Development of the Persuasion Knowledge Scales of Sponsored Content (PKS-SC)

Figures & data

Table 1. Final Persuasion Knowledge Scales of Sponsored Content (PKS-SC).

Component	Items	Response categories
Conceptual dimension (1) Recognition of sponsored content	Please [watch/take a look at materials] and answer the following questions.	(1) Yes, No, Not sure
	Did you see any advertising in the [medium]? You indicated that you saw/may have seen advertising in the [medium]. Can you please describe what this advertising looked like?	(2) Open (when Yes/Not Sure): coded wrong or right
(2) Understanding of the selling and persuasive intent of sponsored content	Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements.	1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree
	The reason brands are mentioned or shown in [medium] is to …
	…stimulate people to want the advertised brand …encourage people to buy the brand …sell products …make people think positively about the brand …attract attention to the brand …make people remember the brand ( + fillers)
(3) Recognition of the commercial source of sponsored content	Sometimes brands are shown in [medium]. To what extent do you agree with the following statements?	1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree
	The brand pays for showing a brand in a [medium]. (+4 fillers)
(4) Understanding of persuasive tactics in sponsored content	Brands sometimes pay [the makers of a game/the producers of a TV programme/blogger] to show their brand in the [medium]. How do you think they are trying to influence you with this? Please complete the following statement:	1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree
	Brands try to influence me by …
	…hiding the commercial purpose of showing the brand …making sure it does not look like advertising …making sure I am exposed to the brand …placing the brand in a context that I like …placing the brand in a context that people trust ( + fillers)
(5) Understanding of the economic model of sponsored content	The following statements refer to [medium] that show brands.	1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree
	To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements:
	If a brand does not pay for (a part of) the production of a [medium]…
	…the [medium] would not have been made. …the [medium] would be more expensive. …there would be fewer [medium]s. …the [medium] would not be for free.
(6) Self-reflective awareness of the effectiveness of sponsored content	To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements:	1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree
	SELF a1. Seeing brands in a [medium] influences me. a2. Seeing brands in a [medium] influences me without me realizing it. a3. I have bought a brand or product after I had seen it in a [medium]. a4. I liked a brand more after seeing it in a [medium). a5. I know certain brands because I have seen them in a [medium].
	OTHER b1. Seeing brands in a [medium] influences others. b2. Seeing brands in a [medium] influences others without them realizing it. b3. Others have bought a brand or product after seeing it in a [medium]. b4. Others have started liking a brand more after seeing it in a [medium]. b5. Others know certain brands because they have seen them in a [medium].
Evaluative dimension (7) Skepticism toward sponsored content	Brands sometimes pay the producers of a [medium] to show their brand within the [medium]. What is your opinion about this?	1–7 semantic differential
	I think that showing brands (for which the brand has paid) in [medium] is …
	Dishonest – Honest
	Not trustworthy – Trustworthy
	Incredible – Credible
	Not truthful – Truthful
	Insincere – Sincere
(8) Appropriateness of sponsored content	I think that showing brands (for which the brand has paid) in [medium] is:	1–7 semantic differential
	Inappropriate – Appropriate
	Unacceptable – Acceptable
	Wrong – Right
	Bad taste – Good taste
	Undesirable – Desirable
	Unfair – Fair
	Illegitimate – Legitimate
(9) Liking of sponsored content	Sometimes brands are shown in [medium]. For instance, [example specific to medium].	1–7 semantic differential
	I think that showing brands in [medium] is:
	Negative – Positive
	Unattractive – Attractive
	Boring – Interesting
	Not amusing – Amusing
	Irritating – Pleasant
	Obtrusive – Unobtrusive

Note: Depending on the medium participants were assigned to, [medium]said ‘videogame’, TV programme’,or ‘blogpost’.

Table 2. Answers to general questions measuring Recognition of Sponsored Content.

	Have you ever seen advertising within [medium]?			Have you ever seen brands within [medium]?
	Games	Blogs	TV	Games	Blogs	TV
Answer did not reflect PK	10%	4%	8%	47%	23%	7%
Traditional advertising	61%	55%	11%	4%	15%	2%
Other forms of advertising	4%	10%	2%	1%	7%	1%
Mentioned brands	1%	2%	3%	12%	25%	12%
Correct description of sponsored content	24%	30%	76%	36%	31%	78%

Table 3. Recognition of Sponsored Content in the three specific cases.

	Game	Blog	TV	Total (average)
No brand	96%	87%	94%	92%
Prominent	94%	63%	90%	82%
Subtle	66%	47%	73%	62%

