Journal of Advertising, 47: 326–346
Copyright # 2018, American Academy of Advertising
ISSN: 0091-3367 print / 1557-7805 online
DOI: 10.1080/00913367.2018.1544952
Parenting “YouTube Natives”: The Impact of Pre-Roll Advertising
and Text Disclosures on Parental Responses to Sponsored Child
Influencer Videos
Nathaniel J. Evans
University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA
Mariea Grubbs Hoy
The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA
Courtney Carpenter Childers
The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA
The Children’s Advertising Review Unit’s recent press releases
involving child influencer unboxing videos expressed concern that
they did not appropriately disclose sponsorship. Placement of preroll advertising was also cited as contributing to the blurring
between content and advertising. This study investigated parents’
understanding of and responses to sponsored child influencer
unboxing videos. We conducted a 2 3 3 online experiment among
418 parents that examined the influence of sponsorship text disclosure (present or absent) and sponsor pre-roll (sponsor pre-roll,
nonsponsor pre-roll, and no pre-roll) on conceptual persuasion
knowledge, perceptions of sponsorship transparency, and several
outcome measures. We also tested the potential moderating variable of parental mediation. We found that sponsor pre-roll advertising positively impacted parents’ perceptions of sponsorship
transparency, which in turn mediated attitudinal and perceptual
outcomes. In addition, high levels of parental mediation conditionally impacted the indirect effect of a sponsor pre-roll
Address correspondence to Nathaniel J. Evans, Department
of Advertising and Public Relations, Grady College of
Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Georgia,
120 Hooper Street, Athens, GA 30602, USA. E-mail:
nevans4@uga.edu
Nathaniel J. Evans (PhD, The University of Tennessee) is an
assistant professor in the Department of Advertising and Public
Relations, Grady College of Journalism and Mass
Communication, University of Georgia.
Mariea Grubbs Hoy (PhD, Oklahoma State University) is
the DeForrest Jackson Professor of Advertising in the School
of Advertising and Public Relations, The University of
Tennessee, Knoxville.
Courtney Carpenter Childers (PhD, University of Alabama)
is an associate professor in the School of Advertising and
Public Relations, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article
can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/ujoa.
advertisement via sponsorship transparency on perceptions of the
unboxing video and attitudes toward the sponsor. Based on the
findings, we discuss theoretical, managerial, and public policy
implications.
At six years old, Ryan of Ryan Toys Review was
named “the youngest member of Forbes’ World’s
Highest-Paid YouTube Stars for 2017” making an estimated $11 million in 2016 (Forbes 2017). Dolliver (2016)
suggests that rather than calling children “digital natives,”
“YouTube natives” might be a more appropriate moniker, as nearly three-fourths of children 11 and under view
digital videos at least monthly. The top 10 YouTube “kid
influencers” in 2017 had a total reach of more than 77
million (Forbes 2017). Unsurprisingly, J. Walter
Thompson (2017) named “kid influencers” as one of the
“Future 100” trends for 2018.
The use of unboxing videos, described as one of the
“most lucrative genres on YouTube” (Schmidt 2017), is a
way that advertisers employ kid influencers to target a
child audience. This tactic shows the child influencer
unpacking a new toy, playing with it, and commenting on
the experience on his or her own YouTube channel.
Within the video context, the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC) (2015) defines native advertising as “where an ad’s
look and feel closely resembles other videos posted …
which customarily are unpaid, consumers are likely to
perceive the video as independent content reflecting the
impartial opinion of the host, and would not likely attribute it to the sponsoring advertiser” and subsequently
would not critically evaluate it as advertising. Thus, influencer posts on YouTube may blur the lines of content
326
PARENTING “YOUTUBE NATIVES”
and advertising thus minimizing consumers’ ability to
identify these posts as paid sponsorship (FTC 2015).
This scenario is likely to be especially problematic for
children as noted in two recent Children’s Advertising
Review Unit (CARU) press releases that addressed the
practice and involved two of the top 10 Forbes (2017)
YouTube kid influencers, EvanTube HD (CARU 2016)
and Ryan Toys Review (CARU 2017). CARA (2016)
noted that YouTube channels, like EvanTube HD,
“were both national advertising … and native advertising, or content that bears a strong similarity to independent content.” CARU stated that the child audience,
many of whom are too young to read, would not be able
to discern that such sponsored YouTube posts featuring
a brand’s product were actually advertising. In these
examples, the line between advertising and program content was blurred and failed to clearly and conspicuously
disclose that the sponsored videos were advertising in a
manner that children would understand, thus violating
CARU (2014) guidelines.
It also commented on the role of pre-roll commercials stating:
The potential confusion between sponsored and unsponsored
videos is further underscored by the fact that a majority of the
videos start with pre-roll ads. Because children may easily
recognize these pre-roll videos as commercials they may be
even less likely to suspect that further advertisements are
contained within the [Ryan Toys Review] videos. (CARU 2017)
CARU (2016, 2017) recommended that the videos
should place a “clear and prominent audio disclosure
stating that the sponsored videos are advertising at the
start of the video.” While these suggested recommendations may better delineate for children what is commercial
from editorial, parents still maintain responsibility in
this regard.
Parents play a key role in their child’s consumer socialization and advertising literacy (Nelson et al. 2017) and
have expressed concern over the socializing influence of
children’s advertising (Grossbart and Crosby 1984).
However, “the watching of live, commercial television
with the family is no longer the norm” (Nelson et al.
2017, p. 177). In contrast, 72% of parents of children
under age eight report cowatching online videos with
them. Further, 69% of these parents reported being somewhat or very concerned about “how much advertising
and materialism is in media” (Common Sense
Media 2017).
Of specific concern is parents’ own limited recognition
of digital formats, such as advergames, as advertising
(Buijzen 2014; Evans, Carlson, and Hoy 2013).
Consequently, parents are less likely to moderate children’s access to commercial content or engage in
327
advertising literacy–related discussion. These behaviors,
which have been referred to as parental mediation strategies, are defined as “the way parents teach children how
to cope with media content and prevent negative consequences of media use on their psychological and mental
health” (Hudders and Cauberghe 2018, p. 199). Given
children’s ongoing cognitive development, unique vulnerability in terms of recognizing advertising and its persuasive intent, whether in traditional media (Eagle 2007;
John 1999), digital media (Ali et al. 2009), or more covert
forms such as advergames (An, Jin, and Park 2014), it is
imperative that parents recognize emerging covert tactics
so that they can engage in parental mediation and facilitate their child’s advertising literacy.
While CARU (2016) recommended audio disclosures
may sufficiently indicate the persuasive nature of a sponsored video, research in other native (e.g., Evans et al.
2017) or covert (e.g., Boerman, van Reijmersdal, and
Neijens 2015; Evans and Hoy 2016) advertising formats
among adults indicates that addition of a text disclosure
facilitates conceptual persuasion knowledge, or conceptual advertising literacy (Rozendaal et al. 2011), which is
“the cognitive dimension that embraces the recognition of
advertising, its source and audience, and the understanding of the advertising’s persuasive intent, selling intent,
and tactics” (Boerman, van Reijmersdal, and Neijens
2012, p. 1049). Thus, as parents engage in more mediation strategies, such as coviewing and supervising their
children’s online content exposure, consideration of how
best to ensure that they, too, recognize the sponsored
child influencer unboxing videos as advertising is crucial.
In this study we examine the potential added effect of a
text disclosure on parents’ understanding of child-directed
sponsored unboxing videos. In essence, we investigate
whether the recommended audio disclosure is sufficient in
itself or whether parents would benefit from the inclusion
of a text disclosure as well.
The pervasiveness of influencer marketing, regulatory
concern over consumers’ ability to identify this tactic as
advertising, children’s unique vulnerability, consumers’
changing media consumption behaviors, and parents’
socialization and mediation roles converge to prompt our
inquiry into parental understanding, perceptions, and
attitudes toward child-directed sponsored unboxing videos. Guided by the persuasion knowledge model (Friestad
and Wright 1994), recent work on sponsorship transparency (Wojdynski, Evans, and Hoy 2018), and CARU
(2016, 2017) cases, we present the results of an online
experiment among 418 parents. We used an existing
EvanTube HD video that contained the required audio
sponsorship disclosure at the opening just prior to the toy
unboxing and then showed a text sponsorship disclosure
for the first few seconds as the toy unboxing began.
328
N.J. EVANS ET AL.
Boerman and van Reijmersdal (2016) called for research
into sponsorship disclosure of covert advertising using
“natural settings.” Our study’s use of an existing video
enhanced
the
study’s
external
validity
(see
Vanwesenbeeck, Opree, and Smits 2017), while online
data collection made use of parents’ natural environment
for watching a YouTube video.
The purpose of our study was threefold. First, we
tested how variations in pre-roll advertising (no pre-roll
versus nonsponsor pre-roll versus sponsor pre-roll) and
sponsorship text disclosures (presence versus absence)
impacted parents’ conceptual persuasion knowledge (i.e.,
ad recognition) and perceptions of sponsorship transparency. Second, based on prior research (see Boerman,
Willemsen, and Van Der Aa 2017; Campbell and Evans
2018), we examined the mediating effect of conceptual
persuasion knowledge and sponsorship transparency on
subsequent attitudes toward and perceptions of childdirected unboxing videos. Third, given parents’ historical
role in mediating children’s exposure to advertising and
efforts toward consumer socialization, we tested how parental mediation would moderate the effect of pre-roll
advertising, conceptual persuasion knowledge, and sponsorship transparency on parents’ attitudes and perceptions of unboxing videos.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Persuasion Knowledge Model and the Integration of
Sponsorship Transparency
According to the persuasion knowledge model
(Friestad and Wright 1994), consumers develop persuasion knowledge, which they use to respond to persuasion
episodes (Campbell and Kirmani 2000) and which reflects
a consumer’s ability to identify and understand a marketer’s motives and tactics (Shrum et al. 2012). As individuals mature and gain marketplace experience, they become
more proficient at identifying the variety of persuasive
efforts and developing appropriate coping strategies and
tactics (Carlson, Bearden, and Hardesty 2007), which in
turn allows them to make more informed marketplace
decisions. However, when consumers are presented with
persuasion scenarios with which they have no previous
experience, especially if it is distinctly different from or
potentially confused with prior experience, they may not
recognize the encounter as persuasive in nature (Evans
and Park 2015). Subsequently, they may not employ
adequate or appropriate coping tactics, which may result
in diminished ability to make an informed decision.
Covert advertising tactics may reduce the likelihood of
advertising recognition (i.e., conceptual persuasion knowledge) through diminished persuasion knowledge activation. Subsequently, consumers may not experience
skepticism of the persuasive message nor question the
message source’s motivation (Tanaka 1994/1999; Kaikati
and Kaikati 2004). Parents have exhibited difficulty in
understanding and recognizing children’s advergames, a
covert form of advertising (Evans, Carlson, and Hoy
2013). The authors suggested that parents’ existing persuasion knowledge, derived from more traditional advertising formats, might not have been robust enough to
trigger recognition of a persuasion episode when exposed
to an advergame.
