to Facebook and previously assessed variables with a

different take (e.g., looking at a purchase demotivator variable like “annoyance” as a moderator

variable versus an independent variable).

Wai Lai and Liu (2020) assess drivers of advertising value on a lesser studied Chinese

social media platform called WeChat. Also, Wai Lai and Lui (2020) survey an older versus a

typical younger demographic. Mediator variables are built into their study successfully;

however, they still do not feature demotivator variables. The findings that Wai Lai and Lui

(2020) present also offer compelling evidence for the necessity of social media researchers to a)

further look at social media marketing on platforms in addition to Facebook while b) surveying
 20

more diverse populations (e.g., older consumers, populations in addition to students, etc…) with

c) the inclusion of mediator and moderator variables. This study builds upon some successes

from the Wai Lai and Lui (2020) study, but with a backdrop against HOE within the context of

Ducoffe’s (1996) model in accordance with recommendations from like research, specifically

Florenthal (2019). Unlike Wai Lai and Liu (2020), this study assesses data from social media

users across a multitude of SMSs.

Solidifying HOE with Ducoffe’s (1996) model

Fortunately, some prior research serves as precedence for analysis of variables

transcending HOE and Ducoffe’s (1996) advertising model. No known studies are exactly the

same. Regardless, variables of interest have been presented together at times in similar past

research.

Can the Variable ‘Brand Awareness’ Crossover between HOE and Ducoffe’s (1996) model?

Yes. Liu and Chou et al. (2015) suggest that increased brand awareness has a positive

effect on social media marketing efforts (e.g., social media marketing and/or advertising value).

Brand awareness is a key component of the HOE model. Likewise, Duffett (2020), Chang

(2012) and Barreda et al. (2015) state that immense brand awareness adds to other factors within

both the Ducoffe (1996) model and HOE theory. Cuesta-Valino and Rodriguez et al. (2020)

successfully show how brand awareness and social media marketing [advertising] value affect

purchase decisions.

Tying Ducoffe’s (1996) model to HOE

Can Ducoffe’s (1996) model, which is based on U&G (Uses and Gratifications) theory,

ultimately be tied to HOE? Sheth and Kim (2017) support the notion. Sheth and Kim (2017)
 21

utilize variables within the U&G theory but in a way that also includes variables across the

primary HOE stages (e.g., cognitive, affective and conative). Furthermore, Duffett (2020) aligns

variables present in Ducoffe’s (1996) model against HOE cognitive, affective, and conative

stages. Opportunity to expand Ducoffe’s (1996) model with the inclusion of brand awareness

and purchase intention from HOE is warranted as a result.

The case has been made for the necessity to study marketing from users on social media

platforms in addition to Facebook with:

• Data from populations other than solely students.

• The inclusion of a mediator and/or moderator variable.

• The addition of IVs (Independent Variables) from complementing models.

This study therefore investigates:

• Responses from consumers on lesser studied yet prominent SMSs (e.g.,

Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, etc…) in addition to Facebook.

• The possibility of looking at an annoyance and/or irritation variable for its

demotivating moderator potential.

• The inclusion of brand awareness and purchase intention against Ducoffe’s

(1996) model from the widely known but complementing HOE model.

Looking at the problems above cam incrementally advance the future of social media

analysis. Will additional research be necessary beyond this study? Absolutely. Failure to include

social media metrics from social media users on sites beyond Facebook, or look at previously

studied variables through different lenses (e.g., assessing annoyance and/or irritation as a

moderator variable), can most likely net the same results against similar outstanding questions.

This is evidenced through recently published studies such as Effect of Cultural Distinctiveness
 22

and Perception of Digital Advertising Appeals on Online Purchase Intention of Clothing Brands:

Moderation of Gender Egalitarianism by Raza and Zaman (2021). Raza and Zaman (2021)

portray yet another example of a new social media study that fails to look at demotivator

variables. To their credit, Raza and Zaman (2021) do assess gender for purposes of moderating

effect. Raza and Zaman’s (2021) study findings point to a varying impact of gender on

advertising. Specifically, Raza and Zaman’s (2021) study alludes to some impact of gender

toward a variable called “perception of digital advertising” and subsequently online purchase

intention within the context of their study.

Looking at data in similar ways as before is fine if the goal to confirm what prior research

already shows. This exploratory study attempts to help begin to traverse the divide among

existing social media research utilizing popular marketing views. Also, this study leverages

findings from similar past studies, but in a way that explores new phenomena.

Purpose of Study

This study provides insights for marketing managers looking to better connect with

consumers on social media, specifically on SMSs in addition to Facebook. SMSs like Instagram

and TikTok are important social media platforms to study for a variety of reasons. First,

Facebook was compelled enough to buy a potential competitor in Instagram in 2012 (Shead,

2019). Second, publicly available web traffic rankings (e.g., through Alexa.com) illustrate that

SMSs like Instagram are already among the top 30 web platforms and/or are emerging in terms

of global website traffic. Third, users of rising SMSs align with demographics across other

popular social media platforms, including Facebook, as indicated in free publicly available data

via Alexa.com’s audience overlap (Alexa.com, 2020). For example, a popular SMS like

Instagram has a 76.4 overlap score with Facebook. Fourth, SMSs like Instagram and Tik Tok
 23

are estimated to be among the fastest growing social media platforms according to practitioner

side market research providers like eMarketer.com (eMarketer.com, 2020). Specifically, Tik

Tok is emerging as an extremely viable channel to reach consumers based on recent web traffic

trends (Pisani, 2021). Fifth, even Facebook is looking to reposition its brand now as Meta

(Graham and Ansari, 2021) with a focus on building out the Metaverse.

The Metaverse will supposedly be a three dimensional (3D) navigable realm (Kessler,

2021). It will help consumers get together virtually. Shoppers will be able to participate in

augmented reality, gather Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs), get together and shop (through

expanded use of cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin). Brands such as Apple, Microsoft, Under

Armor and Nike are currently seeking to leverage NFTs, augmented reality and/or the Metaverse

also (Lee, 2022).

Examining data from many of the up-and-coming social media outlets can be considered

as merely an incremental but necessary change from the already heavily studied Facebook. This

study does not aim to invalidate Facebook as a reliable source of data. This study recognizes the

input that consumers using Facebook offer but with the realization that some new SMSs are

simply growing faster and thus users on such platforms need to be included more in academic

and practitioner social media related studies (Pisani, 2021). Furthermore, some older social

media platforms appear to go through somewhat of a revival stage. This is evidenced as a result

of the social media platform Twitter seeing a slight uptick in usage (Pisani, 2021).

The goal of this study is to further social media advertising research based on suggestions

from Florenthal (2019) alongside assessment of variables across complementing theories within

the context of HOE and Ducoffe’s (1996) model, as used by Hutter and Hautz et al. (2013) and

Wai Lai and Liu (2020) among others.

 24

Research Questions (RQ)

The overarching research question is to identify: What factors are most prominent in

positively impressing upon consumers’ purchase intentions? For example, to what extent does a

known brand’s real (or perceived) ability to produce informative content positively affect social

media marketing [advertising] value in a way that can ultimately impact purchase intention? The

research questions attempt to fill in existing knowledge gaps among the complementing HOE

theory and Ducoffe’s (1996) advertising model.

This study looks at a multitude of research questions. Research question #1 looks at

whether brand awareness alone can affect purchase intention. Barreda and Bilgihan et al. (2015)

make the case that widely known brands are more likely to be considered and therefore selected

versus lesser-known brands. The first research question is important to review at as it fully

assesses HOE from beginning to end without the inclusion of variable’s from Ducoffe’s (1996)

advertising model. Hutter and Hautz et al. (2013) support that brand awareness can positively

impact purchase intention because of directly assessing both variables without the presence of

intermediary variables.

The purpose behind research question #2 is to look at the effectiveness of brand

awareness on influencing how consumers find social media marketing to be informative,

entertaining and/or credible. This is important to know as variables like informativeness and

entertainment are important variables within Ducoffe’s (1996) model, whereas brand awareness

is a necessity within HOE. A potential looming question pertains to whether a brand with more

(real or perceived) awareness can push out social media content that can be considered as

informative, entertaining and/or credible.

 25

When evaluated for entertainment appeal, how does brand awareness affect whether

consumers find social media advertising to be more entertaining? Studying entertainment as a

variable is helpful to determine whether more well-known brands can push out online content

that is considered to be of more entertainment value.

Another question is to see if brand awareness can alter whether consumers find social

media marketing to appear credible? For example, do consumers feel that content from more

recognized brands comes across as more credible?

The purpose of research question #3 is to assess whether the variable informativeness,

positively affects how consumers perceive social media marketing [advertising] value. Research

questions #4 and #5 assess the same scenario for variables entertainment and credibility

respectively. Literature review highlights the importance of further assessing the three variables

in question in conjunction with their affect toward social media marketing [advertising] value.

Research question #6 attempts to see how much consumers’ perceptions toward social

media marketing [advertising] value ultimately impacts purchase intention. Within this study,

antecedent variables are reviewed to see their impact on social media marketing [advertising]

value. A key initiative for this study is to better understand whether social media marketing

[advertising] value impacts purchase intention.

Understanding how marketing and/or advertising efforts best drive consumers’ purchase

decisions is the goal for this study. Marketers with knowledge of what gets shoppers to buy can

advertise better in a competitive landscape. Social media is merely but one way to advertise.

Research question #7 reviews the variable annoyance and/or irritation. Does annoyance

and/or irritation negatively moderate the extent of social media marketing [advertising] value
 26

versus consumers’ intent to purchase? Florenthal (2019) addresses the importance to look at

demotivator variables for their ability to mediate and/or moderate an outcome.

Research questions within this study are designed to answer specific questions.

Literature review serves as precedence for the inclusion of research questions to be examined. In

summary, research questions for this study are as follows:

RQ1. How does brand awareness affect purchase decision?

RQ2. How does brand awareness ultimately impact whether consumers find social media
advertising content to be informative, entertaining, and credible?

RQ3. To what extent does informativeness impact social media marketing [advertising]
value?

RQ4. To what extent does entertainment impact social media marketing [advertising]
value?

RQ5. To what extent does credibility impact social media marketing [advertising] value?

RQ6. How does social media marketing [advertising] value influence purchase intention?

RQ7. To what extent does annoyance and/or irritation moderate the relationship between
social media marketing [advertising] value versus consumers’ intent to purchase?

Definition of Key Terms

Social Media. This can be any online application, program, platform, or mass media tool

that facilitates interaction, collaboration, or content sharing between users in general (Sheth and

Kim, 2017). Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are generally considered as some of the more

popular social media platforms (Sharma and Singh et al., 2021). Consumers’ decisions to

interact (or engage), collaborate and content share with businesses suggests that people see value

in social media (Rodgers and Thorson, 2018). Ducoffe’s (1996) assessment of value of
 27

advertising is seen as an extension of U&G theory within mass communications. U&G theory

posits that [advertising] information accouterment should build in need-satisfying action

associated with social media advertising (Ducoffe, 1996).

Duffett (2020) acknowledges that studies using Ducoffe’s (1996) advertising value

attitude model and/or Brackett and Carr’s (2001) Web Advertising Attitude model (or variations

of similar models) to examine consumers’ attitudes toward advertising typically include

variables informativeness, entertainment, credibility and irritation. Other social media-related

studies assess attitudinal buyer behavior components such as purchase intention and/or actual

purchase (Wang 2015), (Stanic and Hansson, 2017), and (Sokolova and Kefi et al., 2020). A

beginning IV component of the HOE model begins with brand awareness. Purchase intention is

a popular DV (Dependent Variable) assessed across similar social media studies (Hutter & Hautz

et al., 2013).

Purchase Intention. This is consumers’ predisposition to purchase a product or service

(Sheth and Kim, 2017). Determining variables that can most impact purchase intention is

perhaps the pinnacle of marketing research objectives. Prior studies point out that consumers

perceiving value toward [social media] advertising can positively affect their purchase intention

(Mitchell and Olson, 1981). Purchase intention is important to measure as Fishbein and Ajzen

(2011) said, “the stronger the intention to perform a behavior, the more likely it is to be actually

performed”.

Purchase intention is an important part of HOE theory. Furthermore, it is one of the more

commonly studied marketing variables. The variable purchase intention is associated with the

likelihood that a shopper will buy a product or service in an immediate timeframe (Ajzen and
 28

Fishbein, 1980). HOE is a relatively known marketing theory that is commonly cited within

research that assesses purchase intention.

Like other proposed variables for assessment within this study, purchase intention

oversteps social media study boundaries. Dao and Le (2014) tack on the HOE model variable

purchase intention with several variables from Ducoffe’s (1996) model. Purchase intention (or

such a similar outcome as in an actual purchase) is usually assessed as a penultimate DV within

advertising and/or marketing research.

Social Media Marketing [Advertising] Value. Social Media Marketing [Advertising]

Value (also known as SMMAV within this study) is the real (or perception of real) assessment of

advertising value (Ducoffe, 1996). Advertising value is the crucial DV within Ducoffe’s (1996)

model. This study merely looks at advertising value among social media users. Arora and

Argarwal (2019) successfully review [social media] advertising value through the inclusion of

IVs across similar models, or theories. Additional studies, such as those by Almohaimmeed

(2019), Bilgin (2018), Cuesta-Valino and Rodriguez et al. (2020) and Raza and Kaman (2021)

successfully draw association between variables in Ducoffe’s (1996) model through social media

marketing value to HOE model variables like [brand] loyalty and/or purchase intention.

Understanding the importance that consumers place on [social media] advertising and/or

marketing value will provide fruitful insights toward connecting better with current and/or

prospective customers. Marketing managers will benefit by knowing how SMMAV impacts

latter variables within HOE theory such as purchase intention and potentially [brand] loyalty.

Brand Awareness. Brand Awareness (or BA within this study) is defined as a brand

coming to the attention of the consumer before value assessment based upon advertising are
 29

made. Anything can bring a person to get a sense of a brand (e.g., a brand’s advertising,

promotion, publicity, public relations, social media content, billboard, TV ad, etc…) (Hutter and

Hautz et al., 2013). In effect, brand awareness is the very first cognitive variable along the

consumers’ journey to ultimately buy a product, or service. Brand awareness can develop from

online or offline sources while working in tandem to reinforce a brand’s presence! For example,

a shopper may first hear of a brand by seeing a billboard on the side of a road or receiving a

piece of direct mail through the USPS (United States Postal Service), also known as offline

advertising, yet later encounter the brand in an online advertisement. It is important that

marketers better understand how offline and online advertising mutually co-exist. According to

USPS (2020) publication titled Evolution of a Medium, new technology such as Informed

Delivery and/or AR are being used to help create better omnichannel communication experiences

for organizations and their stakeholders through digital innovations transforming direct mail.

Aligning offline and online marketing strategies is most present among practitioner

marketers leveraging omnichannel. Omnichannel is a marketing strategy leveraging a

multichannel approach to sales that seeks to give consumers a seamless marketing and shopping

experience, whether they're purchasing online from a desktop or mobile device, by telephone, or

in a brick-and-mortar store. In other words, omnichannel efforts transcend consumers’ online

and offline experiences to help sustain consistent branding and/or brand awareness.

Brand awareness applies to the ability of shoppers to remember, or recall a brand

(Barreda and Bilgihan et al., 2015). Hollebeek and Glynn et al. (2013) acknowledge that brand

awareness is made up of stakeholders’ mental associations toward a brand, or organization. It

takes up an important facet of consumers’ buying decision-making processes. Well-known

brands are more likely to be considered for purchase than unknown brands (Horn and Liu et al.,
 30

2011). Brand awareness is shown to be both among the most important (and possibly most

influential step) in whether a consumer ultimately purchases a brand’s product or service,

according to HOE theory. The importance of brand awareness is further supported through

Pfeffer and Zorbach (2013) citing that improving brand awareness is among the top objectives

for marketing managers. Duffett (2020) also begins his model with the variable awareness

toward his objective to see its impact on both actual purchase and intention-to-purchase.

Past studies show that brand awareness positively affects whether consumers develop a

preference (or liking) to a brand as well as an influence toward purchase intention, or comparable

variable (e.g., brand loyalty). Previous study results come with varying degrees though. Duffet

(2020), Hutter and Hautz et al. (2013) and Bilgin (2018) report brand awareness with a path

coefficient of ranging from 0.03 to 0.30 against the primary DV objective within the context of

their respective studies. Such positive influence also holds true when assessing the impact of

brand awareness on other variables (e.g., entertainment, informativeness, etc…) in previous

studies. Furthermore, other studies tend to look at brand awareness as a mediator but not

necessarily as an IV despite its traditional placement within HOE theory. Duffett (2020) is an

exception. Similar to Duffett (2020), this study aligns brand awareness with HOE theory and

assesses brand awareness as a leading IV.

Informativeness. Informativeness (otherwise mentioned as INF within this study at

times) is the extent that consumers deem an advertisement to be a valuable source of information

and thus information presented in advertisements help purchase decisions (Brindha and

Rajakrishnan,). Logan and Bright et al. (2012) accept the importance of informativeness as a

variable when looking at advertising. Ducoffe (1996) illustrates that informativeness is shown to

have the most impact toward advertising value within his model. Cuesta-Valino and Rodriguez
 31

et al. (2020) include variables (including informativeness) that transcend the Ducoffe (1996)

model as well as variables like [purchase] intention from HOE theory.

Ducoffe (1996) specifically studies the variable informativeness. Also, Duffett (2020)

successfully links informativeness to knowledge within HOE theory as similar variables. This is

important to know since knowledge is an important part within HOE stages. Such a link can

further support the notion that informativeness can be a crossover variable between models.

Entertainment. Entertainment (sometimes referred to as ENT within this study) is an

expression of consumers’ preference toward an advertisement (Chungviwatanant and

Prasongsukarn et al. 2016). Other researchers, such as Shavitt and Lowrey et al. (1998) tie

entertainment to enjoyment associated with an ad. Sheth and Kim (2017) note that marketers are

using social media to attract, entertain and to build long term relationships with users to help

shape attitudes toward a brand. Online engagement is one method that can help shape attitudes

toward a brand in a way that lends to entertainment value.

Rodgers and Thorson (2018) acknowledge that social media engagement is the amount of

use a brand receives online in conjunction with how positively or negatively consumers evaluate

it. It has been proposed that engagement assesses influence toward other HOE metrics such as

brand loyalty and/or purchase intention. Online advertising comes in many forms (e.g., banner

ads, social media content marketing, word-of-mouth, etc…) across the multitude of platforms

ranging from blogs, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and beyond. Overall, engagement is an

antecedent that can potentially benefit entertainment value thus affecting various hierarchy of

levels as associated with HOE. Marketers that can integrate content with engagement to provide

entertainment that develops strong emotional connection stand the best chance to pass on
 32

information to affect purchase intention (Sheth and Kim, 2017). The arrival of the Metaverse

might potentially enhance shoppers’ online entertainment experience(s).

Duffett (2020) also cites entertainment, another variable present in the Ducoffe (1996)

model, as being aligned with the affective stage of the HOE model. Duffett (2020) assesses the

variable ‘liking’ which is explicitly mentioned in the HOE model; however, can merge with

entertainment as something that can impact whether consumers purchase because of advertising.

Duffet’s alignment of variables is further supported by Zhang and Mao (2016) and Jung and Min

(2011) who present evidence of entertainment affecting consumers attitudes toward advertising.

Credibility. Credibility (also known as CRED within this study) looks at the degree of

feeling toward assertions that an ad portrays about a brand, product, or service (Arora and

Agarwal 2019). Jin and Villegas (2007) point out that credibility can emphatically affect

consumers thoughts and actions. Social media advertisements are thought to be more credible

than other forms of advertising (Mangold and Faulds, 2009). Sheth and Kim (2017) point out

(within their study) that 56% of internet users in America feel both a stronger connection and are

better served by organizations using social media to engage with consumers. Expensive ads can

sometimes lend to credibility and entertainment value (Campbell and Plangger et al., 2021);

however, social media advertising is proving to be an excellent low-cost alternative that

enhances consumers’ preference toward a brand, product or service more (Rodgers and Thorson,

2018). Finally, Phan and Pham et al. (2020) conclude that consumer trust helps encourage

consumer engagement in the social commerce environment.

Credibility is not a factor in Ducoffe’s (1996) model, or the HOE model; however, does

align with the affective stage of HOE theory (Arora and Agarwal, 2019). Credibility and/or trust

can accompany preference and conviction toward a brand. Arora and Agarwal (2019) include
 33

credibility in their SEM (Structural Equation Model) that looks at variables influencing social

media marketing [advertising] value. Likewise, Sheth and Kim (2017) assess the importance

that a similar variable trust plays against consumers’ purchase intentions within online

marketing. Similar to other social media advertising studies, the Arora and Agarwal (2019)

model does not look at the variables annoyance and/or irritation as a mediator or moderator.

Organizations leveraging online influencers stand to gain credibility. For example,

Casagrande and Yamawaki et al. (2018) and Sheth and Kim (2017) cite that some consumers are

more likely to listen to information from other people they trust (e.g., family & friends,

influencers, etc…).

Nike utilized its Michael Jordan endorsement with an initial ‘Air Jordan’ shoe launch in

1985. By 1991, Nike’s ‘Air Jordan’ sales amounted to around $200 million annually. By 2012,

the Jordan brand was netting $2.5 billion a year (Daily, 2018). Can every organization be as

successful as Nike when it comes to leveraging influencers and/or other means to build

credibility? No; however, organizations can still benefit from positive steps taken to increase

credibility, within the online environment though. Sneaker brands were among the first and most

successful to leverage influencers. Sneaker brands now appear to be early adopters of Web 3.0

technologies (Lee, 2022), especially use of NFTs.

SMSs like Instagram and Tik Tok, but not necessarily Facebook, are important as they

are among the better social media platforms for influencer outreach and marketing

(SocialPubli.com, 2019). Studying credibility on popular SMSs can serve as a gateway to assess

credibility (which can include influencer outreach) in future research. Furthermore, Casagrande

and Yamawaki et al. (2018) acknowledge that advertising credibility [on Instagram and/or social

media] can be enhanced through the right influencer outreach campaign. Seeing whether brand
 34

awareness (a main staple in the HOE model) impacts credibility can potentially advance social

media marketing [advertising] value analysis.

Consumers who are members of a brand related group, community or culture on SMSs

can better identify with a particular brand (Sheth and Kim, 2017). Creating such an attitude

toward a brand can enhance the viability of information communicated through online measures.

In essence, getting consumers involved with a brand or community online can potentially impact

attitude toward social media [marketing] advertising value thus impacting consumers’ purchase

intentions. Hyken (2022) acknowledges that credibility (or like variables such as trust) has

become a solid marketing strategy.

Annoyance / Irritation. Annoyance and/or Irritation (possibly referred to as ANN/IRR within this

study) are factors that can potentially have a negative impact on social media audiences (Hutter

and Hautz, et al., 2013). Aaker and Bruzzone (1985) list factors that can potentially lead to

advertising irritation which include (but are not limited too):

• Advertisement of a sensitive product.

• Situations perceived as unbelievable or overdramatized.

• A person being “put down” regarding appearance.

• Perceptions that an important relationship is being threatened.

• Graphic content of physical discomfort.

• An unattractive, or unsympathetic person.

• Poor casting.

Other researchers list variables that can potentially annoy consumers. For instance,

Smith (2011) acknowledges that intrusive content (e.g., pop-up content) can negatively impact
 35

whether an advertisement is well received. Overall, irritation has been shown to exhibit a minor

negative effect on other DVs and/or mediator variables in past similar studies (Firat, 2019;

Voorveld and van Noort et al., 2018; Smith 2011; Hutter and Hautz et al., 2013; Ducoffe, 1996;

Myers and Han, 2018).

This study utilizes prior literature as a baseline for assessment of the variable annoyance

and/or irritation. This study uses SEM to quantitatively look at demotivator variables.

Qualitative assessment is used to supplement findings to determine potential future study for

demotivator variables.

Annoyance and/or irritation as a variable transcends social media assessment models and

thus is warranted for inclusion in future similar research. Historically, the variable has been

assessed as an IV (Hutter & Hautz et al., 2013) but not necessarily as a DV, mediator or

moderator. Florenthal (2019) suggests that irritation needs to be looked at from a different angle

though (e.g., moderator versus IV). Literature reviews demonstrate that demotivator variables

have been understudied.

 36

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Social media is contributing to an unprecedented cache of merriment and information

(Duffett, 2020). Such an enormous amount of content is changing the way advertisers and

marketers correspond with current and/or potential customers (Hutter and Hautz et al., 2013),

(Bilgin, 2018), (Hollebeek and Glynn et al., 2013), (Almohaimmeed, 2019), (Sheth and Kim,

2017), (Phan and Pham et al. 2020), (Sharma and Singh et al. 2021) & (Logan and Bright et al.,

2012). The amount of impact that social media encourages people to ultimately purchase, or

become a brand loyalist by product category is debatable; however, the impact can be explained

somewhat through quantitative analysis in previous academic and practitioner studies.

