Facebook Advertisement : Secrets of Facebook Advertisement Conversion
How Facebook Users’ Perceptions of a Facebook Advertisement Affect Their Attitudes towards the...
-
Upload
alexandra-holzworth -
Category
Documents
-
view
222 -
download
0
description
Transcript of How Facebook Users’ Perceptions of a Facebook Advertisement Affect Their Attitudes towards the...
Running Head: HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 1
How Facebook Users’ Perceptions of a Facebook Advertisement
Affect Their Attitudes towards the Brand in the Advertisement
Alexandra Holzworth, Abbey Miner, and Jay Springfield
University of Georgia
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 2
Abstract
This article examines research done regarding how Facebook users’ perceptions of a particular
advertisement on Facebook affect their attitudes toward to the brand in the advertisement. It is
hypothesized that users with a positive perception of an ad will have a more positive attitude
towards the advertised brand. The variables of perception and attitude are conceptualized and
method for testing the research question is discussed. A statistical analysis test was run and it is
concluded that respondents have more favorable attitudes towards the advertised brand when the
perception of the ad is favorable, as well.
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 3
How Facebook Users’ Perceptions of a Facebook Advertisement
Affect Their Attitudes towards the Brand in the Advertisement
The explosion of social media that has occurred in the past five years has flipped the
advertising industry on its head, shifting the way products are being marketed and evaluated. For
example, in the past, advertising consisted only of one-way communication (Chi, 2011). Today,
advertising is much more interactive (Tan, Kwek, & Li, 2013). Advertisers must be a part of the
conversation now more than ever because consumers are placing much more weight on
recommendations by word of mouth than they are on paid television, print, and radio ads.
Facebook has been at the forefront of the social networking craze in that billions of consumers
are constantly posting on their Facebook ‘friends’’ walls, creating statuses, posting pictures and
sharing videos that provide feedback and product reviews (Hassan, Fatima, Akram, Abbas, &
Hasnain, 2013). For this reason, companies are eager to participate in Facebook dialogues about
their brand as much as possible. Not only do businesses now have the opportunity to create pages
and profiles for their brands, but they can also pay to have their product or service
advertisements show up in their target audiences’ and consumers’ newsfeeds (Hassan et al.,
2013). This advertising makes the consumers’ perceptions of Facebook advertising and the
attitudes towards those brands after viewing those ads more important today than they have ever
been.
Due to the importance of advertising today, advertising on Facebook and attitudes
towards advertised brands serve as the subjects of our research question, study, and hypotheses.
More specifically, our study focuses on how a Facebook users’ perception of a paid
advertisement put out by a specific brand’s company affects the consumer’s attitude regarding
that specific brand featured in the advertisement.
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 4
To break our two variables, “perception of a Facebook advertisement” and “attitude
towards the advertised brand” down even more, we attributed different dimensions to each
variable based on previous research. Our study is interested in finding out how the Facebook
advertisements’ relevance, trustworthiness, entertainment value, and informativeness affects
consumer action tendency, personal evaluation, and emotional feeling towards the brand as a
whole.
Though many studies on advertising and brand perception have been conducted before,
our study breaks new ground by analyzing a different combination of dimensions as well as a
separate, brand new method of advertising (Facebook advertising). Through a discussion of the
literature review, how our variables are conceptualized and the rationale leading to our
hypothesis, we seek to understand how consumer perception of Facebook advertising is related
to consumer attitude towards the advertised brand. Finally, in order to ensure that our
conclusions are valid and reliable, our study employs a survey method to test the hypothesis.
Literature Review
Many argue that ever since humans learned how to communicate, they have been
exploring the art of advertising. For centuries, advertising has been morphing to fit into evolving
communication mediums. One of the most prevalent channels for advertising today is the
internet. Now more than ever, businesses are using social media sites to market their products
and services (Tan et al., 2013). Due to social media’s growth in popularity, advertisers and
businesses have increased their investments in communicating with the consumers of social
networking sites (Chi, 2011).
Social media gives marketers the chance to get to know consumers on completely new,
more personalized levels because social networking sites provide consumers with an outlet to
express themselves and their interests through social connections (Chi, 2011). As a result, social
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 5
networking sites allow consumers to essentially “brand” themselves, making marketers more
aware of users’ likes, dislikes, and overall personalities. In addition, social media and social
networking sites give users more control over the information they put out and receive. Many
companies and businesses have realized the potential success in utilizing all of this stored data
and are taking action to reap the benefits (Tan et al., 2013). Advertisers use the information they
receive about consumers through social media sites to create and expose them to relevant
advertisements (Hassan et al., 2013). Facebook is a common example of a social networking site
that records the search terms, “likes”, and other information about its users to cater
advertisements in a way that is most effective (Hassan et al., 2013).
Based on the studies described, it is clear that advertising on social media has the
potential to be effective; however, there is still much to be discovered in regards to what makes
an ad effective from a branding standpoint. Most of the research performed on internet
advertising effectiveness in the past has been focused on the company’s point of view, instead of
the consumers’ (Schlosser, Shavitt, & Kanfer, 1999). Researchers, businesses, and advertisers
are all wondering how consumers’ (more specifically Facebook users’) different perceptions of a
particular Facebook advertisement color their attitudes towards the company’s brand.
Research Question
How does one’s perception of a particular Facebook advertisement affect his or her attitude
towards the advertised brand?
Conceptualizing Facebook Advertisements
This study will define Facebook advertisements as advertising that is owned by or paid
for by the company featured in the ad. Owned advertising means that the ad was put out
purposefully and directly by the company whose brand is being advertised. Furthermore, this
study will only consider advertisements that show up on the right hand side of a user’s Facebook
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 6
homepage, in their live feed in the upper right corner, or in their main newsfeed. These three
advertisement locations are the only ads being studied because they are consistently generated by
Facebook and other companies. Other ads that come from locations such as liked pages may hold
bias from the viewer since the subject was already previously liked.
Perception of a Facebook Advertisement
Since many different researchers have categorized the attributes of perception of
advertisements in various ways, our study will be modeled after categories from multiple sources,
breaking the attributes of perception of Facebook advertisements into relevance, trustworthiness,
entertainment value, and informativeness (Taylor, Lewin, & Strutton, 2011; Ling, Piew, & Chi,
2010; Kelly, Kerr, & Drennan, 2010).
Relevance
Relevance is how much an advertisement pertains to the general needs and wants of the
consumer. Facebook users have almost all of the control over what they see and all the control
over what they choose to pay attention to (Kelly et al., 2010). If an advertisement is not relevant
to the consumer and he/she chooses to ignore it, the advertisement will create either a negative or
uninfluenced perception of the advertisement.
