Content uploaded by Francisco Rejón-Guardia
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Francisco Rejón-Guardia on Jul 17, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Online Advertising Intrusiveness
and Consumers’ Avoidance Behaviors
Francisco Rejón-Guardia and Francisco J. Martínez-López
Abstract The proliferation of advertising in all communication media causes
consumers to perceive a significant amount of competitiveness between advertised
products, as well as to feel overwhelmed by the intrusiveness of their advertisements.
When taken together, these dimensions form the concept ‘‘advertising clutter.’’ A
review of the literature shows that perceived intrusiveness is the main component of
the perception of clutter. Advertising clutter can prompt undesired behaviors (e.g.,
advertising avoidance) as well as attitudes contrary to those that companies’
advertising campaigns hope to achieve. It also leads to diminished advertising effi-
cacy in terms of consumer memory, a decrease in positive attitudes towards the
message and brand, as well as declined purchasing intention and, therefore, sales. In
this article, the main consequences of advertising clutter for consumers in online
media are reviewed and discussed. To that end, a theoretical review of this concept
and its main dimensions is performed; special attention is paid to the online context.
Finally, some practical recommendations and research opportunities are pointed out.
Keywords Intrusiveness Online advertising clutter Irritation Avoidance
1 Introduction
Currently, the Internet holds a special place as a medium for its ability to attract
advertising investment; businesses are increasingly transferring funds from con-
ventional media to the Internet (Nielsen 2012). This is due to advertisers’ loss of
F. Rejón-Guardia (&)
University of Granada, Granada, Spain
e-mail: frejon@ugr.es
F. J. Martínez-López
University of Granada; and Open University of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain
e-mail: fjmlopez@ugr.es
F. J. Martínez-López (ed.), Handbook of Strategic e-Business Management,
Progress in IS, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-39747-9_23,
Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014
565
faith in mass communication media like television, radio, print, etc. One of the
main reasons for the loss of advertising efficacy in conventional media is that
consumers are saturated by the quantity of ads and their largely persuasive style
(Elliott and Speck 1998; Hong 2006). These circumstances produce certain
behaviors and attitudes towards the ad and brand that are contrary to the desires of
the businesses (Ha and McCann 2008a,b). One of the most common effects is
advertising avoidance. This article focuses on the analysis of the consumers’
perceived intrusiveness of advertising and the ensuing behaviors of evasion that
said perceived intrusiveness could generate in the online media. In an online
setting, the specifics of advertising, especially when compared to typical adver-
tising in traditional media can boost the consumers’ perception of intrusiveness to
a greater extent. Specifically, special attention is paid to demarcating the main
perceptions that evoke evasive behaviors in the consumers as a defensive mech-
anism in response to online advertising. These perceptions run contrary to the
advertising campaigns’ objectives. Some of the consumers’ physical and mental
states that can drive avoidance of online advertising are: perceived intrusiveness,
irritation and a perceived lack of control of navigation.
The remainder of the article is as follows. First, a description of the concept of
advertising clutter is made, analyzing its main sources and components. Perceived
advertising intrusiveness, one of the most commented-upon dimensions in the
literature, is highlighted; this concept is reviewed in this article, both in general
and for online environments. Next, the concept of advertising avoidance, one of
the most significant negative emotional responses that might potentially arise in
consumers exposed to online ads, is introduced. Finally, several conclusions,
recommendations for practitioners and research opportunities are highlighted.
2 Background: Advertising Clutter
Advertising clutter, in terms of both conventional offline and online media, has been
widely studied. According to Ha (1996), the perception of clutter corresponds to the
advertising density of a media and is contributed to by three variables: advertising
overload,intrusiveness (reactance) and competitiveness (interference). The current
levels of advertising density can explain the ever-shrinking efficacy of advertising.