Table 4. Summary of outcomes for each component of the PKS-SC

	Item descriptives	Scale descriptives	Homogeneity (Mokken scaling)	CFA fit	Reliability	Test-retest reliability
(1) REC	Sum score min 0–max 3	M = 2.34 (SD = 0.80)	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	ρ = .46***
(2) INTENT	min M = 6.03, max M = 6.28	M = 6.15 (SD = 0.82)	H(se) = 0.60, (0.03)	CFI = 0.99; TLI = 0.97; RMSEA = 0.05, 90% Cl 0.03–0.08; χ^2(7) = 19.28, p = .007.^a	α = .89	ρ = .58***
(3) SOURCE	min 1-max 7	M = 6.11 (SD = 1.20)	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	ρ = .53***
(4) TACTIC	min M = 4.96, max M = 6.01	M = 5.43 (SD = 0.94)	H(se) = 0.41, (0.03)	CFI = 1.00; TLI = 1.00; RMSEA = 0.02, 90% Cl 0.00–0.07; χ^2(3) = 3.56, p = .313^b	α = .76	ρ = .69***
(5) ECO	min M = 3.61, max M = 4.07	M = 3.85 (SD = 1.34)	H(se) = 0.40, (0.03)	CFI = 1.00; TLI = 0.98; RMSEA = 0.06, 90% Cl 0.00–0.14; χ^2(1) = 3.13, p = .077.^c	α = .12	ρ = .57***
(6a) SELF	min M = 2.93, max M = 3.94	M = 3.40 (SD = 1.49)	H(se) = 0.63, (0.02)	CFI = 0.98; TLI = 0.97; RMSEA = 0.07, 90% Cl 0.06–0.09; χ^2(27) = 11 1.82, p < .001.^d	α = .89	ρ = .79***
(6b) OTHER	min M = 5.18, max M = 5.44	M = 5.30 (SD = 1.12)	H(se) = 0.69, (0.02)	(see SELF)	α = .91	ρ = .65***
(7) SKEP	min M = 4.07, max M = 4.49	M = 4.29 (SD = 1.40)	H(se) = 0.82, (0.01)	CFI = 0.97; TLI = 0.96; RMSEA = 0.07, 90% Cl 0.06–0.07; χ^2(129) = 486.87, p < .001.^e	α = .95	ρ = .73***
(8) APPR	min M = 3.55, max M = 4.61	M = 4.02 (SD = 1.34)	H(se) = 0.76, (0.02)	(See SKEP)	α = .95	ρ = .80***
(9) LIKE	min M = 3.79, max M = 4.59	M = 4.25 (SD = 1.26)	H(se) = 0.65, (0.02)	(See SKEP)	α = .91	ρ = .76***

Note. CFA = confirmatory factor analysis, n.a. = not applicable, CFI = comparative fit index, TLI = Tucker-Lewis index, RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation. The item descriptive statistics refer to the minimum and maximum (mean) scores for the items in the scales. The scale descriptive statistics present the mean and standard deviation of the final scale of that component.

^a Six-item one-factor model with two item error covariances (items intent2-intent4, intent9-intent10).

^b Five-item one-factor model with two item error covariances (tactic1-tactic2, tactic5-tactic7).

^c Four-item one-factor model with one item error covariance (eco2-eco3).

^d 10-item two-factor model with seven item error covariances (five identical items about self and other; two within factor items self1-self2, other1-other2).

^e 18-item three-factor model with three item error covariances (skep1-skep2, app1-app2, app5-app7).

*** p < .001.

Table 5. Correlations between all components of the PKS-SC.

	1	2	3	4	5	6a	6b	7	8	9
(1) REC	1
(2) INTENT	ρ = .15***	1
(3) SOURCE	ρ = .20***	ρ = .37***	1
(4) TACTIC	ρ = .12**	ρ = .42***	ρ = .15***	1
(5) ECO	ρ = −.08†	ρ = .08†	ρ = .06	ρ = .03	1
(6a) SELF	ρ = −.11**	ρ = .08†	ρ = −.15***	ρ = .14**	ρ = .12**	1
(6b) OTHER	ρ = .00	ρ = .34***	ρ = .09*	ρ = .40***	ρ = .06	ρ = 48***	1
(7) SKEP	ρ = .05	ρ = .06	ρ = .00	ρ = .31***	r = −.18***	ρ = −.24***	ρ = −.01	1
(8) APPR	ρ = .11**	ρ = .06	ρ = .05	ρ = .22***	r = −.16***	ρ = −.31***	ρ = −.07†	r = .82***	1
(9) LIKE	ρ = .20***	ρ = .14***	ρ = .18***	ρ = .16***	r = −.14**	ρ = −.45***	ρ = −.14***	r = .57***	r = 69***	1

Note: Total sample wave 1, N = 614. Correlation coefficients involve Spearman's rho (ρ) for skewed variables, and Pearson's correlation (r) for other variables.

*** p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05, †p < .10.

Table 6. Convergent and discriminant validity for each component of the PKS-SC.

	Education	Ad beliefs	Ad skepticism	Ad avoidance	Gender
Conceptual components
(1) REC	ρ = .07	ρ = −.10*	ρ = −.14***	ρ = .04	U = 45132.00
(2) INTENT	ρ = −.08*	ρ = −.05	ρ = −.17***	ρ = .10*	U = 42952.00
(3) SOURCE	ρ = −.01	ρ = −.04	ρ = −.13**	ρ = .10*	U = 45957.50
(4) TACTIC	ρ = .00	ρ = −.07†	ρ = −.18***	ρ = .07†	U = 43920.00
(5) ECO	r = .07†	r = .22*	r = .11**	ρ = −.08*	t = −.36
(6a) SELF	ρ = .02	ρ = .47***	ρ = .36***	ρ = −.43***	U = 43920.00
(6b) OTHER	ρ = −.00	ρ = .18***	ρ = −.02	ρ = −.11**	U = 44297.50
Evaluative components
(7) SKEP	r = .11**	r = −.39***	r = .47***	r = .27***	t = .78
(8) APPR	r = .12**	r = −.42***	r = .44***	r = .30***	t = −.48
(9) LIKE	r = .09*	r = −.49***	r = .48***	r = .37***	t = .62

Note: Total sample wave 1, N = 614. Correlation coefficients involve Spearman's rho (ρ) or Mann–Whitney test (U) for skewed variables, and Pearson's correlation (r) or independent t-tests (t) for other variables.

*** p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05, †p < .10.