Trustworthiness
Trustworthiness is another vital component when measuring Facebook users’ perception
of advertisements. In general, consumers already take caution when believing the contents of an
advertisement. Kelly et al. (2010) state that “studies report consumer distrust of advertising and
strong inclination towards advertising avoidance” (p. 16). If consumers do not believe the
advertisement is telling them the truth, they will have no desire to purchase the product.
Furthermore, they will be more likely to have a negative perception of the advertisement.
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 7
Entertainment Value
Though the trust built between a brand and consumer is vital to manifesting a positive
attitude towards the brand, the advertised messages must also be perceived as entertaining
(Taylor et al., 2011). Hassan et al. (2013) define entertaining advertisements as those that are
“fun, exciting, cool and flashy” (p. 321) and in most basic terms brings enjoyment to the viewer.
If Facebook users do not feel an advertisement is at least slightly entertaining, they will ignore
the advertiser’s message, which will not result in brand engagement with the consumer. Taylor et
al. (2011) describe how consumers may ignore or abandon a particular ad if they perceive it as
too commercial and not interesting enough. This research illustrates how users desire
entertainment in order to view ads in a positive light.
Informativeness
The last attribute of Facebook users’ perceptions towards Facebook advertisements that
we will be studying is informativeness. This dimension is especially important because as Kelly
et al. (2010) observe, many “perceive that products fail to perform as well as portrayed in
advertising and that the majority of advertising is more manipulative than informative” (p. 16). It
has also been suggested that one of the core functions of an advertisement is to make consumers
aware of product alternatives, thus enabling them to effectively make choices (Taylor et al.,
2011). The main goal of advertising is to provide information about products and services to
inform and persuade consumers. If the advertisement fails to inform, consumers remain
uneducated about the product/service.
Attitude towards Advertised Brand
In this study, the dependent variable is the attitude that consumers have towards a
particular advertised brand on Facebook. The attitudes that consumers form are based on how
likely they are to react in a favorable or unfavorable way while viewing a particular advertised
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 8
brand (Tan et al., 2013). Ling et al. (2010) recognize the attributes of attitude to be “individual
personal evaluation, emotional feeling attached and action tendency toward some objects or
ideas” (p. 116). Each attribute contributes to how this study will determine a Facebook user’s
attitude towards the specific brand being advertised on Facebook.
Action Tendency
The action tendency or behavioral intention describes what action the advertisement’s
viewers are inclined to take after seeing an ad. The action tendency indicates whether or not a
consumer has the desire to actually click the ad or purchase the item being advertised by a
particular company. Ling et al. (2010) claim that “Audience behaviour towards the advertising
can be indicated through consumers’ favourable or unfavourable response towards a particular
advertisement” (p. 116). A viewer’s perception of the ad can dictate what he/she will do in
response to looking at the particular brand advertisement. The persuasion that takes place to
sway the perception of a consumer can cause either a favorable or unfavorable reaction, resulting
in a changed attitude as a result of viewing a particular advertisement as evidenced by one’s
willingness to take action.
Personal Evaluation
Personal evaluation measures an individual’s association with a message that is based on
past experiences, preconceived notions, and personal beliefs to his/her attitude toward a specific
advertisement. More specifically personal evaluation as it relates to advertising consists of how
consumers assess certain brands using memories or perceptions that are completely unique to
them and their life encounters. According to Taylor et al. (2011), individuals are characterized by
their actions, so whether or a not a person clicks on a particular advertised brand depicts a sort of
self-identity for the individual. Taylor et al. (2011) describe that if an ad reflects an individual’s
self-identity, then the individual will be more likely to associate meaning to the ad, and in turn,
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 9
will be more likely to remember the ad. Brands that are associated with positive aspects of a
person’s life are going to be viewed in a more positive light by the consumer and vice versa.
Brands in advertisements that invoke the recollection of personal experiences are more likely to
stay with the consumers. Consequently, the company will build brand affinity with the consumer.
Emotional Feeling
The last attribute of attitude, emotional feeling towards a specific advertised brand, refers
to how an individual emotionally responds to the brand in an ad. According to Ling et al. (2010),
consumers’ attitudes towards advertising are highly influenced by their feelings towards each
particular advertisement. Likewise, the viewers’ attitudes towards the brand will alter based on
the emotion he/she experiences while viewing the ad. In this study, the emotional feeling
attribute will contribute to determining consumers’ attitudes towards a particular brand by
assessing any predispositions an individual may have towards a certain brand and the immediate
emotional responses individuals have towards the brand after viewing the ad.
Rationale
As discussed in the literature review, Facebook advertising is highly prevalent and
important today. When a Facebook user first encounters an ad, he/she has an initial response to
the ad and quickly views it through a certain lens. The perception of an ad is determined by
seeing whether or not the ad is relevant, trustworthy, entertaining, or informative, in which these
factors positively correlate to perception (Hassan et al., 2013). This perception of a particular
advertisement will, in turn, affect the attitude that the viewer has towards the brand being
advertised. Burns and Lutz (2006) propose that the correlation between perception of advertising
and attitude towards advertising is positive. It could be inferred then that the same relationship
holds for particular advertisements rather than advertising as a whole. Conversely, many studies
illustrate how negative perceptions of advertisements can lead to negative attitudes towards the
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 10
advertised brand (Taylor et al., 2011). According to Ling et al. (2010), informativeness,
trustworthiness, and entertainment value are all highly critical in producing a favorable
advertisement. Similarly, producing a favorable advertisement is necessary in order to create a
positive attitude towards the brand being advertised (Li, Edwards, & Lee, 2013). Relevancy is
also important in that most consumers do not actively search for advertisements to look at—
advertisers have the ability to cater their ads to the user, but they are typically viewed
involuntarily (Cheng, Blankson, Wang, & Chen, 2009). Since the ad is not being viewed
willingly, ads must be relevant in order to elicit a positive attitude, especially towards the brand
being advertised.
Despite the fact that most studies examine at attitude towards advertising in general
rather than towards the advertised brand, we are still able to gather information regarding brands
and attitudes and infer certain relationships. As mentioned earlier, attitude in this study is
composed of three attributes: action tendency, personal evaluation, and emotional feeling. By
studying these aspects of attitude, we are able to clearly see what attitude really is and how it is
affected by the perception of an ad. Tan et al. (2013) found that a consumer will “build up
emotional feeling of favourable or unfavourable manner towards the advertised brand” (p. 92) by
viewing an advertisement. In turn, if a consumer has a negative view of the ad, he/she will
experience an unfavorable emotional feeling as a result. Taylor et al. (2011) describe self-brand
congruity as consumers relating how they view themselves with how they feel about the brand in
the advertisement—the more positive they feel about themselves when viewing the ad, the more
likely they are to view the brand in a positive light. Self-brand congruity directly correlates to
perception of the ad as well—if the ad is more trustworthy or entertaining, then the viewer will
feel more positively about viewing the ad, thus viewing the brand more positively. Taylor et al.