In situations of high density, there are too many brands in one medium competing for
the attention of the consumers, the users of said medium. Under these circumstances,
there is a high chance that the users of the medium’s attention will worsen, which, in
turn, might generate non-desirable effects on memory, attitude or behaviors towards
the ad, the advertised product or the medium in which the ad appears. Analysis of the
literature reveals that the study of advertising clutter in distinct media is primarily
done from the standpoint of ad-processing and the effects the ads have on variables
such as: recall of the advertised brand and/or the advertisement, awareness, attitude,
willingness to buy the advertised product, etc.
566 F. Rejón-Guardia and F. J. Martínez-López
Ads, therefore, compete with the content of the communication medium that
houses them for the users’ attention. The main studies show poor results in con-
sumers’ memory in media where a high level advertising clutter is perceived; this
usually happens within communication media that are not favorable for consum-
ers’ processing of ads’ messages. In this setting, the consumer can develop neg-
ative attitudes towards the advertisement (Ha 1996). One of the main findings from
the study of the advertising clutter phenomenon is that the short-term profits that a
medium (e.g. certain TV channels) can see from selling a lot of advertising space/
time to businesses and broadcasting their messages might not pay off in the long
run. This results from the audience’s advertising saturation, which in the short-
term reduces advertising efficacy and in the long-term generates negative attitudes
towards advertisements that appear in the medium. Nevertheless, despite the
audience’s dislike, the media have to endure the perception of advertising clutter,
since advertising is the their main income source (Ha and Litman 1997).
In order to explain the perception of clutter in any medium, it is essential to
consider the distinction that Ha and McCann (2008a,b) draw between different
types of communication media and their form of presenting the ad. Thus, we can
distinguish between media that allow the auto-consumption of information, in
other words, media that allow the user to decide the rhythm and type of infor-
mation that they want to see (e.g. in print media) and captive-media like (e.g.
radio, television), that force the consumer to face the information at a determined
rate. The case of the Internet is unique due to its special characteristics that can
offer users both options; depending on the ad format used, the perceived level of
advertising clutter will fluctuate (Ha 2003).
With the goal of making a generalization about the term ‘‘clutter’’ in offline and
online media, Ha and McCann (2008a,b) performed a meta analysis, analyzing the
term clutter in relation to three complementary perspectives: structural, informa-
tion-processing and functional. Below they are briefly introduced.
The structural perspective focuses on the study of the physical characteristics
of the ad in the analyzed medium. The major findings on this dimension of clutter
are (Riebe and Dawes 2006): advertising overload can lead to, first, low rates of
memory of the ad by the audience; and, second, a perception that the medium
presenting the ad is of low quality. Additionally, similar results can be found for
the clutter’s dimension competiveness. Competiveness is characterized by the
rivalry between advertisers, expressed through the number of advertising messages
and different brands there are for a certain product category. In the specific case of
media that do not force ads on the user (e.g. Internet or magazines), the effect
produced by the dimension of competitiveness is slight. This enables the user to
easily move between the medium’s content and overlook the between-brand
competition.
From the perspective of information processing, advertising clutter’s impact
determines the consumers’ ability to process the message (Brown and Rothschild
1993; Ray and Webb 1986). This phenomenon can be explained through diverse
psychological theories on information processing. First, the overload theory pos-
tulates that a reduction in advertising efficacy occurs due to people’s limited
Online Advertising Intrusiveness and Consumers’ Avoidance Behaviors 567
capacity to process a message. From the cognitive psychology point of view, when
a user finds him/herself faced with a choice of brands, and the medium is over-
loaded with advertising information, the processing of a message/ad is done at the
expense of another message/ad (Schneider et al. 1982).
