The paradox of (dis)trust in sponsorship disclosure: The characteristics and effects of sponsored online consumer reviews

Kim S, Maslowska E, Tamaddoni A, (2019), The paradox of (dis)trust in sponsorship disclosure: The characteristics and effects of sponsored online consumer reviews, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 116, pp. 114-124

Mots clés : Bouche à oreille digital, Avis des consommateurs en ligne, Parrainage, Persuasion, Attitude, Intention d’achat.

Résumé : Les avis de consommateurs en ligne sont devenus l’un des messages et moyen majeur de persuasion en termes de décision d’achat, créant une influence certaine sur le consommateur.  Dans cette mesure, les spécialistes en marketing ont commencé à inciter les consommateurs à rédiger des avis avec pour objectif d’augmenter le volume d’avis positifs. Cependant, peu de recherches existent sur les caractéristiques de contenu et les effets des avis sponsorisés. Cette étude examine les différentes caractéristiques et effets des avis sponsorisés et organiques, ainsi que les mécanismes par lesquels les consommateurs reconnaissent et traitent ces deux types d’avis, en utilisant notamment des méthodes mixtes dans deux études. Les résultats de l’analyse d’exploration de texte suggèrent que les revues sponsorisées fournissent un contenu considéré comme plus élaboré et évaluatif. Cependant, ces avis sont perçus comme moins utiles que les avis organiques. Les résultats d’une expérience aléatoire suggèrent que la divulgation de parrainage augmente les soupçons sur les arrière-pensées de l’examinateur/récepteur et diminue ainsi les attitudes et intentions d’achat des consommateurs lorsqu’un examen est positif. Par contre, divulgation de parrainage ne nuit pas aux attitudes ou aux intentions d’achat lorsque l’avis est négatif.

Conclusion : Cette étude a permis de démontrer l’effet du parrainage dans un contexte d’avis en ligne. De cet article a ainsi été conclu que les avis dits « sponsorisés » et les avis rédigés par les consommateurs mais percevant une compensation en échange, telle que du parrainage, sont considérés par le récepteur comme biaisés et/ou malhonnêtes.
Cependant l’étude prouve également que les critiques sponsorisés sont généralement plus élaborées, développées, objectives, complexes, positives et moins extrêmes que les critiques dites « organiques ». Cependant ces avis sont tout de même perçus comme les moins utiles, dû à la mention « parrainage » décrédibilisant l’avis en lui-même, qui n’est pas sans intérêt.
Les auteurs concluent ainsi que le système de parrainage, ça divulgation, engendre une augmentation des soupçons et nuit donc sur l’intention d’achat d’un consommateur.  

Sources :