(2011) illustrate this relationship between perception and attitude as a cost/benefit situation. If a
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 11
viewer perceives the ad to have more benefits than costs (the ad being more relevant, trustworthy,
entertaining, or informative), he/she will have a more positive attitude towards the ad. Based on
the support that has been outlined, we propose that:
H1: As one’s perception of a Facebook advertisement becomes more positive, one’s
attitude towards the advertised brand will also become more positive.
In order to see the relationship clearly, we must also look at how positive versus negative
perceptions of a Facebook ad affect the attitude that an individual has towards the advertised
brand. Research shows a clear positive correlation between the two variables; therefore, if
perception were to be more negative, then the attitude would in turn also be negative. Here we
would suggest that:
H2: Individuals with a negative perception of a Facebook ad will have a more negative
attitude towards the advertised brand than will individuals with a positive perception of a
Facebook ad.
Method
Participants
Eighty-five respondents (N = 66 females, 18 males; age: M = 21.64, SD = 7.66, range:
18-66) were acquired using non-probability convenience sampling through Facebook and e-mail.
Four respondents were excluded based on inability to complete the survey. The researchers
began with asking only University of Georgia undergraduate students to take the survey, but due
to lack of response, allowed people of all demographics (over the age of eighteen) to participate
in the study.
Procedures
The participants completed a questionnaire comprised of forty-three items regarding how
one’s perception of Facebook advertising affects his/her attitude towards the advertised brand.
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 12
All respondents were taken from the researchers’ Facebook friends and contacts on e-mail.
Participants were provided with a link to the survey to take it online using a computer/internet-
capable device of their choice. The estimated time for completing the survey was ten minutes.
Before completing the survey, participants electronically read and signed an informed consent
form disclosing all of the intentions of the study and what the participants should expect to see in
the survey. Since the survey was administered online, there was no in-person debriefing;
however, participants were provided the contact information of the researchers in case any
questions or concerns arose. Finally, all participants were thanked for taking time to participate
in the study.
A brief two-item introductory section of questions was included to allow respondents to
disclose their attitudes in general towards advertising on Facebook without having been exposed
to any further questioning. In this section, participants responded on a 5-point Likert-type scale
(1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree) to the statements “I like Facebook advertising” and
“I like to look at most advertisements that I am exposed to on Facebook.”
The last section of the questionnaire contained two Facebook advertisements taken from
a researcher’s Facebook page. Participants answered questions regarding the specific
advertisements. This section consisted of items that measure both the independent and dependent
variables. In the first half of this section, we displayed an ad for Verizon Wireless and asked
questions relating to perception of an advertisement and how it affects the attitude towards a
brand after immediate viewing (e.g. adapted from Ahn (2013), ‘I am more likely to view cell
phone service ads positively when I have preference for the brand’). The second ad was for Visa,
which contains an image of a person parasailing. This particular ad is used to see how people
respond to visually-detailed ads, posing statements like “While experiencing the ad, I feel as if I
were taking part in it” (Ahn, 2013). This section of the questionnaire was designed to see how
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 13
viewing a real ad affects both variables being measured. The questions were not in any order
based on variable, but were assigned to certain subgroups of each variable for the researchers to
use. Having participants view the ads in the survey and answer questions immediately was used
as an indicator of how participants’ perceptions of a certain Facebook ad affect his/her attitude
towards the brand, regardless of what the participant indicated earlier in the survey.
Independent Variable
Perception of a facebook advertisement. The independent variable assessing one’s
perception of Facebook advertising (n = 23) was measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale where
(1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree). The conceptualization of perception breaks this
variable down into four categories: relevance (n = 11, α = .802), trustworthiness (n = 3, α = .802),
entertainment value (n = 6, α = .895), and informativeness (n = 3, α = .918). Some items such as
“Advertising on Facebook supplies product information that is relevant to me” (Cheng et al.,
2009) in the relevance section were adapted from the original items in order to ensure clarity of
the variable being measured. Other items including “Facebook advertisements seem trustworthy”
(Ling et al., 2010) were altered in order to specify that the advertising comes from Facebook.
The responses to the survey items were added up and averaged to compare results. We used
IBM’s SPSS software to organize our data and collect the statistics for our study, showing
Chronbach’s Alpha to be α = .942 for the perception of a Facebook advertisement.
Relevance. This dimension of perception measured how relevant an ad on Facebook is to
the viewer. Statements such as “Advertising on Facebook supplies product information that is
relevant to me” (Cheng et al., 2009) were provided to determine the relevance of an ad. Only one
item in this section required reverse coding (‘Facebook ads do not have anything to do with me
or my needs’) from Lastovicka’s (1983) research. Lastovicka (1983) found the reliability for
advertising to be α = .846. Our measure’s reliability statistic was α = .802.
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 14
Trustworthiness. Trustworthiness looked at how trustworthy an ad appears to be to the
participants. We used items such as “I feel confident using information in a Facebook ad to help
me make a purchasing decision” (Schlosser et al., 1999) to measure trustworthiness. We found
that the measure’s reliability was α = .783. No sources directly measured trustworthiness;
however, Ling et al. (2010) looked at an advertisement’s credibility, finding the reliability
statistic to be α = .927.
Entertainment value. Entertainment value was used to determine whether or not the
viewer finds a particular ad on Facebook entertaining. An example of an item included is
“Facebook advertising usually has great entertainment value to me” (Cheng et al., 2009). The
reliability statistics for this subgroup of the study showed that α = .895, similar to Lastovicka’s
(1983) α = .872.
Informativeness. In this dimension of perception, we looked at how much information a
viewer thought was provided on any given advertisement. Statements such as “Facebook
advertising is a valuable source of information about the product” (Ling et al., 2010) measured
an advertisement’s informativeness for the viewer. We found the reliability of informativeness to
be α = .918, slightly higher than previous research done by Taylor et al. (2011) which found
Chronbach’s Alpha to be α = .87.
Dependent Variable
Attitude towards advertised brands. The dependent variable assessing one’s perception
of Facebook advertising (n = 18) was measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = Strongly
Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree). Attitude was conceptualized into three different categories: action
tendency (n = 5, α = .915), personal evaluation (n = 7, α = .700), and emotional feeling (n = 6, α
= .756). No items in this section required reverse coding. Some questions, however, were
adapted in order to provide more clarity to the variable being measured. For example, Tan et al.
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 15
(2013) used the statement “After viewing online advertisements, I am more in love with the
advertised brand” in which we adapted to say “…I am more committed to the advertised brand”
in order to avoid extreme language. Other statements were altered to reflect attitude towards the
brand rather than just advertising. In one case, Cheng et al. (2009) posed “Advertising helps me
to know which products reflect my unique personality”; however, our survey uses “advertised
brands” instead of “advertising”.