Companies need to attract and keep new customers to maintain and sustain competitive

advantages. The advent of new social media and Web 3.0 platforms is changing how

organizations interact and communicate with customers (Phan and Pham et al. 2020). Web 3.0 is

defined as third-generation online platforms where Artificial Intelligence (AI), Augmented

Reality (AR), Virtual Reality (VR) and blockchain-based decentralized currencies (e.g., Bitcoin,

Dogecoin, etc…) help enhance consumers’ experiences online (Roy, 2021). Marketing and sales

funnels that are closely aligned with HOE and similar strategies, funnels that are leveraged by

many marketing practitioners and salespersons, have proven useful in tracking consumers from

HOE stages brand awareness through purchase and beyond.

Cabrera (2017) examines such a sales funnel to review consumers’ purchasing processes.

Cabrera acknowledges that similar practitioner side marketing and sales funnels typically hover

around having five stages including (but not limited too):

1. Awareness

2. Consideration
 37

3. Purchase

4. Loyalty

5. Engagement

Cabrera’s (2017) sales funnel overview closely aligns with HOE theory that begins with

[brand] awareness along with the inclusion of purchase intention. Like sales funnels, HOE helps

explain consumer’ sales funnel versus buying habits beginning with [brand] awareness and

ending in purchase. Table 1 below titled ‘Sales Funnel Stages vs. HOE Theory Stages’ links

academics marketing theory against real-world application of HOE that is universally applicable

across online and offline marketing.

Table 1

Sales Funnel Stages vs. HOE Theory Stages

Step Sales Funnel Stages HOE Theory Stages

1 Brand Awareness Awareness

2 Consideration Knowledge

3 Purchase Liking

4 Loyalty Preference

5 Engagement Conviction

6 N/A Purchase

Note. This table compares topics aligned with more traditional marketing practitioner sales

funnel stages versus as presented within HOE. Information for sales funnel stages comes from

Cabrera (2017); HOE Theory stages derives from Hutter and Hautz et al. (2013).
 38

Cabrera’s sales funnel topics are not an identical overlap with HOE theory, but they are

similar in nature. Cabrera’s sales funnel analysis is merely one of many potential real-world

marketing and sales funnel approaches that align with, and which are based on, HOE. In fact,

Cabrera (2017) cites Hutter and Hautz et al. (2013) several times in his study titled Measuring

Digital Era Impact on Brand Interaction among Young Emerging Consumers: A Case of

Columbian Consumers. Cabrera’s study is important in that he looks at the impact of social

networks on variables associated with more traditional marketing and sales funnel approaches.

Most important is that Cabrera’s study considers that consumers’ shopping behavior has changed

through use of digital networks.

Cabrera (2017) does not directly incorporate Ducoffe’s (1996) advertising value model

within his approach. Cabrera’s (2017) work does, however, appear to indirectly bring in other

marketing theory (e.g., Consumer Culture Theory) and specifically mentions U&G theory to

supplement HOE theory within his paper. It is important that Cabrera cites both HOE and U&G

within his study as Ducoffe’s (1996) model derives from U&G theory. Cabrera’s (2017) study is

not necessarily the same as other like studies; however, Cabrera shows that it is possible to

successfully merge complementing marketing concepts associated with both Ducoffe’s (1996)

advertising value model and HOE to yield fruitful findings.

HOE is not necessarily the end-all-be-all of marketing models. For example, Weilbacher

(2001) questions whether advertising impacts HOE in his paper titled Point of View: Does

Advertising Cause a “Hierarchy of Effects”? Weilbacher argues that HOE models do not portray

a good description of consumer buying processes. Weilbacher’s paper acknowledges that HOE

models have been around over 100 years yet lacked empirically supported findings (at the time

of publish). Ironically, it is important to note that Weilbacher’s paper is a qualitative overview

 39

and thus lacks empirical evidence to thoroughly counter HOE. Weilbacher’s paper is important

in that it sheds light on the necessity for quantitative metrics pertaining to HOE. Fortunately,

recent studies such as by Duffett (2020) are starting to bring empirical findings around HOE to

the forefront. Despite being published over 15 years apart, both Weilbacher (2001) and

Florenthal (2019) point to the growing need to further study and perform quantitative analysis

within the marketing realm (whether online or offline).

It is necessary to understand how online marketing and/or social media are changing the

marketing landscape, especially on social media platforms and upcoming Web 3.0 technologies

with a growing user base. Most important is to know how to further build upon existing social

media research to broaden actionable insights. An article published in the Wall Street Journal on

1 December 2020 titled “Digital Takes Lion’s Share of Ads” further illustrates the significance of

online marketing through increasing digital ad spending in today’s advertising landscape.

Furthermore, Raza and Zaman (2021) acknowledge the rise in digital advertising spend.

Jade (2016) points out that millennials are actively using social media to share

experiences and interact with brands. This is otherwise known as online engagement (Rodgers

and Thorson, 2018). Millennials’ propensity to further utilize social media can be expected to

grow in the upcoming years. Dodoo and Youn (2021) point to fast adoption rates of new social

media platforms, such as Tik Tok, that are becoming more mainstream. Facebook arguably has

the most users with approximately 2.45 billion currently; however, many other competitive social

media platforms maintain and sustain millions of active users. Table 2 below titled ‘Number of

Social Media Users by Social Media Platform’ details a list of active users for some of the more

popular SMSs.
 40

Table 2

Number of Social Media Users by Social Media Platform

SMS (Social Media Site) Active monthly users

Facebook 2.45 billion

Instagram 1 billion

Snapchat 360 million

Twitter 330 million

Note. This table presents the number of active users among popular SMSs. Active

monthly users data comes from Dodoo and Youn (2021).

Table 2 is not comprehensive list of SMSs as Dodoo and Youn (2021) do not include up-

and-coming SMSs like Tik Tok, or Reddit. Neither Tik Tok or Reddit appear to be heavily

studied within marketing related academic studies. In fact, a Google Scholar search using the

phrase ‘tik tok marketing’ on 10 March 2021 at 0640 MST (Mountain Standard Time) returned a

mere 11,300 results. For comparison, a Google Scholar search using the phrase ‘Facebook

marketing’ returned 2,320,000 results. Studying data on platforms other than Facebook is

important as the up-and-coming SMS Tik Tok reportedly already has 1.2 billion average monthly

users (Perez, 2020). Pisani (2021) with the Wall Street Journal reports that Tik Tok received

more web traffic than Facebook in 2021.

Florenthal (2019) writes about weaknesses of other social media studies. Florenthal

(2019) mentions weaknesses including (but not limited too):

• Facebook being one of the most researched social media platforms. This is
further supported by Ferreira and Barbosa (2017), Phan and Pham et al. (2020)
and Rodgers and Thorson (2018), who also allude to a multitude of social media
studies centering on Facebook and/or Facebook metrics. In many cases, authors
acknowledge doing their study on Facebook but recommend that future studies
 41

look toward other social media platforms (Wirtz and Göttel et al. 2017) and
(Wallace and Buil et al. 2020).

• Social media studies failing to conceptualize mediating and/or moderating

variables.

• Too few social media studies expanding upon Ducoffe’s (1996) model, which is
based on the U&G theory, in terms of extending research on the effect of
irritation, or similar demotivating variables (e.g., annoyance) as a mediator and/or
moderator.

Theoretical Orientation and Conceptual Development

The following sections review the theoretical orientation and provide a conceptual map of

a predictive model for use within this study. Conceptual development is built around variables

present across HOE and Ducoffe’s (1996) advertising model as presented in similar past

research. This section provides a breakdown of constructs as well as thorough explanation of

relationships among constructs or concepts for this study.

Hierarchy of Effects (HOE) model

Heuristics are a set of rules to help with decision making (Dictionary.com, 2020). Sheth

and Mittal (2004) state that heuristics are quick “rules of thumb” and shortcuts used in decision

processes. According to Sheth and Mittal (2004), heuristics are effective as they can be carried

out multiple ways including (but not limited too):

• Coming about as broad inferences that can be referenced quickly from even
partial information.

• Being cited through past experiences.

• Familiarity with brand names to exclude the seeking of further attribute

information.

Keller (1993) and Wu and Lu et al. (2017) argue that heuristics are important in helping

consumers synthesize information, specifically within the realm of advertisement persuasion.

 42

Branding can be a great example of how heuristics work in action to simplify consumers’

decision-making processes. Heuristics contribute to utilitarian value for consumers by reducing

potential shopping options.

Branding is an approach to communicate values linked with an organization, its products

and/or service(s) (Bertilsson and Rennstam, 2018). Hamlin and Wilson (2004) acknowledge the

importance branding has on consumers’ decision-making processes, especially for low-

involvement products and/or services. An example of a low-involvement product and/or

services includes grocery store items (e.g., soft drink, shampoo, fast-food options, etc…). Hutter

and Hautz et al. (2013) discuss the importance of branding for high-involvement products and/or

services (e.g., vehicles); however, acknowledge that consumers sometimes take more time to

search and sift through information before making a final intent to purchase for high-

involvement product and/or service(s). At its core, HOE is merely a scheme that helps explain

consumers’ decision making processes thus building in heuristics within marketing.

The HOE model posits that consumers step across several attitudinal stages (e.g.,

cognitive, affective, and conative) in reaction toward online or offline advertising (Duffett,

2020). Within each attitudinal stage lies sub-stages. The cognitive phase consists of awareness

and knowledge. The affective stage includes sub-stages of liking, preference, and conviction

toward advertising. The final stage, conative, addresses areas associated with purchase intention

and loyalty. Other researchers, such as Rodgers and Thorson (2018), acknowledge similar

stages.

Lavidge and Steiner (1961) came up with arguably the most recognized HOE models.

Lavidge and Steiner’s model acknowledges that consumers may initially be unaware of a brand.

Creating brand awareness is thus one of the first and therefore most important parts of the
 43

Lavidge and Steiner (1961) HOE model. The more consumers are aware of a brand, the more

likely they will buy it (Gustafson and Chabot, 2007). HOE aligns closely with marketing

practitioner side marketing and sales funnel approaches (Cabrera, 2017). For instance, Patel and

Siu (2022) acknowledge the importance of building a brand as well as brand awareness. Such

alignment emphasizes the real-world applicability of HOE specifically.

Bilgin (2018) uses a SEM in his study titled The Effect of Social Media Marketing

Activities on Brand Awareness, Brand Image, and Brand Loyalty to illustrate how an

organizations’ social media activities can impact brand awareness. Bilgins’ analysis shows that

social media activities can have a compelling outcome on consumers’ brand awareness. Bilgins’

study does not explicitly focus on any marketing model; however, his findings show

encouragement toward the possibility that social media serves as an excellent advertising

apparatus. Bilgin (2018) leverages variables commonly found across existing marketing models.

Likewise, Rodgers and Thorson (2018) illustrate how some social media marketing activities

positively affect consumers’ purchase intentions.

Hutter and Hautz et al., (2013) use the HOE model as their base theory. Interestingly,

they assess the variable ‘annoyance’ although is not actually featured within the stages of the

HOE model. The inclusion of the variable ‘annoyance’ as a precedent allowing a crossover of

variables from one potential theory to another can add value toward findings while aligning with

Florenthal’s (2019) argument that hybrid models are now necessary to take social media research

to the next level. HOE serves as the baseline model within this study.

Ducoffe’s (1996) Advertising Value model

Ducoffe’s (1996) advertising model is based on U&G theory. U&G theory explains

audience behaviors through engagement across various forms of advertising (Sheth and Kim,
 44

2017). U&G theory focuses on what consumers do with media through specific channels and

content. Sheth and Kim (2017) argue that the HOE is potentially a subset of U&G theory

through the inclusion of several categories aligning with consumers’ cognitive, affective and

conative needs. No known sources officially codify HOE as an official subset of U&G theory

though. Sheth and Kim’s (2017) ability to tie U&G theory with HOE further points to the

possibility of integration of variables across similar marketing models.

Lim (2015) discovered that an integrated marketing model and/or data set returns a

“higher degree of explanatory power” versus an underlying model that does not merge separate

theories. Ducoffe’s (1996) model looks at the impact that the IV irritation has toward advertising

value. Similarly, Hutter and Hautz et al. (2013) assess a similar demotivator variable called

annoyance within their study to see its effect but on the DV purchase intention. None of the

aforementioned models features a demotivating variable as a mediator and/or moderator.

Imagine the interpretive potential of looking at a demotivator variable that transcends both

Ducoffe’s (1996) and representation of the HOE model within the Hutter and Hautz et al. (2013)

study.

Prior similar social media activities have been shown to positively affect consumer

purchase intention. Saboo et al. (2016) demonstrated the positive value that social media

activities contribute to sales within the music industry. Recent studies such as by Dodoo and

Youn et al. (2021) and Raza and Kaman (2021) effectively link social media activities, which

span across HOE and Ducoffe’s (1996) advertising value model. Furthermore, Dodoo and Youn

et al. (2021) assess the variable entertainment, as presented in Ducoffe’s (1996) model, as a

driver of consumers’ purchase intent.

 45

Why Utilize Variables Across Models?

Social media advertising and marketing research is at a confluence where additional

context is necessary to fully shed light on which variable relationships lend credence to the

online and offline marketing realms. Florenthal (2019) also acknowledges that feebleness with

Ducoffe’s (1996) model is that it fails to include behavioral outcomes. Other analysts have

attempted to broaden Ducoffe’s (1996) model by building in behavioral conclusions (e.g.,

purchase intention); however, continue to lack mediating and/or moderating variables.

A recent study titled Social Media Activities and Its Influence on Customer-Brand

Relationship: An Empirical Study of Apparel Retailers’ Activity in India by Sharma and Singh et

al. (2021) alludes to the necessity for future marketing studies to look at different social media

marketing variables under different scenarios. Sharma and Singh et al. (2021) assess variables

‘Informativeness’ and ‘Purchase Intention’ which both align with Ducoffe’s (1996) advertising

value model as well as HOE. Furthermore, Sharma and Singh et al. (2021) review the variable

‘Trust’ which associates with the variable ‘Credibility’ found within the Duffett (2020) study.

As another example, Almohaimmeed (2019) looks at relationships between antecedents

of social media marketing and its effect on brand loyalty and purchase intention but without an

explicit moderating variable. Almohajmmeed’s (2019) study suggests that perhaps Florenthal’s

(2019) most important contribution to social media marketing research is the argument that

proposes future social media researchers consider synthesizing social media marketing studies

around Ducoffe’s (1996) model with other complementing theories in addition to the inclusion of

different mediator and/or moderator variables.

Yang and Huang et al. (2017) use a similar strategy of merging marketing model

variables by combining concepts from Brackett and Carr’s (2001) Web Advertising Attitudes
 46

Model with TRA (Theory of Reasoned Action) and the. Similarly, Almohaimmed (2019)

assesses variables across models although with an emphasis on HOE. Also, Phan & Pham et al.

(2020) synthesize variables across popular social commerce concepts including the U&G theory

and Content and Social Exchange theories. Sharma and Singh et al. (2021) borrow elements

spanning several concepts around models looking at consumers’ buying behavior including TRA

as well as the TPB (Theory of Planned Behavior). Combining variables across studies and/or

social media marketing concepts is not uncommon in past similar marketing research.

Integrating useful variables across marketing models is proving to be a gamechanger to further

social media marketing research specifically. Researchers are starting to showcase the impact

of examining variables across studies.

This study builds out a hybrid model focusing on the HOE model continuum, but with the

inclusion prominent variables of importance from Ducoffe’s (1996) advertising value model.

Some of the primary variables of interest (including variables ‘informativeness’, ‘entertainment’,

and ‘advertising value’) come from Ducoffe’s (1996) model. A representation of Ducoffe’s

(1996) model can be seen in Figure I below titled ‘Ducoffe’s (1996) Structural Model for

Advertising Value’.
 47

Figure 1

Ducoffe’s (1996) Structural Model for Advertising Value

Note. Figure 1 depicts Robert H. Ducoffe’s (1996) advertising value model.

Ducoffe’s (1996) model is chosen as it lends itself as a milestone academic article

determining advertising value. In fact, Ducoffe’s (1996) model, as featured in the Journal of

Current Issues & Research in Advertising, has received over 850 citations according to Google

Scholar. Ducoffe’s (1996) model includes a like ‘annoyance’ variable called ‘irritation’. Hutter

and Hautz et al. (2013) include a variable ‘annoyance’ within their assessment of the HOE model

(which includes a continuum of marketing-related variables from ‘brand awareness’ through

‘purchase intention’); however, ‘annoyance’ itself is not a specific area within HOE theory.

Other researchers, like Duffett (2020), successfully tie in variables across multiple

marketing and consumer behavioral models. Duffett (2020) considers the effect of social media
 48

marketing on attitudinal associations of response hierarchy models. For example, Duffett (2020)

successfully integrates concepts from Lavidge and Steiner’s HOE model and Consumer

Acceptance Theory.

Florenthal (2019) notes that too few social media studies have yet fully integrated

multiple theories, especially in relation to consumers’ behavior on SMSs. Only a finite amount

of online marketing studies have begun to amalgamate marketing theories, especially from data

among consumers on SMSs beyond Facebook primarily, to describe online consumer behavior

overall (Muk and Chang, 2014). Other researchers like Lim (2015) have proposed integrating

Ducoffe’s (1996) model with other theories though.

Why integrate advertising and marketing theories? Lim (2015) shows that merging

marketing theories opens a realm of research possibilities. This study aims to integrate theories

to expand the explanatory power of relationships among variables influencing advertising and/or

marketing value within the social media realm. Furthermore, this study provides originality by

a) conceptualizing moderation around demotivator variables (e.g., irritation, annoyance, etc…),

b) integrating theories that complement one another in a way that mitigate a shortcoming of a

particular study, c) focusing on social media platforms in addition to Facebook and d) homing in

on a population other than solely students.

Why Focus Social Media Research Beyond Facebook?

There is a growing importance to direct social media research away from primarily

Facebook. For instance, new research by social media practitioners is beginning to show

consumers are spending more time away from Facebook (Southern, 2021). Such is the case with

the newly emerging social media platform Tik Tok (Pisani, 2021). This does not mean

organizations need to solely focus on Tik Tok. For instance, talk about the Metaverse, NFTs,
 49

AR, VR and other Web 3.0 technologies is on the rise. Trendy SMSs arise frequently. This does

emphasize the importance to look beyond Facebook.

Pham and Gammoh (2015) point out that leading SMSs included Facebook, Twitter and

YouTube. Up-and-coming SMSs like Instagram, Reddit, Snapchat and Tik Tok among others

warrant additional study. This does not mean newer social media platforms need to be the only

focus; however, it does illustrate the importance of integrating data from users on newer social

media platforms within future social media research.

Why Focus Social Media Research Beyond a Student Population?

A focus on overall general consumers as a population of interest will bring a different

flavor to academic social media research that commonly uses student samples, such as the case

with studies by Murillo and Merion et al. (2016), Johnston and Khalil et al. (2018), Lee and Lee

et al. (2017) and Dehghani and Niaki et al. (2016) among many others.

Online advertising and social media should be considered an important component of any

marketing plan, especially as a low-cost method to increase brand awareness. Bilgin (2018)

further shows how social media marketing activities influence consumers’ brand awareness.

Bilgin acknowledges that his study results align with findings from other brand awareness

research endeavors. More important is that Bilgin (2018) shows how brand awareness affects

brand loyalty, which Hutter and Hautz et al. (2013) tie to purchase intention. Bilgin (2018) fully

demonstrates the relevance of the HOE as a potential and reliable marketing theory.

Why look at Demotivator Variables?

Ducoffe (1996) looks at the demotivating variable irritation as an IV. Hutter and Hautz et

al. (2013) assess a similar demotivator variable in annoyance but once again as an IV. Florenthal
 50

(2019) acknowledges that few studies have fully looked at demotivating variables, especially as

mediator and moderator variables. Dolan et al. (2016) assesses similar factors (e.g., dormancy,

detachment, etc…) that negatively affect shopping behavior. Dehghani and Niaki et al. (2016)

look at the impact of irritation on brand awareness and purchase intention around research on the

popular video site YouTube. Both brand awareness and purchase intention are critical variables

within HOE theory. Unfortunately, only a handful of studies spanning over 20 years beginning

since Ducoffe’s (1996) model through recent studies by Dolan et al. (2016) and Dehghani and

Niaki et al. (2016) have moved the needle in terms of expanding upon of demotivating variables

within the social media realm. This is further supported by Florenthal (2019) who says

demotivating variables need to be looked at as mediating and/or moderating variables. This

study seeks to further shore up a need to assess demotivating variables but as moderating

variable primarily.

Social Media History Background

The first discernible SMS came about in 1997. It was called Six Degrees (Hendriks,

2019). Six Degrees allowed members to upload photos and interact. Social media has taken off

since the late 90s (Edosomwan and Prakasan et al., 2011) & (Sheth and Kim, 2017). Blogs

emerged as a viable social media outlet in the early 2000s. Popular social media sites such as

Facebook, Reddit, Twitter and YouTube appeared on the social media scene during the mid-

2000s. Newcomers to the social media arena include Instagram, Snapchat, Tik Tok, the

Metaverse, NFTs and other Web 3.0 technologies; however, newer platforms are proving to be

social media juggernauts for marketers to leverage. More SMSs may arise in upcoming years.

This is especially true in the realms of voice social, AR, VR, NFTs and other Web 3.0

technologies. Such is evidenced through market offerings using voice communication in

 51

conjunction with social media such as Clubhouse and Discord. Twitter recently debuted a new

voice tweet feature (Leskin, 2020). The advent of the Metaverse further alludes to the

importance of new social media platforms to the extent that Facebook is now repositioning its

brand as Meta (Kessler, 2021).

Social media is taking on an increasing influence on consumers’ communication and

shopping habits (Hutter and Hautz et al., 2013), (Phan and Pham et al., 2020) and (Sharma and

Singh et al. 2021). The impact of social media on consumers’ communication, entertainment

and shopping quirks means brand related interactions and exposure to advertising campaigns are

escalating through social media (Cuesta-Valino and Rodriguez et al., 2020), (Laroche and Habibi

et al., 2012) and (Hollebeek and Glynn et al., 2013).

Almohaimmeed (2019) acknowledges that social media is bringing about a new “P” to

the existing marketing mix P’s (which are product, price, promotion and placement).

Almohaimmeed (2019) says the introduction of social media is leading to the emergence of the

five Ps, which are now product, price, promotion, placement, and participation (in social media

marketing). Participation aligns with engagement which Rodgers and Thorson (2018) show can

potentially impact marketing value and sales. Also, a key finding by Sharma and Singh (2021) is

that participation on social media platforms leads to stronger purchase intention. This holds

especially true within certain market segments, such as fashion (Yadav and Rahman, 2017). For

instance, Nike and Adidas are sneaker brands now looking to leverage newer Web 3.0

technologies to increase consumers participation (Lee, 2022). Organizations with abilities to

create value through social media marketing without detracting from messaging (via

demotivating factors) can potentially lead to increased purchased intent and ultimately sales.
 52

Advertising value is a critical variable within the Ducoffe (1996) advertising model.

Purchase intention plays a key aspect within the HOE continuum. Some prior studies, such as

that by Cuesta-Valino and Rodriguez et al. (2020), link social media marketing [advertising]

value to purchase intention. Florenthal (2019) acknowledges that very few (if any known)

studies assess demotivating factors as mediating and/or moderating variables within the Ducoffe

(1996) model and/or HOE framework. This study aims to bring about fruitful findings in this

area.

About 57% of the global population utilizes the internet; roughly 45% of the global

population is active on social media (Anjum and Thomas et al., 2019). Such a vast audience

gives marketers a unique opportunity to reach the masses through social media marketing.

Organizational public relations departments are finding value in social media as well (Sharma

and Singh et al., 2021).

Social media marketing is scheme of building up a brand, product and/or service on

social media networks (Anjum and Thomas et al., 2019). Social media marketing is driving

organizational growth, specifically through content marketing and engagement (Phan and Pham

et al., 2020). Hutchinson (2019) states that:

• Majority of marketers have an impression that content marketing boosts sales.

• Almost one-third of practitioner marketers sense that social media marketing

drives sales.

Anjum and Thomas et al. (2019) define content marketing as “a digital marketing

strategy that focuses on inventing and distributing relevant, valuable and insightful information

to retain customers.” The clear-cut goal of content marketing is to enhance communication

efforts to drive sales (Ruffolo, 2017). Content helps; however, merely supplements other online
 53

and offline marketing endeavors. Hollebeek and Glynn et al. (2013), Rodgers and Thorson

(2018) and Phan and Pham et al. (2020) stress the importance of social media engagement.