[1] The Nielsen Company, Global Trust in Advertising, Retrieved from, 2015. http://
www.nielsen.com/content/dam/corporate/us/en/reports-downloads/2015-
reports/global-trust-in-advertising-report-sept-2015.pdf.
[2] E. Dichter, How word-of-mouth advertising works, Harvard Business Review 44 (6)
(1966) 147–166.
[3] P. Chatterjee, Drivers of new product recommending and referral behaviour on
social network sites, International Journal of Advertising 30 (1) (2011) 77–101.
[4] P. Hugstad, J.W. Taylor, G.D. Bruce, The effects of social class and perceived risk on
consumer, The Journal of Services Marketing 1 (1) (1987) 47–52.
[5] I. Simonson, Mission (largely) accomplished: what’s next for consumer bdt-jdm
researchers? Journal of Marketing Behavior 1 (1) (2015) 9–35, https://doi.org/10.
1561/107.00000001.
[6] L.J. Abendroth, J.E. Heyman, Honesty is the best policy: the effects of disclosure in
word-of-mouth marketing, Journal of Marketing Communications 19 (4) (2013)
245–257, https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2011.631567.
[7] M. Petrescu, K. O’Leary, D. Goldring, S. Ben Mrad, Incentivized reviews: promising
the moon for a few stars, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 41 (2018)
288–295, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.04.005.
[8] W. Zhou, W. Duan, An empirical study of how third-party websites influence the
feedback mechanism between online word-of-mouth and retail sales, Decision
Support Systems 76 (2015) 14–23, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2015.03.010.
[9] J. Kennett, S. Matthews, What’s the buzz? Undercover marketing and the corruption
of friendship, Journal of Applied Philosophy 25 (1) (2008) 2–18, https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1468-5930.2008.00391.x.
[10] K.K. Coker, D.S. Smith, S.A. Altobello, Buzzing with disclosure of social shopping
rewards, Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing 9 (3) (2015) 170–189,
https://doi.org/10.1108/jrim-06-2014-0030.
[11] WOMMA, Word of Mouth Marketing Association Guide to Best Practices for
Transparency and Disclosure in Gigital, Social, & Mobile Marketing, Retrieved from,
http://www.womma.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/WOMMA-SocialMedia-Disclosure-Guidelines-2013.pdf.
[12] R.B. Cialdini, 1st Collins business essentials (Ed.), Influence: The Psychology of
Persuasion, Collins, New York: New York, 2007.
[13] J. Breitsohl, M. Khammash, G. Griffiths, E-business complaint management: perceptions and perspectives of online credibility, Journal of Enterprise Information
Management 23 (5) (2010) 653–660, https://doi.org/10.1108/
17410391011083083.
[14] E.R. Spangenberg, J.L. Giese, An exploratory study of word-of-mouth communication in a hierarchy of effects context, Communication Research Reports 14 (1)
(1997) 88–96.
[15] T. Hennig-Thurau, K.P. Gwinner, G. Walsh, D.D. Gremler, Electronic word-of-mouth
via consumer-opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the internet? Journal of Interactive Marketing 18 (1) (2004) 38–52,
https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.10073.
[16] K. Bawa, R. Shoemaker, The effects of free sample promotions on incremental brand
sales, Marketing Science 23 (3) (2004) 345–363, https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.
1030.0052.
[17] B.P. Buunk, W.B. Schaufeli, Reciprocity in interpersonal relationships: an evolutionary perspective on its importance for health and well-being, European Review
of Social Psychology 10 (1) (1999) 259–291, https://doi.org/10.1080/
14792779943000080.
[18] A.W. Gouldner, The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement, American
Sociological Review 25 (2) (1960) 161–178, https://doi.org/10.2307/2092623.
[19] N. Hu, J. Zhang, P.A. Pavlou, Overcoming the J-shaped distribution of product
reviews, Communications of the ACM 52 (10) (2009) 144–147, https://doi.org/10.
1145/1562764.1562800.
[20] G. Askalidis, S.J. Kim, E.C. Malthouse, Understanding and overcoming biases in
online review systems, Decision Support Systems 97 (2017) 23–30, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.dss.2017.03.002.
[21] V. Liljander, J. Gummerus, M. Söderlund, Young consumers’ responses to suspected
covert and overt blog marketing, Internet Research 25 (4) (2015) 610–632, https://
doi.org/10.1108/IntR-02-2014-0041.
[22] W.J. Carl, The role of disclosure in organized word-of-mouth marketing programs,
Journal of Marketing Communications 14 (3) (2008) 225–241, https://doi.org/10.
1080/13527260701833839.
[23] M.A. Tuk, P.W.J. Verlegh, A. Smidts, D.H.J. Wigboldus, Interpersonal relationships
moderate the effect of faces on person judgments, European Journal of Social
Psychology 39 (5) (2009) 757–767, https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.576.
[24] J. Colliander, Socially acceptable? Exploring consumer responses to marketing in
social media, Ph.D. Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm, Sweden, 2012.
[25] J. Colliander, S. Erlandsson, The blog and the bountiful: exploring the effects of
disguised product placement on blogs that are revealed by a third party, Journal of
Marketing Communications 21 (2) (2015) 110–124, https://doi.org/10.1080/