Action tendency. For this attribute of the attitude towards the brand in the advertisement,
we looked at what viewers were likely to do after viewing the ad, whether it be clicking the ad,
purchasing from the brand, or ignoring the ad completely. We asked if respondents agreed to
statements such as “After viewing Facebook advertisement, I will purchase from the brand being
advertised” (Tan et al., 2013) to determine what action the viewer took regarding the advertised
brand. Tan et al. (2013) similarly studied purchase intention of products in an advertisement,
yielding Chronbach’s Alpha at α = .884. The reliability statistic of action tendency for this study
was α = .915.
Personal evaluation. For personal evaluation, we examined how different brands and
types of ads instill a deeper connection with users by utilizing their ability to connect with the
target market on a personal level. In other words, an advertisement that has been personally
evaluated in a positive manner probably reminded the user of a past experience, character, or
something else in their lives that they view with reverence. We measured this variable by asking
participants to agree or disagree with statements like “The brands advertised on Facebook are
consistent with how I see myself” (Taylor et al., 2011). While most of these items were highly
reliable, our group did have to reverse code two items to ensure that this variable’s reliability
was high enough to yield insightful results. These two statements read, “I feel that each brand of
cell phone service is relatively equal in quality” (Ahn, 2013) and “I feel that each brand of credit
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 16
cards is relatively equal in quality” (Ahn, 2013). The responses were recorded on a five-point,
Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). However, even after reverse coding
these items, our reliability was not satisfactory, leading us to decide to exclude the two
statements from our analysis all together. When these two items were taken out, the reliability
statistic was then found to be α = .700. We compared the realiability statistic with a previous
study conducted by Taylor et al. (2011) that found the reliability statistic for personal evaluation
(named self-brand congruity) to be α = .900.
Emotional feeling. In this section, we measured what immediate emotional feeling a
viewer has towards the advertised brand. For example, we asked respondents to agree or disagree
with statements such as “After viewing online advertisements, I am more committed to the
advertised brand” (Tan et. al., 2013). Ling et al. (2010) looked at the hedonic pleasure that
viewers get from viewing an ad. Though it is not the exact same measure, hedonic pleasure and
emotional feeling are similar enough to compare reliability statistics. Ling et al. (2010) had a
Chronbach’s Alpha of α = .851 while our study had an Alpha of α = .756 for emotional feeling.
Results
Perception of Advertisement and Attitude towards Advertised Brand
The first hypothesis was one of covariation, which supposed that as one’s perception of a
Facebook advertisement becomes more positive, one’s attitude towards the advertised brand will
become more positive, as well. A one-way ANOVA test was used in order to test our first
hypothesis. This hypothesis tested the variables on a ratio level, comparing the actual numbers of
the responses. The results indicate that there was a significant relationship between the two
variables (Pearson correlation = .86, p < .001). Based on the high Pearson correlation and low p-
value, this hypothesis was supported.
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 17
The second hypothesis advanced the same idea as the first, except to the opposite effect,
stating that individuals with a negative perception of a Facebook ad will have a more negative
attitude towards the advertised brand than will the individuals with a positive perception of a
Facebook ad. For this hypothesis, we transformed perception to be a nominal level variable by
using a median split. We then placed the median of the perception averages in the low group
(splitting the perception responses from 1 - 2.32 and 2.33 - 5) because we found that the
distribution of respondents was more even (negative perception n = 39, positive perception n =
38) than when we placed the median in the high group (perception responses from 1 - 2.31 and
2.32 - 5). The results indicate that there was a significant difference in attitude toward the
advertised brand according to perception of Facebook advertisements (F (1,72) = 38.63, p <.001)
such that those with a negative perception of the Facebook ad (M = 2.14, SD = .44) had a
significantly lower attitude toward the advertised brand than those with a positive perception of
the advertisement (M = 2.91, SD = .62). Based on the positive correlation between the two
variables and the low p-value, there is a minimal possibility of the two variables being related by
mere coincidence and our hypotheses are supported.
Discussion
Due to the rise in not only social media usage, but also in paid advertising on these sites
and applications, we focused our study on how one’s perception of a particular advertisement
would affect his/her attitude towards the brand in the advertisement. As a general conclusion,
perception of a Facebook advertisement was positively correlated to the attitude towards the
advertised brand. With perception broken into four determining categories (relevance,
trustworthiness, entertainment value, and informativeness) and attitude into three categories
(action tendency, personal evaluation, and emotional feeling), all dimensions indicated a positive
correlation between perception of the advertisement and attitude towards the advertised brand.
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 18
Perception of Advertisement and Attitude towards Advertised Brand
This study explored how an individual’s perception of a particular advertisement seen on
Facebook would affect his/her attitude towards the brand in the advertisement. We predicted that
the perception of the advertisement and the attitude towards the advertised brand would have a
positive correlation and the results provided support for this hypothesis.
The perception of an advertisement was broken down into relevance, trustworthiness,
entertainment value, and informativeness, all of which accurately represented the make-up of
perception in this study. Attitude towards the advertised brand was comprised of three categories
(action tendency, personal evaluation, and emotional feeling). Since perception and attitude are
highly complex variables, they needed more specific dimensions to determine what was meant
when studying the variables and whether or not the relationship actually existed. The dimensions
for both perception and attitude all proved to strongly contribute to the correlation of the two
variables. Taylor et al. (2011) found that if a user perceived a social network advertisement
negatively, then he/she would in turn have a negative attitude towards the advertisement. Hassan
et al. (2013) describe how entertainment and informativeness in an advertisement contribute to
the positive attitude towards the brand, explaining that “It also encourages them to participate in
a virtual community” (p. 321). Facebook users have many different motives for using Facebook,
none of which are to look at advertising. However, when a company can create an ad that is
relevant, trustworthy, entertaining, and informative, they are able to receive a positive perception
of the ad and, in turn, a positive attitude towards the brand in the advertisement.
Limitations
With every research study comes limitations, and ours is no exception. One of the most
prominent restrictions on our study was the lack of time we had to conduct it. This study took
place over the course of less than four months, making it difficult to efficiently and effectively
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 19
gather and analyze results. With the constraint came limitations on the sampling method. Our
research obtained respondents by using a non-probability snowball sampling method and as a
result, our data was skewed in regards to gender, age, and personality. Most of the people that
took our survey were friends, family, or classmates of the researchers and many of them were
female. Finally, though this study originally set out to examine the behavior of University of
Georgia undergraduate students, lack of time and respondents resulted in an age group ranging
from under eighteen to over sixty.