Applied to child influencer unboxing videos, parents
may not recognize that these videos are indeed sponsored,
“incentivized” content and therefore advertising (CARU
2016). This lack of basic recognition of the content as
advertising would likely reduce parents’ perceptions of
who paid for its placement—in other words, its sponsorship transparency. Parents viewing the video may not
experience a basic recognition that (1) what they saw was
advertising and (2) a specific entity sponsored, or paid
for, its placement.
The Effects of Pre-Roll Advertising on Conceptual
Persuasion Knowledge and Sponsorship Transparency
We propose that parents’ recognition of unboxing videos as advertising (i.e., conceptual persuasion knowledge)
and their degree of perceived sponsorship transparency
are affected by the presence and type of pre-roll advertising. Specifically, pre-roll advertising that features the
same sponsor as the unboxing video and immediately precedes it may be more effective at increasing both conceptual persuasion knowledge and sponsorship transparency
of the unboxing video.
Sponsor Pre-Roll Advertising Increases Conceptual
Persuasion Knowledge
In general, pre-roll advertising is reminiscent of the
traditional video advertising context in which advertising
is distinct from and precedes the video content. Further,
pre-rolls are the dominant form of YouTube advertising
(O’Kelley 2016). Both factors should contribute to
parents’ conceptual persuasion knowledge activation for
the advertising that precedes the unboxing component.
However, when the sponsor of the unboxing video is also
the pre-roll sponsor, there are two potential ways in
which parents’ recognition of unboxing videos as advertising is further assisted.
First, the presence of a sponsor pre-roll ad increases
the occurrence and number of sponsor impressions while
viewing the pre-roll and unboxing content. This increases
the likelihood that a parent would recognize the same
sponsor in the subsequent unboxing video. Second, pre-
PARENTING “YOUTUBE NATIVES”
roll ads are likely to be recognized as advertising
(Campbell et al. 2017). Parents who are exposed to a
sponsor pre-roll ad are likely to recognize it as advertising
and also may assume a subsequent unboxing video is
advertising if the same sponsor is featured. Research on
associative theories suggests that increasing the perceived
relevance, fit, or linkage between concepts can enhance
cognitive processing (Anderson 1983). The association
between the sponsor in the unboxing video and the preroll advertising is likely to be noticeable when viewing
and evaluating the unboxing video (Rodgers 2003). This
salience will make sponsor mentions within the unboxing
video likely to trigger conceptual persuasion knowledge.
Thus, the presence of a sponsor pre-roll ad would not
only allow for advertising recognition of the pre-roll ad
to spill over to the unboxing video, the continuity of the
sponsor across both the pre-roll and the unboxing video
would intensify the likelihood of recognizing the unboxing video as advertising. Therefore, we expect:
H1: A sponsor pre-roll ad will result in greater conceptual
persuasion knowledge compared to a nonsponsor pre-roll ad
or no pre-roll ad.
Sponsor Pre-Roll Advertising Increases Sponsorship
Transparency
Sponsorship transparency is defined as the degree to
which a sponsored message makes perceptible to a consumer its paid nature and the identity of the sponsor
(Wojdynski, Evans, and Hoy 2018). Sponsorship transparency reflects consumers’ perceptions of sponsorship
elements present in an advertisement. These sponsorship
elements include the clarity of an advertisement’s sponsor,
the degree to which a brand is present, whether and how
the communication is disclosed as an advertisement, and
the degree to which consumers feel as though the communication attempts to deceive them about the fact that it is
advertising. Consumer perceptions concerning these elements of an advertisement serve an evaluative function.
Unlike measures of advertising recognition (i.e., conceptual persuasion knowledge) activation, sponsorship transparency does not expose how or why consumers identify
and recognize advertising content but instead measures
consumers’ overall impressions of how clearly or transparently a given advertising message conveys its sponsored and paid nature (Wojdynski, Evans, and Hoy
2018). As previously noted, exposure to a sponsor preroll adjacent to a sponsored unboxing video produces
numerous audio and visual repetitions of the sponsor and
brand name coupled with spotlighting product attributes.
Findings from Campbell and Evans (2018) indicate that
329
the presence of a banner ad containing the same sponsor
featured in an article-style native ad produces greater conceptual persuasion knowledge for the native ad compared
to a banner ad with a discrepant sponsor. Likewise, we
believe that the presence of a pre-roll ad—and concordant
variations in the type of sponsor—may trigger associative
mechanisms that connect the advertised brand/sponsor in
the pre-roll to the brand/sponsor in the unboxing video.
Subsequent perceptions of sponsorship transparency
should be heightened under conditions where the sponsor
in the unboxing video is also featured in the pre-roll ad.
Stated formally, we posit the following hypothesis:
H2: A sponsor pre-roll ad will result in greater sponsorship
transparency compared to a nonsponsor pre-roll ad or no
pre-roll ad.
The Effect of Sponsor Text Disclosure on Conceptual
Persuasion Knowledge and Sponsorship Transparency
Advertising disclosures serve as a mechanism for providing consumers the necessary information to make
informed marketplace decisions and prevent them from
being deceived (Hoy and Andrews 2004) and thus are a
means of enhancing persuasion knowledge (Evans and
Hoy 2016). When advertising contains information that
highlights the sponsor’s persuasive motives, the likelihood
is greater that persuasion knowledge will be activated and
consumers will recognize the content as advertising, thus
leading to inferences regarding the selling motive
(Friestad and Wright 1994). In sum, disclosure of the
sponsor’s identity and motive enhances consumers’ ability
to recognize the advertisement’s selling and persuasive motives.
However, this assumption is rooted in research that
has investigated traditional advertising formats, such as
television commercials, where conceptual persuasion
knowledge is assumed. In their literature review regarding
the effects of sponsorship disclosures in covert advertising, Boerman and van Reijmersdal (2016) found mixed
results regarding whether a disclosure activates persuasion knowledge and note that it depends on the advertising format. Indeed, mixed results regarding the impact of
disclosures in a covert environment are reported for critical processing, the impact on brand responses, and
modality effects (Boerman and van Reijmersdal 2016).
Further, the bulk of research involving sponsorship disclosure for covert advertising appears to focus on visual
modality, such as the use of text or disclosure icons (e.g.,
Boerman, van Reijmersdal, and Neijens 2015; Evans et al.
2017), rather than investigating the impact of an audioonly disclosure or dual modality where the same
330
N.J. EVANS ET AL.
disclosure is presented simultaneously in both text and
audio format. One exception is Evans and Hoy (2016)
where they found that a text-only disclosure was on par
with a dual-modality disclosure in alerting parents that
an advergame was advertising. In general, prior work
indicates that inclusion of a sponsorship text disclosure
facilitates conceptual persuasion knowledge in native
(e.g., Evans et al. 2017) or covert (e.g., Boerman, van
Reijmersdal, and Neijens 2015; Boerman, Willemsen, and
Van Der Aa 2017; Evans and Hoy 2016) advertising formats among adults.
With regard to child influencer unboxing videos, a
sponsor text disclosure may increase conceptual persuasion knowledge and sponsorship transparency by providing parents with information that is diagnostic in
recognizing the content is advertising from an identifiable
sponsor. CARU (2014) guidelines state that audio disclosures must be used in television commercials because they
provide information to children who are not yet able to
read. It similarly advised that unboxing videos should
include a clear and conspicuous audio sponsor disclosure
(CARU 2016, 2017). Inclusion of a text disclosure should
further enhance effectiveness for older children and
parents. Thus, we expect that also including a sponsor
text disclosure that immediately follows the encouraged
audio disclosure will cause consumers to more readily
identify a sponsored unboxing video as advertising (i.e.,
conceptual persuasion knowledge activation) while also
increasing its sponsorship transparency.
While a sponsor pre-roll ad might link the paying
sponsor with a subsequent unboxing video through
increased sponsor mentions and salience, a sponsor text
disclosure operates through a more overt mechanism by
providing parents with information that delineates the
advertising nature of the unboxing video while simultaneously specifying the paying sponsor.
We expect that the presence (versus absence) of a sponsor text disclosure will moderate the effect of pre-roll
advertising on ad recognition and sponsorship transparency. Specifically, under conditions where the sponsor is
of the highest saliency and frequency (e.g., sponsor preroll) we expect that the presence (versus absence) of a
sponsor text disclosure will provide parents with the most
accurate and complete sponsor information, while also signaling that the unboxing video is advertising. Henceforth,
the strongest predicted effect on both advertising recognition and sponsorship transparency will emerge under conditions where parents are exposed to a sponsor pre-roll ad
as well as the inclusion of a separate sponsor text disclosure. Stated formally, we predict the following:
H3: The presence (versus absence) of a sponsor text
disclosure will lead to greater (a) conceptual persuasion
knowledge and (b) sponsorship transparency when a sponsor
pre-roll ad is present compared to a nonsponsor pre-roll ad
and no pre-roll ad.
The Mediating Effects of Conceptual Persuasion
Knowledge and Sponsorship Transparency
Sponsor pre-roll advertising not only may make an
unboxing video easier to recognize as an ad but also may
cause sponsorship elements to be more recognizable. In
other words, a sponsor pre-roll ad serves two roles: “[I]t
acts as a communication element that aids in advertising
recognition and can increase perceptions of sponsorship
transparency” (Campbell and Evans 2018, p. 21).
The persuasion knowledge model suggests that parents
who come to realize the unboxing content is advertising
may have heightened defense mechanisms triggered by a
“change of meaning,” whereby expectations about the
content’s source and intentions are subsequently adjusted
(Friestad and Wright 1994). While conceptual persuasion
knowledge activation does not always lead to negative
outcomes, some evidence suggests a relationship between
consumers’ increased conceptual persuasion knowledge
(i.e., ad recognition or persuasion knowledge activation)
and reductions in attitudes toward the ad (Campbell and
Evans 2018; Wojdynski and Evans 2016), the product, or
the brand (Boerman, van Reijmersdal, and Neijens 2015;
Evans et al. 2017). Furthermore, research indicates that
increases in conceptual persuasion knowledge may result
in more positive attitudes toward regulation (Nelson,
Wood, and Paek 2009). We expect a pre-roll ad to exert
an indirect effect on attitudinal outcomes via conceptual
persuasion knowledge. More specifically, we expect this
indirect effect to be heightened under conditions where a
greater number of advertising-related features are shared
between the pre-roll ad and the unboxing video. Because
a sponsor pre-roll ad and unboxing video share several
advertising-related features, its indirect effect on attitudinal and perceptual outcomes will be stronger compared
to a nonsponsor pre-roll ad as well as no pre-roll ad.
Stated formally, we predict the following mediated effect:
H4: The effect of a sponsor pre-roll ad via conceptual
persuasion knowledge will result in (a) less positive
perceptions of unboxing videos, (b) less positive attitudes
toward the brand, (c) less positive attitudes toward the
sponsor, and (d) more positive attitudes toward regulation of
unboxing videos when compared to a nonsponsor pre-roll ad
and no pre-roll ad.