[26] M.C. Campbell, G.S. Mohr, P.W.J. Verlegh, Can disclosures lead consumers to resist
covert persuasion? The important roles of disclosure timing and type of response,
Journal of Consumer Psychology 23 (4) (2013) 483–495, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jcps.2012.10.012.
[27] C. Du Plessis, A.T. Stephen, Y. Bart, D. Goncalves, When in Doubt, Elaborate? How
Elaboration on Uncertainty Influences the Persuasiveness of Consumer-generated
Product Reviews When Reviewers are Incentivized, Saïd Business School WP, 2016
Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=2821641.
[28] M. Friestad, P. Wright, The persuasion knowledge model: how people cope with
persuasion attempts, Journal of Consumer Research 21 (1) (1994) 1–31, https://
doi.org/10.1086/209380.
[29] Y. Hwang, S.-H. Jeong, “This is a sponsored blog post, but all opinions are my own”:
the effects of sponsorship disclosure on responses to sponsored blog posts,
Computers in Human Behavior 62 (2016) 528–535, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.
2016.04.026.
[30] S.C. Boerman, E.A. van Reijmersdal, P.C. Neijens, Sponsorship disclosure: effects of
duration on persuasion knowledge and brand responses, Journal of Communication
62 (6) (2012) 1047–1064, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01677.x.
[31] B.W. Wojdynski, N.J. Evans, Going native: effects of disclosure position and language on the recognition and evaluation of online native advertising, Journal of
Advertising 45 (2) (2016) 157–168, https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2015.
1115380.
[32] M.C. Campbell, A. Kirmani, Consumers’ use of persuasion knowledge: the effects of
accessibility and cognitive capacity on perceptions of an influence agent, Journal of
Consumer Research 27 (1) (2000) 69–83, https://doi.org/10.1086/314309.
[33] K.J. Main, D.W. Dahl, P.R. Darke, Deliberative and automatic bases of suspicion:
empirical evidence of the sinister attribution error, Journal of Consumer Psychology
17 (1) (2007) 59–69, https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1701_9.
[34] H.H. Kelley, Causal Schemata and the Attribution Process, General Learning Press,
Morristown, NJ, 1972.
[35] Z.L. Tormala, P. Briñol, R.E. Petty, When credibility attacks: the reverse impact of
source credibility on persuasion, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 42 (5)
(2006) 684–691, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.10.005.
[36] R.E. Petty, P. Briñol, Z.L. Tormala, Thought confidence as a determinant of persuasion: the self-validation hypothesis, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 82 (5) (2002) 722–741, https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.722.
[37] V.F. Ordenes, S. Ludwig, K. De Ruyter, D. Grewal, M. Wetzels, Unveiling what is
written in the stars: analyzing explicit, implicit, and discourse patterns of sentiment
in social media, Journal of Consumer Research 43 (6) (2017) 875–894.
[38] S. Ludwig, K. de Ruyter, M. Friedman, E.C. Brüggen, M. Wetzels, G. Pfann, More
than words: the influence of affective content and linguistic style matches in online
reviews on conversion rates, Journal of Marketing 77 (1) (2013) 87–103, https://
doi.org/10.1509/jm.11.0560.
[39] J.W. Pennebaker, R.J. Booth, R.L. Boyd, M.E. Francis, Linguistic Inquiry and Word
Count: LIWC2015, Pennebaker Conglomerates, Austin, TX, 2015.
[40] N.T. Bendle, P. Farris, P.E. Pfeifer, D.J. Reibstein, Marketing Metrics: The Manager’s
Guide to Measuring Marketing Performance, , Incorporated, 2016.
[41] N. Hu, I. Bose, N.S. Koh, L. Liu, Manipulation of online reviews: an analysis of
ratings, readability, and sentiments, Decision Support Systems 52 (3) (2012)
674–684, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2011.11.002.
[42] T.L. Harris, R.E. Hodges, The Literacy Dictionary: The Vocabulary of Reading and
Writing, (1995).
[43] S. Banerjee, A.Y.K. Chua, J.-J. Kim, Don’t be deceived: using linguistic analysis to
learn how to discern online review authenticity, Journal of the Association for
Information Science and Technology 68 (6) (2017) 1525–1538, https://doi.org/10.
1002/asi.23784.
[44] A.Y.K. Chua, S. Banerjee, Analyzing review efficacy on Amazon.com: does the rich
grow richer? Computers in Human Behavior 75 (2017) 501–509, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.chb.2017.05.047.
[45] R. Gunning, The fog index after twenty years, Journal of Business Communication 6
(2) (1969) 3–13, https://doi.org/10.1177/002194366900600202.
[46] R. Senter, E.A. Smith, Automated Readability Index, (1967).
[47] M. Coleman, T.L. Liau, A computer readability formula designed for machine
scoring, Journal of Applied Psychology 60 (2) (1975) 283–284, https://doi.org/10.
1037/h0076540.
[48] N. Korfiatis, E. García-Bariocanal, S. Sánchez-Alonso, Evaluating content quality
and helpfulness of online product reviews: the interplay of review helpfulness vs.
review content, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 11 (3) (2012)
205–217, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2011.10.003.
[49] S. Park, J.L. Nicolau, Asymmetric effects of online consumer reviews, Annals of
Tourism Research 50 (2015) 67–83, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2014.10.
007.
[50] S.M. Mudambi, D. Schuff, What Makes a Helpful Review? (2010) (A study of customer reviews on Amazon. com).
[51] L.M. Willemsen, P.C. Neijens, F. Bronner, J.A. de Ridder, ‘Highly recommended!’
the content characteristics and perceived usefulness of online consumer reviews,
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 17 (1) (2011) 19–38, https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2011.01551.x.
[52] P.B. Goes, M. Lin, Au Yeung, C.-M., “Popularity effect” in user-generated content:
evidence from online product reviews, Information Systems Research 25 (2) (2014)
222–238.
[53] Q. Cao, W. Duan, Q. Gan, Exploring determinants of voting for the “helpfulness” of
online user reviews: a text mining approach, Decision Support Systems 50 (2)
(2011) 511–521, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2010.11.009.
[54] S.-M. Kim, P. Pantel, T. Chklovski, M. Pennacchiotti, Automatically assessing