Furthermore, Sharma and Singh et al., (2021) insinuate that online communication is a two-way

process where brands interact (through engagement) with existing and potential customers.

Online engagement helps gratify a desire of togetherness as deemed necessary for social media

effectiveness and growth (Sheth and Kim, 2017).

Fox and Nakhata (2019) acknowledge that visual content performs well on social media.

For instance, Facebook posts with images receive a noticeable amount of more ‘likes’, comments

and clicks than posts without images (Corliss, 2012). Featuring graphic images can potentially

help improve content marketing; however, the advent of social media platforms Tik Tok,

Instagram Reels and Reddit’s recent acquisition of the video platform Dubsmash (Needleman,

2020) refers to the growing popularity of video within social media, especially among

Generation Z versus Generation Y consumers (Duffett, 2020). Cuesta-Valino and Rodriguez et

al. (2020) acknowledge that consumers are looking for information on social networks that

utilize image, or video. Furthermore, brands are starting to look at Web 3.0 as a viable

marketing avenue of approach with visual and engagement appeal.

Content marketing is important; however, it is but one of many (known and/or unknown)

variables contributing why consumers may, or may not connect with a brand’s social media

account(s). Content featuring image or video can be considered more entertaining and therefore

possibly more useful for enhancing communication. Credibility and informativeness, regardless

of whether in the form of an image or video, have among the strongest and most positive

influence on social media marketing [advertising] value (Cuesta-Valino and Rodriguez et al.,

2020).
 54

Logan and Bright et al. (2012) agree that informativeness is an important variable to

impact social media marketing [advertising] value. In contrast, Bilgins (2018) implies about the

importance of social media marketing activities being entertaining, interactive and customized

among other variables. Although different than looking at advertising value, Dolan and Conduit

et al. (2016) highlights the impact that demotivating variables can have on consumers’ social

media engagement behavior albeit not as moderating variables. Specifically, Dolan and Conduit

et al. (2016) highlight negative social media engagement behaviors around consumers’ potential

to make negative contributions to the social media community (e.g., post negative content about

a brand, product or service online).

Social media is affecting how brands advertise. Previous social media studies

demonstrate how social media can impact purchase intent. Sharma and Singh et al. (2021) and

Bilgin, (2018) acknowledge that social media provides a low-cost outlet for organizations to

reach the masses in a way that can net positive ROI (Return-on-Investment). Unfortunately,

prior social media research adhering to primarily one model or theory in conjunction with

Facebook as a primary data source are not advancing academic marketing knowledge

significantly. Some of the more unique social media studies are beginning to utilize variables

across different marketing concepts; however, remain primitive. This is due to a failure to a)

better merge variables across popular marketing approaches, b) not look at data on social media

platforms in addition to Facebook and c) not assess whether some variables can be better

analyzed to mediate and/or moderate an outcome. For example, Sharma and Singh et al., (2021)

do not include data from users on trendy social media platforms like Reddit and/or Tik Tok.

Social media data mining technology has been around since the mid-2000s (Baker, 2004).

Research organizations like Hubspot, Radian6 and Talkwalker currently lead the way leveraging
 55

data mining technologies to bring about social media analysis solutions. Such organizations can

aggregate consumers’ online postings from thousands of online sources, including social media

sources. Social media analysis is not without limitations. For instance, much social media data

lacks predictability unless paired against different data sources. Is it possible for marketers to

bring in social media analytic data for use with SEM? Could this potentially increase predictive

analytic capabilities for online data sources?

Hypothesis Development

The baseline model for assessment within this study is HOE with the inclusion of select

variables from the Ducoffe (1996) model. Literature review shows that combining variables

across models is a) common and b) necessary to continue to further knowledge across social

media research.

Purchase Intention

The main reason for this dissertation is to see how variables among complementing

marketing and consumer behavior ultimately affect consumers’ intent to purchase a product or

service. Marketing studies are further exploring how social media marketing activities affects

sales; however, much is left to be studied (Florenthal, 2019). HOE theory suggest that brand

awareness is one first variables along a consumers’ journey that affects purchase intention.

Sheth and Kim (2017) say that purchase intention is consumers’ actual willingness to purchase a

product or service. Finding causes that positively impact sales is perhaps the pinnacle of

marketing research objectives.

Purchase intention is a key component of HOE theory and one of the more commonly

studied marketing variables. The variable purchase intention is associated with the likelihood

that a shopper will buy a product or service in an immediate timeframe (Ajzen and Fishbein,
 56

1980). HOE is a relatively known marketing-related theory that is commonly cited within

research assessing purchase intention.

AIDA looks at the affects that Awareness, Interest, Desire and Action have on purchase

intention. AIDA is a familiar model within HOE theory that looks at purchase intention drivers

(Laksamana, 2018). AIDA is the HOE theory model specifically used by Hutter and Hautz et al.,

(2013). The AIDA model is important in that it transitions well between academia and

practitioner marketing application.

AIDA is merely another version of the currently popular HOE theory. AIDA tracks the

consumers’ journey from awareness through actual purchase (Hanlon, 2020). Like HOE, AIDA

assesses shoppers cognitive, affective and conative buying stages. HOE and/or AIDA can be

used to show how awareness ultimately drives purchase intention.

Purchase intention is in the final part of the conative stage within HOE and AIDA.

Hutter and Hautz et al. (2013) note that purchase intention is the psychological phase in the

buying process where a shopper establishes commitment to exchange their money for a product

and/or service (Hutter and Hautz et al., 2013). Keller (2008) says that marketers’ primary goal is

to get shoppers to plan to purchase.

The efficacy and efficiency of marketers’ social media efforts should be measured against

the ability to get consumers to decide to purchase from their firm. Social media efforts should

have enough clout to positively affect buyers’ purchase intention as a result (Hutter and Hautz et

al., 2013). Variables brand awareness, informativeness, entertainment, credibility and social

media [marketing] advertising value have been shown to positively affect purchase intention
 57

within like studies. In contrast, irritation has shown a modest negative affect toward sales

(Hutter and Hautz et al., 2013).

Purchase intention is a variable that appears in studies utilizing both HOE theory and

Ducoffe’s (1996) model. For example, Cuesta-Valino and Rodriguez et al. (2020) include

variables informativeness and entertainment from Ducoffe’s (1996) model in conjunction with

purchase intention from HOE theory. No studies found appear to be exactly the same; however,

recent similar research by Sharma and Singh et al. (2020), Duffett (2020) includes concepts from

both Ducoffe’s (1996) model and HOE theory. Despite notable dissimilarities, prior like

research show that most variables (with the exception of demotivator variables) within this study

tend to positively affect purchase intention.

Purchase intention is already an important factor baked into HOE. Recent research ties

Ducoffe’s (1996) model with HOE theory to illustrate how the shoppers’ journey from initially

learning about a brand through attainment of social media [marketing] advertising value can

drive purchase intention for a firm’s products, or services.

Prior studies point out that consumers’ thoughts toward social media marketing

[advertising] value positively affects purchase intention (Mitchell and Olson, 1981). Fishbein

and Ajzen (2011) call out the importance of measuring purchase intention. Purchase intention

eclipses other social media and marketing topics because it can potentially serve as an indicator

precluding actual purchase. This makes measuring purchase intention an iconic marketing

variable to assess within and around marketing-related studies.

Other marketing studies press that social media marketing [advertising] value positively

affects purchase intention (Kim and Han, 2014), (Martins et al., 2019), (Sheth and Kim, 2017),
 58

and (Almohaimmeed, 2019). The amount of impact that social media marketing [advertising]

value impacts consumers’ purchase intention continues to be dependent on many factors. The

mounting evidence in currently available published research supports the notion that purchase

intention is an important variable to continue to study.

Recent studies incorporating components across HOE theory and Ducoffe’s (1996)

advertising value model hint at the potential for further exploration. For example, Sharma and

Singh et al. (2020) successfully link social media marketing [advertising] value to purchase

intention. Similarly, Laksamana (2018) and Cuesta-Valino and Rodriguez et al. (2020)

demonstrate how social media value drives purchase intention.

In essence, HOE looks at the continuum from once a consumer becomes aware of a brand

through buying from said brand. Research question one within this study ascertains whether

brand awareness alone positively impacts purchase intention. Analysis by Hutter and Hautz et

al. (2013) supports the notion that brand awareness can act as a stand-alone variable while

positively affecting purchase intention. This study takes a similar stance.

H1: Brand awareness positively impacts purchase intention.

Brand Awareness

Brand awareness attributes to aspects across the marketing and social media landscape.

Hutter and Hautz et al. (2013) state that brand awareness is anything that can bring a person to

get a sense of a brand. Prior research shows that consumers tend to regard recognizable brands

in a more positive light. (Horn and Liu et al., 2011). Overall, online advertising is a marketing

channel to reach consumers in a way that brings about brand awareness (Erkan and Gokerik et
 59

al., 2019). Brand awareness can be one of the more prominent variables potentially impacting

whether a consumer ultimately purchases a brand’s product, or service.

HOE theory suggests that brand awareness is a leading factor contributing to whether

consumers develop a brand preference and purchase intent. Barreda and Bilgihan et al. (2015)

make the case that widely known brands are more likely to be considered and therefore selected

more than lesser-known brands. Social media channels can help boost brand awareness.

Organizations can build brand awareness by communicating with new customers across many

different social media platforms through cost effective and low work efforts.

Utilitarian value comes from a product or service that helps consumers solve problems

and is related to whether something serves some utility (Sheth and Mittal, 2004). Heuristics can

help consumers eliminate potential shopping options (Keller, 1993) and (Wu and Lu et al. 2017).

Heuristics, such as brand awareness, provide utilitarian value (Brandstatter and Gigerenzer et al.,

2006). Specifically, brand awareness adds to utilitarian values through prepurchase assistance

(Sheth and Mittal, 2004).

Understanding the utilitarian value that brand awareness offers consumers is important

within marketing related research. Akinbode and Adegbuyi (2019) show how utilitarian value

contributes to purchase intention. Cal and Adams (2014) successfully align brand awareness

with utilitarian consumer behavior. Furthermore, Cuesta-Valino and Rodriguez (2020) look at

utilitarian value against factors affecting social media marketing. As a result, literature review

shows that the variable brand awareness deserves to be assessed within the context on this study.

Prior studies of similar nature look at the impact of how social media efforts affect brand

awareness; however, this study uses HOE as the primary conceptual framework. Brand
 60

awareness is the leading part of HOE theory. Remember that Hutter and Hautz et al. (2013) state

that brand awareness is anything that brings the attention of a brand to consumers. Consumers

may actually hear about a brand from an offline advertising source first. Also, Ducoffe’s (1996)

model measured advertising value well before social media became a mainstream marketing

option. Brand awareness does not have to come from people solely seeing organizations’ social

media content. It is certainly plausible that consumers may first hear of a brand via a billboard,

radio advertisement, television, or any other form of offline advertising prior to social media, or

online.

Brand awareness serves as the leading IV within this study. This is warranted based on

the following:

• Brand awareness is being the leading concept with HOE.

• Several authors, including Cal and Adams (2014), successfully tying brand
awareness to utilitarian value measurements.

• Cuesta-Valino and Rodriguez et al. (2020) showing how utilitarian values arrange
next to social media marketing [advertising] value.

• Duffett (2020) linking utilitarian variables across Ducoffe’s (1996) advertising

model with HOE stages, which include brand awareness.

• Florenthal (2019) suggesting to look at marketing variables from different

perspectives. Some recent studies, such as by Hutter and Hautz et al. (2013),
feature brand awareness although not as a leading IV.

Sharma and Singh et al. (2021) state that consumers are sensitive to the degree of risk

associated with using a product and/or service. Better known brands can be perceived as having

less risk. Furthermore, well-known brands may be viewed as having superior products and/or

quality which studies have also shown to positively affect purchase intention.
 61

Duffett (2020), Hutter and Hautz et al. (2013) and Bilgin (2018) reported brand

awareness with a path coefficient of ranging from 0.03 to 0.30 against the primary DV objective

within the context of their respective studies. Such positive influence also holds true when

assessing the impact of brand awareness on other variables (e.g., entertainment, informativeness,

etc…) in previous studies. Based on prior literature, this study posits the following:

H2a: Brand awareness positively impacts informativeness.

H2b: Brand awareness positively impacts entertainment.
H2c: Brand awareness positively impacts credibility.

Informativeness

Consumers are progressively utilizing the internet to search for material. Consumers

learn from social media content shared by brands as well as other consumers via sharing of user

generated content. Cuesta-Valino and Rodriguez et al. (2020) point out that shoppers are more

interested in seeing online content since it creates an association between the brand and

shoppers’ purchase intent.

Informativeness is an important variable within social media advertising and marketing

(Logan and Bright et al. (2012). Ducoffe (1996) illustrates that informativeness is shown to have

the most impact toward advertising value within his model. Cuesta-Valino and Rodriguez et al.

(2020) look at variables (including informativeness) that transcend the Ducoffe (1996) model as

well as variables like [purchase] intention from the HOE model. Similarly, Sharma and Singh et

al. (2021) address informativeness and its impact toward purchase intention.

Both Duffett (2020) and Sharma and Singh et al. (2021) successfully associate

informativeness of social media marketing efforts to variables across both Ducoffe’s (1996)
 62

advertising model and HOE theory. Such a link can further support the notion that

informativeness can be a crossover variable between models.

Literature review details that the variable informativeness is typically used to assess

whether consumers feel a brand’s social media content offers accurate, comprehensive and

useful information about products and/or services. Furthermore, Logan and Bright et al. (2012)

agree that informativeness is an important variable to impact social media marketing

[advertising] value.

Ducoffe’s (1996) model shows that informativeness contributes to adding advertising

value. Like Ducoffe (1996), Logan & Bright et al. (2012) conclude that the variable

informativeness plays a prominent role in how study respondents gauge advertising value.

Furthermore, Cuesta-Valino and Rodriguez et al. (2020) acknowledge that informativeness

impacts social media marketing [advertising] value and subsequently purchase intention.

Literature review articulates the relationship between the variable informativeness as

positively impacting advertising value and purchase intent across multiple similar studies. Study

authors acknowledge that social media advertising should provide some sense of informativeness

and thus actively include the variable at times to assess its impact other variables transcending

both Ducoffe’s (1996) model and HOE theory. Literature review can support the following

hypotheses:

H3: Informativeness positively affects social media marketing [advertising] value.

Entertainment

How something is said can be as important as what is said (Ducoffe, 1996).

Entertainment as a variable for study is entrenched within U&G theory (Schlinger, 1979).
 63

Overall, many marketers and consumers believe that entertaining advertisements positively

impact perceived and/or real advertising value. In fact, Logan and Bright (2012) show that the

variable entertainment positively affects advertising value.

Entertainment can be seen as an expression of consumers’ preference toward an

advertisement (Chungviwatanant and Prasongsukarn et al., 2016). Shavitt and Lowrey et al.

(1998) connect entertainment to enjoyment associated with an ad. Other researchers like Sheth

and Kim (2017) note that marketers leverage social media marketing to attract, entertain and to

build long term relationships with users to help shape attitudes toward a brand.

Why do people like Super Bowl ads? Consumers like the entertainment factor associated

with Super Bowl ads (Graham, 2022). Entertainment can be contemplated as an understanding

to produce enjoyable and happy content for existing and/or potential customers. SMSs provide

unique opportunities for brands to interact with buyers. Cuesta-Valino and Rodriguez (2020)

endorse the idea that entertaining marketing can produce a necessary bond between a brand and

consumers.

Ducoffe (1996), Logan and Bright et al., (2012) and Cuesta-Valino and Rodriguez (2020)

show that there is a decisive link between the IV entertainment and advertising value. Such a

convincing connection across several studies spanning over more than 20 years warrants the

inclusion of entertainment as a variable to be considered within this study. As a result, the

following hypothesis is proposed:

H4: Entertainment positively affects social media marketing [advertising] value.

 64

Credibility

Studies show that social media advertising credibility can drive consumers purchase

intention. Credibility is a two-way street though. Social media has been thought to be more

credible than other forms of advertising (Mangold and Faulds, 2009); however, there is some

room for debate. Online and social media advertising, which is sometimes perceived to be more

credible than other forms of advertising, serve to woo and sway consumers (Raza and Zaman,

2021). Neither Ducoffe’s (1996) model or HOE theory specifically utilize the variable

credibility. Duffett (2020) successfully links the variable credibility to the affective stage within

HOE theory as well as Ducoffe’s (1996) advertising value attitude model. Duffet’s (2020)

ability to validate credibility across HOE and Ducoffe’s (1996) advertising value model serves as

precedence for the inclusion of the variable within this study.

Can business and consumer relationship quality add to purchase intent? Sharma and

Singh et al., (2021) say yes. They allude to a credibility element — trust — as a purchase driver.

General knowledge exists that high quality relationships (or elements linked with relationships)

lend to higher levels among consumers’ intention to buy (Sharma and Singh et al., 2021).

Overall, Sharma and Singh et al. (2021) statistically show that social media marketing helps

drive the customer-brand relationship which further enhances consumers’ trust.

Arora and Agarwal (2019) built out a comprehensive advertising model that looked at

credibility and its effect on social media advertising value. Their study acknowledges that

credibility is the way consumers view (whether real or perceived) advertising about a brand

and/or product to be accurate and believable.

Brackett and Carr (2001) initially identified credibility as a reliable variable to help

predict advertising value. Brackett and Carr’s (2001) study expanded upon Ducoffe’s (1996)
 65

model. In recent years, Duffett (2020) tied the variable credibility across Ducoffe’s (1996)

model, Brackett and Carr’s (2001) web advertising attitude model and HOE theory.

Jin and Villegas (2007) highlight how credibility (or similar elements such as trust,

engagement, quality of relationship etc…) can change consumers’ thoughts and actions. Internet

users in the United States can attain connection and appear to be better served with organizations

using credible social media engagement practices (Sheth and Kim (2017).

Phan and Pham et al. (2020) conclude that consumer trust helps encourage engagement in

the social commerce environment. Arora and Agarwal (2019), who cite a milestone study by

Brackett and Carr (2001) around the importance of credibility, include the variable credibility

within their study that looks at social media marketing [advertising] value drivers.

Recent studies utilizing the variable credibility (or elements of the variable) in

conjunction with Ducoffe’s (1996) model and HOE theory demonstrate positive connection

between the variable social media marketing value and purchase intention (Sharma and Singh et

al., 2021), Cuesta-Valino and Rodriguez et al., (2020), Duffett (2020), Barreda and Bilgihan et

al., (2015), Hutter and Hautz et al., (2013) and Brackett and Carr (2001).

Prior study results come with variance among the actual amount of influence that

credibility brings to social media marketing value and/or purchase intention; however, the

connection that credibility can positively relate to advertising value and purchase intention across

studies has been shown. Precedence sets the course around the importance to further assess the

variable credibility within the social media marketing realm. This study posits the following:

H5: Credibility positively affects social media marketing [advertising] value.

 66

Social Media Marketing [Advertising] Value

Enhancing social media marketing value matters! Social media popularity is constantly

rising (Fox and Nakhata et al., 2019). Social media marketing variables studied by researchers

like Florenthal (2019), Duffett (2020), Wallace and Buil et al. (2020), Phan and Pham et al.

(2020) and Laksamana (2020) statistically show how relationships among variables influence

social media marketing [advertising] value. Furthermore, prior research shows how social media

marketing [advertising] value drives attitude such as purchase intention (Kim and Han, 2014),

(Martins et al., 2019), (Sheth and Kim, 2017), (Almohaimmeed, 2019) and (Raza and Zaman,

2021).

Social media marketing is an arrangement that pertains to the advocacy of a company,

brand, products or services across SMSs (Rodgers and Thorson, 2018) and (Anjum and Thomas

et al., 2020). Social media marketing is becoming more important as Generation Z consumers

are utilizing popular SMSs to interact and shop. The Metaverse is expected to enhance digital

shopping experience(s) through more interaction. Literature review shows that organizations

with abilities to improve consumers’ digital experiences can gain sales. Facebook is among the

most studied social media platforms within academia; however, traction is gaining to look

beyond Facebook to increase social media advertising value.

Prior research surrounding HOE illustrates how advertising is linked with attitude (Raza

and Zaman, 2021). Such attitudinal changes are built on assumptions that consumers’ online

and social media experiences enhances marketing value. Overall, consumers calculate

advertising value based on their awareness of a brand and their and past experiences with it

(Raza & Zaman, 2021). Overall, Raza and Zaman (2021) provide a recent study example that

incorporates components across HOE and Ducoffe’s (1996) model. Within their study, Raza and
 67

Zaman (2021) show that online marketing value contributes positively to online purchase

intention. Similar to other studies, Raza and Zaman (2021) do not feature any demotivator

variables for mediation or moderation qualities.

Content marketing is a primary method that organizations build relationships with current

and potential customers. Ruffolo (2017) says that content marketing is a strategy to add

marketing value by way of providing informative, entertaining, and credible content.

Practitioner marketers see content marketing as a digital strategy to produce leads to marketing

and sales funnels.

Bilgin (2018) sees social media as a place where consumers with similar ideas aggregate.

Furthermore, prior research portrays the online realm as a setting where credible social media

enhances the value that social media brings to peoples’ lives (Lu and Hsiao, 2010) and (Hajli,

2013). Consumers that like content may potentially pass it along to others within their online

(and offline) networks (Schivinski and Dabrowski, 2015). This allows marketers to take

advantage of a phenomenon known as WOM (Word-of-Mouth) marketing (Blackshaw, 2008).

Additionally, brands that can use content created by customers can leverage CGM (Consumer

Generated Media) to bring about social media value.

Past research by Ismail (2017), Kim and Ko (2012), Dolan and Conduit et al. (2016) and

Duffett (2017) show that social media marketing activities can positively affect consumer

behavior. Marketing managers that know how to augment social media marketing value can

potentially help drive sales for their respective business.

Ducoffe (1996) brought forth the concept of measuring advertising value before the

prominent rise of social media. New research is incorporating facets of Ducoffe’s (1996)
 68

advertising value model to address social media marketing [advertising] value and its ability to

drive sales. Liu and Chou et al. (2015) among others point out that variables from Ducoffe’s

(1996) model and HOE theory lend to social media marketing [advertising] value and

consequently purchase intention.

Cuesta-Valino and Rodriguez et al. (2020) provide one of the more complete recent

studies building in variables as included across HOE and Ducoffe’s (1996) model. Cuesta-

Valino and Rodriguez et al. (2020) utilize variables informativeness, irritation and entertainment

to measure impact on social media advertising value. Social media advertising value is similar

the advertising value variable portrayed in Ducoffe’s (1996) model. Cuesta-Valino and

Rodriguez et al. (2020) also assess how social media advertising value impacts intention.

Intention as studied by Cuesta-Valino and Rodriguez et al. (2020) is like the purchase intention

variable prominent within many studies using HOE theory. Overall, Cuesta-Valino and

Rodriguez et al. (2020) present merely one example of several studies that showcase how

variables from Ducoffe’s (1996) model contribute positively toward consumers’ purchase

intention.

Other researchers, such as Hussain and Murtazawith et al. (2020) and Kalogianni (2020),

with like studies showcase similar results to that of Cuesta-Valino and Rodriguez et al. (2020).

Ducoffe’s (1996) model shows that variables informativeness and entertainment are antecedents

that positively affect advertising value. Logan and Bright et al. (2012) present similar findings

when they expand upon Ducoffe’s (1996) model. Informativeness positively affects social

media marketing value as shown by Sharma and Singh et al. (2020).

 69

It is important to continue to further study social media marketing [advertising] value.

Past research highlights that such a similarly studied variable contributes to consumers’ purchase

decision behavior. Based on literature review, this study suggests the following:

H6: Social media marketing [advertising] value positively affects purchase intention.

Irritation

The irritation variable has not been heavily studied within the social media marketing

realm, especially for mediation and/or moderation qualities. Florenthal (2019) insinuates this

concept. Demotivator variables like irritation or annoyance when studied in the past have

typically appeared as IVs. Simply put, further assessment around demotivating variables within

social media marketing is necessary.

Demotivator variables serve as negative indicators in similar research. The viewpoint is

that shoppers will be less likely to be persuaded by advertising that is thought to be annoying,

offensive, or manipulative (Logan and Bright et al., 2012). Regulations are in place to help keep

consumers safe from deceptive or dishonest advertising. Marketing that appears dishonest can

sometimes lead to a real and/or perceived negative impact on consumers shopping choices.

Marketers should not rely on government regulations to keep honest. Consumers lead the way

within social media marketing. For example, Generation Z shoppers want authentic social media

content that is accurate in a way that exuberates organizational values (Anjum and Thomas et al.,

2020).