While conceptual persuasion knowledge is predicted to
mediate the indirect effect of a sponsor pre-roll ad on
unboxing video–related attitudes and evaluations, higher
perceptions of sponsorship transparency may also
PARENTING “YOUTUBE NATIVES”
mediate the effect of a pre-roll ad on attitudinal and perceptual outcomes—albeit through a distinctly different
processing mechanism. Two-sided message theory,
whereby a message contains both positive and negative
information, is seen as more effective than simply focusing on positive information because it reduces counterarguments and enhances message persuasiveness (Crowley
and Hoyer 1994). To the extent that cues that signal message sponsorship are evaluated as important “negative”
information, the presence of a sponsor pre-roll may result
in parents perceiving the unboxing videos as more forthcoming and upfront. As suggested by Campbell and
Evans (2018), ads that are perceived as more forthcoming
in communicating their persuasive nature and source are
likely to be evaluated more favorably. Therefore, we
expect that parents are likely to perceive such unboxing
videos more positively, with less favorability toward regulation under conditions where sponsorship transparency
is heightened. We also expect such favorability to extend
to attitudes relating to the brand and sponsor. Stated formally we predict the following:
H5: The effect of a sponsor pre-roll ad via sponsorship
transparency will result in (a) more positive perceptions of
unboxing videos, (b) more positive attitudes toward the brand,
(c) more positive attitudes toward the sponsor, and (d) less
positive attitudes toward regulation of unboxing videos when
compared to a nonsponsor pre-roll ad and no pre-roll ad.
The Moderating Effect of Parental Mediation
Research indicates that parents have historically
expressed concerns over the socializing influence of children’s advertising (Grossbart and Crosby 1984; Walsh,
Laczniak, and Carlson 1998). More recently, however,
contemporary parental concerns have centered on children’s online activities (Livingstone and Bober 2006) and
exposure to age-inappropriate content (Eagle 2007; Eagle,
Bulmer, and De Bruin 2003). Parents subscribe to videoon-demand services for a variety of reasons, including
having content suitable for their children, family viewing,
as well as the absence of commercials (E-Poll Market
Research 2016). However, even if parents act as the original “ad blocker,” their children are still likely to be
exposed to marketing- and advertising-related content
across other online platforms (e.g., YouTube) and may
not realize that their children are seeing persuasive content. Given parents’ historical concern regarding children’s exposure to advertising content, such content’s
socializing influence, and the parents’ desire to act as
gatekeepers of marketing- and advertising-related information, we intended to test the effect of parental
331
mediation on parents’ self-reported attitudes and perceptions relating to child-directed influencer unboxing videos.
Parental mediation is defined as “the way parents
teach children how to cope with media content and prevent negative consequences of media use on their psychological and mental health” (Hudders and Cauberghe
2018, p. 199). Parental mediation consists of the strategies
parents use to maximize benefits and minimize risk of
media influence for their children (Jiow, Lim, and Lin
2017). A growing area of research now centers on the
impact of parental mediation on children’s ability to recognize advertising content (i.e., advertising literacy) and
subsequent brand-related attitudes, preferences, or
requests (An and Lee 2010; Buijzen 2009; Cantor and
Wilson 2003). To date, few research studies have specifically investigated the impact of parental mediation on
children’s advertising literacy and subsequent attitudinal
evaluations in the context of embedded or covert advertising (see Hudders and Cauberghe 2018; Naderer et al.
2018; Vanwesenbeeck, Walrave, and Ponnet 2016). Even
less attention has been given to the potential effects of
parental mediation on parent-related advertising recognition, perceptions, and attitudes (see Evans 2014).
Findings concerning the impact of parental mediation
on advertising literacy and subsequent evaluative outcomes vary across the aforementioned studies. For
example, while Naderer et al. (2018) found no moderating
effect of parental mediation on children’s persuasion
knowledge of a product placement, parental mediation
exerted a negative moderating effect on children’s brand
evaluations. Similarly, Hudders and Cauberghe (2018)
found that children’s self-reported parental mediation did
not affect their identification of commercial content of a
movie-based product placement but did have a positive
effect on their attitudes toward the brand. Evans (2014)
investigated the impact of parental mediation on parents’
evaluations and ability to infer the selling and persuasive
intent of a child-directed advergame. Findings indicated
that parental mediation had no effect on parents’ selling
and persuasive intent but negatively affected their perceptions of advergames.
Among both child and adult audiences, these limited
findings demonstrate that parental mediation exerts little
to no impact on the ability to infer intent (i.e., conceptual
persuasion knowledge) or perceptions about the sponsor
of the message in child-directed advertising contexts.
However, findings from these previous studies suggest
that parents’ preexisting proclivity toward parental mediation of advertising can moderate their advertising- and
brand-related attitudes. (Hudders and Cauberghe 2018;
Naderer et al. 2018). To this extent, we posit that parental
mediation exerts an impact on parents’ perceptions and
332
N.J. EVANS ET AL.
FIGURE 1. Study model and hypotheses.
TABLE 1
Participant Profile (N ¼ 418)
Parent Profile
Sex
Male
Female
Unspecified
Education
Some high school
High school grad
Some college/associate’s degree
Bachelor’s degree
Master’s degree or higher
Age
Child Profile
N
%
210
207
1
50.2
49.5
0.2
9
70
143
113
83
2.2
16.7
34.2
27.0
19.9
Range
M
21–68
38.1
evaluations of child-directed unboxing videos following
the activation of conceptual persuasion knowledge and
perceptions of sponsorship transparency. Therefore,
rather than affecting parents’ conceptual persuasion
knowledge or perceptions of sponsorship transparency,
parental mediation may conditionally impact the indirect
effect of a pre-roll ad on perceptions and attitudes via
conceptual persuasion knowledge or sponsorship transparency. Stated formally, we predict the following:
H6: The indirect effect of a sponsor pre-roll ad via
conceptual persuasion knowledge on (a) perceptions of
unboxing videos, (b) attitude toward the brand, (c)
attitude toward the sponsor, and (d) attitude toward
regulation of unboxing videos will be moderated by
parental mediation.
Sex
Male
Female
Age
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
N
%
226
192
54.1
45.9
32
46
32
65
55
56
73
58
7.7
11.0
7.7
15.6
13.2
13.4
17.5
13.9
H7: The indirect effect of a sponsor pre-roll ad via
sponsorship transparency on (a) perceptions of unboxing
videos, (b) attitude toward the brand, (c) attitude toward the
sponsor, and (d) attitude toward regulation of unboxing
videos will be moderated by parental mediation.
METHOD
An online experiment was conducted with a 3 (pre-roll
ad: no pre-roll þ unboxing video only versus nonsponsor
pre-roll þ unboxing video versus sponsor pre-rollþ unboxing video) 2 (sponsorship text disclosure: present versus absent) factorial design. See Figure 1 for final
study model and hypotheses. A Qualtrics online panel
recruited 428 adults living in the United States with a
PARENTING “YOUTUBE NATIVES”
child between the ages of four and 11. Parents of children
between the ages of four and 11 were selected because
research suggests children’s advertising literacy (e.g.,
advertising recognition or conceptual persuasion knowledge) typically develops in accordance with their cognitive abilities (Eagle 2007; John 1999).
When completing the research instrument, parents
were instructed to answer with respect to their oldest
child in the age range and to indicate the child’s age
(Carlson and Grossbart 1988; Evans, Carlson, and Hoy
2013). Subjects were randomly assigned to one of the six
conditions. They began the procedure by providing profile information about themselves and their children.
Next, they answered questions about parental mediation
strategies related to their child’s online behavior. Next,
they were exposed to one of the six treatments followed
by a series of questions assessing conceptual persuasion
knowledge, sponsorship transparency, perceptions of
unboxing videos, attitude toward regulating unboxing
videos, attitude toward the brand, and attitude toward
the sponsor. Average time to complete the study was
961.1 seconds. Ten parents took more than 50 minutes
(3,000 seconds) to complete the study. They were removed
from subsequent analysis, resulting in a total of 418
usable responses (see Table 1 for sample profile).
Stimuli
Stimuli development took into consideration CARU’s
(2016, 2017) commentary regarding child influencer
unboxing videos. We used an existing EvanTube HD
video of Evan and Jillian unboxing Kinetic Sand (brand)
manufactured by Spin Master (sponsor). This video was
chosen because it featured a gender-neutral toy with commentary by a boy and girl. The video was edited to two
minutes and captured the complete unboxing of the product and both children’s reactions to its texture, play
potential, and comparison to another unnamed competitor. The video began with a two-second audio disclosure
that stated “Free products and paid support provided by
Spin Master,” which was voiced by Evan as the
EvanTube HD logo entered the screen from the right side
and stopped when centered. We retained the audio disclosure across all treatments in accordance with CARU’s
recommendation and to enhance external validity.
We created six versions of the stimuli (see Appendix 1)
to reflect the six treatments resulting from manipulations
of our two independent variables: pre-roll ad (no pre-roll
versus nonsponsor pre-roll versus sponsor pre-roll) and
sponsorship text disclosure manipulation (present versus
absent). In sum, we had the resulting six experimental
conditions: (1) no pre-roll/text disclosure absent; (2) no
pre-roll/text disclosure present; (3) nonsponsor pre-roll/
333
text disclosure absent; (4) nonsponsor pre-roll/text disclosure present; (5) sponsor pre-roll/text disclosure
absent; and (6) sponsor pre-roll/text disclosure present.
All participants saw the same unboxing video with the
exception of the experimental manipulation of text disclosure (present/absent).
The four treatments that involved a nonskippable 30second pre-roll ad that preceded the two-minute unboxing
video, resulting in a 150-second stimuli. The remaining
two treatments that were the unboxing video only were
each two minutes. Parents’ minimum and maximum
exposure time to their respective stimuli was controlled
for. Parents assigned to the unboxing video only treatments had a minimum exposure time of 120 seconds,
while parents assigned to the pre-roll ad treatments had a
minimum exposure time of 150 seconds. All parents were
advanced to the next page of the survey once five minutes
(300 seconds) had expired.
Pre-Roll Manipulation
CARU (2017) stated that the presence of pre-roll commercials could cause confusion in (child) viewers’ ability
to identify the unboxing video as advertising because the
context resembles traditional television viewing. To investigate this issue, we manipulated the pre-roll ad such that
there was one of three conditions: no pre-roll (i.e., unboxing video only), sponsor pre-roll (i.e., Spin Master
Kinetic Sand featuring boys and girls playing with
the product), and nonsponsor pre-roll (a Target ad featuring candy and a variety of children dressed in
Halloween costumes).
Sponsorship Text Disclosure Manipulation
The existing video included the sponsorship text disclosure “Free products and paid support provided by
Spin Master” in white lettering against a black backdrop,
with Evan introducing himself and stating that he is going
to talk about Kinetic Sand. The disclosure began at the
5-second mark and remained on screen until the 25second mark. However, the background was black until
the 14-second mark and then switched to white when
showing the Spin Master logo, followed by various backgrounds that panned while spotlighting packaging contents. The text disclosure was virtually illegible during
this time. When the Spin Master logo is on screen (two
seconds), Evan says, “And it’s made by Spin Master.”
