The Role of Perceived Surveillance and Privacy Cynicism in Effects of Multiple Synced Advertising Exposures on Brand Attitude

Figures & data

Figure 1. Conceptual model.

Figure 2. Scenario and smartphone images as displayed to the participants. Note. Participants were exposed to either (a) the synced or (b) the nonsynced scenario per brand. The brand logos used in this study were replaced in this figure with the text “brand.” The red dotted line was not presented to the participants and edited to clarify the differences between the scenarios.

Figure 3. Scenario randomization overview.

Figure 4. The moderation of privacy cynicism on the relationship between perceived surveillance (PS) and brand attitude (BA) for the (a) soap, (b) toothpaste, and (c) kitchen detergent brand. Note. For any values of privacy cynicism for which the confidence band does not contain zero, the effect of perceived surveillance on brand attitude is significant.

Table 1. Results overview.

Product	Relationship	Indirect Effect	B	SE	p Value	LLCI	ULCI
Soap		.02		.02		.00	.05
	Number of exposures → Perceived surveillance (a)		.19	.06	.003	.07	.31
	Perceived surveillance → brand attitude (b1)		−0.21	.09	.013	−0.38	−0.05
	Privacy cynicism → Brand attitude (b2)		−0.11	.11	.338	−0.33	.11
	Perceived surveillance × privacy cynicism → brand attitude (b3)		.09	.02	<.001	.05	.13
	Number of exposures → Brand attitude (c′)		−0.01	.05	.869	−0.11	.10
Toothpaste		.02		.01		.00	.04
	Number of exposures → Perceived surveillance (a)		.19	.06	.003	.07	.31
	Perceived surveillance → brand attitude (b1)		−0.24	.09	.007	−0.41	−0.06
	Privacy cynicism → Brand attitude (b2)		−0.11	.11	.341	−0.33	.12
	Perceived surveillance × privacy cynicism → brand attitude (b3)		.09	.02	<.001	.04	.13
	Number of exposures → Brand attitude (c′)		.00	.05	.950	−0.10	.11
Kitchen detergent		.02		.01		.00	.05
	Number of exposures → Perceived surveillance (a)		.18	.06	.004	.06	.31
	Perceived surveillance → brand attitude (b1)		−0.23	.08	.007	−0.40	−0.06
	Privacy cynicism → Brand attitude (b2)		−0.18	.11	.117	−0.40	.04
	Perceived surveillance × privacy cynicism → brand attitude (b3)		.10	.02	<.001	.05	.14
	Number of exposures → Brand attitude (c′)		.03	.05	.612	−0.08	.13

Note. The bolded relationships represent the hypothesized relationships. Letters between parentheses (e.g., a, b₁) indicate tested relationship from PROCESS Model 14. Table 1 represents unstandardized coefficients (B), standard error (SE), p values, lower-level confidence intervals (LLCI), and upper-level confidence intervals (ULCI); 95% CI is calculated on 5,000 bootstraps. The indirect effect is calculated at the mean level of privacy cynicism. See the results from the Johnson–Neyman technique for the regions of significance.