Cuesta-Valino and Rodriguez et al. (2020) shows that buyers that like social media

marketing are more likely to express purchase intention. Other studies, albeit minimal, provide a

sense that consumers who are irritated with some forms of advertising may in fact not purchase
 70

from a brand. Hutter and Hautz et al. (2013) use HOE theory as their baseline and feature the

variable annoyance; however, annoyance is not a specific component within HOE continuum.

Hutter and Hautz et al. (2013) assess the variable annoyance as an IV and its effect toward brand

awareness and ultimately purchase intention.

Cuesta-Valino and Rodriguez et al. (2020) look at irritation and its impact on social

media marketing value. Both Duffett (2020) and Hutter and Hautz et al. (2013) studies have

irritation being among the weakest predictor against their targeted DV with a modest negative

effect toward purchase intention. This appears to be consistent across similar studies where

annoyance is assessed as an IV. The fact that irritation and/or similar variables appear to only

minimally detract from advertising value and/or purchase intention in prior studies is interesting.

Brackett and Carr (2001) build upon Ducoffe’s (1996) advertising model. Brackett and

Carr (2001) acknowledge that Ducoffe’s (1996) study did not find irritation to negatively affect

advertising value; however, their study did. Similar to Ducoffe (1996), Brackett and Carr (2001)

looked at the variable irritation as an IV. Overall, studies looking at demotivating factors are

minimal and come with mixed results, although some show demotivator variables as having a

slight negative impact toward desired DVs like advertising value and/or purchase intention. This

means researchers should continue to look at how demotivating latent variables are constructed

and assessed, especially when using SEM. Florenthal (2019) acknowledges the necessity to

further study demotivator variables, especially from different angles (e.g., as mediator or

moderator variables versus and IV, etc…). Overall, several researchers recently state that other

variables, like irritation, potentially influencing purchase intention need to be examined to

further refine similar models and knowledge around social media marketing as discussed by

Cuesta-Valino and Rodriguez (2020), Duffett (2020), Florenthal (2019) and Laksamana (2018).
 71

Overall, irritation has been shown to exhibit only a minor negative effect on social media

advertising and purchase intention (Firat, 2019), (Voorveld and van Noort et al., 2018), (Smith

2011), (Hutter and Hautz et al., 2013), (Ducoffe, 1996), and (Myers and Han, 2018). Annoyance

and/or irritation as a variable transcends some social media assessment models and thus is

warranted for inclusion in present and/or future similar research. Furthermore, studies

examining demotivator elements should continue to look at such variables for their mediation

and/or moderation effects. This study posits the following:

H7: Irritation moderates the relationship between social media marketing [advertising] value and
purchase intention.

Table 3 below titled ‘Hypotheses Summary’ details the hypotheses for this study.

Additionally, Table 3 below links each hypothesis to a research question as well as primary

sources citing and/or validating such a connection for analysis. Study hypotheses were

developed in accordance with literature review.

Table 3

Hypotheses Summary

Research Question Associated Hypotheses Main Source(s)

RQ1. How much does brand H1: Brand awareness positively Duffett (2020) and Hutter
awareness affect purchase impacts purchase intention. and Hautz et al. (2013)
intention?

RQ2. How much does brand
awareness ultimately impact
whether consumers find
social media advertising
content to be informative,
entertaining and/or credible?
H2a: Brand awareness positively Ducoffe (1996), Duffett
impacts informativeness. (2020) and Cuesta-Valino
and Rodriguez et al.
H2b: Brand awareness positively (2020).
impacts entertainment.
H2c: Brand awareness positively
impacts credibility.
 72

Table 3 (Continued)

Hypotheses Summary

Research Question Associated Hypotheses Main Source(s)

RQ4. To what extent does H4: Entertainment positively Ducoffe (1996) and
entertainment impact social affects social media marketing Cuesta-Valino and
media marketing [advertising] value. Rodriguez et al. (2020)
[advertising] value?

RQ5. To what extent does H5: Credibility positively affects Cuesta-Valino and
credibility impact social social media marketing Rodriguez et al. (2020)
media marketing [advertising] value.
[advertising] value?

RQ6. In what ways can H6: Social media marketing Duffett (2020) and
social media marketing [advertising] value positively Cuesta-Valino and
[advertising] value influence affects purchase intention. Rodriguez et al. (2020)
purchase intention?

RQ7. To what extent does H7: Irritation moderates the Cuesta-Valino &
annoyance and/or irritation relationship between social Rodriguez et al. (2020)
moderate the relationship media marketing [advertising] and Hutter and Hautz et
between social media value and purchase intention. al. (2013)
marketing [advertising] value
versus consumers’ purchase
intention?

Note. Table 3 aligns research questions against a proposed hypotheses to address within this

study.

The research model is presented in Figure 2 below. The research model as well as Table

3 above lay out the hypotheses considerations as they relate to research questions. Literature

review shows that social media marketing has been around since the late 1990s. Unfortunately,

even newer studies building in marketing-related concepts studies fail to fully move social media

marketing research.
 73

Figure 2

Proposed conceptual model

Note. This figure provides visual elements for the proposed model to assess which factors

ultimately impact purchase intention. Furthermore, the conceptual model aligns variables of

interest with HOE cognitive, affective and conative stages as supported by literature review,

especially Duffett (2020).

This study will display yet another unique social media marketing model. It uses

variables that crossover from similar research; however, in ways that have not been fully

analyzed. This is most apparent through looking at brand awareness as the leading IV within this

study. Similar studies, such as by Arli (2017), look at brand awareness as a DV. Furthermore,

this study looks at demotivating variable in irritation for its ability to moderate the effect that
 74

consumers derive from social media marketing [advertising] value versus their actual purchase

intention.

Commonly studied variables within related social media marketing research appear to be

relatively transient. Literature review paints a vivid picture with similar exploratory research

pulling variables across marketing models. Specifically, Duffett (2020) demonstrates how

variables from Ducoffe’s (1996) advertising value model eclipse across other HOE stages.

Similar past studies incorporate variables from Ducoffe’s (1996) model and HOE, although they

are not identical, as seen in conceptual frameworks. This study seeks to optimize variable

assessment as aligned within the context of HOE. HOE begins with brand awareness and ends

with purchase intention. As mentioned above, Duffett (2020) ties variables from Ducoffe’s

(1996) advertising model to HOE stages. In essence, this study merely seeks to streamline HOE

from brand awareness through purchase intention with inclusion of variables that align with

HOE stages as stated by Duffett (2020).

The proposed research questions, hypotheses and conceptual model for this study are

exploratory in nature as with most similar research. Looking at the popular marketing variables

from different perspectives can potentially nudge future social media marketing research in the

right direction along the research spectrum. A look at research methodology shows how this can

be done in accordance with prior research.

 75

Chapter 3: Methodology

This chapter breaks out the research model as it pertains to influences of variables within

Ducoffe’s (1996) model and HOE theory in accordance with literature review.

Nature of Study

Social media marketing brings potentially noticeable leverage about how consumers

perceive advertising value and the effect of advertising value on purchase intention and/or brand

loyalty. Past studies have failed to fully expand research on the usage of SMSs through a) the

examining the mediation and/or moderation effect of demotivator variables, b) an inability to

sample away from student populations and c) a larger concentration of research being geared

toward users on the social media behemoth Facebook. Some recent studies embody data from

SMSs in addition to Facebook like Twitter and/or Instagram; however, continue to focus on

social media users on one SMS at a time and thus appear to be few and far between.

Furthermore, little research assessing HOE theory and/or Ducoffe’s (1996) advertising model

include data from users on social media platforms like Snapchat, Reddit, Tik Tok as well as other

up-and-coming SMSs (e.g., Web 3.0 technologies).

This study makes use of quantitative research methods to attain research objectives.

Important areas will come from creating a hybrid model with variables from complementing

theories including Ducoffe’s (1996) model (which is based on the U&G theory) and the Hutter

and Hautz et al. (2013) HOE study. Within this research, variables are reviewed to learn the

amount of influence they carry toward consumers’ perceptions about social media marketing

[advertising] value and its overall effect on purchase intention. Some historical studies have

been able to successfully relate brand awareness to social media marketing [advertising] value

and ultimately purchase intent within the context of social media.

 76

Research Design

Research design is necessary to set forth a plan for collecting and analyzing study data in

accordance with theoretical assumptions. This study is laid out to look at the aftereffect that

brand awareness has on social media marketing [advertising] value and subsequently purchase

intent. Also, this study investigates the impact that brand awareness plays on social media

marketing [advertising] value among social media users.

Overall, this cross-sectional study assesses the impact of several variables toward each

other as well implications toward consumers’ purchase intention. Primary IVs include variables

brand awareness, informativeness credibility and entertainment. DVs include variables social

media [advertising] marketing value and purchase intent(ion). Annoyance/irritation is assessed

for moderator viability.

Use of a questionnaire (or survey) is an accepted way to explore similar variables and

constructs (Ponto, 2015) and (Hutter and Hautz et al., 2013). This study utilizes a questionnaire

to test inquiry about the appropriateness of social media marketing factors among consumers

using quantitative methodology research. Quantitative research allows for a more precise

account of some behavior, knowledge, opinion, or attitude (Cooper & Schindler, 2008).

Population and Sample

The population of interest for this research consists of consumers (in general) over 18

years of age residing in the United States who are active users on various social media platforms

in addition to Facebook. With consideration of data gathering limitations, a convenience

sampling method is applied in the research. Convenience sampling is a method of

nonprobability sampling where samples are taken from respondents’ that are convenient to get
 77

feedback (Edgar & Manz, 2017). The only requirements for a person to be a participant in this

study are that they are a) over 18 years old, b) reside in the United States, c) are active users on

social media platforms in addition to Facebook and d) agree to information as provided in the

Letter of Informed Consent (see Appendix D). If any study participants are members of an

online or offline group (e.g., LinkedIn professional group, a user within a thread on Reddit, a

particular thread on Twitter, a consortium of small business owners, etc…) then both the study

participants and moderators of such group(s) were to be provided a copy of the Letter of

Informed Consent. Furthermore, group moderators were asked to provide a letter authorizing

use of their platform to help with data collection for this study.

The target population is U.S. consumers over the age of 18 actively using popular social

media platforms (e.g., Instagram, TikTok, Twitter, Snapchat, Metaverse, etc…) in addition to

Facebook. This study is to be carried out across several segments. A pilot study of 10

participants was used to verify the readability of the survey instrument.

 78

Figure 3

G*Power Analysis

Note. Figure 3 above is a screenshot showcasing G*Power Analysis for 6 predictors of Purchase

Intention.

Primary data collection and responses for analysis were received from 424 potential

participants. Data cleansing completion left a valid sample of 335 potential completed surveys

for analysis. A sample of 200 is the minimum required sample size for Trident University. The

total participant sample size had to be at least 149 based on a priori G* power analysis (see

Figure 3 above). Assessing G* power analysis is an essential component of outlining the

research approach as it gauges statistical power and effect size. Study participants were selected

using convenience sampling to attain the desired sample size, upon completion of a consent
 79

permission form. Also, convenience sampling is necessary to ensure safety for study participants

given the current COVID-19 (Coronavirus) global pandemic. Convenience sampling made the

likelihood of attaining the desired sample size more achievable.

G* Power Analysis

An a priori G* power analysis is necessary to see which alpha and beta levels to accept.

In addition, power analysis provides an opportunity to see the effect size the study should detect

(Austin, 2020). The effect size measures the strength among variables on a numeric scale. The

greater the effect size, the greater the differences among variables are. Statistically speaking, the

effect size determines if a difference is real or due to a change in factors (Statistics Solutions,

2020). The optimal alpha chosen was 0.5. A beta (a power level of 1 – β = 0.95) to detect d =

0.5 helps to determine to effect size. The current a prior G* power analysis estimates a sample

of 149 social media users as necessary for the study (see Figure 3 above). The G* power

analysis shows the results from deciphering effect size for the study.

Statistical computations allude to an ideal sample size of over 300 measurements and/or

surveys to have confidence of 95% with a real value within ±5% of the measured/surveyed

value. Similar studies utilize sample populations ranging from 180 to 2,000 or more for

accurately completed surveys. For example, Hutter and Hautz et al. (2013) use a sample size of

311 after data cleansing. Emphasis was placed on attainment of a sample size greater than 300

based on literature review.

The minimum required sample size per G*Power analysis is 149, which is below the

Trident University minimum required sample size of 200. The minimum sample used for this

study had to be at least 200 study participants to meet academic institution requirements.
 80

A convenience sample is a nonprobability sample in which element selection is based on

ease of accessibility (Cooper and Schindler, 2008). Literature review shows that similar studies

leverage easily accessible survey populations albeit through different means. Most researchers

within this area of study utilize convenience sampling while collecting survey responses via e-

mail, social media posts or intercept survey(s). As an example, Raza and Zaman (2021) invited

study participants via a combination of online (e.g., social media posts) and offline (e.g., flyers,

dissemination of information through person networks, etc…) communication to acquire a

desired sample size using a convenience sampling approach.

Hutter and Hautz et al. (2013) posted their survey on the MINI Facebook page. Han and

Myers (2018) recruited social media users from a student population. Logan and Bright et al.

(2012) utilized an e-mail list in conjunction with a snowball technique to recruit respondents.

Bilgin (2018) and Phan and Pham et al. (2020) applied convenience sampling to send a survey to

users who followed brands on social media. Both Almohaimmeed (2019) and Ducoffe (1996)

collected data via mall-intercept survey; however, Ducoffe (1996) collected data offline. This

may have been in part to e-mail use not being as prevalent among consumers in the mid-1990s.

Like past research, this study utilizes convenience sampling. Potential participants were

recruited initially through sending e-mails with a link to the survey to family members, friends,

co-workers and other people within a personal and/or professional network. The use of paid e-

mail lists was approved for use by Trident University International under extreme circumstances;

however, was not necessary. This is good since paid e-mail lists were considered cost

prohibitive. Additional study participants were approved to be attained because of promoting the

survey on SMSs (e.g., Facebook, LinkedIn groups, discussion threads on Twitter, etc…) and

using offline (e.g., mall intercept, going door-to-door) resources. Study participants and
 81

moderators of such group(s) (whether online or offline) were provided a copy of the Letter of

Informed Consent. Specifically, group moderators were asked to provide a letter authorizing use

of their platform to help with data collection for this study as applicable.

How was data be obtained?

This study utilized a convenience sampling method to attain responses from at least 200

study participants. The only requirements for a person to be a study participant in this study was

that they were a) are over 18 years old, b) reside in the United States c) are active users on social

media platforms in addition to Facebook and d) read and agree to the permission request (e.g.,

Letter of Informed Consent) to participate in this study. If any study participants were members

of an online group (e.g., LinkedIn professional group, a user within a thread on Reddit, a

particular thread on Twitter, a consortium of small business owners, etc…) then both the study

participants and moderators of such group(s) were provided a copy of the Letter of Informed

Consent. Furthermore, moderators for any known groups where significant numbers of study

participants came from were asked to provide a letter authorizing use of their platform to help

with and/or post invitation of survey for data collection for this study. All data came from

participants with a presence in online social media settings.

A survey was made available online and staged on a well-known survey creation site in

SurveyMonkey. Survey Monkey (SurveyMonkey.com) is a well-known industry resource for

survey creation and analysis (Survey Monkey, 2020). A link to the survey was made available

regarding a variety of methods including (but not limited too):

• Social media. A copy of the Letter of Informed Consent as well as a digital flyer
(featuring both a link and QR code) to the online survey was featured across
various social media outlets for potential study participants to consider taking.
SMS moderators were asked to provide permission in writing expressing consent
to feature the survey within any online group and/or forums where study
 82

participants were recruited. Furthermore, all study participants must have

consented individually via the study permission form (see Appendix D).
Permission coming from social groups, professional networks and access to online

resources (e.g., Twitter threads, Tik Tok threads, Instagram threads and Facebook participants,

etc…) was attained. Several people within personal and professional online networks with good

social media followership totals reposted the survey thus helping surpass minimum sample size

requirements. The target population’s data remains confidential and anonymous as indicated in

the Letter of Informed Consent.

Materials and Instrumentation

A questionnaire, featured online, was used to obtain research data. As a qualifying

question, potential respondents acknowledged using popular SMSs in addition to Facebook on a

regular basis. The survey included seven items to assess participants’ perceptions toward social

media marketing activities. Social media marketing activities to be examined within the seven

dimensions consisted of brand awareness, informativeness, credibility, entertainment, social

media marketing [advertising] value, irritation, and purchase intention. Questions and items

were set up and refined based on literature; they were measured on a seven-point Likert-scale.

Demographic information was collected in approximate accordance with the Hutter and Hautz et

al. (2013) study.

The data collection approach consists of a quantitative self-survey design by use of

Survey Monkey to collect data for analysis. Austin (2020) alludes to the advantages that online

survey tools offer to facilitate research objectives. Survey Monkey is a popular research-based

tool used among both academia and practitioner researchers. In fact, Survey Monkey advertises

its brand as a global leader in survey software (Survey Monkey, 2020). The Survey Monkey

questionnaire was shared through social media platforms. E-mail was only to be used as a last
 83

resort should sufficient sample size not be attained via posting a link to the questionnaire on

social media sites. The only requirements for a person to be a participant in this study were that

they a) admitted to being over 18 years old, b) resided in the United States c) said they were

active users on social media platforms in addition to Facebook and d) read and agreed to the

Letter of Informed Consent participate in this study. Given that a convenience sample was used,

every effort was made to maximize participation in this study while keeping costs low.

Graphic materials used to promote the survey featured a URL and QR code in instances

where a potential participant desired to take the survey on their mobile device. The presence of a

QR code also allowed for a hands-free mobile option to access to the survey in lieu of the current

on-going Covid-19 global pandemic. A Letter of Informed Consent was provided to each person

prior to taking the survey. Hence, the Letter of Informed Consent was the first question and

requirement for potential study participants to address. If potential study participants declined to

take the survey in an online setting, then they were directed to a ‘thank you’ page instead of to

the survey.

Variables and Operational Definitions

Variables measured use scales that demonstrate validity and reliability in similar previous

studies. All items used Likert-scale responses to address research questions. Table 4 below

titled ‘Variables and Items Scale with Past Reliability’ details item scales and reliability metrics

commonly reported in comparable past studies. This study assessed survey items across a 7-

point Likert-scale as consistent across similar historical studies, especially the HOE study

assessed by Hutter & Hautz et al. (2013) but with consideration from others as seen in Table 4

below.
 84

Table 4

Variables and Items Scale With Past Reliability

Variable(s) Measured by Past Reliability Data w/in

cited studiesa&b
Brand awareness 4 survey items AVE: 0.55
Duffett (2020). CR: 0.83
Cronbach’s α: 0.74

4 survey items. AVE: 0.66

Informativeness Cuesta-Valino and Rodriguez (2020). CR: 0.89
Cronbach’s α: 0.83

Entertainment 4 survey items. AVE: 0.59

CR: 0.85
Cuesta-Valino and Rodriguez (2020). Cronbach’s α: 0.77

Credibility 4 survey items. AVE: 0.72

Cuesta-Valino and Rodriguez (2020). CR: 0.91
Cronbach’s α: 0.90

Annoyance / Irritation 5 items. AVE: 0.68

Cuesta-Valino and Rodriguez (2020). CR: 0.91
Cronbach’s α: .89

Social Media 3 items. AVE: 0.81

Advertising Cuesta-Valino and Rodriguez et al. CR: 0.93
[Marketing] Value (2020). Cronbach’s α: 0.88

AVE: 0.541
Purchase Intention 4 survey items CR: 0.82
Duffett (2020). Cronbach’s α: 0.73

Note. Table 4 addresses variables and item scales within this study based on literature review.
a
AVE – Average Variance Expected
b
CR – Composite Reliability
 85

Demographics and Control Variables

Ensuring that study demographics align with publicly available data for social media

users across platforms can potentially enhance the generalizability of results. To the extent

possible, survey respondents were recruited to match publicly available demographic data;

however, this study openly used convenience sampling. For example, Census.gov reports 50.8%

of respondents to its latest reported data are female. This study made a reasonable effort to get

an approximate 51% female to 49% male split that aligns with Census.gov data. The matching

of respondents’ demographics against the publicly available and known demographic

information was used as a guideline (but not a necessity) to potentially enhance the

generalizability of study results.

Demographics of age, gender, and frequency of social media were collected to test for

interaction with research findings. Again, a wide range of age groups, rather than solely student

populations was desired. Looking beyond solely student populations is necessary to better

understand whether consumers overall are attaining social media marketing [advertising] value

in ways that positively affect their purchase intentions (Florenthal, 2019).

Data Collection and Statistical Analysis

Primary data for analysis was collected using a questionnaire survey. Responses came

from people using SMSs in addition to Facebook. This study was implemented using a method

of quantitative self-survey architecture to get data calibrating an array of variables to look at key

drivers of purchase intention within the social media realm.

Data for this study came from convenience sampling. Literature review shows that

convenience samples are appropriate for social media research in the current environment. Data

was collected from the same questionnaire being posted on SMSs. An invitation to take the
 86

questionnaire was given to potential participants via social media posts. A link to the survey was

featured across as many SMSs as possible to potentially maximize participation.

Study participants needed to understand ethical assurances (e.g., Letter of Informed

Consent) as well as address a qualifying question pertaining to their presence on popular SMSs

other than solely Facebook before being able to take the survey. Data construction came from

the downloading of survey responses from the online survey tool through Survey Monkey.

Data Cleansing

Invalid cases were deleted from the dataset. An invalid case was defined as in which a) a

survey respondent disagreed with the Letter of Informed Consent, b) a survey respondent

admitted to being under 18 years of age, c) a potential study participant denied using SMSs in

addition to Facebook or d) most of the items in each measurement scale were not completed.

Otherwise, missing items were handled by substitution of the statistical mean for the series when

not more than 15% of the values for a specific variable were missing. The initial data set was

424. The final data set was for analysis was 335, or 79% of the initial total amount of survey

responses.

Statistical Analysis

The initial set of at least 424 responses was loaded into Microsoft Excel for initial data

cleansing. The cleansed Microsoft Excel data file was converted to a .csv file for upload into

SmartPLS and SPSS (as applicable). SPSS stands for Statistical Package for the Social Sciences.

Based on HOE theory in addition to Ducoffe’s (1996) model, a model looking at how

select variables impact social media marketing [advertising] value and ultimately purchase

intention was developed and tested using the SEM software application SmartPLS. Utilizing
 87

SEM tools, the prospective measurement instrument underwent validity and reliability testing to

assure model validity.

For this study, the measurement model was based on prior literature with an emphasis on

past studies by Ducoffe (1996), Hutter and Hautz et al. (2013), Duffett (2020) and Cuesta-Valino

and Rodriguez et al. (2020). Factor analysis was used to check validity and reliability factors of

measurement model via PLS. Both tests lend credence to the vigorousness of Exploratory Factor

Analysis (EFA). Reliability of constructs were evaluated by means of Cronbach’s Alpha and

Composite Reliability (CR). Convergent validity was contemplated for looking at factor

loadings and Average Variance Extracted (AVE). Discriminant validity was reviewed by

comparing the square root of AVE for each construct against other construct correlations. AVE

square root values larger than correlation values can be emblematic of discriminant validity

(Duffett, 2020).

To assess the structural measurement model and test hypotheses, SmartPLS was used to

generate path coefficients, p values, and coefficient of determination (R2). According to Hair,

and Sarstedt et al. (2012) path coefficients should be at least 0.100 with a significance of p <

0.05. A coefficient of determination value of 1.0 means there is a perfect fit. In contrast, a value

closer to 0.0 shows that a model potentially misses the mark too much to accurately assess the

data (Bloomenthal, 2020).

 88

Table 5
Validity Assessment for Measurement Model
Validity Type Criterion Standard

Indicator reliability Indicator loadings Items loading > 0.7 are considered
significant or if > 0.4 if AVE > 0.5
0)

Internal consistency CR CR > 0.7

Convergent validity AVE AVE > 0.50

Discriminant validity Cross loading Item’s loading of each factor is

highest for the designated construct

Hypothesis validity Path coefficient & P-value Path coefficient must be at least
0.100 and at significance less than
0.05

An R2 closer to 1.0 indicates more

validitya
Note. Table 5 highlights validity assessment for the proposed measurement model. The

measurement model derives from Hair and Sarstedt et al. (2012).

a
Bloomenthal (2020).

A descriptive statistical breakout of the data features the mean, range and standard

deviation. A descriptive statistics summary encapsulates the data representation of the entire

population (Austin, 2020). The mean characterizes the average data while standard deviation

illustrates how much the data lies away from the mean. A larger standard deviation means there

is more variance among the data set (Austin, 2020).

SEM was implemented by using PLS to test the relationship among variables of interest.

SEM is a statistical technique for simultaneously testing and estimating causal relationships

among multiple independent and dependent constructs (Gefen et al., 2000). An in-depth review
 89

of literature shows that the use of PLS is a sufficient software choice to perform SEM.