The sponsorship text disclosure was professionally edited
to block the text (text disclosure absent/audio only) or it
remained present.
4.38 (0.57)
4.32 (0.70)
4.39 (0.75)
4.46 (0.77)
4.49 (0.67)
4.61 (0.68)
6.09 (1.15)
5.78 (1.24)
5.99 (1.14)
5.94 (1.30)
5.94 (1.17)
5.95 (1.26)
Sponsorship
Transparency
M (SD)
3.75 (1.11)
3.65 (1.11)
3.53 (1.03)
3.57 (1.28)
3.61 (1.03)
3.54 (1.33)
Perceptions of
Unboxing
Videos
M (SD)
5.59 (1.49)
5.49 (1.54)
5.44 (1.23)
5.45 (1.48)
5.48 (1.35)
5.15 (1.55)
Attitude Toward
the Brand
(Kinetic Sand)
M (SD)
Note. All variables were assessed on a 1 to 7 scale where a higher number reflected a higher level of the measure.
No pre-roll/no
text disclosure
No pre-roll/
text disclosure
Nonsponsor
pre-roll/no
text disclosure
Nonsponsor preroll/text disclosure
Sponsor pre-roll/no
text disclosure
Sponsor pre-roll/
text disclosure
Condition
Conceptual
Persuasion
Knowledge
M (SD)
TABLE 2
Means and Standard Deviations
5.25 (1.41)
5.06 (1.58)
5.01 (1.32)
4.97 (1.68)
4.90 (1.46)
4.55 (1.58)
Attitude Toward
the Sponsor
(Spin Master)
M (SD)
4.91 (1.24)
4.88 (1.15)
4.78 (1.11)
4.82 (1.15)
4.74 (0.99)
5.02 (1.18)
Attitude Toward
Regulating
Unboxing
Videos
M (SD)
334
N.J. EVANS ET AL.
335
PARENTING “YOUTUBE NATIVES”
TABLE 3
Parental Mediation Strategies: Descriptive Statistics
Measures
% Any Agree
M
SD
80.4
78.5
73.3
81.1
88.8
66.9
5.52
5.45
5.22
5.52
5.97
5.07
1.54
1.45
1.51
1.38
1.22
1.58
I have strict rules about the time my child spends online.
I stay nearby when my child is online.
I watch the screen when my child is online.
I help my child when they use the Internet.
I talk to my child about Internet use.
I sit with my child when they are online.
Note. Sum of 5, 6, and 7 on a Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (7) scale.
Measures
Dependent Variables
Boerman, Willemsen, and Van Der Aa (2017) used an
adaptation of “I thought (ad format) was advertising” to
assess conceptual persuasion knowledge and note that
“Similar one-item measures have been used in earlier
studies to estimate consumers’ ability to recognize
advertising” (p. 87). In accordance with prior research,
this study’s participants were asked to rate their agreement with “I thought that the YouTube video was
advertising” on a 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly
agree) scale (M ¼ 5.93, SD ¼ 1.21) (see Boerman, van
Reijmersdal, and Neijens 2012, 2015; Boerman,
Willemsen, and Van Der Aa 2017; Evans et al. 2017;
Ham, Nelson, and Das 2015).
Perceptions of unboxing videos was measured via six
statements on a 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (strongly agree)
scale, in part adapted from Evans (2014); Evans, Carlson,
and Hoy (2013); and Grossbart and Crosby (1984). Two
of the measures were negatively valanced and reversecoded. Prior to responding to these measures, parents
were told “Unboxing videos are shown on video-sharing
websites, such as YouTube, and typically show a person
unpacking, examining, and using the product while commenting on the experience.” Example statements included
“Unboxing videos make children want things they don’t
really need” (reverse coded), and “Unboxing videos
directed at children don’t lead to family conflict”
(M ¼ 3.61, SD ¼ 1.16, a ¼ .742).
Attitudes toward regulating unboxing videos was
measured via four statements on a 1 (Strongly disagree)
to 7 (Strongly agree) scale adapted from Evans (2014)
and Walsh, Laczniak, and Carlson (1998). Example statements included “Unboxing videos that use children’s
food-related content should not be allowed” and
“Unboxing videos that have a corporate sponsor should
be required to identify themselves as advertising”
(M ¼ 4.86, SD ¼ 1.14, a ¼ .681).
Sponsorship transparency was measured via 12 statements from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree).
Examples items include “The video was clearly branded”;
“The video was trying to fool consumers into thinking it
wasn’t advertising”; and “The advertiser tried to obscure
the fact that the video was an ad.” The 12 items were
adapted from Wojdynski, Evans, and Hoy’s (2018) sponsorship transparency scale to be applicable to the stimuli
(M ¼ 4.44, SD ¼ .69, a ¼ .782).
Attitudes toward the sponsor (Spin Master) and brand
(Kinetic Sand) were assessed on five separate 7-point
semantic differential items: Unappealing/Appealing, Bad/
Good, Unpleasant/Pleasant, Unfavorable/Favorable, and
Unlikeable/Likeable (Spears and Singh 2004) (MSpin Master
¼ 4.94, SD ¼ 1.52, a ¼ .97; MKinetic ¼ 5.43, SD ¼ 1.45, a ¼
.96). As seen in Table 2, descriptive statistics for all dependent variables are indicated for each experimental condition.
Moderator
Parental mediation
Six parental mediation items were measured on a 1
(Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree) scale. These items
included both measures of active mediation (e.g., staying
near when the child is online, watching the screen when
the child is online, helping the child use the Internet, talking to the child about Internet use, sitting with the child
when he or she is online) and restrictive mediation (e.g.,
having strict rules about the time the child spends online)
(Evans 2014; Livingstone and Helsper 2008; Livingstone
et al. 2017). The six parental mediation items were aggregated and averaged (M ¼ 5.46, SD ¼ 1.13, a ¼ .871) for
subsequent analysis. As seen in Table 3, similar to the
parents in the Common Sense Media (2017) study, our
parent sample was highly involved in mediating their
children’s online behavior. In particular, 66.9% of the
parents sit with their child when he or she is online;
73.3% watch the screen when the child is online, and
78.5% stay nearby when the child is online. As noted by
336
N.J. EVANS ET AL.
FIGURE 2. Direct effects of sponsor pre-roll advertising (versus no pre-roll þ nonsponsor pre-roll advertising) on
mediating and dependent variables. Note that both total and (direct) effect coefficients are indicated for independent
variable–dependent variable relationships; p < .05; p < .01; p < .001.
Livingstone et al. (2017), parents who engage in one
online parental mediation strategy are highly likely to
do others.
Confound Variables
Influencer familiarity (“I am familiar with the individual speaking in the unboxing video”) (M ¼ 3.18,
SD ¼ 2.23), brand familiarity (“I am familiar with
Kinetic”) (M ¼ 4.59, SD ¼ 1.93), and sponsor familiarity
(“I am familiar with Spin Master”) (M ¼ 4.01, SD ¼ 2.05)
were included as potential confounding variables to test
whether unboxing video–based attitudes and perceptions
differed between pre-roll and text disclosure conditions.
The three variables were measured on 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree) scales.
RESULTS
Confound Check
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to explore the possibility that dependent outcomes
could have been a result of inherent differences between our
conditions. Results indicated no significant differences
between pre-roll and text disclosure conditions with respect
to parents’ influencer familiarity (F (5, 412) ¼ .696, p ¼
.626), brand familiarity (F (5, 412) ¼ .943, p ¼ .453), or
sponsor familiarity (F (5, 412) ¼ .385, p ¼ .859). An
additional independent sample t test was run to test the
potential influence of child age (i.e., ages four to seven versus ages eight to 11) on the dependent, mediating, and moderating variables. Results indicated no significant effect of
child age on moderating, mediating, or dependent variables.
The Effects of Pre-Roll Advertising and Text Disclosures
on Conceptual Persuasion Knowledge and Sponsorship
Transparency
Hypothesis 1 predicted that the presence of a sponsor preroll ad would result in greater conceptual persuasion knowledge compared to a nonsponsor pre-roll ad and no pre-roll
ad, while hypothesis 2 predicted the same effect, albeit for
sponsorship transparency. Hypothesis 3 predicted that the
presence of a sponsor text disclosure would increase the
effect of a sponsor pre-roll ad on (a) conceptual persuasion
knowledge and (b) sponsorship transparency. A two-way
ANOVA was run to test hypotheses 1 through 3. The main
effect of pre-roll advertising on conceptual persuasion knowledge was not significant (F (2, 412) ¼ .019, p ¼ .981).
However, the main effect of pre-roll advertising on sponsorship transparency was significant (F (2, 412) ¼ 3.00, p ¼ .05).
A post hoc least significant difference (LSD) test showed that
parents in the sponsor pre-roll (M ¼ 4.54, SD ¼ .78) and no
pre-roll (M ¼ 4.35, SD ¼ .63) conditions differed significantly
at p < .05, while parents in the nonsponsor pre-roll condition
(M ¼ 4.42, SD ¼ .76) were not significantly different. The
337
PARENTING “YOUTUBE NATIVES”
TABLE 4
Conditional Indirect Effects of Sponsor Pre-Roll Ad via Sponsorship Transparency on Dependent Measures
Parental Mediation
Perceptions of unboxing videos
1 SD
4.33
Mean
5.46
þ1 SD
6.59
Attitude toward the brand
1 SD
4.33
Mean
5.46
þ1 SD
6.59
Attitude toward the sponsor
1 SD
4.33
Mean
5.46
þ1 SD
6.59
Attitude toward regulating unboxing videos
1 SD
4.33
Mean
5.46
þ1 SD
6.59
Effect (b)
SE
LLCI
ULCI
.08
.06
.12
.03
.03
.05
.05
.01
.03
.07
.13
.23
.09
.10
.12
.05
.05
.06
.01
.02
.02
.21
.21
.26
.08
.14
.20
.05
.06
.08
.01
.03
.04
.19
.27
.38
.024
.003
.02
.03
.02
.03
.09
.04
.03
.02
.03
.09
Note. SE ¼ standard error; LLCI ¼ lower level confidence interval; ULCI ¼ upper level confidence interval.
inclusion of a sponsor text disclosure had no main effect on
advertising recognition (F (2, 412) ¼ .896, p ¼ .344) or sponsorship transparency (F (2, 412) ¼ .444, p ¼ .506). In regard
to hypotheses 3a and 3b, no significant interaction occurred
between sponsor text disclosure and pre-roll advertising conditions on parents’ conceptual persuasion knowledge (F (2,
412) ¼ .709, p ¼ .493), nor on their perceptions of sponsorship transparency (F (2, 412) ¼ .589, p ¼ .555). While the
presence of a sponsor pre-roll significantly increased sponsorship transparency of the unboxing video, the presence of a
sponsor text disclosure exerted no additional effect. These
findings support hypothesis 2 but fail to support hypotheses
1, 3a, and 3b.