Other limitations that are separate from the time constraint issue include the possibility
that (1) some of our participants have pop-up blockers on their computers, (2) no other previous
studies have been conducted regarding this specific topic, (3) there was a lack of ability to
measure every dimension of both perception and attitude, and (4) there was an absence of access
to social media advertising analytics. In order to elaborate on the first point, it is important to
note that each respondent was asked preliminary questions about their past experiences seeing
advertisements on Facebook in the survey. Since it is possible that some participants had never
seen a paid advertisement in their Facebook newsfeed or that participants that do have pop-up
blocker had a slightly different advertising experience than those who do not have the blocker,
our research data could have been skewed. It is difficult to assess this discrepancy because little
to no in-depth research on perceptions of and attitudes towards Facebook advertisements is
available to the general public.
Not many studies have focused specifically on this particular topic, but rather on the topic
of perceptions and attitudes of traditional advertising and advertising in general. These sources
indicated the complexity of attitude and perception, making it evident that one of our study’s
limitations would be the failure to include all the dimensions of each of the two concepts. Just as
it was impossible for our research to measure every aspect of attitude and perception, it was
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 20
difficult for us to measure the big data associated with Facebook advertising and its real world
results. In this study, we did not look at how many times an advertisement led to a sale, how
many people it reached, or how often they clicked through to the brand website. Though there is
software and multiple methods of measuring digital data, we were unable to access and process
this information for this particular study.
Future Research
As a result of our study’s vast amount of limitations, our research leaves others with
incredible opportunities for future studies. One interesting question that could be answered is
how effective is advertising on other social networking sites such as Twitter and Instagram? As
the digital age continues to expand, research regarding online behavior as well as perception and
attitude towards digital advertising will become nothing short of necessary.
As the social media field grows, so will its users. Now many different age groups
including baby boomers, generation X, and the multi-millennial have a strong presence on
various social media. It would be interesting to look closely at how age plays a role in perception
and attitude of online advertising. Another niche study could also look into different types of
digital advertising such as paid and nonpaid. Future research regarding the existing
personalization algorithms needs to be conducted in order to discover whether or not these ads
that are products of algorithms used to personalize the consumer experience are effective or
invasive.
Conclusion
Social media has taken flight in the past decade and advertising is prevalent on every
form. Facebook has particularly become wildly popular, appealing to companies as a prime
advertising medium. Due to the high usage of social media and the high levels of advertising on
these media forms, we decided to look at how one’s perception of an advertisement would affect
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 21
his/her attitude towards the brand in the ad. Based on analysis results and the administered
survey, it was concluded that perception of an advertisement and attitude towards the advertised
brand are closely and positively correlated. There is no limit to constrictions of this research
study or the amount of future research that could and should be conducted. However, this
examination of user perceptions of Facebook advertisements and their resulting attitudes towards
the advertised brand provides a basis for more in-depth results, knowledge, and insight.
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 22
References
Ahn, S. (2013). Advertising engagement. Unpublished survey, Department of Advertising
and Public Relations, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.
Burns, K. S., & Lutz, R. J. (2006). The function of format: consumer responses to six on- line
advertising formats. Journal of Advertising, (1), 53-63.
Cheng, J., Blankson, C., Wang, E., & Chen, L. (2009). Consumer attitudes and interactive digital
advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 28(3), 501-525.
Chi, H. H. (2011). Interactive digital advertising vs. virtual brand community: exploratory study
of user motivation and social media marketing responses in Taiwan. Journal of
Interactive Advertising, 12(1), 44-61.
Hassan, M. U., Fatima, S., Akram, A., Abbas, J., & Hasnain, A. (2013). Determinants of
consumer attitude towards social-networking sites advertisement: testing the mediating
role of advertising value. Middle East Journal of Scientific Research, 16(3), 319-330.
Kelly, L., Kerr, G., & Drennan, J. (2010). Avoidance of advertising in social networking sites:
The teenage perspective. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 10(2), 16-27.
Lastovicka, J. L. (1983). Convergent and discriminant validity of television commercial rating
scales. Journal of Advertising, 12(2), 14-52.
Li, H., Edwards, S. M., & Lee, J. (2002). Measuring the intrusiveness of advertisements: scale
development and validation. Journal of Advertising, 31(2), 37-47.
Ling, K. C., Piew, T. H., & Chai, L. T. (2010). The determinants of consumers’ attitude
towards advertising. Canadian Social Science, 6(4), 114-126.
Schlosser, A. E., Shavitt, S., & Kanfer, A. (1999). Survey of internet users’ attitudes toward
internet advertising. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 13(3), 34-54.
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 23
Tan, W., Kwek, C., & Li, Z. (2013). The antecedents of effectiveness interactive advertising in
the social media. International Business Research, 6(3), 88-99.
Taylor, D. G., Lewin, J. E., & Strutton, D. (2011). Friends, fans, and followers: do ads work
on social networks? How gender and age shape receptivity. Journal of Advertising Research,
51(1), 258-275.
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 24
Appendix
Survey Items will be measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale to add up the sum of the responses. Introductory Items
• I like Facebook advertising. • I like to look at most advertisements that I am exposed to on Facebook.
Independent Variable: Perception of Facebook Advertising Relevance
• Advertising on Facebook is a good source of current and up-to-date product information. • Advertising on Facebook supplies product information that is relevant to me. • When viewing Facebook ads, I think about how the product might be useful for me. • **Facebook ads do not have anything to do with me or my needs.
Trustworthiness • Facebook advertisements seem trustworthy. • I feel confident using information in a Facebook ad to help me make a purchasing
decision. • I feel security when using advertising on Facebook.
Entertainment Value • Facebook advertising contains a lot of excitement and surprises. • Facebook ads are lots of fun to view. • Facebook advertising usually has great entertainment value to me. • Facebook advertisements seem clever.
Informativeness • Facebook advertising is a valuable source of information about the product. • Facebook advertising informs me of the latest products available on the market. • Facebook ads are a convenient source of product/service information.
Dependent Variable: Attitude towards Advertised Brand Action Tendency
• I often click on Facebook advertisements. • When I view Facebook ads, I think of reasons why I would buy or would not buy the
brand’s product. • Facebook advertising helps me make purchasing decisions from a specific brand. • After viewing Facebook advertisements, I become interested in making a purchase from
the advertised brand. • After viewing Facebook advertisement, I will purchase from the brand being advertised.
Personal Evaluation • I take pleasure in thinking about what I see in Facebook advertisements. • The brands advertised on Facebook reflect who I am.
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 25
• The brands advertised on Facebook are consistent with how I see myself. Emotional Feeling
• Advertised brands help me to know which products reflect my unique personality. • After viewing online advertisements, I am more committed to the advertised brand. • After viewing an online advertisement, I develop preference for the brand in the
advertisement. Look at the ad below. Answer the following questions based on your opinion of the ad.