SmartPLS is selected for several reasons including (but not limited too):

• Attributing theory to model being ‘flexible’ as PLS makes fewer demands than other
SEM methods.

• PLS becoming increasingly popular in the marketing discipline.

• Data being non-parametric.

• The need to predict and/or identify relationships between constructs.

• PLS being better suited for theory development than for theory testing.

• One of more indicators per construct.

• Ability to deal with large models (e.g., larger sample sizes).

• PLS being specifically cited as used within several like studies (Febriyantoro, 2020),
(Ridho and Jahroh 2019), (Dutot and Mosconi, 2016) ,(DeVries and Carlson, 2014),
(Bhat and Singh, 2018), Phan and Pham et al. (2020), (Cuesta-Valino and Rodriguez
et al., 2020), Mamary and Hasan (2016), and Urbach and Ahlemann (2010).

SmartPLS is a satisfactory SEM software used for component analysis (Urbach and

Ahlemann, 2010). Byrne (2001) states that the most important concept in selection of software

for data analysis is determining the extent to an instrument for assessment measures that which it

is implied to do. PLS is important in that it:

• Allows a researcher to work around data normality assumptions.

• Lends to prediction and theoretical development and is preferable when using a

complex model, which can include a larger sample size (Ong and Puteh, 2017).

• Is sufficient when investigating new phenomenon, as in the case with this study.

• Helps when prediction is more important than parameter estimation (Urbach and
Ahlemann, 2010).
 90

Open Ended Questions

Three open-ended questions were featured at the end of the questionnaire. The open-

ended questions asked study participants to answer the following questions:

1. What do you like about the advertising of a brand (or brands) that you follow on social
media?
2. What do you dislike about the advertising of a brand (or brands) that you follow on social
media?
3. What other factors (whether online or offline) may influence your decision to make a
purchase?
Study participants responses were manually read within Microsoft Excel and placed in

categorical buckets based on responses. Some participants responses were able to be placed in

multiple buckets. For instance, if a study participant addressed question number three (3) above

by saying “Quality, price, word of mouth” then said responses would have been featured in

categories for ‘product quality’, ‘price’, ‘word of mouth’. All responses were presented as an

overall percentage of the final data set sample size of 335.

Every attempt was made possible to accurately categorize consumer responses to

unfiltered open-ended questions. Open-ended questions within this study were not used for SEM

or predictive modeling efforts; however, were merely to provide additional context as necessary.

The main goal of assessing open-ended responses within this study was to allow for the

emergence of potential themes that consumers acknowledge that may and/or may have not

shown up in literature review or within the predictive model. Such insights can yield to

implications for practitioner marketers and/or future research. Additional context is presented

under the ‘Additional Analyses’ section in Chapter 4: Data Analysis and Results.
 91

Assumptions

Within this study, assumptions were made to the accuracy and relevancy of previous

research pertaining to HOE and Ducoffe’s (1996) advertising value model. Weilbacher (2001)

acknowledges problems toward the extent that HOE affects sales; however, this is mostly due to

lack of empirical data. Among marketing practitioners, HOE related sales funnel approaches are

presumed as a potential worthwhile pursuit (Cabrera, 2017). Recent studies assessing HOE

and/or Ducoffe’s (1996) model showcase empirical data; however, need to be further refined.

Despite mounting empirical data supporting the case for HOE, it is still not fully studied.

Limitations

As with most research, this study is bound in several ways. First, this study makes use of

a non-probability sample technique, especially in lieu of using a convenience sampling technique

expected as appropriate for this research (Jibril & Kwarteng et al., 2019).

Second, this research is unique as it will assess users on otherwise understudied social

media platforms. Although interesting, study results may not necessarily generalize across

specific social media platforms. Study results can serve as a foundation for future research

across social media in general though. Fortunately, some marketing concepts sustain across

online and offline as well as across different SMSs. This is evidenced through assessment of

variables from Ducoffe’s (1996) advertising value model in both online and offline settings.

Third, this study will merely assess perceived complementing models and/or theories.

The chosen model and/or theory reviewed in this research may not be the most optimal.

Numerous other theories can be found within the marketing and social media realm. Such

models include (but are not limited too):

 92

• Theory of Reasoned Action

• Social Impact Theory

• Other consumer behavior and technology-based models and/or theories

Fourth, this study is considered as cross-sectional and not longitudinal. A longitudinal

study may further support findings from this study, especially if they can hold up over the course

of time across social media platforms.

Fifth, the on-going global COVID-19 (Coronavirus) pandemic surely contributed to

inefficiencies in data collection. The Coronavirus pandemic is potentially reshaping the way

consumers use the internet (Koeze & Popper 2020). Such a transformational shift in internet

usage (e.g., interest in video via Tik Tok, the Metaverse, NFTs, AR, VR, etc…) versus pre-

pandemic times may certainly necessitate the need for a longitudinal study to see if findings can

sustain over time.

Delimitations

Participation in this study is delimited to social media users who utilize other SMSs in

addition to Facebook but not a particular SMS. Study results may provide some incremental

advancement toward understanding what drives consumers’ purchase intentions overall;

however, not necessarily on a particular social media or online platform. This is important as

some SMSs cater to different demographic segments better than others. Additional research may

be necessary on a social media platform-by-platform basis. For example, a study consisting of

responses solely from Tik Tok users may be necessary to fully detail what causes consumers’

purchase intentions on Tik Tok.

 93

Ethical Assurances

Permission from social groups, professional networking groups and public areas was

obtained (as applicable) to conduct the survey. The target population’s data remain remains

confidential and anonymous. Overall, participants were informed that their responses were to

help with an academic study and that any PII (Personally Identifiable Information) was not to be

shared with third-party organizations.

Potential survey participants were asked to complete the entire survey. Study participants

were offered an option to not be part of the study, or completely withdraw from continuance of

their participation at any point. Participants that stopped prior to completing the survey had their

responses removed from inclusion within final analysis within accordance of data cleansing

standards listed above. The survey did not ask for PII and participants’ identities have been kept

anonymous. Study participants’ data is secured through Survey Monkey to maintain anonymity

and to protect participant’s information.

 94

Chapter 4: Data Analysis and Results

The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of brand awareness on consumers’

purchase intention. Data derives from study participants over the age of 18 using SMSs in

addition to Facebook. A sample of 335 complete and validated participant surveys was used for

analysis within SmartPLS.

Data Screening

Data was downloaded from Survey Monkey to Microsoft Excel. After downloading the

data, it was cleansed to remove invalid cases and treat any missing data in the valid cases. The

overall goal was to preserve and maximize the number of valid cases for available for analysis.

Invalid cases are those considered to have insufficient data to measure each of the constructs in

the model. A preferred method is to simply delete all invalid cases prior to treating missing item

values. The method used to treat missing values in valid cases is governed by the percent of

missing values in the specific item treated. If more than 15% of item values for a specific item

(question) were missing, then the item was deleted from the dataset. This is the case as

replacement could affect the statistical analysis outcomes. If less than 15% of the values for an

item were missing, then the missing values were treated by replacement without affecting the

statistical analysis outcome (Creswell, 2005). Missing item values within valid cases were

replaced with the series mean. Replacement occurred and was accomplished in Microsoft Excel

prior to uploading the file for analysis. It was considered optimal to data cleanse in Microsoft

Excel given personal experience and knowledge of the software package. Upon data completion

in Microsoft Excel, the file was saved in the .csv format prior to upload into SmartPLS.

Invalid cases were deleted from the dataset. An invalid case within this dataset was

defined as in which a) a survey respondent disagreed with the Letter of Informed Consent, b) a
 95

survey respondent admitted to being under 18 years of age, c) a potential study participant

denied using SMSs in addition to Facebook or d) most of the items in each measurement scale

were not completed. Otherwise, missing items were handled by substitution of the statistical

mean for the series when not more than 15% of the values for a specific variable were missing.

The total number of cases prior to data cleansing was 424. The number of valid cases

post data cleansing was determined to be 335. In other words, 79% of the total amount of

surveys taken were considered valid for analysis within this study.

Descriptive of Sample Data

Table 6 below details descriptive data for some demographic characteristics collected for

this study. Descriptive data shows that survey respondents are mostly female, under 40 years old

with a presence on Instagram, Twitter, Tik Tok, Snapchat and Pinterest in addition to Facebook.

Table 6
Descriptives of Sample
Demographic Characteristics Frequency Percent

Gender (n = 335) Male 124 37

Female 211 63

18 – 29 92 28
Age Group (n = 335) 30 – 39 108 32
40 – 49 58 17
over 50 77 23
➢
Hours Spent on Less than 1 hour 32 10
Social Media 1–2 137 41
(n = 335) 3–5 122 36
Over 5 hours 44 13
 96

Table 6 (Continued)

Descriptives of Sample

Demographic Characteristics Frequency Percent

SMSs in addition Instagram 203 61

to Facebook Twitter 124 37
(n = 335) Tik Tok 116 35
Snapchat 110 33
Pinterest 93 28
Reddit 78 23
Discord 39 12
Blog(s) 35 10
Other 32 10
Internet forums 31 9
Metaverse 7 2

Note. Table 6 highlights frequency and percentage of demographics collected for this study.

Measurement Model

The following tables illustrate appropriate presentation of results. It is important to note

that many standards exist. This study used statistic metrics deemed acceptable for Trident

University International dissertations in the PhD Business Administration program. SEM using

SmartPLS was the preferred method for analysis within this study based on prior literature.

The minimum sample standard for this study is 200 participants. Total valid and

completed surveys for analysis in this study was 335. A cleansed data set was imported into

SmartPLS for SEM analysis. Descriptive statistics frequencies and percentages were aggregated

along with measurement model accuracy by the PLS Algorithm to validate measures
 97

accordingly. Reflective measures such as validity, internal consistency reliability, convergent

validity were properly discriminant validity (and presented in analysis below).

The measurement model helps assess reliability and validity of the outer model. All the

alpha values and CRs were higher than the recommended values of 0.700 for this study. The

AVE and CRs were all higher, or close to 0.500 and 0.700, respectively, which corroborates

convergent validity.

AVE must be greater than 0.500 to be considered for testing convergent validity within

this study. AVE shows that construct items come together and work together, or converge and

measure latent concepts accurately. AVE looks at the square of loadings in each construct. It is

the sum of loadings divided by the number of items.

Irritation contained one item with a factor loading less than 0.500. This is item number

two. The item number two factor loading remains close to 0.500 at 0.479 while maintaining an

overall AVE greater than 0.500. Item number two for the variable irritation remained within this

study as a result. The rho_A value should fall between that of Cronbach’s Alpha and Composite

Reliability. This is the case for all variables within the measurement model. Composite

reliability should be greater than 0.700. All items within the measurement model maintain

composite reliability. All VIF (Variance Inflation Factor) totals are less than five (VIF < 5)

which indicates no major collinearity issues. All Q2 scores are positive. This indicates that the

model is valid and has predictive relevance.

 98

Table 7
Measured Variable Factor Loading and Scale Reliability
Variable Item Factor Scale Variable Item Factor Scale
Loading Reliability Loading Reliability
Brand 1 0.799 0.884 Social Media 1 0.921 0.917
Awareness 2 0.869 Marketing 2 0.946
3 0.896 [Advertising] 3 0.911
4 0.879 Value

Informativeness 1 0.863 0.900 Irritation 1 0.903 0.852

2 0.894 2 0.479
3 0.884 3 0.762
4 0.868 4 0.923
5 0.764

Entertainment 1 0.826 0.882 Purchase 1 0.874 0.915

2 0.898 Intention 2 0.895
3 0.876 3 0.901
4 0.835 4 0.902

Credibility 1 0.909 0.919

2 0.922
3 0.920
4 0.838

Note. This table details variable factor loadings and scale reliability.
 99

Table 8
Construct Reliability and Convergent Validity
Cronbach's rho_A Composite Average
Alpha Reliability Variance
(CR) Extracted (AVE)
Brand 0.884 0.892 0.920 0.742
Awareness

Informativeness 0.900 0.902 0.930 0.770

Entertainment 0.882 0.897 0.919 0.739

Credibility 0.919 0.922 0.883 0.612
Social Media 0.917 0.948 0.948 0.858
Marketing
[Advertising]
Value

Irritation 0.852 0.922 0.883 0.612

Purchase 0.915 0.915 0.940 0.798
Intention
Note. This table details construct reliability and convergent reliability among latent variables

within this study.

Discriminant Validity

This table is useful to display discriminant validity when testing the measurement model

using PLS. There are three ways to establish discriminant validity. Primary methods establishing

discriminant validity for this study include:

• Fornell-Larcker Criterion

• Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT)

Source: Fawad (2021)

The Fornell-Larcker criterion looks at the square root of the previously reported AVE per

item. The top value should be higher than subsequent lower values within the same column. For
 100

example, the AVE Brand Awareness is 0.742. The square root of 0.742 is 0.862. This is the

Fornell-Larcker criterion the variable brand awareness. Discriminant validity was assessed by

making sure the square of AVE was higher than correlations with other constructs beneath.

Table 9 below breaks out discriminant validity using the Fornell-Larcker Criterion.

Testing discriminant validity using the Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) requires that

values be less than 0.85 per Fawad (2021) or less than 0.90 per Henseler, Ringle & Sarstedt,

2015). Only the intersection of the variables Informativeness and Brand Awareness reports a

value at or greater than 0.85. The value is not necessarily that much greater than 0.85. Table 10

below breaks out discriminant validity using the HTMT Criterion.

Table 9
Discriminant Validity (Fornell-Larcker Criterion)
BA CRED ENT INF IRR PI SMMAV
Brand 0.862
Awareness

Credibility 0.469 0.898

Entertainment 0.573 0.727 0.859
Informativeness 0.761 0.600 0.713 0.877
Irritation -0.159 -0.321 -0.249 -0.237 0.779

Purchase 0.615 0.774 0.731 0.622 -0.336 0.893

Intention

Social Media 0.493 0.626 0.606 0.580 -0.290 0.661 0.926

Marketing
[Advertising]
Value
Note. This showcases discriminant validity using Fornell-Larcker Criterion.
 101

Table 10
Discriminant Validity (Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio – HTMT)
BA CRED ENT INF IRR PI SMMAV
Brand
Awareness

Credibility 0.510
Entertainment 0.633 0.801
Informativeness 0.850 0.658 0.793
Irritation 0.164 0.316 0.238 0.228

Purchase 0.678 0.843 0.806 0.682 0.313

Intention

Social Media 0.547 0.680 0.667 0.636 0.271 0.722

Marketing
[Advertising]
Value
Note. This table details discriminant validity using HTMT.

Construct Descriptives

Table 11 below details descriptive statistics for construct items. Construct descriptive

statistics were computed using the software package SPSS. Descriptives needed to be featured

by construct, not indicator. SmartPLS is great for SEM; however, does not give true means (it

automatically zeroes out constructs). SPSS was used as a result. Descriptives were computed by

first creating a construct consisting of averages for each indicator. For instance, the construct

BA in Table 11 comprises of Brand Awareness Indicators 1 – 4. The descriptive constructs

came about by using the ‘Compute Variable’ option within SPSS. Once a construct was created,
 102

then descriptive statistics were accumulated using by going to ‘Analyze’, ‘Descriptive Statistics’

and selecting the construct(s) of interest within SPSS.

Skewness is a measure of symmetry, or lack thereof. If skewness falls between -3 to +3

then it is considered okay. Kurtosis is another descriptive measurement of importance. Kurtosis

looks at the measure of whether data is heavy-tailed when compared to normal distribution.

Kurtosis is considered as good if between -10 to +10 (Gawali, 2021). No items were deleted due

to low factor loadings as noted in the preceding narrative. Skewness and kurtosis are within

acceptable boundaries.

Table 11
Construct and Variable Descriptives and Normality
Construct N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis
BA 335 1.50 7.00 5.83 0.98 -1.22 1.943
INF 335 1.00 7.00 5.32 1.23 -0.935 1.012
ENT 335 1.00 7.00 4.35 1.39 -0.270 -0.351
CRED 335 1.00 7.00 4.06 1.37 -0.159 -0.95
SMMAV 335 1.00 7.00 4.87 1.31 -0.795 0.647
PI 335 1.00 7.00 4.26 1.49 -0.396 -0.337
IRR 335 1.00 7.00 4.79 1.11 -0.366 0.208

Note. Table 11 points out important construct descriptive statistics.

Structural Model Analysis

The structural model is evaluated by bootstrapping within SmartPLS to look at the

relationship between constructs to assess hypotheses. Bootstrapping is a process that amplifies

existing data to a specified number of factors (Fawad, 2021). Bootstrapping was set to 5,000 for

this study based on recommendations by Fawad (2021). No items needed to be removed due to

low factor loadings as noted in the preceding narratives.

 103

Bivariate Analysis

Bivariate relationships look at the path coefficients, effect size and overall model

coefficient of determination (R-squared, or R2). Bivariate relationships are considered

significant within this study if the p-value is less than (<) 0.05. R2 values are deemed substantial

(>0.67), moderate (>0.33) or weak (>0.19) (Chin, 1998).

It is good to note that R2 values in the SEM model are the total combined effect of all

predictors and not limited to a particular predictor in the relationship. If a R2 only from a

specified predictor is desired, then a new model containing only the predictor of interest and DV

is required. Such a case is typically only needed in additional analysis to take more of a deep

dive into interaction effects from addition of other predictors. This is mainly used when

examining a non-significant IV-DV unmediated relationship within a significant mediation

model.

H1. Brand awareness positively impacts purchase intention.

Statistical analysis results indicate a significant positive relationship between variable

brand awareness and purchase intention (p value < 0.05). A path coefficient of 0.384 indicates

that a one unit increase in the value of variable brand awareness is related to a 0.384 increase in

the value of variable purchase intention, which is considered a direct effect. Overall, the model

predicted .577, or fifty-eight percent (58%) of the variance in variable purchase intention (R2 =

0.577). The null hypothesis is supported.

H2a. Brand awareness positively impacts informativeness.

Statistical analysis results indicate a significant positive relationship between variable

brand awareness and variable informativeness (p value < 0.05). A path coefficient of 0.761
 104

indicates a one unit increase in the value of variable brand awareness is related to a 0.761

increase in the value of variable informativeness which is considered a direct effect. Overall, the

model predicted .579, or fifty-eight percent (58%) of the variance in variable informativeness (R2

= 0.579). The null hypothesis is supported.

H2b. Brand awareness positively impacts entertainment.

Statistical analysis results indicate a significant positive relationship between variable

brand awareness and variable entertainment (p value < 0.05). A path coefficient of 0.573

indicates a one unit increase in the value of variable brand awareness is related to a 0.573

increase in the value of variable entertainment which is considered a direct effect. Overall, the

model predicted .329, or thirty-three percent (33%) of the variance in variable entertainment (R2

= 0.329). The null hypothesis is supported.

H2c. Brand awareness positively impacts credibility.

Statistical analysis results indicate a significant positive relationship between variable

brand awareness and variable credibility (p value < 0.05). A path coefficient of 0.469 indicates a

one unit increase in the value of variable brand awareness is related to a 0.469 increase in the

value of variable credibility, which is considered a direct effect. Overall, the model predicted

.220, or twenty-two percent (22%) of the variance in variable credibility (R2 = 0.220). The null

hypothesis is supported. The supported hypothesis remains as one of the weaker relationships

within this study though.

H3. Informativeness positively affects social media marketing [advertising] value.

Statistical analysis results indicate a significant positive relationship between variable

informativeness and variable social media marketing [advertising] value (p value < 0.05). A path
 105

coefficient of 0.242 indicates a one unit increase in the value of variable informativeness is

related to a 0.242 increase in the value of variable social media marketing [advertising] value

which is considered a direct effect. Overall, the model predicted .468, or forty-seven percent

(47%) of the variance in variable social media marketing [advertising] value (R2 = 0.468). The

null hypothesis is supported.

H4. Entertainment positively affects social media marketing [advertising] value.

Statistical analysis results indicate a significant positive relationship between variable

entertainment and social media marketing [advertising] value (p value < 0.05). A path

coefficient of 0.179 indicates a one unit increase in the value of variable entertainment is related

to a 0.179 increase in the value of variable social media marketing [advertising] value which is

considered a direct effect. The null hypothesis is supported.

H5. Credibility positively affects social media marketing [advertising] value.

Statistical analysis results indicate a significant positive relationship between variable

credibility and social media marketing [advertising] value (p value < 0.05). A path coefficient of

0.350 indicates a one unit increase in the value of variable credibility is related to a 0.350

increase in the value of variable social media marketing [advertising] value which is considered a

direct effect. The null hypothesis is supported.

H6. Social media marketing [advertising] value positively affects purchase intention.

Statistical analysis results indicate a significant positive relationship between variable

social media marketing [advertising] value and variable purchase intention (p value < 0.05). A

path coefficient of 0.397 indicates a one unit increase in the value of social media marketing
 106

[advertising] value is related to a 0.397 increase in the value of variable purchase intention,

which is considered a direct effect. The null hypothesis is supported.

H7. Irritation moderates the relationship between social media marketing [advertising] value and
purchase intention.

Statistical analysis results do not indicate that the variable irritation has significant

moderating effect relationship between social media marketing [advertising] value and purchase

intention (p-value > 0.05). The null hypothesis is rejected.

This finding was not necessarily unexpected. Past similar research appears to focus on

topics like annoyance and/or irritation from a general point of view; however, with no

specificity. For instance, what drives consumers feel that an advertisement is annoying? Are

consumers annoyed by advertising that is intrusive and/or misleading? Past research shows the

need to further evaluate demotivating variables; however, do not state how. This potentially led

to a disappointing but not unexpected outcome for hypothesis number seven (H7) within this

study. Findings within this study can serve as a stepping-stone to better define the variable

‘annoyance’ or such similar variables in future research. See the ‘Additional Analysis’ section

below for more information about the variable irritation.

 107

Table 12
Bivariate Analysis
Note. Table 12 highlights study hypotheses and whether quantitative analysis using SEM
Hypothesis Sig. Path Finding
Coefficient
H1 Brand awareness positively impacts < 0.05 .384 Supported
purchase intention.

H2a Brand awareness positively impacts < 0.05 0.761 Supported

informativeness.
H2b Brand awareness positively impacts < 0.05 0.573 Supported
entertainment.

H2c Brand awareness positively impacts < 0.05 0.469 Supported

credibility.

H3 Informativeness positively affects social < 0.05 0.242 Supported

media marketing [advertising] value.
H4 Entertainment positively affects social media < 0.05 0.179 Supported
marketing [advertising] value.

H5 Credibility positively affects social media < 0.05 0.350 Supported

marketing [advertising] value.

H6 Social media marketing [advertising] value < 0.05 0.397 Supported

positively affects purchase intention.
H7 Irritation moderates the relationship between > 0.05 -0.163 Not
social media marketing [advertising] value and Supported
purchase intention.
supports the hypotheses.

Multivariate Analysis

Mediation is determined by looking at indirect effects of mediated relationships versus

unmediated to mediated relationship(s) between IVs and DVs. Findings come from the path

coefficient and total indirect effect tables in SmartPLS. Conservative considerations point out
 108

specific indirect effects of the mediated path being significant (p < 0.05) as well as the

unmediated relationships between the IVs and DVs being significant (p < 0.05). If significance

is present, then the non-significant IV-DV relationship may be indicative of unexpected

interaction with a different predictor in the research model. Further analysis may be warranted in

such a case.

If the mediated relationship between the IV and DV is not significant (p > 0.05), then full

mediation exists. If the mediated relationship between the IV and DV is significant (p < 0.05),

then partial mediation exists. Partial mediation can be explained by a reduction in the path

coefficient from the unmediated relationship to the mediated relationship (Hair & Hult, et al.,

2017).

Partial mediation is determined when the impact of a direct effect is significant, and the

indirect effect is also significant (Fawad, 2021). Complete (or full) mediation occurs when the

direct effect is insignificant, but the indirect effect is significant (Fawad, 2021). Most

multivariate analyses within this study exhibit partial mediation. Table 13 below assesses

mediation among variables within this study.