Mediation Analysis
The predicted mediation effects set forth in hypotheses
4 and 5 were conducted by examining the indirect effect of
a sponsor pre-roll ad across sponsor text disclosure conditions (present and absent). To test the effect of a sponsor
pre-roll ad, PROCESS V3.0 created a comparative referent group that combined the no pre-roll ad and nonsponsor pre-roll ad conditions (i.e., sponsor pre-roll ad ¼1,
nonsponsor pre-roll ad ¼0, no pre roll ad ¼0). We used
Model 4 of Hayes’s (2012) PROCESS V3.0 macro in SPSS
with conceptual persuasion knowledge and sponsorship
transparency serving as parallel mediators. All analyses
used 5,000 bootstrap samples to estimate the bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals (BCBCIs).
Indirect Effects of Sponsor Pre-Roll Ad via Conceptual
Persuasion Knowledge
Findings demonstrated no significant impact of a sponsor pre-roll ad on conceptual persuasion knowledge (b ¼
.01, boot SE ¼ .14, 95% BCBCI [.29, .27], p ¼ .95).
However, conceptual persuasion knowledge negatively
impacted perceptions of unboxing videos (b ¼ .25, boot
SE ¼ .04, 95% BCBCI [.34, .17], p < .001) and positively impacted attitudes toward regulating unboxing videos (b ¼ .22, boot SE ¼ .05, 95% BCBCI [.13, .31], p <
.001) (see Figure 2). Results indicate no significant indirect
effect of a sponsor pre-roll ad via conceptual persuasion
knowledge on perceptions of unboxing videos (b ¼ .002,
boot SE ¼ .04, 95% BCBCI [.08, .07]), attitude toward
the brand (b ¼ .001, boot SE ¼.01, 95% BCBCI [.03,
.03]), attitude toward the sponsor (b ¼ .001, boot SE ¼
.01, 95% BCBCI [.02, .02]), or attitude toward regulating
unboxing videos (b ¼ .002, boot SE ¼.03, 95% BCBCI
[.06, .06]). Therefore, the findings do not support
hypotheses 4a through 4d.
Indirect Effects of Sponsor Pre-Roll Ad via Sponsorship
Transparency
Findings demonstrated a positive impact of a sponsor
pre-roll ad on sponsorship transparency (b ¼ .19, boot SE
¼ .04, 95% BCBCI [.03, .35], p ¼ .02). This finding offers
additional support for hypothesis 2. Sponsorship transparency exerts a significant positive effect on perceptions of
unboxing videos (b ¼ .39, boot SE ¼ .08, 95% BCBCI [.24,
.54], p < .001), attitude toward the brand (b ¼ .57, boot SE
338
N.J. EVANS ET AL.
TABLE 5
Summary of Support for Hypotheses
Hypothesis
Pre-roll advertising
H1: A sponsor pre-roll ad will result in greater conceptual persuasion knowledge
compared to a nonsponsor pre-roll ad or no pre-roll ad.
H2: A sponsor pre-roll ad will result in greater sponsorship transparency compared
to a nonsponsor pre-roll ad or no pre-roll ad.
Text disclosures
H3a: The presence (versus absence) of a sponsor text disclosure will lead to greater
conceptual persuasion knowledge when a sponsor pre-roll ad is present compared to
a nonsponsor pre-roll ad and no pre-roll ad.
H3b: The presence (versus absence) of a sponsor text disclosure will lead to greater
sponsorship transparency when a sponsor pre-roll ad is present compared to a nonsponsor pre-roll ad and no pre-roll ad.
Sponsor pre-roll advertising
H4a: The effect of a sponsor pre-roll ad via conceptual persuasion knowledge will
result in less positive perceptions of unboxing videos when compared to a nonsponsor
pre-roll ad and no pre-roll ad.
H4b: The effect of a sponsor pre-roll ad via conceptual persuasion knowledge will
result in less positive attitudes toward the brand when compared to a nonsponsor
pre-roll ad and no pre-roll ad.
H4c: The effect of a sponsor pre-roll ad via conceptual persuasion knowledge will
result in less positive attitudes toward the sponsor when compared to a nonsponsor
pre-roll ad and no pre-roll ad.
H4d: The effect of a sponsor pre-roll ad via conceptual persuasion knowledge will
result in more positive attitudes toward regulation of unboxing videos when compared
to a nonsponsor pre-roll ad and no pre-roll ad.
H5a: The effect of a sponsor pre-roll ad via sponsorship transparency will result in
more positive perceptions of unboxing videos when compared to a nonsponsor preroll ad and no pre-roll ad.
H5b: The effect of a sponsor pre-roll ad via sponsorship transparency will result in
more positive attitudes toward the brand when compared to a nonsponsor pre-roll ad
and no pre-roll ad.
H5c: The effect of a sponsor pre-roll ad via sponsorship transparency will result in
more positive attitudes toward the sponsor when compared to a nonsponsor pre-roll
ad and no pre-roll ad.
H5d: The effect of a sponsor pre-roll ad via sponsorship transparency will result in
less positive attitudes toward regulation of unboxing videos when compared to a nonsponsor pre-roll ad and no pre-roll ad.
Parental mediation
H6a: The indirect effect of a sponsor pre-roll ad via conceptual persuasion knowledge
on perceptions of unboxing videos will be moderated by parental mediation.
H6b: The indirect effect of a sponsor pre-roll ad via conceptual persuasion knowledge
on attitude toward the brand will be moderated by parental mediation.
H6c: The indirect effect of a sponsor pre-roll ad via conceptual persuasion knowledge
on attitude toward the sponsor will be moderated by parental mediation.
H6d: The indirect effect of a sponsor pre-roll ad via conceptual persuasion knowledge
on attitude toward regulation of unboxing videos will be moderated by parental mediation.
Supported
Not
Supported
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(Continued)
339
PARENTING “YOUTUBE NATIVES”
TABLE 5
(Continued).
Hypothesis
Supported
H7a: The indirect effect of a sponsor pre-roll ad via sponsorship transparency
on perceptions of unboxing videos will be moderated by parental mediation.
H7b: The indirect effect of a sponsor pre-roll ad via sponsorship transparency
on attitude toward the brand will be moderated by parental mediation.
H7c: The indirect effect of a sponsor pre-roll ad via sponsorship transparency
on attitude toward the sponsor will be moderated by parental mediation.
H7d: The indirect effect of a sponsor pre-roll ad via sponsorship transparency
on attitude toward regulation of unboxing videos will be moderated by parental mediation.
¼ .10, 95% BCBCI [.37, .76], p < .001), and attitude toward
the sponsor (b ¼ .78, boot SE ¼ .10, 95% BCBCI [.58, .98],
p < .001) (see Figure 2). Significant positive indirect effects
of a sponsor pre-roll ad via sponsorship transparency were
indicated for perceptions of unboxing videos (b ¼ .07, boot
SE ¼ .03, 95% BCBCI [.01, .15]), attitude toward the brand
(b ¼ .11, boot SE ¼ .05, 95% BCBCI [.02, .22]), and attitude toward the sponsor (b ¼ .15, boot SE ¼ .06, 95%
BCBCI [.03, .28]). However, there was no significant indirect effect of a sponsor pre-roll ad via sponsorship transparency on attitudes toward regulating unboxing videos (b ¼
.01, boot SE ¼ .02, 95% BCBCI [.02, .05]). These findings
support hypotheses 5a, 5b, and 5c, but they do not support
hypothesis 5d.
The Moderating Effect of Parental Mediation
To test hypotheses 6 and 7, we used Model 14 of
Hayes’s (2012) PROCESS V3.0 macro in SPSS with conceptual persuasion knowledge and sponsorship transparency serving as parallel mediators and parental mediation
as a b-path moderator. All analyses used 5,000 bootstrap
samples to estimate the BCBCIs. Analyses examined the
impact of parental mediation on the indirect effect of a
sponsor pre-roll ad on dependent measures via conceptual
persuasion knowledge (hypothesis 6) and sponsorship
transparency (hypothesis 7). Results indicated no conditional effect of parental mediation on the indirect effect
of sponsor pre-roll ad via conceptual persuasion knowledge on perceptions of unboxing videos (b ¼ .001, boot
SE ¼ .02, 95% BCBCI [.05, .05], attitude toward the
brand (b ¼ .001, boot SE ¼ .01, 95% BCBCI [.03, .03],
attitude toward the sponsor (b ¼ .001, boot SE ¼ .01,
95% BCBCI [.03, .03], or attitude toward regulating
unboxing videos (b ¼ .003, boot SE ¼ .06, 95% BCBCI
[.12, .10]. These findings do not support hypotheses 6a
through 6d.
Not
Supported
X
X
X
X
However, results indicate a conditional increase in the
positive indirect effect of a sponsor pre-roll ad via sponsorship transparency on perceptions of unboxing videos (b ¼
.12, boot SE ¼ .05, 95% BCBCI [.03, .23], index of moderated mediation (b ¼ .05, boot SE ¼ .03, 95% BCBCI [.007,
.11]), and attitude toward the sponsor (b ¼ .20, boot SE ¼
.08, 95% BCBCI [.04, .37], index of moderated mediation (b
¼ .05, boot SE ¼ .03, 95% BCBCI [.004, .12]) when parental
mediation equals þ1 standard deviation (see Table 4).
Parental mediation did not change the indirect effect of a
sponsor pre-roll ad via sponsorship transparency on attitudes toward the brand (b ¼ .12, boot SE ¼ .06, 95%
BCBCI [.02, .25], index of moderated mediation (b ¼ .01,
boot SE ¼ .02, 95% BCBCI [.03, .07]), or attitude toward
regulating unboxing videos (b ¼ .02, boot SE ¼ .03, 95%
BCBCI [.03, .09], index of moderated mediation (b ¼ .02,
boot SE ¼ .02, 95% BCBCI [.01, .07]). These findings suggest that the positive indirect effects of a sponsor pre-roll ad
via sponsorship transparency on perceptions of unboxing
videos and attitudes toward the sponsor are intensified when
parental mediation is high. These findings support hypotheses 7a and 7c; they do not support hypotheses 7b or 7d.
DISCUSSION
Study Importance and Key Findings
Prompted by the growing prevalence of child-directed
influencer advertising, recent CARU press releases, concerns about children’s’ lack of understanding, and
parents’ socialization and mediation roles in this process,
this study investigated parents’ understanding, recognition, and perceptions of child-directed sponsored unboxing videos. To realize this aim, our study had three
specific goals. First, we tested how variations in pre-roll
advertising and sponsorship text disclosures impacted
parents’ conceptual persuasion knowledge and perceptions of sponsorship transparency. Second, we examined
340
N.J. EVANS ET AL.
the mediating effect of conceptual persuasion knowledge
and sponsorship transparency on subsequent attitudes
toward and perceptions of child-directed unboxing videos. Third, we tested how parental mediation would moderate the effect of pre-roll advertising, conceptual
persuasion knowledge, and sponsorship transparency on
parents’ attitudes and perceptions of unboxing videos.
See Table 5 for a summary of our hypotheses
and support.