• I am familiar with this brand. (Relevance) • My attitude toward this brand is good. (Emotional Feeling) • The product in the ad is relevant to me. (Relevance) • I am more likely to view cell phone service ads positively when I have preference for the
brand. (Relevance) • It is important to me that I choose the right brand when selecting cell phone services.
(Personal Evaluation) • I feel that each brand of cell phone service is relatively equal in quality. (Personal
Evaluation)
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 26
Look at the ad below. Answer the following questions based on your opinion of the ad.
• While experiencing the ad, I feel as if I were taking part in it. (Entertainment Value) • Thoughts and images come to me while experiencing the ad without the slightest effort
on my part. (Relevance) • I can personally relate to aspects of the ad. (Relevance) • I characterize this product as primarily an enjoyable product. (Emotional Feeling) • I get a sense of excitement when I view this ad. (Entertainment Value) • While experiencing the ad, I felt that I “became” her/him for the time being. (Relevance) • My attitude toward this brand is good. (Emotional Feeling) • I am more likely to view credit card ads positively when I have preference for the brand.
(Relevance) • It is important to me that I choose the right brand when selecting credit card companies.
(Personal Evaluation) • I feel that each brand of credit cards is relatively equal in quality. (Personal Evaluation)
**These items require reverse coding.
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 27
Tables
Reliability Scale: Relevance
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases
Valid 81 95.3
Excludeda 4 4.7
Total 85 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
.802 11
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Item Deleted
Scale Variance if Item Deleted
Corrected Item-Total Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha if Item
Deleted
Rel1 30.0494 37.823 .533 .778 Rel2 29.8395 36.411 .602 .770 Rel3 30.1975 36.485 .646 .766 Rel5 28.5802 44.922 .050 .822 Rel6 29.9012 41.490 .270 .806 Rel7 29.3086 41.241 .356 .796 Rel8 29.7531 36.688 .642 .766 Rel9 30.1111 38.450 .499 .782 Rel10 30.5432 37.651 .587 .773 Rel11 29.4198 40.797 .374 .795 Rel4REV 29.7037 38.861 .487 .783
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 28
Reliability
Notes
Output Created 06-NOV-2013 08:31:02 Comments
Input
Active Dataset DataSet1 Filter <none> Weight <none> Split File <none> N of Rows in Working Data File
85
Scale Statistics
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
32.7407 46.469 6.81685 11
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 29
Matrix Input
Missing Value Handling
Definition of Missing User-defined missing values are treated as missing.
Cases Used Statistics are based on all cases with valid data for all variables in the procedure.
Syntax
RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=Trust1 Trust2 Trust3 /SCALE('Trust') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA /STATISTICS=SCALE /SUMMARY=TOTAL.
Resources Processor Time 00:00:00.00
Elapsed Time 00:00:00.00
[DataSet1] Scale: Trust
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases
Valid 84 98.8
Excludeda 1 1.2
Total 85 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
.783 3
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Scale Variance Corrected Cronbach's
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 30
Item Deleted if Item Deleted Item-Total Correlation
Alpha if Item Deleted
Trust1 4.21 2.725 .589 .749 Trust2 4.70 2.718 .730 .588 Trust3 4.37 3.200 .559 .770
Scale Statistics
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
6.64 5.847 2.418 3
Reliability
Notes
Output Created 06-NOV-2013 08:32:35 Comments
Input
Data I:\Alex-Abbey-Jay.sav Active Dataset DataSet1 Filter <none> Weight <none> Split File <none> N of Rows in Working Data File
85
Matrix Input
Missing Value Handling
Definition of Missing User-defined missing values are treated as missing.
Cases Used Statistics are based on all cases with valid data for all variables in the procedure.
Syntax
RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=EV1 EV2 EV3 EV4 EV5 EV6 /SCALE('Entertainment Value') ALL
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 31
/MODEL=ALPHA /STATISTICS=SCALE /SUMMARY=TOTAL.
Resources Processor Time 00:00:00.00
Elapsed Time 00:00:00.00
[DataSet1] I:\Alex-Abbey-Jay.sav Scale: Entertainment Value
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases
Valid 82 96.5
Excludeda 3 3.5
Total 85 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
.895 6
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Item Deleted
Scale Variance if Item Deleted
Corrected Item-Total Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha if Item
Deleted
EV1 10.93 14.908 .829 .860 EV2 11.05 15.356 .790 .867 EV3 10.94 15.070 .749 .872 EV4 10.78 15.013 .699 .880 EV5 10.35 15.219 .629 .892 EV6 10.22 15.309 .645 .888
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 32
Scale Statistics
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
12.85 21.361 4.622 6
Reliability
Notes
Output Created 06-NOV-2013 08:33:44 Comments
Input
Data I:\Alex-Abbey-Jay.sav Active Dataset DataSet1 Filter <none> Weight <none> Split File <none> N of Rows in Working Data File
85
Matrix Input
Missing Value Handling
Definition of Missing User-defined missing values are treated as missing.
Cases Used Statistics are based on all cases with valid data for all variables in the procedure.
Syntax
RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=Info1 Info2 Info3 /SCALE('Informativeness') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA /STATISTICS=SCALE /SUMMARY=TOTAL.
Resources Processor Time 00:00:00.00
Elapsed Time 00:00:00.00
Scale: Informativeness
Case Processing Summary
N %
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 33
Cases
Valid 83 97.6
Excludeda 2 2.4
Total 85 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
.918 3
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Item Deleted
Scale Variance if Item Deleted
Corrected Item-Total Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha if Item
Deleted
Info1 5.00 4.610 .790 .918 Info2 4.82 4.272 .860 .861 Info3 4.66 3.934 .860 .863
Scale Statistics
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
7.24 9.234 3.039 3
Reliability
Notes
Output Created 06-NOV-2013 08:34:10 Comments
Input Data I:\Alex-Abbey-Jay.sav Active Dataset DataSet1 Filter <none>
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 34
Weight <none> Split File <none> N of Rows in Working Data File
85
Matrix Input
Missing Value Handling
Definition of Missing User-defined missing values are treated as missing.
Cases Used Statistics are based on all cases with valid data for all variables in the procedure.
Syntax
RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=Action1 Action2 Action3 Action4 Action5 /SCALE('Action Tendency') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA /STATISTICS=SCALE /SUMMARY=TOTAL.