Table 13
Multivariate Analyses – Mediation
Hypothesis* Sig. Path R2 Finding
Coefficient
H2a Informativeness (Inf) mediates the < 0.05 0.073 0.577 Supported -
relationship between one Brand Partial
Awareness (BA) and Social Media
Marketing [Advertising] Value
(SMMAV) and Purchase Intention
(PI) or BA→Inf→SMMAV→PI

BA→Inf → SMMAV < 0.05 0.184 0.468

 109

Table 13 (Continued)

Multivariate Analyses – Mediation

Hypothesis* Sig. Path R2 Finding

Coefficient
H2b Entertainment (Ent) mediates the < 0.05 0.041 0.577 Support-
relationship between one Brand Partial
Awareness (BA) and Social Media
Marketing [Advertising] Value
(SMMAV) and Purchase Intention
(PI), or BA→Ent→SMMAV→PI

BA→Ent→ SMMAV <0.05 0.103 0.468

H2c Credibility (Cred) mediates the < 0.05 0.065 0.577 Support -
relationship between one Brand Partial
Awareness (BA) and Social Media
Marketing [Advertising] Value
(SMMAV) and Purchase Intention
(PI), or BA→Cred→SMMAV→PI

BA→Cred→ SMMAV <0.05 0.164 0.468

H3 Social Media Marketing <0.05 0.096 0.577 Support -

[Advertising] Value (SMMAV) Partial
mediates the relationship between
Informativeness (Inf) and Purchase
Intention (PI), or
Inf →SMMAV→PI

H4 Social Media Marketing <0.05 0.071 0.577 Support -

[Advertising] Value (SMMAV) Partial
mediates the relationship between
Entertainment (Ent) and Purchase
Intention (PI), or Ent
→SMMAV→PI
 110

Table 13 (Continued)

Multivariate Analyses – Mediation

Hypothesis* Sig. Path R2 Finding

Coefficient
H5 Social Media Marketing <0.05 0.139 0.577 Support -
[Advertising] Value (SMMAV) Partial
mediates the relationship between
Credibility (Cred) and Purchase
Intention (PI), or
Cred →SMMAV→PI
Note. * Hypotheses 1 was not tested due to missing prerequisites to mediation; Hypothesis 7 was not

tested because of looking at mediation but is addressed under the section titled ‘Additional Analysis’

below.

Moderation was reviewed by testing (p-value <= .05) level of significance. If significant,

the nature of the moderation is assessed by path coefficient and by evaluation of the simple slope

analysis (Hair & Hult, et al., 2017). Within this study, the variable Irritation (IRR) does not

moderate SMMAV and PI at the specified threshold of significance. Interestingly, IRR appears

to moderate SMMAV and PI if testing (p < 0.10) level of significance. This may indicate that

further assessment of the variable IRR as a moderator is warranted; however, not necessarily

statistically useful as a finding within this study. Irritation was not assessed for its mediation

qualities as part of initial analysis but is addressed under the section titled ‘Additional Analysis’

below.
 111

Figure 4
Hypothesis 7 Moderation Simple Slope Analysis

Note. The presence of the bottom line (e.g., green line) trending upwards indicates the

potentiality for moderation within this study. Unfortunately, moderation is not significant within

the desired constraints for this study.

 112

Figure 5
Structural Model Analysis Results

Additional Analysis

The variable irritation appears to have been assessed minimally within similar research

over the past 20 years. Consider that Ducoffe (1996), Hutter & Hautz et al. (2013) and Cuesta-

Valino & Rodriguez et al. (2020) assess the variable irritation (or similar such as annoyance)

albeit as an IV. This study looked at irritation from a different angle (e.g., as a moderating

variable). Authors such as Cuesta-Valino & Rodriguez et al. were still using irritation (or similar)

variables as IVs as of 2020. This study is one of the first known attempts into explaining the

value of annoyance and/or irritation as a moderator and/or mediator variable. Unfortunately,

moderation results were not found (p > .05) with a level of significance. If a threshold of p <
 113

0.10 level of significance was considered, then this study could have been able to better conclude

some potential moderation.

Irritation was not found to be a moderator within the confines of this study but it does

prove to be a potential useful mediator. Showcasing annoyance and/or irritation as a mediator is

helpful and still aligns with recommendations by Florenthal (2019) to look at demotivating

variables from different perspectives.

Both moderation and mediation ascertain how other variables fit into a particular

relationship; however, the similarity ends there. Moderation looks at how a variable influences

strength and direction (positive or negative) between and IV and DV. Mediation helps explain a

reason for a relationship among variables to exist. In other words, mediation shows how IV

leads to some change through a mediator variable which in turn leads to a change in a DV.

Unfortunately, mediation does not test causality. It only assesses correlations among

relationships (Chooi, C., 2020). Many studies cite Baron & Kenny (1986) when discussing

moderator versus mediator differences.

Hutter & Hautz et al. (2013) acknowledge that annoyance in respect to social media is an

under researched area. Hutter and Hautz et al. (2013) concluded that annoyance as an IV

exhibited some negative effects on consumers purchase behavior but not necessarily on brand

awareness. This study highlights that advertising annoyance and/or irritation can negatively

impact consumers purchase intention(s) especially in relation to social media advertising.

Further analysis of demotivating variables for mediation and/or moderation potential is

warranted given from this study. Future research can potentially better assess the variable

annoyance and/or irritation by a) looking at a different mix of survey items (as featured in other
 114

similar studies) and/or b) assessing the impact of annoyance and/or irritation toward other DVs

as featured in other similar studies.

Future like studies should consider better defining how consumers perceive advertising to

be annoying and/or irritating. Assessing the variable with specificity may potentially net more

useful quantitative findings. Table 15 below highlights a few potential areas where future

researchers can start.

Figure 6

Structural Model Analysis Results with Irritation as a Mediator

Additional Analyses: Open Ended Questions

Study participants were asked voluntarily to address additional concerns around their

opinions for several open-ended questions. The open-ended questions asked study participants

to answer the following questions:

1. What do you like about the advertising of a brand (or brands) that you follow on social
media?
2. What do you dislike about the advertising of a brand (or brands) that you follow on social
media?
 115

3. What other factors (whether online or offline) may influence your decision to make a
purchase?

Table 14 below addresses what study participants say the like about advertising of a

brand (or brands) that they follow on social media. A key theme emergence of interest is in

relation to acquiring product information from brands online. Lesser mentioned (but

noteworthy) categorical consumers’ responses pertain to:

• Interest in brands leveraging influencers

• Seeing brands being ‘true’ to brand image and/or values
• Being able to engage with brands online
• Utilization of online WOM (Word-of-Mouth) for product/service recommendations
• Preference for short (e.g., easy to load) video content

Responses to open-ended questions about what study participants say they like about

advertising is important. Some responses align with findings in past literature review. For

instance, more than ten percent (10%) of study respondents openly admit to liking

advertisements that provide new product information. This finding aligns with Logan and Bright

et al. (2012) who report that consumers find advertising to be an informative avenue when

getting product information.

 116

Table 14
What do you like about the advertising of a brand (or brands) that you follow on social media?
Top Response Categories % of sample (n = 335)
Getting new product information and/or updates 11.9%
Advertising is relevant to consumers’ needs and/or wants 6.6%
Getting product information (non-specific) 6.2%
Price and/or sales (e.g., promotions) updates 5.4%
Product and/or service usability 4.2%
Advertising is clever and/or witty (e.g., creative) 3.3%
Brand(s) is/are accessible online 3.3%
Advertisement(s) is/are funny 3.0%
Advertising is easy to view (e.g., graphics/videos visually 2.7%
appealing and/or load fast)
Advertisement(s) is/are educational and/or informative 2.7%
Note. This table breaks out top categorical responses among study participants mentioning what

they like about advertising of a brand (or brands) that they follow on social media.

Table 15 below addresses what study participants say the dislike about advertising of a

brand (or brands) that they follow on social media. A noticeable theme relates to how much

people feel (whether real or perceived) that they are inundated with too much advertising.

Concerns about AI (Artificial Intelligence) being used to track consumers’ information online

surfaces among open-ended responses albeit minimally. Some survey respondents’ express

distaste toward brands appearing the ’fake' or if they lack authenticity. This finding aligns with

Anjum and Thomas et al. (2020) who point out that consumers prefer brands that maintain an

authentic image online.

Aaker and Buzzone (1985) say that things like poor casting or graphic content of physical

discomfort lead consumers to become irritated with advertising. In contrast, Smith (2011) points

out that people find intrusive content to be annoying. Open-ended responses within this study

appear to side more with how Smith (2011) attributes drivers of advertising annoyance.
 117

Past similar research looks at variables like annoyance and/or irritation in general.

Perhaps future research warrants more in-depth analyses better defining what actually drives

consumers to decide whether an advertising is annoying. Open-ended responses point to

concerns among study participants claiming to dislike seeing advertising too much.

Interestingly, more survey respondents say the dislike too much advertising over misleading

advertising. How much is potentially too much? This is the question to ask and an answer to

determine. Overall, open-ended responses about what survey respondents say drives dislike

toward advertising appears to counter how demotivating variables are currently being studied.

Table 15
What do you dislike about the advertising of a brand (or brands) that you follow on social
media?
Top Response Categories % of sample (n = 335)
Frequency of advertising (e.g., see ads too much) 18.9%
Advertising is misleading (e.g., pricing or product availability is off) 10.5%
Online advertising is too intrusive 6.0%
Ads are too “pushy” or promote sales too much 4.5%
Ads not relevant to consumers’ situation 3.9%
Brands imitating other brands marketing strategies online 3.9%
Brands appear “fake” online 3.6%
Ads being annoying (non-specific) 3.3%
Online advertising too disruptive (e.g., YouTube ads start midway 1.5%
through a video)
Data tracking concerns 1.2%
AI (Artificial Intelligence) 1.0%

Note. This table breaks out top categorical responses among study participants mentioning what

they dislike about advertising of a brand (or brands) that they follow on social media.
 118

Table 16 below highlights notable open-ended question responses by study participants

expanding upon other factors that potentially influence purchase intention.

Table 16
What other factors (whether online or offline) may influence your decision to make a purchase?
Top Response Categories % of sample (n = 335)
Price 21.4%
Consumer reviews 12.9%
Needs/Usefulness of product and/or service being advertised 11.0%
Community recommendations and/or WOM (Word-of-Mouth) 8.9%
Trust 8.1%
Already a known brand and/or product 4.5%
Product quality 4.5%
Value 3.3%
Product availability 3.3%
Organization/Brand leverages social media influencers 2.1%
Free shipping 1.8%
Advertising in informative 1.2%
Testimonials 1.0%
Organizational ethics (e.g., how does company treat employees) 1.0%
Prior experience with organization and/or brand 1.0%
Supports small and/or minority businesses 1.0%
Return policy 1.0%
Warranty options 1.0%
Brick-and-Mortar presence nearby 1.0%
Note. This table breaks out top categorical responses among study participants mentioning what

factors influence their decision to purchase.

Control Variable Interaction

Potential control variables including age, gender and time spent on social media

platforms do not appear to impact DV outcomes as moderators with significance within

SmartPLS analyses.

Evaluation of Findings

Overall, results were consistent with existing research and theory. Only hypothesis (H7)

is not supported within this study. This was not necessarily unexpected since looking at irritation
 119

and/or annoyance as a variable other than an IV is rather exploratory in nature. Hutter & Hautz et

al. (2013) assessed annoyance as an IV but found no direct effect without significance (p > 0.05)

on purchase intention.

H1. Brand awareness positively impacts purchase intention.

This finding is consistent with prior studies. Hutter & Hautz et al. (2013) look at brand

awareness as a mediating variable and report a path coefficient of .25 within their respective

study. For comparison, this study reviews brand awareness as a IV in accordance within the

context of HOE theory. This study portrays a path coefficient of 0.384 between brand awareness

and purchase intention.

H2a. Brand awareness positively impacts informativeness.

Despite awareness being the leading item within the cognitive stage of HOE theory, it has

historically been assessed as a mediator and/or DV within recent past similar studies. This begs

an interesting question. Why? Brand awareness is shown to positively affect informativeness

with a path coefficient of 0.761 with significance (p < 0.001).

H2b. Brand awareness positively impacts entertainment.

Brand awareness as an IV is shown to positively affect whether consumers find an

advertisement to be more entertaining with a path coefficient of 0.573 with significance (p <

0.001).

H2c. Brand awareness positively impacts credibility.

Brand awareness as an IV is shown to positively affect whether consumers find an

advertisement to be more credible with a path coefficient of 0.469 with significance (p < 0.001).
 120

H3. Informativeness positively affects social media marketing [advertising] value.

A previous study by Cuesta-Valino & Rodriguez et al. (2020) looks at informativeness as

an IV and its effect on social media advertising value. Cuesta-Valino & Rodriguez et al. (2020)

report a path coefficient of 0.335 with significance (p < 0.01) toward social media advertising

value. This study confirms that informativeness positively effects social media advertising value

albeit with a lower path coefficient of 0.242 with significance (p < 0.01).

H4. Entertainment positively affects social media marketing [advertising] value.

Cuesta-Valino & Rodriguez et al. (2020) look at entertainment as an IV and its effect on

social media advertising value. Cuesta-Valino & Rodriguez (2020) report a path coefficient of

0.055 with significance (p < 0.01). Likewise, this study confirms the positive impact of

entertainment on social media advertising value. Assessing entertainment as a mediating variable

appears to help further the impact of the variable entertainment on social media advertising

value. This study confirms that entertainment positively effects social media advertising value

with a slightly higher path coefficient of 0.179 with significance (p < 0.05).

Entertainment is found to positively impact other DVs in similar past research. This

finding appears to support similar positions in past research as well as logical conclusions by

practitioner marketers and other advertising experts. Consider that Graham (2022) of the Wall

Street Journal acknowledged Super Bowl ads are effective because they entertain people.

H5. Credibility positively affects social media marketing [advertising] value.

Cuesta-Valino & Rodriguez et al. (2020) look at credibility as an IV and its effect on

social media advertising value. Cuesta-Valino & Rodriguez (2020) report a path coefficient of

0.475 with significance (p < 0.001). Likewise, this study confirms the positive impact of
 121

credibility on social media advertising value. Assessing credibility as a mediating variable

appears to lead to a lesser impact of the variable credibility on social media advertising value.

This study confirms that credibility positively effects social media advertising value although

with a lower path coefficient of 0.350 with significance (p < 0.001).

H6. Social media marketing [advertising] value positively affects purchase intention.
Very few known studies look at the effect of social media advertising and its direct effect

on purchase intention. Cuesta-Valino & Rodriguez et al. (2020) draw a positive relationship

between social media advertising value and purchase intention albeit through a mediator variable

attitude. This study reports a direct path coefficient of 0.397 with significance (p < 0.001)

toward purchase intention.

H7. Irritation moderates the relationship between social media marketing [advertising] value and
purchase intention.
Irritation does not appear to moderate the relationship between social media marketing

[advertising] value and purchase intention. This can be expected given the exploratory nature of

this analysis. Irritation appears to be a relatively useful mediator exhibiting a path coefficient of

-0.145 with significance (p < 0.001). This illustrates that irritation can in fact detract from

consumers’ purchase intention. Similar to past studies, the amount of impact appears to be

minimal.

Hutter & Hautz et al. (2013) are not able to draw a direct effect of annoyance as an IV on

purchase intention either, but their work shows a slight negative impact of annoyance toward

other variables within the confines of their study.

Hypotheses within this study are derived from prior literature with a model set up

featuring variables of interest in accordance with actual HOE theory continuum. Findings within
 122

this study are as expected for the most part. It is not a surprise to see that hypothesis number

seven (H7) is not supported given the exploratory nature of analysis around the variable

irritation. Irritation does not have a moderating impact, but it does appear to be a useful

mediator variable. Further analysis is warranted.

 123

Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusions

This study sought to find out how brand awareness among social media users impacts

purchase intention. The purpose of this study is to help advance research around Ducoffe’s

(1996) advertising value model and HOE theory, especially among consumers online. An

overarching research question addressed within this study pertains to filling in existing

knowledge gaps among complementary HOE theory and Ducoffe’s (1996) advertising value

model, especially within the online realm.

Data for this study comes from a convenience sample of participants maintaining a

presence on SMSs in addition to Facebook. Study participants were asked a variety of questions

(based on literature) about their experiences with advertising brand awareness in relation to a)

finding out whether ads being informative, entertaining and credible contributes to b) an

understanding of how consumers determine whether marketing efforts add value while c)

impacting consumers’ intent to purchase.

Interpretation of Results (by research question)

RQ1. How does brand awareness affect purchase intention?

Overall, brand awareness positively affects consumers’ purchase intention. Brand

awareness is assessed as the leading IV as such within the context of HOE continuum. Brand

awareness positively affecting purchase intention is consistent past studies. Within the confines

of this study, brand awareness appears to exhibit a stronger affect toward purchase intention as a

leading IV versus DV or mediator as seen in prior similar research.

RQ2. How does brand awareness ultimately impact whether consumers find social media

advertising content to be informative, entertaining, and credible?

 124

It is determined that brand awareness positively impacts whether consumers find social

media advertising content to be considered informative, entertaining, and credible. Although

with varying degrees versus past similar research, this study confirms findings of a positive

impact as also presented by Cuesta-Valino & Rodriguez et al. (2020).

RQ3. To what extent does informativeness impact social media marketing [advertising] value?

Like the study by Cuesta-Valino & Rodriguez et al. (2020), informativeness is shown to

positively impact social media marketing [advertising] value.

RQ4. To what extent does entertainment impact social media marketing [advertising] value?

Like the study by Cuesta-Valino & Rodriguez et al. (2020), entertainment is shown to

positively impact social media marketing [advertising] value.

RQ5. To what extent does credibility impact social media marketing [advertising] value?

Like the study by Cuesta-Valino & Rodriguez et al. (2020), credibility is shown to

positively impact social media marketing [advertising] value.

RQ6. How does social media marketing [advertising] value influence purchase intention?

Social media marketing [advertising] value is shown to positively influence purchase

intention within this study. Social media marketing [advertising] value and like variables do not

appear to be heavily studied. In fact, a Google Scholar search for the phrase “social media

advertising value” returns only 139 mentions since 2020. Cuesta-Valino & Rodriguez et al.

(2020) can tie social media to purchase intention through the mediator attitude (within their

study). What is clear is that social media marketing [advertising] value needs to be continually

and further studied.

 125

RQ7. To what extent does annoyance and/or irritation moderate the relationship between social

media marketing [advertising] value versus consumers’ intent to purchase?

Annoyance and/or irritation is not found to moderate the relationship between social

media marketing [advertising] value and consumers’ purchase intention. Annoyance and/or

irritation is found to be a viable mediator variable though.

Study limitations can certainly have impacted study results. Potential limitations

impacting analysis include (but are not limited too):

• Accessibility to gathering data from consumers offline in lieu of the Covid-19

pandemic.

• Using a convenience sample versus targeting specific population segments.

• Failure to fully incorporate more annoyance and/or irritation items.

• Pooling data from users across as many SMSs as possible versus specific SMSs
(e.g., Tik Tok users only).

Implications for Theory

Study results are certainly supported by (as well as confirm) similar results in past like

research. While the actual impact of influence between IVs and DVs is different that than

reported on other similar studies, the trends are comparable. For example, both this study and

Hutter & Hautz et al. (2013) show that the variable brand awareness positively impacts purchase

intention.

It is unfortunate to have not found moderation from variables of interest (e.g., irritation,

gender, age, time on social media sites, etc…) with significance (p < 0.05); however, lack of

moderation is not necessarily unexpected given the exploratory nature of the topic within this

study. It is worthwhile to note that annoyance and/or irritation did present moderation with
 126

significance at p < 0.10. This study uses p < 0.05 as a threshold though. Such a finding may

indicate opportunity to further refine and assess annoyance and/or irritation or like variables.

Overall, this study shows how variables of interest captured from Ducoffe’s (1996)

advertising value model and HOE theory conclude with solid findings consistent along the HOE

theory continuum to showcase how brand awareness impacts purchase intention. This study can

contribute to advancing marketing knowledge through (but not limited too):

• Furthering Ducoffe’s (1996) advertising model within the online realm in

accordance with HOE theory.

• Showing how combining theories can continue to lead to stronger results in some
instances.

• Bringing social media research up to speed (among both academia and

practitioner marketers) slightly by looking at data from social media users
maintaining a presence on SMSs beyond solely Facebook.

Implications for Practice

Marketing gurus Neil Patel and Eric Siu discuss the importance of brand awareness in

their podcast episode #1999 titled How to Build an Indestructible SEO Strategy. Neil and Eric

point out that companies with brand recognition are better able endure upheavals in the Search

Engine Optimization (SEO) and other online landscape marketing challenges. As an example,

the podcasters point out that search traffic often comes from consumers simply typing in a brand

name (e.g., Toyota) within a search engine (e.g., Google). This phenomenon is also mentioned

by Zivkovic (2022) in his Funky Marketing podcast episode titled Maeva Cifuentes: SEO &

Content for Fast-Growth B2B Companies. Furthermore, Neil and Eric point out that brands

getting high brand search requests tend to further benefit from search algorithms ultimately

better featuring their website more prominently within search results for other non-brand specific
 127

only keywords. In other words, marketers that successfully build brands and/or brand awareness

can potentially bypass nuances associated with traversing complicated search engine algorithms.

Neil and Eric’s podcast episode alludes to the importance of brand awareness from a

marketing practitioner point of view. Many practitioner marketers focus making great content

(e.g., ads); however, fail to make building a brand and generating brand awareness a focal point.

This study aligns with both marketing practicing sales funnel tactics with HOE theory in a way

that merely points out with statistical analysis what leading popular and mainstream marketers

are already saying. This is further supported as marketers who desire to use online and SEO

strategies can leverage specific keywords based on where consumers are in the sales funnel

and/or HOE theory stages (Zivkovic, 2022). This study shows how brand awareness can

preclude marketing success in other areas.

This study demonstrates the importance of better understanding how marketers should

examine variables across different facets of business, marketing and consumer behavior.

Practitioner marketers gain to better understand what drives brand awareness and how to

implement tactics to achieve brand awareness growth. Additionally, this study shows potential

to further assess what consumers find to be annoying within and among advertising. Past studies

tend to look at variables such as annoyance and/or irritation from a bird’s eye view. Open-ended

questions perhaps open the door to better assess advertising annoyance among consumers with

more specificity. For instance, a leading response among study participants who admit to

disliking advertising comes from mentions of seeing ads too much. What is too much? Now is

the time to get answers for such thoughtful aggregate responses.

 128

Implications for Research

This study confirms how combining concepts across existing marketing theories can help

further explanatory power. Furthermore, this study showcases benefits and necessity of using

more diverse data sets. This study does not lead to many unexpected findings with SEM using

SmartPLS; however, supports and confirms that many existing theories be expanded upon by

researchers using broader data sets and from study participants with varied backgrounds on

SMSs beyond simply Facebook. Practitioner marketers already utilize a variety of data sets (e.g.,

traditional market research surveys, focus groups, eye-tracking studies, social media analytics,

etc…). Marketing is one area where academia appears to need to catch-up with the proverbial

‘real-world’ marketing professionals.

Study strengths include leaning on a solid literature review for development of both

conceptual, measurement and structural models in conjunction with a broad focus across as many

social media platforms as possible. Study limitations come from limited knowledge of the

variable annoyance and/or irritation (largely due to the variable not being heavily studied in the

first place). Ducoffe’s (1996) advertising value model and HOE theory served as a baseline for

analysis. Consider that more than five (5) other theories were cited within literature review that

also utilized findings from Ducoffe’s (1996) advertising value model and HOE theory. Mixing

and matching concepts from other marketing and business theory with Ducoffe’s (1996) research

and/or HOE theory may produce different (more significant or less significant) findings.

Participation in this study is delimited to social media users who utilize other SMSs in

addition to Facebook but not a particular SMS. Study results lead to some advancement toward

understanding what drives consumers’ purchase intentions overall but not necessarily on a

particular SMS platform. This is important as some SMSs cater to different demographic
 129

segments better than others. It is helpful to see how Ducoffe’s (1996) advertising model

generally holds up with HOE theory across social media users on different SMSs in the presence

of brand awareness (whether online or offline).

Recommendations for Future Research

This study expands upon prior academic research using concepts from Ducoffe’s (1996)

advertising value model and HOE theory. Most hypotheses presented in this study are supported

and thus confirm findings in past similar research. Study implications can lead to advancement

for marketing theory and among marketing practitioners.

Future researchers should assess opportunities to include better potential moderators as

well as an emphasis improving how annoyance and/or irritation affects consumers’ purchase

intention. This can be done by (but not limited too) researchers a) comparing irritation against

different variables presented in past similar research, b) looking at a different mix of irritation

items necessary to create latent variables, c) potentially seeing if irritation is specific to users on

certain SMSs and d) homing in on specific things that annoy consumers about advertising. Past

like studies assessed variables such as annoyance and/or irritation albeit through a general

overview of the topic. Open-ended responses offer a glance into what consumers potentially find

annoying with advertising with some level of specificity. For instance, the leading response

among study participants who admit to disliking advertising comes from mentions of seeing ads

too much.