Key findings indicate that variations in our pre-roll
advertising (sponsor versus nonsponsor versus none) and
sponsor text disclosure (present versus absent) conditions
did not affect parents’ conceptual persuasion knowledge
of the unboxing video. However, parents who viewed a
sponsor pre-roll ad reported higher levels of sponsorship
transparency of the unboxing video compared to parents
who saw no pre-roll ad or a nonsponsor pre-roll ad.
Interestingly, the addition of a sponsor text disclosure
exerted no additional effect on sponsorship transparency
or conceptual persuasion knowledge. As predicted, sponsorship transparency mediated the positive effect of a
sponsor pre-roll ad on parents’ perceptions of unboxing
videos, attitude toward the brand, and attitude toward
the sponsor. Furthermore, the positive indirect effects of
a sponsor pre-roll ad through sponsorship transparency
on perceptions of unboxing videos and attitude toward
the sponsor were intensified when parental mediation
was high.
THEORETICAL AND PUBLIC POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Audio and Text Disclosures in Sponsored
Unboxing Videos
The inclusion of a text disclosure provided no additional benefit beyond the existing, CARU-specified audio
disclosure. Our findings add to the “mixed results” regarding effective sponsorship disclosure in covert advertising
(Boerman and van Reijmersdal 2016) and is the only study
to date that has examined the impact of an audio disclosure only (i.e., text disclosure absent) in native advertising.
As Boerman and colleagues have observed, new advertising formats suggest that adults may need to adapt or
adjust their existing persuasion knowledge. Our understanding of what factors contribute positively to that process, such as disclosure modality, may counter what is
predicted based on extant knowledge gleaned through
research in traditional advertising contexts.
Whether a child or adult audience, public policy regulators are concerned that sponsored influencer posts in
social media inherently blur content and advertising. The
FTC (2015, 2017) admonishes advertisers to use clear and
conspicuous audio and/or video sponsorship disclosure to
enhance consumer recognition of persuasive content (i.e.,
advertising). YouTube (2016) provides for, but does not
require, static title cards that can precede or follow a
video as a means of disclosing sponsorship. It also offers
an overlay that adds a 10-second text disclosure stating
“Includes paid promotion.” The Interactive Advertising
Bureau (IAB) (2018) recommendations for sponsorship
disclosure focus on the prominence, presentation, placement, and proximity—in other words, the FTC’s recommended “4Ps of Full Disclosure” (Fair 2014), as it relates
to text disclosures.
Our experimental designed represented the inclusion of
an audio disclosure at the beginning of an unboxing video
and sought to increase external validity by using the existing text disclosure in the EvanTube HD video stimuli.
Contrary to our expectations, including the existing sponsorship text disclosure, which is shown immediately after
the existing audio disclosure, enhanced neither the
parents’ conceptual persuasion knowledge nor the perceived sponsorship transparency. In sum, inclusion of an
additional single modality disclosure in text form that
met the FTC’s 4 Ps of Full Disclosure (Fair 2014) and
IAB (2018) guidance made no contribution to parents’
recognition of the video as advertising (i.e., conceptual
persuasion knowledge), nor to its perceived sponsorship
transparency.
Two potential explanations offer insight. First, we note
that this manipulation using two sequentially placed single-modality sponsorship disclosures (i.e., the CARU
(2016) recommended audio disclosure followed by a separate text disclosure of the same information that already
existed in the unboxing video stimuli) does not represent
a dual-modality presentation whereby the same disclosure
is presented simultaneously in audio and text formats. In
other words, in the opening two seconds when Evan provides the voiceover for the audio disclosure that states
“Free products and paid support provided by Spin
Master,” the same words should have appeared simultaneously on screen in sufficient font, contrast, and duration.
Dual modality is advised by the FTC (1970) as part of its
Clear and Conspicuous Standard, and its superiority has
been supported in many traditional advertising contexts
(e.g., Morris, Mazis, and Brinberg 1989; Murray, Manrai,
and Manrai 1998) but not in a covert format such as
advergames (e.g., Evans and Hoy 2016). Second, we note
that the EvanTube HD video we used presented the existing text disclosure while Evan was beginning his unboxing
of the toy and commentary, thus acting as a distraction,
which is contrary to Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) and FTC (2000) guidance. The visual
and verbal distraction of the unboxing process acts as
interference and hinders consumer processing of the target information (i.e., the disclosure). As noted by Hoy
and Andrews (2004, p. 173), “[V]isually presenting verbal
PARENTING “YOUTUBE NATIVES”
information in the presence of distraction suppresses the
formation of the phonological code of the target information (i.e., the sponsorship disclosure) (Baddeley 1986;
Penney 1989) by interfering with or weakening the formation of counterarguments (Batra and Ray 1986).” Thus,
we recommend that inclusion of a text disclosure be presented with its audio counterpart (i.e., dual modality) and
without any verbal or visual distraction.
Sponsorship Transparency and the Effects of Sponsor
Pre-Roll
Our study suggests that sponsor pre-roll advertising, in
contrast to no pre-roll or nonsponsor pre-roll advertising,
results in more positive perceptions of unboxing videos as
an advertising tactic and more positive attitudes toward
the brand and sponsor. Simply recognizing that the
unboxing video was advertising (i.e., activation of conceptual persuasion knowledge) yielded none of these benefits.
Prior research incorporating sponsorship transparency
suggests that consumers may not always negatively evaluate advertising efforts that clearly indicate their persuasive nature or paying entity (Campbell and Evans 2018).
Our study’s findings offer additional support in this vein.
Specifically, a sponsor pre-roll ad was more effective at
increasing parents’ perceptions of sponsorship transparency for child-directed sponsored unboxing videos than
both nonsponsor and no pre-roll ads. This suggests that
consumers form impressions of sponsorship transparency
based on myriad advertising or marketing elements.
The sponsorship transparency construct includes brand
presence as one of its four underlying factors. Brand presence offers benefits to advertisers by contributing to the
learning and recall of brand name and attributes, yet it
also assists consumers whose persuasion knowledge and/
or advertising schema is triggered by brand cues. The
remaining sponsorship transparency construct factors
may explain why advertisers appear to benefit from transparency. The sponsorship clarity and disclosure factors
underscore consumers’ perception that who is sponsoring
the content or advertising is clearly communicated. In
tandem, this perceived clear sponsorship disclosure contributes to the fourth sponsorship transparency factor:
lack of deception (Wojdynski, Evans, and Hoy 2018).
The presence of a sponsor pre-roll likely enhanced the
evaluation of all four sponsorship transparency factor
components. The subsequent sense of fair play exhibited
in the unboxing video may result in more favorable attitudes that ripple throughout the brand and advertising
evaluation process.
More importantly, enhanced parental perceptions of
sponsorship transparency, which includes a clear brand
presence in the video, a clear understanding of who
341
sponsored the video, a sense that the video disclosed itself
as advertising in some fashion, and the evaluation that
the video as advertising was not deceptive or obscured,
benefits both parents and their children. Specifically,
parents exposed to a pre-roll ad featuring the same sponsor in a subsequent unboxing video results in a more
accurate understanding of the paying entity responsible
for the unboxing content. This, in turn, affords parents
the opportunity to discuss with their children the nature
of the unboxing content, with the probable aim of
increasing child-related advertising literacy. In addition,
enhancing sponsorship transparency through the use of a
sponsor pre-roll may result in a native advertising environment that achieves the FTC’s objectives of consumers
recognizing the incentivized nature of native influencer posts.
MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS
Incorporate Sponsorship Transparency
We encourage advertisers and brands to embrace sponsorship transparency. Given that advertisers want consumers to have a positive attitude toward the brand/sponsor,
our findings suggest that advertisers could directly benefit
from the purposeful inclusion of advertising elements that
increase the presence of the brand, clarity of the sponsor,
or paid relationship therein, which make consumer perceptions of sponsorship transparency stronger (Campbell and
Evans 2018). Even though managers may be reluctant to
engage in any tactic that brings to attention the sponsored
or advertising nature of the communication, for fear that
persuasion knowledge may be activated, transparency is
increasingly viewed as an imperative corporate value
whether it relates to consumer data usage and privacy concerns or sponsorship disclosure in native advertising.
Encourage Parental Mediation
We found that higher levels of parental mediation
strengthened the positive indirect effects of a sponsor preroll on perceptions of unboxing videos and attitude
toward the sponsor. While existing research suggests that
increased parental mediation can mitigate children’s
brand attitudes, preferences, and requests (An and Lee
2010; Buijzen 2009; Cantor and Wilson 2003), our findings suggest the opposite effect, albeit with respect to parent rather than child-related outcomes. Van der Voort,
Nikken, and van Lil (1992) found that the mediation
strategy of coviewing is greater among parents who spend
more time with media themselves. Similarly, one explanation for our results may be that parents who tend to
have higher mediation scores might expose themselves to
more online content in general, which could also include
342
N.J. EVANS ET AL.
objectionable and child-inappropriate pornographic or
violent content. When parents see advertising content
(like unboxing videos) aimed at children, we speculate
that such content may be more tolerable in comparison
to child-directed advertising efforts. For those who saw a
sponsor pre-roll, which increased perceptions of sponsorship transparency, higher levels of parental mediation
may have boosted positive sentiment toward the unboxing content as well as the sponsor.
Advertisers and brands can benefit indirectly from
encouraging parents to engage in mediation. The fact that
today’s children ages nine and younger spend more than
two hours per day with screens (Common Sense Media
2017), translates into an increasingly complex and challenging media environment that parents are finding difficult to
keep up with. According to the American Academy of
Pediatrics (2016), parents of five- to 18-year-olds are
encouraged to mediate overall media consumption by viewing media content together with their children, having open
discussions regarding popular content and creating a family
media use plan that limits access to smartphones, laptops,
and apps during certain periods of time. Conversations
addressing persuasion within the unboxing video realm is
an important family issue. Parents of younger children
could be encouraged to coview these videos and specifically
point out that the child influencer got the toys for free,
received help in making the video, and/or was paid so that
“kids like you would want the toy and ask me to buy it.”
Parents’ facilitation of an educational discussion hopefully
better prepares the child for future occurrences with this
popular form of content. Advertisers such as toy manufacturers could be part of consumer education for both parents
and children by initializing partnerships with trade associations such as the Toy Industry Association and educational
organizations such as Common Sense Media.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
The foundational concern regarding these unboxing videos was whether they are recognized as sponsored persuasive
communication rather than simply entertainment content.
The parents in our study self-reported a high level of conceptual persuasion knowledge. Although the study measure was
a commonly used question to assess advertising recognition
(see Boerman, van Reijmersdal, and Neijens 2012, 2015;
Boerman, Willemsen, and Van Der Aa 2017; Evans et al.
2017; Ham, Nelson, and Das 2015), this single question may
not offer as robust a measure in contrast to the vetted 12item Sponsorship Transparency Scale (Wojdynski, Evans,
and Hoy 2018). Further, the question phrasing lends itself to
social desirability bias. In part, our lack of finding significant
results for some of our independent variable manipulations
may have been an artifact of the advertising recognition
measure. Given policy makers’ growing concern that consumers of all ages be able to recognize advertising when they
see it, a robust advertising recognition measure based on
scale development protocol (see Churchill 1979; DeVellis
2012) would offer a valuable avenue of research for both
adult and child audiences.