Resources Processor Time 00:00:00.02
Elapsed Time 00:00:00.01
Scale: Action Tendency
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases
Valid 82 96.5
Excludeda 3 3.5
Total 85 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 35
.915 5
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Item Deleted
Scale Variance if Item Deleted
Corrected Item-Total Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha if Item
Deleted
Action1 8.18 14.028 .685 .914 Action2 7.51 12.623 .714 .914 Action3 7.74 12.440 .853 .881 Action4 7.66 12.302 .875 .876 Action5 7.93 13.772 .818 .892
Scale Statistics
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
9.76 19.940 4.465 5
Reliability Notes
Output Created 06-NOV-2013 08:34:48 Comments
Input
Data I:\Alex-Abbey-Jay.sav Active Dataset DataSet1 Filter <none> Weight <none> Split File <none> N of Rows in Working Data File
85
Matrix Input
Missing Value Handling
Definition of Missing User-defined missing values are treated as missing.
Cases Used Statistics are based on all cases with valid data for all variables in the procedure.
Syntax RELIABILITY
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 36
/VARIABLES=PersonEval1 PersonEval2 PersonEval3 PersonEval4 PersonEval5 PersonEval6 PersonEval7 /SCALE('Personal Evaluation') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA /STATISTICS=SCALE /SUMMARY=TOTAL.
Resources Processor Time 00:00:00.00
Elapsed Time 00:00:00.00
Scale: Personal Evaluation
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases
Valid 81 95.3
Excludeda 4 4.7
Total 85 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
.561 7
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Item Deleted
Scale Variance if Item Deleted
Corrected Item-Total Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha if Item
Deleted
PersonEval1 18.35 9.379 .475 .448 PersonEval2 17.64 8.008 .574 .381 PersonEval3 17.80 7.910 .653 .348
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 37
PersonEval4 16.10 11.565 .197 .551 PersonEval5 17.60 10.992 .156 .572 PersonEval6 16.36 11.683 .095 .587 PersonEval7 17.48 12.903 -.097 .647
Scale Statistics
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
20.22 13.125 3.623 7
Reliability
Notes
Output Created 06-NOV-2013 08:37:01 Comments
Input
Data I:\Alex-Abbey-Jay.sav Active Dataset DataSet1 Filter <none> Weight <none> Split File <none> N of Rows in Working Data File
85
Matrix Input
Missing Value Handling
Definition of Missing User-defined missing values are treated as missing.
Cases Used Statistics are based on all cases with valid data for all variables in the procedure.
Syntax
RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=Emo1 Emo2 Emo3 Emo4 Emo5 Emo6 /SCALE('Emotional Feeling') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA /STATISTICS=SCALE /SUMMARY=TOTAL.
Resources Processor Time 00:00:00.00
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 38
Elapsed Time 00:00:00.00
[DataSet1] I:\Alex-Abbey-Jay.sav Scale: Emotional Feeling
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases
Valid 79 92.9
Excludeda 6 7.1
Total 85 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
.756 6
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Item Deleted
Scale Variance if Item Deleted
Corrected Item-Total Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha if Item
Deleted
Emo1 13.85 8.977 .603 .689 Emo2 14.10 9.143 .673 .671 Emo3 14.05 9.536 .630 .686 Emo4 12.68 11.809 .169 .802 Emo5 12.85 9.669 .472 .729 Emo6 12.59 10.808 .497 .725
Scale Statistics
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
16.03 13.717 3.704 6
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 39
Reliability
Notes
Output Created 06-NOV-2013 08:41:25 Comments
Input
Data I:\Alex-Abbey-Jay.sav Active Dataset DataSet1 Filter <none> Weight <none> Split File <none> N of Rows in Working Data File
85
Matrix Input
Missing Value Handling
Definition of Missing User-defined missing values are treated as missing.
Cases Used Statistics are based on all cases with valid data for all variables in the procedure.
Syntax
RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=PersonEval1 PersonEval2 PersonEval3 PersonEval4 PersonEval6 PersonEval7REV PersonaEval5REV /SCALE('Personal Evaluation - 7REV 5 REV') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA /STATISTICS=SCALE /SUMMARY=TOTAL.
Resources Processor Time 00:00:00.00
Elapsed Time 00:00:00.00
[DataSet1] I:\Alex-Abbey-Jay.sav
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 40
Reliability
Notes
Output Created 06-NOV-2013 08:42:08 Comments
Input
Data I:\Alex-Abbey-Jay.sav Active Dataset DataSet1 Filter <none> Weight <none> Split File <none> N of Rows in Working Data File
85
Matrix Input
Missing Value Handling
Definition of Missing User-defined missing values are treated as missing.
Cases Used Statistics are based on all cases with valid data for all variables in the procedure.
Syntax
RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=PersonEval1 PersonEval2 PersonEval3 PersonEval4 PersonEval6 PersonEval7REV /SCALE('Personal Evaluation - 7REV 5 Remove') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA /STATISTICS=SCALE /SUMMARY=TOTAL.
Resources Processor Time 00:00:00.00
Elapsed Time 00:00:00.00
Scale: Personal Evaluation - 7REV 5 Remove
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases Valid 81 95.3
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 41
Excludeda 4 4.7
Total 85 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
.666 6
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Item Deleted
Scale Variance if Item Deleted
Corrected Item-Total Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha if Item
Deleted
PersonEval1 16.2469 9.488 .422 .616 PersonEval2 15.5432 7.976 .551 .560 PersonEval3 15.7037 8.061 .592 .544 PersonEval4 14.0000 10.625 .359 .639 PersonEval6 14.2593 10.244 .314 .651 PersonEval7REV 14.8642 11.094 .156 .700
Scale Statistics
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
18.1235 12.935 3.59647 6
Reliability
Notes
Output Created 06-NOV-2013 08:43:24 Comments
Input Data I:\Alex-Abbey-Jay.sav Active Dataset DataSet1 Filter <none>
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 42
Weight <none> Split File <none> N of Rows in Working Data File
85
Matrix Input
Missing Value Handling
Definition of Missing User-defined missing values are treated as missing.
Cases Used Statistics are based on all cases with valid data for all variables in the procedure.
Syntax
RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=PersonEval1 PersonEval2 PersonEval3 PersonEval4 PersonEval6 /SCALE('Personal Evaluation - 1-4 and 6') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA /STATISTICS=SCALE /SUMMARY=TOTAL.
Resources Processor Time 00:00:00.00
Elapsed Time 00:00:00.00
Scale: Personal Evaluation - 1-4 and 6
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases
Valid 81 95.3
Excludeda 4 4.7
Total 85 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's N of Items
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 43
Alpha
.700 5
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Item Deleted
Scale Variance if Item Deleted
Corrected Item-Total Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha if Item
Deleted
PersonEval1 12.99 7.712 .456 .651 PersonEval2 12.28 6.206 .613 .574 PersonEval3 12.44 6.225 .673 .544 PersonEval4 10.74 9.069 .325 .698 PersonEval6 11.00 8.950 .237 .732
Scale Statistics
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
14.86 11.094 3.331 5
Reliability
Notes
Output Created 06-NOV-2013 08:46:08 Comments
Input
Data I:\Alex-Abbey-Jay.sav Active Dataset DataSet1 Filter <none> Weight <none> Split File <none> N of Rows in Working Data File
85
Matrix Input
Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing
User-defined missing values are treated as missing.