Current SEM methodology is derived data from survey feedback data. Consider that it is

2022; however, social media data mining technology has been around since the mid-2000s

(Baker, 2004). Is there was a way to data mine consumers’ posts online (e.g., via using Artificial

Intelligence and/or Boolean logic and keyword searches) in a way that converts such data into
 130

Likert-scale for SEM analysis? Benefits to such research can certainly include larger sample

sizes as well as use of organic social media posts (that may help eliminate potential bias deriving

from asking consumers to complete questionnaires). Social media data can be collected faster

and thus expediting marketing research capabilities. Combining social media data mining with

SEM appears to be a logical step in this area of research, especially given some of data mining

technology has been available since the mid-2000s. Social media is useful in that it can provide

both quantitative and qualitative data. Unfortunately, social media data mining technology lacks

predictability that SEM brings to the table. Organizations like Radian6, Talkwalker and Hubspot

currently lead the way in social media analytics. Finding a way to incorporate SEM can really

open the door wide open for social media analysis.

Recommendations for future research (whether by practitioner marketers or academia)

are endless. This study shows that existing market research is merely the tip of the iceberg.

Market research is certainly at an inflexion point where future quantitative and qualitative

analysis can lead to way to more robust and actionable insights.

Upon review of this study, a practitioner marketer (cited within the acknowledgements of

this study) posed some interesting questions for future research. Several several questions

pertained to a multitude of issues including (but not limited too):

• The need to look at social media users beyond Facebook due to growing distrust
toward the social media platform.
• Addressing the level of trust organizations can attain from leveraging specific
social media platforms.
• Better identification of factors affecting trust (e.g., online reviews)

Source: (Derosier, 2022).

Future market research should continue to look beyond Facebook. Facebook currently

suffers from growing distrust and is now looking to reposition itself as Meta (Kessler, 2021).
 131

Distrust of Facebook alone should not necessarily be a primary reason to look at social media

users beyond the platform. Consider that past research such as by Florenthal (2019) points to the

growing necessity to look at data from users on faster growing social platforms than Facebook.

Trust (or like variables such as credibility) is shown to impact consumers purchase

decisions. This study shows the importance that credibility affects purchase decision

quantitatively (within the SEM model) as well as qualitatively (e.g., emergence within open-

ended responses). Furthermore, open-ended questionnaire responses allude to confidence that

consumers place in online reviews and WOM recommendations from family and community

members (whether online or offline). Online certainly magnifies the importance that WOM

plays toward consumers purchase decisions (Blackshaw, 2008). Marketers should seek to better

understand what drives trust and how it ultimately impacts sales.

What Drives Brand Awareness?

This study statistically shows that brand awareness can drive purchase intention. It is

easy to simply tell practitioner marketers to increase brand awareness. Growing brand

awareness is easier said than done. Future research should focus on what drives brand awareness

most. Literature review, such as that by Hutter and Hautz et al. (2013), shows that social media

is one method to brand awareness; however, does not necessarily address the optimal marketing

mix.

Conclusions

Brand awareness matters! Brand awareness positively impacts consumers’ purchase

intention. This study merges concepts across Ducoffe’s (1996) advertising value model and the

HOE theory continuum to showcase the impact on consumers’ purchase intention. Brand

awareness is shown to positively impact how consumers potentially ascertain social media
 132

marketing [advertising] value and purchase intention. Marketers should partake in brand

building and creating brand awareness as a key staple of any marketing strategy.

This study identifies variables impacting how consumers attain social media [advertising]

value and purchase intention. The study is important by way of assessing how consumers on

SMSs other than solely Facebook perceive social media marketing [advertising] value. Future

research can leverage study findings to deep dive on specific upcoming platforms (e.g., Tik Tok,

Metaverse, etc…), expand upon this study through the inclusion of new variables present in other

marketing theory, or better define demotivating variables for analysis.

A key “take-away” of this study emphasizes that Ducoffe’s (1996) advertising model and

HOE theory hold up quite well when looking at data from study participants with an online

presence on SMSs in addition to Facebook. Key findings are comparable to similar past studies

assessing the impact of advertising in both offline and online settings. This study illustrates that

fundamental marketing theory a) holds up across online and offline advertising and b) transcends

social media platforms. At a minimum, this study supports comparable findings in past similar

research.

Social media analysis is lacking, but it does not have to be this way.
 133

References

Aaker, D. A., & Bruzzone, D. E. (1985). Causes of irritation in advertising. Journal of

Marketing, 49(2), 47-57. doi:10.1177/002224298504900204
Active Campaign. (2020). How Much Do Email Marketing Lists Costs? Retrieved 20 JUNE
2021 from website https://www.activecampaign.com/blog/how-much-do-email-
marketing-lists-cost.
Adwan, A. A. (2020). The impact of social media on consumer awareness towards buying copy
brand. International Journal of Electronic Marketing and Retailing, 11(2), 199-215.
doi:10.1504/IJEMR.2020.106845
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In Action
control (pp. 11–39). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2
Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Prediction Social Behavior. New
Jersey: Englewood Cliffs.
Akinbode, M., ADEGBUYI, O., Kehinde, O. J., Agboola, M. G., & Olokundun, A. M. (2010).
Percieved value dimensions on online shopping intention: The role of trust and
culture. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 18(1).
Alegro, T., & Turnšek, M. (2021). Striving to be different but becoming the same: Creativity and
destination brands’ promotional videos. Sustainability (Basel, Switzerland), 13(1),
139. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010139
Alexa.com (2020). Instagram global internet engagement. Retrieved 20 DEC 2020 from website
https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/instagram.com
Almohaimmeed, B. M. A., & Business Administration Department, College of Business and
Economics (CBE) Qassim University, Buraydah, Saudi Arabia. (2019). The effects of
social media marketing antecedents on social media marketing, brand loyalty and
purchase intention: A customer perspective. Journal of Business & Retail Management
Research, 13(4) doi:10.24052/JBRMR/V13IS04/ART-13
Anjum, A., Thomas, M. R., & Prakash, P. K. (2020). Digital marketing strategies: Effectiveness
on generation Z. SCMS Journal of Indian Management, 17(2), 54-69. Retrieved from
https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.trident.edu/docview/2431835226?accountid=28844
Arli, D. (2017). Does social media matter? Investigating the effect of social media features on
consumer attitudes. Journal of Promotion Management, 23(4), 521-539.
Arora, T., & Agarwal, B. (2019). Empirical Study on Perceived Value and Attitude of
Millennials Towards Social Media Advertising: A Structural Equation Modelling
Approach. Vision, 23(1), 56-69.
 134

Austin, M. K. (2020). The Influence of Relationship Marketing on Nontraditional Student

Loyalty in Higher Education Institutions (Doctoral dissertation, Trident University
International).
Baek, T. H., & Yoo, C. Y. (2018). Branded app usability: Conceptualization, measurement, and
prediction of consumer loyalty. Journal of Advertising, 47(1), 70-82.
doi:10.1080/00913367.2017.1405755
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (2012). Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural
equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(1), 8-34.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.trident.edu:2048/10.1007/s11747-011-0278-x
Baker, L. (2004). BlogPulse Search Engine Launched by Intelliseek. Retrieved 6 March 2021
from website https://www.searchenginejournal.com/blogpulse-search-engine-launched-by-
intelliseek/549/#close

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
personality and social psychology, 51(6), 1173.
Barreda, A. A., Bilgihan, A., Nusair, K., & Okumus, F. (2015). Generating brand awareness in
online social networks. Computers in human behavior, 50, 600-609.
Bertilsson, J., & Rennstam, J. (2018). The destructive side of branding: A heuristic model for
analyzing the value of branding practice. Organization, 25(2), 260-281.
Bhat, I. H., & Singh, S. (2018). intention to participate on social commerce platform: A study on
e-commerce websites. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 22(4), 1-10.
Bilgin, Y. (2018). The Effect Of Social Media Marketing Activities On Brand Awareness. Brand
Image And Brand Loyalty, BMIJ,(2018), 6(1), 128-148.
Billore, A., Jayasimha, K. R., Sadh, A., & Nambudiri, R. (2020). Divergence or Relevance in
Advertisements: What Works in Emerging Markets? Evidence from Indian
Consumers. Journal of Global Marketing, 33(4), 225-241.
Blackshaw, P. (2008). Satisfied Customers Tell Three Friends, Angry Customers Tell 3,000:
Running a Business in Today's Consumer-Driven World.
Bloomenthal, A. (2020). Coefficient of Determination. Retrieved on 28 November 2020 from
website https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/coefficient-of-determination.asp.
Brackett, L.K. and Carr, B.N. (2001), “Cyberspace advertising vs other media: consumer vs
mature student attitudes”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 23-32.
Brandstätter, E., Gigerenzer, G., & Hertwig, R. (2006). The priority heuristic: making choices
without trade-offs. Psychological review, 113(2), 409–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
295X.113.2.409
 135

Brindha, N., & Rajakrishnan, M. CONSUMER BELIEF AND ATTITUDE TOWARDS

SOCIAL MEDIA MARKETING. Retrieved on 18 May 2021 from website
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rajakrishnan-
Manivel/publication/349948497_CONSUMER_BELIEF_AND_ATTITUDE_TOWARD
S_SOCIAL_MEDIA_MARKETING/links/6048dac94585154e8c8edd29/CONSUMER-
BELIEF-AND-ATTITUDE-TOWARDS-SOCIAL-MEDIA-MARKETING.pdf
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS, EQS, and LISREL:
Comparative approaches to testing for the factorial validity of a measuring
instrument. International Journal of Testing, 1(1), 55-86.
doi:10.1207/s15327574ijt0101_4
Buttigieg, A. (2020). How to out Reliability and Validity in SEM in Amos? Retrieved 27
November 2020 from website
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_find_out_Reliability_and_Validity_in_SEM_in_Am
os

Cabrera Rios, N. (2017). Measuring digital era impact on brand interaction among young
EmergingConsumers: A case study of colombian consumers
Çal, B., & Adams, R. (2014). The effect of hedonistic and utilitarian consumer behavior on
brand equity: Turkey–UK comparison on Coca Cola. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 150, 475-484.
Campbell, C., Plangger, K., Sands, S., & Kietzmann, J. (2021). Preparing for an era of deepfakes
and AI-generated ads: A framework for understanding responses to manipulated
advertising. Journal of Advertising.
Casagrande Yamawaki, M. A., & Sarfati, G. (2019). The millennials luxury brand engagement
on social media: A comparative study of brazilians and italians. Internext, 14(1), 14-30.
doi:10.18568/internext.v14i1.442
Census.gov. (2021). Quick Facts United States. Retrieved 20 JUNE 2021 from website
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219.
Chang, Y. H. (2012). A study on the marketing performance using social media-Comparison
between portal advertisement, blog, and SNS channel characteristics and
performance. Journal of Digital Convergence, 10(8), 119-133.
Chen, J. (2020). Social media demographics to inform your brand’s strategy in 2020. Retrieved
20 DEC 2020 from website https://sproutsocial.com/insights/new-social-media-
demographics/#IG-demos.

Chin, W.W. (1998) The Partial Least Squares Approach to Structural Equation Modeling.
Modern Methods for Business Research, 2, 295-336. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power
Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers.
 136

Chiu, Y. (2021). Social recommendations for facebook brand pages. Journal of Theoretical and
Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 16(1), 71-84. doi:10.4067/S0718-
18762021000100106

Chooi, C. (2020). Mediation versus Moderation – What’s the Difference? Retrieved 10 February
2022 from website https://psychdrop.com/2020/04/05/mediation-versus-moderation-
whats-the-difference/
Chungviwatanant, T., Prasongsukarn, A. K., & Chungviwatanant, S. (2016). A study of factors
that affect Consumer’s attitude toward A “Skippable in-stream ad” on YouTube. AU-
GSB E-Journal, 9(1), 83.
Cooper, D & Schindler, P.(2008). Business Research Methods. 10e. McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Corliss, R. (2012). Photos on Facebook generate 53% more likes than the average post [NEW
DATA]. Hubspot Blog.
Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative
and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.

Cuesta-Valiño, P., Rodríguez, P. G., & Núñez-Barriopedro, E. (2020). Perception of

Advertisements for Healthy Food on Social Media: Effect of Attitude on Consumers’
Response. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(18),
6463.
Daily, E. (2018). How Michael Jordan’s Nike Deal Changed Sports Marketing Forever.
Retrieved from https://edgardaily.com/articles/how-michael-jordans-nike-deal-changed-
sports-marketing-forever/ on 22 December 2020.

Dao, W. V. T., & Le, A. N. H. (2014). Social media marketing [advertising] value. International
Journal of Advertising, 33(2), 271-294.
Dehghani, M., Niaki, M. K., Ramezani, I., & Sali, R. (2016). Evaluating the influence of
YouTube advertising for attraction of young customers. Computers in human
behavior, 59, 165-172.
Derosier, S. (2022, March 21). Personal Interview.
De Vries, N. J., & Carlson, J. (2014). Examining the drivers and brand performance implications
of customer engagement with brands in the social media environment. The Journal of
Brand Management, 21(6), 495-515. doi:10.1057/bm.2014.18
Dictionary.com (2020). Heuristics. Retrieved October 17, 2020 from website
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/he.uristics?s=t.
 137

Dolan, R., Conduit, J., Fahy, J., & Goodman, S. (2015;2016;). Social media engagement
behaviour: A uses and gratifications perspective. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 24(3-4),
261-277. doi:10.1080/0965254x.2015.1095222
Dodoo, N. A., & Youn, S. (2021). Snapping and chatting away: Consumer motivations for and
outcomes of interacting with snapchat AR ad lens. Telematics and
Informatics, 57https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2020.101514
Ducoffe, R. H. (1996). Advertising value and advertising on the web. Journal of Advertising
Research, 36(5), 21–35.
Duffett, R. (2020). The YouTube Marketing Communication Effect on Cognitive, Affective, and
Behavioral Attitudes among Generation Z Consumers. Retrieved on 17 October 2020
from website https://doaj.org/article/51071235388740ebb586b859a5af6210.
Duffett, R. G. (2017). Influence of social media marketing communications on young
consumers’ attitudes. Young Consumers.
Dutot, V., & Mosconi, E. (2016). Understanding factors of disengagement within a virtual
community: An exploratory study. Journal of Decision Systems, 25(3), 227-243.
doi:10.1080/12460125.2016.1187547
Edgar, T. & Manz, D. (2017). Exploratory Study. Retrieved from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/convenience-sampling on 4 NOV
2020.

Edosomwan, S., Prakasan, S. K., Kouame, D., Watson, J., & Seymour, T. (2011). The history of
social media and its impact on business. Journal of Applied Management and
Entrepreneurship, 16(3), 79-91. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-
com.ezproxy.trident.edu/docview/889143980?accountid=28844

Erkan, I., Gokerik, M., & Acikgoz, F. (2019). The impacts of facebook ads on brand image,
brand awareness, and brand equity. In Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurship and
Marketing for Global Reach in the Digital Economy (pp. 442-462). IGI Global.
eMarketer. (2020). US Social Network Users, by Platform 2019 – 2024. Retrieved from
https://www.emarketer.com/chart/233809/us-social-network-users-by-platform-2019-
2024-millions-of-social-network-users on January 25, 2021
Evolution of a Medium. (2020). United States Postal Service.
Fawad, K. (2021). I Have Finished Data Collection: How Do I Start Data Analysis Using Smart-
PLS. Retrieved on 4 February 2022 from website
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaH9iYi-Wnw
Febriyantoro, M. T. (2020). Exploring YouTube Marketing Communication: Brand awareness,
brand image and purchase intention in the millennial generation. Cogent Business &
Management, 7(01), 1787733. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1787733
 138

Ferreira, F., & Barbosa, B. (2017). Consumers' attitude toward Facebook

advertising. International Journal of Electronic Marketing and Retailing, 8(1), 45-57.
Firat, D. (2019). YouTube advertising value and its effects on purchase intention. Journal of
Global Business Insights, 4(2), 141-155.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2011). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action
approach. Taylor & Francis.
Florenthal, B. (2019). Young consumers’ motivational drivers of brand engagement behavior on
social media sites. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing.
Formplus. (2020). The 4, 5 and 7 Point Likert Scale + [Questionnaire Example]. Retrieved 27
November 2020 from website https://www.formpl.us/blog/point-likert-scale
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–
50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
Fox, A. K., Nakhata, C., & Deitz, G. D. (2019). Eat, drink, and create content: a multi-method
exploration of visual social media marketing content. International Journal of
Advertising, 38(3), 450–470. https://doi-
org.ezproxy.trident.edu/10.1080/02650487.2018.1535223

Gardner, M. J. (2017). What’s In It For Me? Consumer Perceived Value of Marketing Activities
as a Driver of Consumer Brand Engagement on Social Network Sites.
Gaurav, K., & Suraj Ray, A. (2020). Impact of social media advertising on consumer buying
behavior in indian E-commerce industry. Sumedha: Journal of Management, 9(1), 41-
51. https://doi.org/10.46454/SUMEDHA/9.1.2020.3
Gawali, S. (2021). Shape of data: Skewness and Kurtosis. Retrieved on 6 February 2022 from
website https://www.analyticsvidhya.com/blog/2021/05/shape-of-data-skewness-and-
kurtosis/
Gilliatt, N. (2021). $395 Million Invested in Social Media Analysis* in 2020. Retrieved from
https://socialmediaanalysis.com/2021/01/395-million-invested-in-social-media-analysis-in-
2020.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter on January 26, 2021.

Goh, M. L., Ang, H. C., Tan, S. H., & Oun, W. L. (2020). Examining the determinants of
consumer purchase intention towards mobile advertising. Global Business and
Management Research, 12(2), 89-103.
Graham, M. (2022). Super Bowl Ads Featured Newcomers, Travel. Retrieved 17 February 2022
from website https://www.wsj.com/articles/2022-super-bowl-ads-recap-11644610612.
Graham, M. & Ansari, T. (2021). Facebook’s Name Change to Meta Reflects Common
Corporate Tactic. Marketing experts talk about the successes, failures of companies’
efforts to reflect an expanded portfolio or create a fresh start with a new name. Retrieved
 139

from https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebooks-name-change-to-meta-reflects-common-
corporate-tactic-11635448572 on 1 February 2022.

Greenfacts.org. (2020). Confounding factor. Retrieved from

https://www.greenfacts.org/glossary/abc/confounding-
factor.htm#:~:text=Definition%3A,real%20association%20between%20them%20exists
on January 26, 2021.
Greyser, S. A. (1973). Irritation in advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 13(1), 3–10
Gustafson, T. & Chabot, B. (2007). Brand Awareness. Retrieved on 17 October 2020 from
website
http://www.nnyagdev.org/maplefactsheets/CMB%20105%20Brand%20Awareness.pdf.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017) A Primer on Partial Leaset
Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM)., 2nd Ed., Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.
Hair, J., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, M., & Mena, A. (2012). Communicator Characteristics Associated
with Relationship Disengagement Strategies. Communication Research Reports. 1. 1-6.
Hajli, M. N. (2014). A study of the impact of social media on consumers. International Journal of
Market Research, 56(3), 387-404.
Hamiln, R. P., & Wilson, T. (2004). The impact of cause branding on consumer reactions to
products: does product/cause'fit'really matter?. Journal of marketing management, 20(7-
8), 663-681.
Han, B., & Myers, C. (2018). Perceptions of overuse, underuse, and change of use of a social
media site: Definition, measurement instrument, and their managerial impacts. Behaviour
& Information Technology, 37(3), 247-257.
Hanlon, A. (2020). The AIDA Model. Retrieved from
https://www.smartinsights.com/traffic-building-strategy/offer-and-message-
development/aida-model/ on November 20, 2020.
Hazem, R. G., Len, T. W., & Kooli, K. (2019). Consumer attitudes towards instagram
advertisements in egypt: The role of the perceived advertising value and
personalization. Cogent Business & Management, 6(1)
doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.trident.edu:2048/10.1080/23311975.2019.1618431
Hendriks, D. (2019). Complete History of Social Media: Then and Now. Retrieved from
https://smallbiztrends.com/2013/05/the-complete-history-of-social-media-
infographic.html#:~:text=The%20first%20recognizable%20social%20media,sensation%
20that's%20still%20popular%20today on October 10, 2020.

Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., and Sarstedt, M. (2015). A New Criterion for Assessing Discriminant
Validity in Variance-based Structural Equation Modeling., Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 43(1): 115-135. DOI:10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
 140

History.com. (2019). Facebook Launches. Retrieved from website https://www.history.com/this-

day-in-history/facebook-launches-mark-zuckerberg on January 26, 2020.
Hollebeek, L. D., Glynn, M. S., & Brodie, R. J. (2014). Consumer brand engagement in social
media: Conceptualization, scale development and validation. Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 28(2), 149-165. doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2013.12.002
Horng, J., Liu, C., Chou, H., & Tsai, C. (2012). Understanding the impact of culinary brand
equity and destination familiarity on travel intentions. Tourism Management
(1982), 33(4), 815-824. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2011.09.004
Hussain, H., Murtaza, M., Ajmal, A., Ahmed, A., & Khan, M. O. K. (2020). A study on the
effects of social media advertisement on consumer’s attitude and customer response.
Hutchinson, A. (2019). Why is Digital Marketing so Important for Business in 2019? Retrieved
from https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/why-is-digital-marketing-so-important-
for-business-in-2019-infographic/552160/ on October 11, 2020.
Hutter, K., Hautz, J., Dennhardt, S., & Fuller, J. (2013). The impact of user interactions in social
media on brand awareness and purchase intention: the case of MINI on Facebook.
Hyken, S. (2022). The Three Marketing Principles That Made Over 3,000 Brands Soar.
Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/shephyken/2022/03/06/the-three-marketing-
principles-that-made-over-3000-brands-soar/?sh=495721e53038 on 10 March 2022.

Ismail, A. R. (2017). The influence of perceived social media marketing activities on brand
loyalty: The mediation effect of brand and value consciousness. Asia pacific journal of
marketing and logistics, 29(1), 129-144.
Jade, Z. (2016, November 15). How to reach Millennials through influencer marketing [Blog
post]. Retrieved from https://hireinfluence.com/blog/how-influencer-marketingreaches-
millennials/

Jaffery, N. S. N., Annuar, S. N. S., & Thamburaj, J. A. (2020). The influence of youtube
advertising on the attitude towards fruits and vegetable consumption among university
students in malaysia. Jurnal Komunikasi: Malaysian Journal of Communication, 36(3).
Jibril, A. B., Kwarteng, M. A., Chovancova, M., & Pilik, M. (2019). The impact of social media
on consumer-brand loyalty: A mediating role of online based-brand community. Cogent
Business & Management, 6(1) doi:10.1080/23311975.2019.1673640
Jin, C., & Villegas, J. (2007). The effect of the placement of the product in film: Consumers'
emotional responses to humorous stimuli and prior brand evaluation. Journal of
Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 15(4), 244-255.
doi:10.1057/palgrave.jt.5750049
Johnston, W. J., Khalil, S., Nhat Hanh Le, A., & Cheng, J. M. (2018). Behavioral implications of
international social media advertising: An investigation of intervening and contingency
 141

factors. Journal of International Marketing (East Lansing, Mich.), 26(2), 43-61.

doi:10.1509/jim.16.0125
Jung, J. M., Min, K. S., & Kellaris, J. J. (2011). The games people play: How the entertainment
value of online ads helps or harms persuasion. Psychology & Marketing, 28(7), 661-681.
doi:10.1002/mar.20406
Kalogianni, D. (2020). Social media advertising as an effective promotional tool in the delivering
of banking services: the case of Piraeus Bank on Facebook.
Kessler, A. (2021). The Metaverse Is Already Here. Mark Zuckerberg’s new platform builds on
success of popular videogames. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-
facebook-mark-zuckerberg-metaverse-is-already-here-virtual-reality-headset-oculus-
11640525817 on 1 February 2022.

Keller, K.L. (2008). Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand
Equity, Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Keller, K. L. (2018;1993;). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand
equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1-22. doi:10.1177/002224299305700101
Kim, A. J., & Ko, E. (2012). Do social media marketing activities enhance customer equity? an
empirical study of luxury fashion brand. Journal of Business Research, 65(10), 1480-
1486. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.014
Kim, S., Park, H., & Moon, J. C. (2019). Negative impact of social network services based on
stressor-stress-outcome: The role of experience of privacy violations. Future
Internet, 11(6), 137. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.trident.edu:2048/10.3390/fi11060137
Kim, Y. J., & Han, J. (2014). Corrigendum to “Why smartphone advertising attracts customers:
A model of web advertising, flow, and personalization” [comput. hum. behav. 33 (2014)
256–269]. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 586-586. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.042
Kline, B. R. (1998). Software programs for structural equation modeling: Amos, EQS, and
LISREL [Software Review]. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 16(4), 343-364.
Koeze, E. & Popper, N. (2020). The Virus Changed the Way We Internet. Retrieved from
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/07/technology/coronavirus-internet-use.html
on January 26, 2021.