[55] N.J. Salkind, Encyclopedia of Research Design, (2010).
[56] B. Derrick, D. Toher, P. White, Why Welch’s test is type I error robust, The
Quantitative Methods in Psychology 12 (1) (2016) 30–38.
[57] S. Brady, M. Lerigo-Jones, An examinination into consumer attitudes towards
sponsored online content from social media influencers, Journal of Research Studies
in Business and Management (2017) 3.
[58] J. Wang, A. Ghose, P. Ipeirotis, Bonus, disclosure, and choice: what motivates the
creation of high-quality paid reviews? Paper Presented at the International
Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), 2012.
[59] S.C. Boerman, L.M. Willemsen, E.P. Van Der Aa, “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 (2017) 82–92, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2016.12.002.
[60] P.W.J. Verlegh, G. Ryu, M.A. Tuk, L. Feick, Receiver responses to rewarded referrals: the motive inferences framework, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science 41 (6) (2013) 669–682, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-013-0327-8.
[61] G. Reeder, Mindreading: judgments about intentionality and motives in dispositional inference, Psychological Inquiry 20 (1) (2009) 1–18, https://doi.org/10.
1080/10478400802615744.
[62] H. Hong, D. Xu, G.A. Wang, W. Fan, Understanding the determinants of online
review helpfulness: a meta-analytic investigation, Decision Support Systems (2017),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2017.06.007.
[63] S. Banerjee, S. Bhattacharyya, I. Bose, Whose online reviews to trust?
Understanding reviewer trustworthiness and its impact on business, Decision
Support Systems 96 (2017) 17–26, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2017.01.006.
[64] Y.-S. Lim, B. Van Der Heide, Evaluating the wisdom of strangers: the perceived
credibility of online consumer reviews on yelp, Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication 20 (1) (2015) 67–82, https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12093.
[65] L. Bergkvist, J.R. Rossiter, Tailor-made single-item measures of doubly concrete
constructs, International Journal of Advertising 28 (4) (2009) 607–621, https://doi.
org/10.2501/S0265048709200783.
[66] T.E. Decarlo, R.N. Laczniak, T.W. Leigh, Selling financial services: the effect of
consumer product knowledge and salesperson commission on consumer suspicion
and intentions, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 41 (4) (2013)
418–435, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-012-0319-0.
[67] R.D. Ahuja, T.A. Michels, M.M. Walker, M. Weissbuch, Teen perceptions of disclosure in buzz marketing, Journal of Consumer Marketing 24 (3) (2007) 151–159,
https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760710746157.
[68] R.B. Cialdini, Influence: How and Why People Agree to Things, 1st ed., Morrow,
New York, 1984.
[69] D.S. Sundaram, K. Mitra, C. Webster, Word-of-mouth communications: a motivational analysis, Advances in Consumer Research 25 (1) (1998) 527–531.
[70] M.R. Forehand, S. Grier, When is honesty the best policy? The effect of stated
company intent on consumer skepticism, Journal of Consumer Psychology 13 (3)
(2003) 349–356, https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1303_15.
[71] E. Nekmat, K.K. Gower, Effects of disclosure and message valence in online word-ofmouth (ewom) communication: implications for integrated marketing communication, International Journal of Integrated Marketing Communications 4 (1)
(2012) 85–98.

[72] S.N. Ahmad, M. Laroche, Analyzing electronic word of mouth: a social commerce
construct, International Journal of Information Management 37 (3) (2017)
202–213, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.08.004.
[73] S.N. Ahmad, Uncovering the paths to helpful reviews using fuzzy-set qualitative
comparative analysis, Journal of Marketing Analytics 5 (2) (2017) 47–56, https://
doi.org/10.1057/s41270-017-0015-5.
[74] C.T. Carr, R.A. Hayes, The effect of disclosure of third-party influence on an opinion
leader’s credibility and electronic word of mouth in two-step flow, Journal of
Interactive Advertising 14 (1) (2014) 38–50, https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.
2014.909296.
[75] Y. Trope, N. Liberman, Construal-level theory of psychological distance,
Psychological Review 117 (2) (2010) 440–463, https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0018963.
[76] Z. Liu, S. Park, What makes a useful online review? Implication for travel product
websites, Tourism Management 47 (2015) 140–151, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tourman.2014.09.020.
[77] S. Perez, Amazon Bans Incentized Reviews Tied to Free or Discounted Products,
Retrieved from, Oct 3, 2016. https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/03/amazon-bansincentivized-reviews-tied-to-free-or-discounted-products/.
[78] D.J. Bosman, C. Boshoff, G.-J. van Rooyen, The review credibility of electronic
word-of-mouth communication on e-commerce platforms, Management Dynamics
22 (3) (2013) 29–44.
[79] P.M. Herr, F.R. Kardes, J. Kim, Effects of word-of-mouth and product-attribute information on persuasion: an accessibility-diagnosticity perspective, Journal of
Consumer Research 17 (4) (1991) 454–462, https://doi.org/10.1086/208570.