Numerous opportunities exist to explore opportunities
for improving sponsorship disclosures in unboxing videos,
including evaluating CARU’s (2016) recommended audio
disclosure, dual modality’s superiority, and the impact of
distractions among both parent and child audiences.
Manipulations of modality and distraction focus on disclosures’ structural traits (Hoy and Stankey 1993; Hoy
and Andrews 2004) but not the linguistic component to
assure comprehension (Stewart and Martin 2004). Given
that many young children watch the unboxing videos of
child influencers such as Evan and Ryan, it is important
that they comprehend the audio disclosure. Research is
needed that tests how to articulate that the child influencer got the toys for free and what “support” is for making
the video.
CONCLUSION
J. Walter Thompson (2017) notes that “kid influencers
are born into an environment of intelligent devices, where
lines between the physical and the digital are increasingly
blurred” (p. 24). Not only are the physical and digital
blurred, but so too is the delineation between content and
advertising. In response to the changing media environment to digital formats, the digital advertising market for
children is projected to reach $1.2 billion by 2019 (PWC
2017). Advertisers see numerous opportunities including
allowing “brands to use more engaging content—videos
and games, for instance—to connect with kids” and “the
creation of communities through the use of social media
and influencer marketing” (PWC 2017, p. 6). An aspect
that makes the under-18 audience so desirable is that
these viewers take the time to engage with social media
and come back every day (Carter 2016). By focusing on
parents, who are key stakeholders in children’s consumer
socialization, this study provides an initial investigation
into the arena of sponsored child influencer unboxing videos, a tactic which will only grow in usage and subsequently concern among policymakers.
As Boerman, Willemsen, and Van Der Aa (2017)
observe, “[A]lthough persuasion knowledge is assumed to
be established at adulthood (Friestad and Wright 1994;
John 1999), there are circumstances in which even adults
need to refine or adjust this knowledge” (p. 84). CARU
(2016, 2017) noted that children may not be able to recognize child influencer unboxing videos as advertising
because they blur the boundaries of persuasive and
PARENTING “YOUTUBE NATIVES”
entertainment content. In these press releases, CARU recommended that sponsored unboxing videos include an
audio sponsorship disclosure prior to the video’s start.
The self-regulatory organization also expressed concern
that pre-roll advertising might contribute to the problem
because children may recognize the more familiar online
advertising format and take it as a cue that they have
already seen the advertising and that what follows will
not be additional advertising. Further, Connell, Lauricell,
and Wartella (2015) note the limited research on parental
mediation of younger children’s technology use. Evans
(2014) observed the dearth of research that examines the
impact parental mediation might have on parents’ advertising-related outcome measures. To date, few studies
have investigated this emerging covert advertising tactic,
which targets a young and vulnerable audience (see Craig
and Cunningham 2017; Martınez and Olsson 2018; Nicoll
and Nansen 2018). As CARU’s (2014) core principle 8
states, “Although there are many influences that affect a
child’s personal and social development, it remains the
prime responsibility of the parents to provide guidance
for children. Advertisers should contribute to this parentchild relationship in a constructive manner” (p. 6). Our
research affirms this principle and provides insight into
the impact of sponsorship disclosure modality, sponsor
pre-roll, and parental mediation on parents’ understanding, perceptions, and evaluation of sponsored child influencer unboxing videos.
FUNDING
This research was funded by the DeForrest Jackson
Professorship, School of Advertising and Public
Relations, University of Tennessee and Dean’s Summer
Research Support for 2017, College of Communication
and Information, University of Tennessee.
ORCID
Courtney Carpenter Childers
0002-6774-8350
http://orcid.org/0000-
REFERENCES
Ali, Moondore, Mark Blades, Caroline Oates, and Fran Blumberg
(2009), “Young Children’s Ability to Recognize Advertisements in
Web Page Designs,” The British Journal of Developmental
Psychology, 27 (Pt. 1), 71–83.
American Academy of Pediatrics (2016), “Media Use in School-Aged
Children and Adolescents: Council on Communications and Media,”
Pediatrics, 138 (5), e20162592, http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/
content/early/2016/10/19/peds.2016-2592.
An, Seon-Kyoung and Doohwang Lee (2010), “An Integrated Model of
Parental Mediation: The Effect of Family Communication on
343
Children’s Perception of Television Reality and Negative Viewing
Effects,” Asian Journal of Communication, 20 (4), 389–403.
An, Soontae, Hyun Seung Jin, and Eun Hae Park (2014), “Children’s
Advertising Literacy for Advergames: Perception of the Game As
Advertising,” Journal of Advertising, 43 (1), 63–72.
Anderson, John R. (1983), “A Spreading Activation Theory of
Memory,” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22 (3),
261–95.
Baddeley, Alan (1986), Working Memory, New York: Oxford University
Press.
Batra, Rajeev, and Michael L. Ray (1986), “Situational Effects of
Advertising Repetition: The Moderating Influence of Motivation,
Ability, and Opportunity to Respond,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 12 (4), 432–45.
Boerman, Sophie C., and Eva A. van Reijmersdal (2016), “Informing
Consumers About “Hidden’ Advertising: A Literature Review of the
Effects of Disclosing Sponsored Content” in Advertising in New
Formats and Media: Current Research and Implications for
Marketers, Patrick De Pelsmacker, ed., Bingley: Emerald, 115–46.
———, ———, and Peter C. Neijens (2012), “Sponsorship Disclosure:
Effects of Duration on Persuasion Knowledge and Brand
Responses,” Journal of Communication, 62 (6), 1047–64.
———, ———, and ——— (2015), “Using Eye Tracking to Understand
the Effects of Brand Placement Disclosure Types in Television
Programs,” Journal of Advertising, 44 (3), 196–207.
———, Lotte M. Willemsen, and Eva P. van der Aa (2017), “‘This Post
Is Sponsored’ Effects of Sponsorship Disclosure on Persuasion
Knowledge and Electronic Word of Mouth in the Context of
Facebook,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 38, 82–92.
Buijzen, Moniek (2009), “The Effectiveness of Parental Communication
in Modifying the Relation between Food Advertising and Children’s
Consumption Behavior,” The British Journal of Developmental
Psychology, 27 (1), 105–21.
——— (2014), “The Family’s Role in Children’s Interpretation of
Advertising,” in Advertising to Children: New Directions, New Media,
Mark Blades, Caroline Oates, Fran Blumberg, and Barrie Gunter,
eds., London: Palgrave MacMillan, 137–57.
Campbell, Colin, and Nathaniel J. Evans (2018), “The Role of a
Companion Banner Ad and Sponsorship Transparency in
Recognizing and Evaluating Article-Style Native Advertising,”
Journal of Interactive Marketing, 43 (August), 17–32.
———, Frauke Mattison Thompson, Pamela E. Grimm, and Karen
Robson (2017), “Understanding Why Consumers Don’t Skip PreRoll Video Ads,” Journal of Advertising, 46 (3), 411–23.
Campbell, Margaret, and Amna Kirmani (2000), “Consumers’ Use of
Persuasion Knowledge: The Effects of Accessibility and Cognitive
Capacity on Perceptions of an Influence Agent,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 27 (1), 69–83.
Cantor, Joanne, and Barbara. J. Wilson (2003), “Media and Violence:
Intervention Strategies for Reducing Aggression,” Media Psychology,
5 (4), 363–403.
Carlson, Jay, William O. Bearden, and David M. Hardesty (2007),
“Influences on What Consumers Know and What They Think They
Know Regarding Marketer Pricing Tactics,” Psychology and
Marketing, 24 (2), 27–40.
Carlson, Les, and Sanford Grossbart (1988), “Parental Style and
Consumer Socialization of Children,” Journal of Consumer Research
15 (1), 77–94.
Carter, Daniel (2016), “Hustle and Brand: The Sociotechnical Shaping
of Influence,” Social Media þ Society, 2 (3), published electronically
September 8, doi:10.1177/2056305116666305.
Children’s Advertising Review Unit (2014), “Self-Regulatory Program for
Children,” http://www.asrcreviews.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/
Self-Regulatory-Program-for-Childrens-Advertising-Revised-2014-.pdf.
344
N.J. EVANS ET AL.
Children’s Advertising Review Unit (2016), “‘Evantube’ YouTube
Channels to Disclose Sponsored Videos as Advertising Following
CARU Inquiry,” August 12, http://www.asrcreviews.org/evantubeyoutube-channels-to-disclose-sponsored-videos-as-advertising-followingcaru-inquiry.
Children’s Advertising Review Unit (2017), “CARU Examines YouTube
Channel ‘Ryan Toys Review’, Recommends More Prominent
Disclosures of Ad Content,” October 9, http://www.asrcreviews.org/
caru-examines-youtube-channel-ryan-toys-review-recommends-moreprominent-disclosures-of-ad-content/.
Churchill, Gilbert A. (1979), “A Paradigm for Developing Better
Measures of Marketing Constructs,” Journal of Marketing Research,
16 (1), 64–73.
Common Sense Media (2017), “The Common Sense Census: Media Use by
Kids Age Zero to Eight,” https://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/
default/files/uploads/research/csm_zerotoeight_fullreport_release_2.pdf.
Connell, Sabrina L., Alexis R. Lauricell, and Ellen Wartella (2015),
“Parental Co-Use of Media Technology with Their Young Children
in the USA,” Journal of Children and Media, 9 (1), 5–21.
Craig, David, and Stuart Cunningham (2017), “Toy Unboxing: Living
in a(n Unregulated) Material World,” Media International Australia,
163 (1), 77–86.
Crowley, Ayn E., and Wayne D. Hoyer (1994), “An Integrative
Framework for Understanding Two-Sided Persuasion,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 20 (4), 561–74.
DeVellis, Robert F. (2012), Scale Development: Theory and Applications,
Applied Social Research Methods Series, vol. 26, 3rd ed., Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dolliver, Mark (2016), U.S. Kids and Digital: Gauging How Digital
These Digital Natives Really Are, November 22, https://www.emarketer.com.
Eagle, Lynne (2007), “Commercial Literacy: What Does It Do, to
Whom—and Does It Matter?,” Journal of Advertising, 26 (2),
101–10.
———, Sandy Bulmer, and Anne De Bruin (2003), “Marketing
Communications Implications of Children’s New Electronic Media
Use: A Survey of Parental Opinions and Perceptions,” Journal of
Marketing Communications, 9 (3), 129–46.
E-Poll Market Research (2016), “Streaming, OTT, and Binge Viewing: The
New TV Landscape” [White Paper, Part 3], August 9, https://blog.
epollresearch.com/2016/08/09/streaming-ott-binge-viewing-the-new-tvlandscape-part-3-white-paper/.