Cases Used Statistics are based on all cases with
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 44
valid data for all variables in the procedure.
Syntax
RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=PersonEval1 PersonEval2 PersonEval3 PersonEval4 PersonEval6 Action1 Action2 Action3 Action4 Action5 Emo1 Emo2 Emo3 Emo4 Emo5 Emo6 /SCALE('Attitude') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA /STATISTICS=SCALE /SUMMARY=TOTAL.
Resources Processor Time 00:00:00.00
Elapsed Time 00:00:00.00
Scale: Attitude Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases
Valid 76 89.4
Excludeda 9 10.6
Total 85 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
.914 16
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Item Deleted
Scale Variance if Item Deleted
Corrected Item-Total
Cronbach's Alpha if Item
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 45
Correlation Deleted
PersonEval1 38.54 92.572 .696 .906 PersonEval2 37.82 90.419 .663 .907 PersonEval3 37.99 90.386 .705 .905 PersonEval4 36.29 101.062 .316 .916 PersonEval6 36.55 101.931 .192 .921 Action1 38.87 93.449 .655 .907 Action2 38.17 90.224 .675 .907 Action3 38.46 90.145 .793 .903 Action4 38.36 90.259 .786 .903 Action5 38.59 92.618 .765 .904 Emo1 38.24 90.876 .736 .904 Emo2 38.53 92.439 .772 .904 Emo3 38.47 92.786 .790 .904 Emo4 37.04 102.012 .196 .920 Emo5 37.24 96.130 .457 .914 Emo6 36.97 99.093 .469 .913
Scale Statistics
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
40.41 106.511 10.320 16
Reliability
Notes
Output Created 06-NOV-2013 08:47:28 Comments
Input
Data I:\Alex-Abbey-Jay.sav Active Dataset DataSet1 Filter <none> Weight <none> Split File <none> N of Rows in Working Data File
85
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 46
Matrix Input
Missing Value Handling
Definition of Missing User-defined missing values are treated as missing.
Cases Used Statistics are based on all cases with valid data for all variables in the procedure.
Syntax
RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=Per1 Per2 Rel1 Rel2 Rel3 Trust1 Trust2 Trust3 EV1 EV2 EV3 EV4 Info1 Info2 Info3 Rel6 Rel7 EV5 Rel8 Rel9 EV6 Rel10 Rel11 Rel4REV /SCALE('Perception') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA /STATISTICS=SCALE /SUMMARY=TOTAL.
Resources Processor Time 00:00:00.00
Elapsed Time 00:00:00.00
Scale: Perception
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases
Valid 77 90.6
Excludeda 8 9.4
Total 85 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 47
.942 24
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Item Deleted
Scale Variance if Item Deleted
Corrected Item-Total Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha if Item
Deleted
Per1 56.9740 244.184 .636 .939 Per2 57.3117 243.270 .683 .939 Rel1 56.5195 238.437 .716 .938 Rel2 56.2987 239.975 .634 .939 Rel3 56.6883 237.823 .749 .938 Trust1 56.7792 247.885 .473 .941 Trust2 57.2597 243.537 .691 .939 Trust3 56.9091 246.689 .606 .940 EV1 57.2857 242.549 .778 .938 EV2 57.4026 244.375 .734 .938 EV3 57.2987 244.002 .683 .939 EV4 57.1688 241.326 .739 .938 Info1 56.9740 238.552 .783 .937 Info2 56.7662 239.260 .733 .938 Info3 56.6494 236.968 .743 .938 Rel6 56.4156 256.036 .223 .945 Rel7 55.7792 254.490 .310 .943 EV5 56.7143 241.891 .675 .939 Rel8 56.2078 241.588 .644 .939 Rel9 56.5584 246.250 .501 .941 EV6 56.5195 244.674 .604 .940 Rel10 57.0000 241.342 .663 .939 Rel11 55.8571 251.256 .416 .942 Rel4REV 56.1429 248.308 .457 .942
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 48
Scale Statistics
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
59.1948 264.948 16.27724 24
Statistics
Gender Age
N Valid 84 77
Missing 1 8 Mean 1.76 21.64 Mode 2 19 Std. Deviation .428 7.664 Minimum 1 18 Maximum 2 66
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
AttitudeTOTAL 76 1.34 5.00 2.5165 .65013 PerceptionTOTAL 77 1.18 5.00 2.3518 .69773 Valid N (listwise) 73
Test of Covariation Hypothesis
Descriptive Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
AttitudeTOTAL 2.5165 .65013 76 PerceptionTOTAL 2.3518 .69773 77
AttitudeTOTAL
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 49
PerceptionTOTAL
Pearson Correlation .858**
Sig. (2-tailed) – p-value .000 Sum of Squares and Cross-products
28.315
Covariance .393
N 73
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Test of Difference Hypothesis Statistics Perception TOTAL
N Valid 77
Missing 8 Median 2.3242
Perception2.32LO
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1.00 – Negative Perception
39 45.9 50.6 50.6
2.00 – Positive 38 44.7 49.4 100.0
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 50
Perception
Total 77 90.6 100.0 Missing System 8 9.4 Total 85 100.0
One-way ANOVA
Descriptives AttitudeTOTAL
N Mean Std. Deviatio
n
Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval for
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
Between- Compone
nt Variance
Lower
Bound
Upper Boun
d
1.00 – Negative Perception
38
2.1398
.44046 .0714
5 1.995
0 2.284
5 1.34 3.12
2.00 – Positive Perception
35
2.9143
.61616 .1041
5 2.702
6 3.125
9 2.11 5.00
Total 73
2.5111
.65633 .0768
2 2.358
0 2.664
2 1.34 5.00
Model
Fixed Effects
.53189
.06225
2.3870
2.6352
Random Effects
.3875
7
-2.413
4
7.4357
.29218
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 51
ANOVA AttitudeTOTAL
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 10.929 1 10.929 38.633 .000 Within Groups 20.086 71 .283 Total 31.016 72
Means Plot
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 52
Gender
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
Male 20 23.5 23.8 23.8
Female 64 75.3 76.2 100.0
Total 84 98.8 100.0 Missing System 1 1.2 Total 85 100.0
Statistics
Age
HOW FACEBOOK USERS’ PERCEPTION OF A FACEBOOK 53
N Valid 77
Missing 8 Mean 21.64 Std. Deviation 7.664 Minimum 18 Maximum 66
Survey Link https://ugeorgia.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_3ZP25WnbjvsFV5P