Kwahk, K., Kwahk, K., Kim, B., & Kim, B. (2017). Effects of social media on consumers’
purchase decisions: Evidence from taobao. Service Business, 11(4), 803-829.
doi:10.1007/s11628-016-0331-4
Lai, I. K. W., & Liu, Y. (2020). The effects of content likeability, content credibility, and social
media engagement on users' acceptance of product placement in mobile social
networks. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 15(3), 1-
19. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.trident.edu:2048/10.4067/S0718-18762020000300102
 142

Lake, L. (2019). Setting Marketing Objectives for your Business. Retrieved on 26 June 2021
from website https://www.thebalancesmb.com/what-is-a-marketing-objective-2295532.
Laksamana, P. (2018). Impact of social media marketing on purchase intention and brand
loyalty: Evidence from Indonesia’s banking industry. International Review of
Management and Marketing, 8(1), 13-18.
Laroche, M., Habibi, M. R., & Richard, M. (2013). To be or not to be in social media: How
brand loyalty is affected by social media? International Journal of Information
Management, 33(1), 76-82. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2012.07.003
Lavidge, R. & Steiner, G. (1961). A model for predictive measurements of advertising
effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 59 – 62
Lee, E., Lee, S., & Yang, C. (2017). The influences of advertisement attitude and brand attitude
on purchase intention of smartphone advertising. Industrial Management & Data
Systems, 117(6), 1011-1036. doi:10.1108/IMDS-06-2016-0229
Lee, J. (2022). Nike and Adidas Are Dipping Toes Into the NFT Market. The Sneakerheads Are
Into It. Retrieved 3 February 2022 from website https://www.wsj.com/articles/nike-
adidas-nft-sneakers-11642160548.
Leskin, P. (2020). Twitter debuts a new voice tweet feature as a way to add 'human touch' to the
platform — here's how to use it. Retrieved 2 May 2021 from website
https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-voice-tweets-notes-record-audio-feature-how-
to-use-2020-6
Lim, W. M. (2015). Antecedents and consequences of e-shopping: an integrated model. Internet
Research.
Litwin, M. (1995). How to measure survey reliability and validity. (MyTLC-Library Access-
Additional Library Resources-SAGE Research Methods-type the title of the article “How
to Measure Survey Reliability and Validity.”)
Liu, S., Chou, C., & Liao, H. (2015). An exploratory study of product placement in social
media. Internet Research, 25(2), 300-316. doi:10.1108/IntR-12-2013-0267
Logan, K., Bright, L. & Gangadharbatla, H. (2012). Facebook versus television: advertising
value perceptions among females.
Lu, H. P., & Hsiao, K. L. (2010). The influence of extro/introversion on the intention to pay for
social networking sites. Information & Management, 47(3), 150-157.
Mangold, W. G., & Faulds, D. J. (2009). Social media: The new hybrid element of the promotion
mix. Business Horizons, 52(4), 357-365. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2009.03.002
Martins, J., Costa, C., Oliveira, T., Gonçalves, R., & Branco, F. (2019). How smartphone
advertising influences consumers' purchase intention. Journal of Business Research, 94,
378-387. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.047
 143

Maryville University. (2021). The Evolution of Social Media: How Did It Begin, and Where
Could It Go Next? Retrieved 23 March 2021 from website
https://online.maryville.edu/blog/evolution-social-media/.
Mitchell, A. A., & Olson, J. C. (1981). Are product attribute beliefs the only mediator of
advertising effects on brand attitude?. Journal of marketing research, 18(3), 318-332.
Muk, A., & Chung, C. (2014). Driving consumers to become fans of brand pages: A theoretical
framework. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 14(1), 1-10.
Murillo, E., Merino, M., & Núñez, A. (2016). The advertising value of Twitter Ads: A study
among Mexican Millennials. Revista brasileira de gestão de negócios, 18(61).
Mutisya, C. N. (2018). The Influence of social media platforms on consumer purchasing
decisions among Strathmore University students (Doctoral dissertation, Strathmore
University).
Needleman, S. (2020). Reddit Snaps up Dubsmash to Expand its Fast-Growing Video App
Market. Retrieved 20 DEC 2020 from website https://www.wsj.com/articles/reddit-snaps-
up-dubsmash-to-expand-in-fast-growing-video-app-market-11607912841.

Ong, M. H. A., & Puteh, F. (2017). Quantitative data analysis: Choosing between SPSS, PLS,
and AMOS in social science research. International Interdisciplinary Journal of Scientific
Research, 3(1), 14-25.
Patel, N. & Siu, E. (Host). (2022 February 7) How to Build an Indestructible SEO Strategy.
[Audio Podcast]. Marketing School Podcast. Retrieved on 7 February 2022 from
website https://marketingschool.io/how-to-build-an-indestructible-seo-strategy-1999/.
Perez, S. (2020). New forecast pegs TikTok to top 1.2B monthly active users in 2021. Retrieved
on 10 March 2021 from website https://techcrunch.com/2020/11/10/new-forecast-pegs-
tiktok-to-top-1-2b-monthly-active-users-in-2021/
Pfeffer, J., Zorbach, T., & Carley, K. M. (2013;2014;). Understanding online firestorms:
Negative word-of-mouth dynamics in social media networks. Journal of Marketing
Communications, 20(1-2), 117-128. doi:10.1080/13527266.2013.797778
Pham, P. H., & Gammoh, B. S. (2015). Characteristics of social-media marketing strategy and
customer-based brand equity outcomes: A conceptual model. International Journal of
Internet Marketing and Advertising, 9(4), 321-337.
Phua, J., & Kim, J. J. (2018). Starring in your own Snapchat advertisement: Influence of self-
brand congruity, self-referencing and perceived humor on brand attitude and purchase
intention of advertised brands. Telematics and Informatics, 35(5), 1524-1533.
Phan, Q. P. T., Pham, N. T., & Nguyen, L. H. L. (2020). How to drive brand engagement and
eWOM intention in social commerce: A competitive strategy for the emerging
market. Journal of Competitiveness, 12(3), 136-155. doi:10.7441/joc.2020.03.08
 144

Pisani, J. (2021). Tik Tok Dances Past Google Into Top Spot for Web Traffic. Retrieved from
https://www.wsj.com/articles/tiktok-was-the-internets-most-visited-site-in-2021-even-
beating-google-
11640204147#:~:text=Meta's%20social%2Dmedia%20app%20Instagram,app%20Whats
App%2C%20according%20to%20Cloudflare.&text=Appeared%20in%20the%20Decem
ber%2023,' on 1 February 2022.
Ponto, PhD, APRN, AGCNS-BC, AOCNS®, Julie. (2015). Understanding and evaluating survey
research. Journal of the Advanced Practitioner in Oncology, 6(2), 168-171.
doi:10.6004/jadpro.2015.6.2.9
Raza, S. H., & Zaman, U. (2021). Effect of Cultural Distinctiveness and Perception of Digital
Advertising Appeals on Online Purchase Intention of Clothing Brands: Moderation of
Gender Egalitarianism. Information, 12(2), 72.
Ridho, A., Fahmi, I., & Jahroh, S. (2019). Strategies to conquer the souvenir business: Case
study of lapis talas cake bogor. Indonesian Journal of Business and
Entrepreneurship, 5(3), 299-299. doi:10.17358/ijbe.5.3.299
Rodgers, S., & Thorson, E. (2018). Special issue introduction: Digital engagement with
advertising.
Roy, A. (2021). What is Web3? What it Isn’t, and When Can You Start Using It? Retrieved 3
February 2022 from website https://www.xrtoday.com/mixed-reality/what-is-
web3/#:~:text=Web3%20(also%20known%20as%20Web,and%20socially%20responsibl
e%20internet%20experiences.
Ruffolo, B. (2019). What is Content Marketing (& Why is it So Important)?” Retrieved 23 MAR
2021 from https://www.impactbnd.com/blog/what-is-content-marketing
A.R. Saboo, V. Kumar, G. Ramani Evaluating the impact of social media activities on human
brand sales
Int. J. Res. Mark., 33 (3) (2016), pp. 524-541
Salem Al-Mamary ‫ياسر حسن المعمري‬. ‫د‬, Yaser Hasan. (2016). Re: How to chose SEM-AMOS or
SEM-SmartPLS for data analysis?. Retrieved from:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How-to-chose-SEM-AMOS-or-SEM-SmartPLS-for-
data-analysis/575873f0dc332d0a582ed00a/citation/download.
Schivinski, B., & Dabrowski, D. (2015). The impact of brand communication on brand equity
through Facebook. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing.
Schlinger, M. J. (1979). A profile of responses to commercials. Journal of advertising research.
Scott, D. (2005). Name with the face: Natalie Glance, Research Scientist, Intelliseek Applied
Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.econtentmag.com/Articles/Editorial/Faces-
of-Econtent/Name-with-the-face-Natalie-Glance-Research-Scientist-Intelliseek-Applied-
Research-Center-7618.htm on January 26, 2021.
 145

Shanahan, T., Tran, T. P., & Taylor, E. C. (2019). Getting to know you: Social media
personalization as a means of enhancing brand loyalty and perceived quality. Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 47, 57-65. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.10.007
Sharma, S., Singh, S., Kujur, F., & Das, G. (2021). Social Media Activities and its Influence on
Customer-Brand Relationship: An Empirical Study of Apparel Retailers’ Activity in
India. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 16(4), 602-
617.
Shavitt, S., Lowrey, P., & Haefner, J. (1998, July–August). Public attitudes toward advertising:
More favorable than you might think. Journal of Advertising Research, 38(4), 7–22.
Shead, S. (2019). Facebook owns the four most downloaded apps of the decade. Retrieved 20
DEC 2020 online from website https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-
50838013#:~:text=Facebook%20bought%20Instagram%20in%202012,than%20a%20bill
ion%20users%20each.
Sheth, J. & Mittal, B. (2004). Customer Behavior: A Managerial Perspective. Second Edition.
Thomson South-Western.
Sheth, S., & Kim, J. (2017). Social media marketing: The effect of information sharing,
entertainment, emotional connection and peer pressure on the attitude and purchase
intentions. GSTF Journal on Business Review (GBR), 5(1).
Smith, K. (2011). Digital marketing strategies that millennials find appealing, motivating, or just
annoying. Journal of Strategic marketing, 19(6), 489-499.
So, K. K. F., Wu, L., Xiong, L., & King, C. (2018). Brand management in the era of social
media: Social visibility of consumption and customer brand identification. Journal of
Travel Research, 57(6), 727-742.
SocialPubli.com (2019). Most used Social Media networks for influencer marketing. Retrieved
20 DEC 2020 on website https://socialpubli.com/blog/most-used-social-media-sites-for-
influencer-marketing/#:~:text=Instagram,that%20offers%20the%20best%20results.

Sokolova, K., & Kefi, H. (2020). Instagram and YouTube bloggers promote it, why should I
buy? how credibility and parasocial interaction influence purchase intentions. Journal of
Retailing and ConsumerServices, 53 doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.01.011
Southern, M. (2021). Tik Tok Beats Facebook in Time Spent Per User. Retrieved 24 February
2021 from website https://www.searchenginejournal.com/tiktok-beats-facebook-in-time-
spent-per-user/392643/?utm_source=sej-feed#close.
Stanic, N., & Hansson, L. (2017) Do big laughs and positive attitudes sell? : An examination of
sponsored content on youtube, and how entertainment and attitude influence purchase
intentions in millennial viewers; Halmstad University: Halmstad, Sweden, 2017.
Statistics Solutions. (2020). Effect Size. Retrieved on 24 November 2020 from website
https://www.statisticssolutions.com/statistical-analyses-effect-size/.
 146

StatSoft (2003). Data Analysis. Retrieved 22 December 2020 from

http://www.statsoft.com/textbook/basic-statistics/?button=1
Survey Monkey.com (2020). Survey Monkey. Retrieved on 24 November 2020 from
https://www.surveymonkey.com/.
Suprapto, W., Hartono, K., & Bendjeroua, H. (2020). Social Media Advertising and Consumer
Perception on Purchase Intention (Doctoral dissertation, # 65533Published by:#
65533EDP Sciences).
The McGraw-Hill Companies (2001). Statistics. Retrieved 22 December 2020
from http://www.mhhe.com/socscience/intro/cafe/common/stat/index03.mhtml
Urbach, Nils and Ahlemann, Frederik (2010) "Structural Equation Modeling in Information
Systems Research Using Partial Least Squares," Journal of Information Technology
Theory and Application (JITTA): Vol. 11 : Iss. 2 , Article 2.
Available at: https://aisel.aisnet.org/jitta/vol11/iss2/2
Vranica, S. (2020). Digital Take’s Lions Share of Advertising. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 3
December 2020 from website https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-facebook-and-
amazon-gain-as-coronavirus-reshapes-ad-spending-11606831201
Voorveld, H. A. M., van Noort, G., Muntinga, D. G., & Bronner, F. (2018). Engagement with
social media and social media advertising: The differentiating role of platform
type. Journal of Advertising, 47(1), 38-54. doi:10.1080/00913367.2017.1405754
Wai Lai, I. K., & Liu, Y. (2020). The effects of content likeability, content credibility, and social
media engagement on users' acceptance of product placement in mobile social
networks. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 15(3), 1-
19. doi:10.4067/S0718-18762020000300102
Wallace, E., Buil, I., & Catalán, S. (2020). Facebook and luxury fashion brands: Self-congruent
posts and purchase intentions. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 24(4),
571-588. doi:10.1108/JFMM-09-2019-0215
Wang, C. (2015). Do people purchase what they viewed from YouTube? the influence of attitude
and perceived credibility of user-generated content on purchase intention
Weilbacher, W. M. (2001). Point of view: Does advertising cause a ‘hierarchy of
effects’?. Journal of Advertising Research, 41(6), 19-26.
Wirtz, B. W., Göttel, V., & Daiser, P. (2017). SOCIAL NETWORKS: USAGE INTENSITY
AND EFFECTS ON PERSONALIZED ADVERTISING. Journal of Electronic
Commerce Research, 18(2), 103-123. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-
com.ezproxy.trident.edu/docview/1927755080?accountid=28844
Wu, W. Y., Lu, H. Y., & Chen, L. T. (2017). The moderating roles of involvement and heuristics
on advertising effectiveness: A study of financial advertisements. AJBA, 4(1).
 147

Yadav, M., & Rahman, Z. (2017). Measuring consumer perception of social media marketing
activities in e-commerce industry: Scale development & validation. Telematics and
Informatics, 34(7), 1294-1307.
Yang, K. C., Huang, C. H., Yang, C., & Yang, S. Y. (2017). Consumer attitudes toward online
video advertisement: YouTube as a platform. Kybernetes.
Zagheni, E., Polimis, K., Alexander, M., Weber, I., & Billari, F. C. (2018, April). Combining
social media data and traditional surveys to nowcast migration stocks. In Annual Meeting
of the Population Association of America.
Zhang, J., & Mao, E. (2016). From online motivations to ad clicks and to behavioral intentions:
An empirical study of consumer response to social media advertising. Psychology &
Marketing, 33(3), 155-164. doi:10.1002/mar.20862
Zivkovic, N. (2022). Maeva Cifuentes: SEO & Content for Fast-Growth B2B Companies. Funky
Marketing Show podcast. Retrieved on 18 February 2022 from website
https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9hbmNob3IuZm0vcy8xNDc5ZWNkMC
9wb2RjYXN0L3Jzcw/episode/YWJiNDA5MDEtNmQ3Mi00NGIwLWI4NmMtNTFkY
WQ3YzEzOTA1?hl=en&ved=2ahUKEwjsq6_v1on2AhUaFDQIHatDArYQieUEegQIB
BAF&ep=6.
 148

Appendix A: Survey Instrument

Qualifying Questions
1). Are you over the age of 18?

If “Yes” then continue to question #2. If “No” then proceed to end of survey.
2). Do you regularly use at least one other social media platform (e.g., Instagram, Twitter,
YouTube, Reddit, Snapchat, TikTok, etc…) in addition to Facebook?

If “Yes” then continue to question #3. If “No” then proceed to end of survey.
3). Brand Awareness

Social media is effective in creating awareness of brands

Social media alerts me to new company offerings

I have become more aware of brands because of social media

Social media gets my attention toward brands

 149

4). Informativeness
Social media advertising makes product information immediately accessible

Social media advertising is a convenient source of product information

Social media advertising supplies relevant product information/brands

Social media advertising informs me of the latest products and information available

5). Entertainment
Social media advertisements usually makes people laugh and has great amusement value

I take pleasure in thinking about what I see, hear or read in social media advertisements

Social media advertising tells me what people who share my lifestyle will buy and use
 150

Social media advertising is more interesting than the content of another media

6). Credibility
Social media advertisements are credible

Social media advertisements are trustworthy

Social media advertisements are believable

Social media advertisements are convincing

7). Annoyance/Irritation

Social media advertising is irritating

Social media advertising is confusing

 151

Social media advertising is deceptive

Social media advertising is annoying

Social media advertising is too insistent

8). Social Media Marketing [Advertising] Value

Advertisements are useful

Advertisements are valuable

Advertisements are important (information)

9). Purchase Intention

I will buy products that are advertised on social media in the near future
 152

I desire to buy products that are promoted on social media

Social media increases my desire to purchase from featured brands

I would buy products that are advertised on social media if I had the money

10). What is your gender? (Select One)

Male
Female
11). Age (Select One)
18 – 29
30 – 39
40 – 49
> 50
12). How many hours do you spend on social media per day? (Select One)
1<
1 – 2 hours
3 – 5 hours
> 5 hours
13). Which social media sites do you frequent most often (Select all that apply)
Facebook
Instagram
Tik Tok
Snapchat
 153

Reddit

Metaverse
Pinterest
Twitter
Other (write-in): ________________________________
14). What do you like about the advertising of a brand (or brands) that you follow on social
media? Open ended comment.
15). What do you dislike about the advertising of a brand (or brands) that you follow on
social media? Open ended comment.
16). What other factors may influence your decision to make a purchase? Open ended
comment.
 154

Appendix B: Letter of Informed Consent

Examine Relationship of Brand Awareness toward Social Media Marketing Value

& Purchase Intention Among Social Media Users: An Exploratory Study
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH: You are asked to participate in a research
study performed by Ronald Coyle, a doctoral candidate in the Department of Business
Administration at Trident University International. The results of this study will contribute to a
dissertation, as partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Doctorate in Philosophy Degree.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: The purpose of dissertation is to study how variables among
complementing marketing and consumer behavior models a) impact [social media] advertising
value and b) purchase intention. Furthermore, this analysis looks at data against a lesser studied
military population in conjunction with a lesser studied social media platform in Instagram.
PROCEDURES: If you agree to participate in this study, you will be asked to complete a self-
reported survey. The survey contains several questions regarding the relationship effects
between yourself and a higher education institution.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS: The COVID-19 (Coronavirus) pandemic poses a
risk to participants completing a survey in-person. A digital survey is available for download at
___________________. Every attempt will be made to minimize the risk of transmission of
COVID-19 in accordance with both the state of Colorado and Trident University International
guidelines.
All information provided will be returned to the researcher anonymously and will be kept
confidential by the researcher upon return and maintained on a private computer.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR SOCIETY: Some of the benefits from
conducting this study include contributing to the body of knowledge regarding influences of
social media marketing [advertising] value, specifically for consumers using the social media
platforms in addition to Facebook. You will not directly benefit from this study, but others may
benefit as it may assist academia and practitioners in ways to enhance interactions with military
members on Instagram.
PAYMENT FOR PARTICIPATION: There is no incentive or monetary benefit for completing
this survey.
CONFIDENTIALITY: Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that
can be identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your
permission or as required by law.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL: Taking part in this research study is our decision.
Your participation in this study is voluntary. You do not have to take part in this study, but if
you do, you can stop at any time. You do not have to answer any questions you do not want to
answer. You have the right to choose not to participate in any study activity, or completely
withdraw from continued participation at any point in this study without penalty or loss of
 155

benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. If you decide to withdraw before this study is
completed, the data collected from you to the point of withdrawal may be included in the study.

IDENTIFICATION OF RESEARCHERS: If you have any questions, or concerns about the

research, please feel free to contact Ronald Coyle at (513) 238-3894, email:
ronald.coyle@my.trident.edu or Dissertation Chair Dr. Cromer, email:
_____________________.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS: You may withdraw your consent at any time and
discontinue participation without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights, or
remedies because you are participating in this research study. If you have questions regarding
your rights as a research subject, contact the Institutional Review Board for the Protection of
Human Subjects at Trident University International, 5757 Plaza Dr., Suite 100, Cypress,
California 90630; Telephone (714) 226-9840.
During this study, if the researcher discovers any new information that might cause you to
change your mind about participating, the researcher will share this new information with you.
Completion of this survey indicates that you understand the procedures and conditions of your
participation described above. Please complete the survey and provide your most honest
answers. Thank you!
 156

Appendix C: IRB Training Certificate

 157

Appendix D: Letters of Permission

Permission to Conduct Survey (Letter)

Ronald Coyle
PhD Student
Trident University International
Ronald.ECoyle@my.trident.edu
Phone(513) 238-3894

Subject: Permission to Conduct Academic Research – Fort Carson Army Spouses Population

Krista:

I am a candidate at Trident University International kindly requesting permission and access to

conduct a survey of consumers within the Fort Carson Army Spouses Facebook page (url:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1611666822411961/) fulfill the requirements for my
dissertation. To complete the PhD program, each candidate must submit a Dissertation Proposal
in the form of a research paper on a topic specific to his/her area of concentration. Since my
concentration is Marketing and Social Media, I chose the topic “Examine Relationship of
Brand Awareness toward Social Media Marketing Value & Purchase Intention: An
Exploratory Study .” I selected this topic because it will provide insight into consumers
preferences of social media marketing efforts.

Potential survey participants will need to do the following:

• Agree to a Letter of Informed Consent (this will be the first question in the survey)
• Verify that they are over 18 years of age
• Acknowledge that they are active users on social media sites in addition to Facebook
(e.g., Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, internet forums, etc….)
What is the nature of the study?

This is a quantitative research study. The study will utilize data collected from consumers who use
social media platforms in addition to Facebook. This research will be conducted using a survey
with individual consent of the participants. The survey questions related to consumers marketing
preferences are extrapolated from the Hierarchy-of-Effects (HOE) Theory as well as Robert
Ducoffe’s (1996) advertising value model. Additional questions were developed to measure the
different constructs (independent/dependent variables) within the research, such as: 1) consumers
knowledge of brand awareness; 2) asking what types of social media marketing consumers find as
informative; 3) asking what types of social media marketing consumers find as entertaining; 4)
asking what types of social media marketing consumers find as credible; 5) determining what
consumers feel ads to social media marketing [advertising] value; 6) understanding what type(s)
of marketing annoys consumers and 7) determining what drives consumers purchase intentions.
 158

The survey will be completely voluntary (no pressure), anonymous and should take no more than
30 minutes to complete. A minimum of 200 participants/respondents is required for the research.
Therefore, being granted permission and access to conduct this survey of consumers on the Fort
Carson Army Spouses Facebook page will be both helpful and instrumental to the completion of
my dissertation and will be greatly appreciated.

The research will seek to answer the following questions:

• How does brand awareness affect purchase decision?

• How does brand awareness ultimately impact whether consumers find social
media advertising content to be informative, entertaining, and credible?
• To what extent does informativeness impact social media marketing [advertising]
value?
• To what extent does entertainment impact social media marketing [advertising]
value?
• To what extent does credibility impact social media marketing [advertising]
value?
• How does social media marketing [advertising] value influence purchase
intention?
• To what extent does annoyance and/or irritation moderate the relationship
between social media marketing [advertising] value versus consumers’ desire to
purchase?

What are the benefits to this research?

This study will improve allow academic and practitioner marketers to better understand purchase
intention drivers among consumers who participate on social media platforms in addition to
Facebook.

Next Steps:
• Preliminary approval from the Krista Cole, moderator of the Fort Carson Army Spouses
Facebook page) to provide access to the population of interest. (September 2021).
• Formal approval of Dissertation Proposal from the Trident University Internal Review
Board (September 2021).
• Formal request and approval to conduct research evidenced by a signed Letter of
Permission from the Krista Cole, moderator of the Fort Carson Army Spouses Facebook
page).
• Survey sent- around January 2022 (1-month turnaround)

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you in advance for your time and
consideration.

Sincerely,
 159

Ronald Coyle

Permission to Conduct Survey (Response from moderator)

160
 ProQuest Number: 29253296

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality and completeness of this reproduction is dependent on the quality
and completeness of the copy made available to ProQuest.

Distributed by ProQuest LLC ( 2022 ).

Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author unless otherwise noted.

This work may be used in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons license
or other rights statement, as indicated in the copyright statement or in the metadata
associated with this work. Unless otherwise specified in the copyright statement
or the metadata, all rights are reserved by the copyright holder.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17,

United States Code and other applicable copyright laws.

Microform Edition where available © ProQuest LLC. No reproduction or digitization

of the Microform Edition is authorized without permission of ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346 USA