Evans, Nathaniel J. (2014), “Pinpointing Persuasion in Children’s
Advergames: Exploring the Relationship among Parents’ Internet
Mediation, Marketplace Knowledge, Attitudes, and the Support for
Regulation,” Journal of Interactive Advertising, 14 (2), 73–85.
———, Les Carlson, and Mariea Grubbs Hoy (2013), “Coddling Our
Kids: Can Parenting Style Affect Attitudes toward Advergames?,”
Journal of Advertising, 42 (2–3), 228–40.
———, and Mariea Grubbs Hoy (2016), “Parents’ Presumed Persuasion
Knowledge of Children’s Advergames: The Influence of Disclosure
Modality and Cognitive Load,” Journal of Current Issues and
Research in Advertising, 37 (2), 146–64.
———, and Dooyeon Park (2015), “Rethinking the Persuasion
Knowledge Model: Schematic Antecedents and Associative
Outcomes of Persuasion Knowledge Activation for Covert
Advertising,” Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising,
36 (2), 157–76.
———, Joe Phua, Jay Lim, and Hyoyeun Jun (2017), “Disclosing
Instagram Influencer Advertising: The Effects of Disclosure
Language on Advertising Recognition, Attitudes, and Behavioral
Intent,” Journal of Interactive Advertising, 17 (2), 138–49.
Fair, Leslie (2014), “Full Disclosure,” Federal Trade Commission,
September 23, https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/
2014/09/full-disclosure.
Federal Communication Commission and Federal Trade Commission
(2000), “Joint Policy Statement for the Advertising of Dial-Around
and Other Long-Distance Services,” 65 Federal Register 137, https://
www.ftc.gov/public-statements/2000/03/joint-fccftc-policy-statementadvertising-dial-around-other-long-distance.
Federal Trade Commission (1970), Statement of Enforcement Policy
(October 21), CCH Trade Regulation Reporter, 7569.09.
Federal Trade Commission (2015), Enforcement Policy Statement on
Deceptively Formatted Advertisements, https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/
documents/public_statements/896923/151222deceptiveenforcement.pdf.
Federal Trade Commission (2017), “The FTC’s Endorsement Guides:
What People Are Asking,” September, https://www.ftc.gov/tipsadvice/business-center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking.
Forbes (2017), “Top Influencers: Kids,” https://www.forbes.com/topinfluencers/2017/kids/#3743a3f32643.
Friestad, Marian, and Peter Wright (1994), “The Persuasion Knowledge
Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 21 (1), 1–31.
Grossbart, Sanford L., and Lawrence A. Crosby (1984), “Understanding
the Bases of Parental Concern and Reaction to Children’s Food
Advertising,” Journal of Marketing, 48 (3), 79–92.
Ham, Chang-Dea, Michelle Nelson, and Susmita Das (2015), “How to
Measure Persuasion Knowledge,” International Journal of
Advertising, 34 (1), 17–53.
Hayes, Andrew F. (2012), “Macro and Script Rules and Frequently
Asked Questions,” May 22, http//www.afhayes.com/macrofaq.html.
Hoy, Mariea Grubbs, and Craig J. Andrews (2004), “Adherence of
Prime-Time Televised Advertising Disclosures to the ‘Clear and
Conspicuous’ Standard: 1990 versus 2002,” Journal of Public Policy
and Marketing, 23 (2), 170–82.
———, and Michael J. Stankey (1993), “Structural Characteristics of
Televised Advertising Disclosures: A Comparison with the FTC
Clear and Conspicuous Standard,” Journal of Advertising, 22 (2),
47–58.
Hudders, Liselot, and Veroline Cauberghe (2018), “The Mediating Role
of Advertising Literacy and the Moderating Influence of Parental
Mediation on How Children of Different Ages React to Brand
Placements,” Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 17, 197–210.
Interactive Advertising Bureau (2018), “Inside Influence: IAB Influencer
Marketing for Publishers Guide,” January, https://www.iab.com/wpcontent/uploads/2018/01/IAB_Influencer_Marketing_for_Publishers_
2018-01-25.pdf.
Jiow, Hee Jhee, Sun Sun Lim, and Julian Lin (2017), “Level Up!
Refreshing Parental Mediation Theory for Our Digital Media
Landscape,” Communication Theory, 27 (3), 309–28.
John, Deborah Roedder (1999), “Consumer Socialization of Children: A
Retrospective Look at Twenty-Five Years of Research,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 26 (3), 183–213.
J. Walter Thompson Intelligence (2017) “The Future 100,” https://www.
jwtintelligence.com/trend-reports/the-future-100-2018/.
Kaikati, Andrew M., and Jack G. Kaikati (2004), “Stealth Marketing:
How to Reach Consumers Surreptitiously,” California Management
Review, 46 (4), 6–22.
Livingstone, Sonia, and Magdalena Bober (2006), “Regulating the
Internet at Home: Contrasting the Perspectives of Children and
Parents,” in Digital Generations: Children, Young People, and New
Media, D. Buckingham and R. Willett, eds., Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum,
93–114.
PARENTING “YOUTUBE NATIVES”
———, and Ellen J. Helsper (2008), “Parental Mediation of Children’s
Internet Use,” Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 52 (4),
581–99.
———, Kjartan Olafsson, Ellen J. Helsper, Francisco LupianezVillanueva, Giuseppe A. Veltri, and Frans Folkvord (2017),
“Maximizing Opportunities and Minimizing Risks for Children
Online: The Role of Digital Skills in Emerging Strategies of Parental
Mediation,” Journal of Communication, 67 (1), 82–105.
Martınez, Carolina, and Tobias Olsson (2018), “Making Sense of
YouTubers: How Swedish Children Construct and Negotiate the
YouTuber Misslisibell As a Girl Celebrity,” Journal of Children and
Media, published electronically September 12, doi:10.1080/
17482798.2018.1517656.
Morris, Louis A., Michael B. Mazis, and David Brinberg (1989), “Risk
Disclosures in Televised Prescription Drug Advertising to
Consumers,” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 8, 64–80.
Murray, Noel M., Lalita A. Manrai, and Ajay K. Manrai (1998), “How
Super Are Video Supers? A Test of Communication Efficacy,”
Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 17 (1), 24–34.
Naderer, Brigitte, Jorg Matthes, Franziska Marquart, and Mira
Mayrhofer (2018), “Children’s Attitudinal and Behavioral Reactions
to Product Placements: Investigating the Role of Product Placement
Frequency, Placement Integration, and Parental Mediation,”
International Journal of Advertising, 37 (2), 236–55.
Nelson, Michelle R., Lucy Atkinson, Mark A. Rademacher, and Regina
Ahn (2017), “How Media and Family Build Children’s Persuasion
Knowledge,” Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising,
38 (2), 165–83.
———, Michelle L.M. Wood, and Hye-Jin Paek (2009), “Increased
Persuasion Knowledge of Video News Releases: Audience Beliefs
about News and Support for Source Disclosure,” Journal of Mass
Media Ethics, 24 (4), 220–37.
Nicoll, Benjamin, and Bjorn Nansen (2018), “Mimetic Production in
YouTube Toy Unboxing Videos,” Social Media þ Society, 4 (3),
1–12.
O’Kelley, Brian (2016), “The Coming Supply Shock in Video
Advertising, and What We Can Do about It,” Forbes, February 9,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/valleyvoices/2016/02/09/the-comingsupply-shock-in-video-advertising-and-what-we-can-do-about-it/
#1086fb0a1225.
Penney, Catherine G. (1989), “Modality Effects and the Structure of
Short-Term Verbal Memory,” Memory and Cognition, 17 (4),
398–422.
PWC (2017), Kids Digital Advertising Report, September, https://www.
superawesome.tv/pwcreport.
Rodgers, Shelly (2003), “The Effects of Sponsor Relevance on
Consumer Reactions to Internet Sponsorships,” Journal of
Advertising, 32 (4), 67–76.
Rozendaal, Esther, Matthew A. Lapierre, Eva A. van Reijmersdal, and
Moniek Buijzen (2011), “Reconsidering Advertising Literacy As a
Defense against Advertising Effects,” Media Psychology, 14 (4),
333–54.
Schmidt, Samantha (2017), “6-Year-Old Made $11 Million in One Year
Reviewing Toys on You Tube,” December 11, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/12/11/6-year-old-made-11-millionin-one-year-reviewing-toys-on-you-tube/?utm_term¼.a2584e0081f2.
Shrum, L.J., Min Liu, Mark Nespoli, and Tina M. Lowrey (2012),
“Persuasion in the Marketplace: How Theories of Persuasion Apply
to Marketing and Advertising,” in The Persuasion Handbook, James
Dillard and Lijiang Shen, eds., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 314–31.
Spears, Nancy, and Surendra N. Singh (2004), “Measuring Attitude
toward the Brand and Purchase Intentions,” Journal of Current
Issues and Research in Advertising, 26 (2), 53–66.
345
Stewart, David W., and Ingrid M. Martin (2004), “Advertising
Disclosures: Clear and Conspicuous or Understood and Used,”
Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 23 (2), 183–92.
Tanaka, Keiko (1994/1999), Advertising Language: A Pragmatic
Approach to Advertisements in Britain and Japan, London:
Routledge.
van der Voort, Tom A., Peter Nikken, and Jan E. van Lil (1992),
“Determinants of Parental Guidance of Children’s Television
Viewing,” Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 36 (1), 61–74.
Vanwesenbeeck, Ini, Suzanna J. Opree, and Tim Smits (2017), “Can
Disclosures Aid Children’s Recognition of TV and Website
Advertising?,” in Advances in Advertising Research, vol. 8., Vesna
Vabkar and Martin Eisend, eds., Wiesbaden: European Advertising
Academy, Springer Gabler, 45–57.
———, Michel Walrave, and Koen Ponnet (2016), “Young Adolescents
and Advertising on Social Network Games: A Structural Equation
Model of Perceived Parental Media Mediation, Advertising Literacy,
and Behavioral Intention,” Journal of Advertising, 45 (2), 183–97.
Walsh, Ann D., Russell N. Laczniak, and Les Carlson (1998),
“Mothers’ Preferences for Regulating Children’s Television,” Journal
of Advertising, 27 (3), 23–36.
Wojdynski, Bartosz W., and Nathaniel J. Evans (2016), “Going Native:
Effects of Disclosure Position and Language on the Recognition and
Evaluation of Online Native Advertising,” Journal of Advertising, 45
(2), 157–68.
———, ———, and Mariea Grubbs Hoy (2018), “Measuring Sponsorship
Transparency in the Age of Native Advertising,” Journal of
Consumer Affairs, 52 (1), 115–37.
YouTube (2016), “Paid Product Placements and Endorsements,” https://
support.google.com/youtube/answer/154235?hl¼en.
APPENDIX 1: MAIN STUDY STIMULI
Screenshot of nonsponsor pre-roll advertising condition
Screenshot of sponsor pre-roll advertising condition
346
N.J. EVANS ET AL.
Screenshot of EvanTube HD unboxing video with sponsor text disclosure present
Screenshot of EvanTube HD unboxing video with
sponsor text disclosure absent
Copyright of Journal of Advertising is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.