Similarly, the selective attention theory offers an explanation for how con-
sumers break free from the captivity of the limitations imposed by a medium. The
theory points out that selective attention is the product of a protection mechanism
that allows human beings to allot their limited attention resources according to
their needs (Smith and Buchholz 1991; Wickens 1991). Therefore, the decision not
to pay attention to ads is the result of the consumers’ perception that the ads are not
pertinent to their lives. Thus, their mental processing resources are reserved to pay
attention to the editorial content of the medium, which is what interests them, not
the advertising content (Ha and McCann 2008a,b). Another of the theories widely
used in cognitive psychology applied to the processing of advertising messages is
the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) (Petty and Cacioppo 1981). The ELM
explains the effects of advertising through message processing. In high-involve-
ment conditions, the consumer processes the information through the central route;
however in situations of low involvement, the peripheral route is used. Specifi-
cally, if consumers are very involved with the advertised product, it is more likely
that exposure to the ad will lead to processing the message through the central
route, investing greater effort in processing the message and developing ideas
about the brand or product. On the other hand, in consumers slightly involved with
the advertised product, the information processing follows the peripheral route;
this explains why an ad’s elements like color and execution are more relevant in
determining the result of the message in this type of consumer. In this sense, and
regarding advertising clutter, it has been observed that if consumers process an
advertisement in an ad-saturated medium, an appropriate use of peripheral signals
can be a decisive factor in terms of advertising efficacy and memory (Ha and
McCann 2008a,b).
The theory of psychological reactance is employed to explain resistance
towards and evasion of obstacles that impede the user of a medium from enjoying
their liberty. This type of behavior is frequently observed in consumers when they
are forced, without their consent, to view advertisements (Edwards et al. 2002).
According to Brehm and Brehm (1981), psychological reactance implies a nega-
tive reaction from consumers when they perceive that something is depriving them
of their liberty. Thus, when a user is exposed to an advertisement in such a way
that they perceive the ad as depriving them of their liberty to enjoy the medium’s
content of interest to them, the consumer will tend to reject the advertising
exposures. Consequently, they would try to avoid all of the medium’s advertise-
ments (Bhattacharjee 2010).
From a functional perspective, emphasis is put on the active role that the con-
sumers of a medium play in processing advertising messages. This perspective aids
in understanding how motivations can drive the use of media and determine how
messages are processed. When one tries to explain the motivations for the use for
certain media, some theories prove to be particularly revelatory. One of them is the
568 F. Rejón-Guardia and F. J. Martínez-López
uses and gratifications theory, which is employed to explain the motivations for use
of media such as television, Internet and current social networks (Bonds-Raacke and
Raacke 2010; Roy 2009; Rubin 1983; Ruggiero 2000; Stafford et al., 2004).
MacInnis and Jaworski (1989) suggest that the process of advertising com-
munication is based in need, motivation and the consumer’s opportunity to process
the ad. Thus, when an ad complies with the user’s motivations, the advertising
message is seen as a useful offering of information about the product, or even as a
part of the medium’s entertainment. In this scenario, the consumer will not see the
ad as something negative (MacInnis and Jaworski 1989). Therefore, if the medium
aligns with the motivations for use and rewards the users, the advertising content
will be desirable, as it is useful for the consumers. On the other hand, in a situation
where the consumer perceives advertising clutter in a medium, if the effort
required to avoid the ad and the risk of missing the medium’s content are high—
this largely happens in media that make the spectator a captive of the ad, e.g.
television—, then it is likely that the consumer will try to avoid the medium
altogether (Ha and McCann 2008a,b).
Independently of the perspective of analysis, the effect of advertising clutter on
users of a medium varies according to the perception of each individual. It is this
individual perception that determines the non-desired impact of the clutter on the
processing of the message (e.g. negative attitudes towards the ad). In the end,
advertising clutter (and intrusiveness, its main dimension) is considered key to the
evaluation of advertising effectiveness. It is crucial to bear this in mind when
designing communication campaigns, assessing the level of ad clutter of each
medium and the non-desirable effects that it can have on the campaign’s efficacy
(Hammer et al. 2009). This will provide information that is useful for ascertaining
which media are the most suitable for launching advertising campaigns.
3 Perceived Intrusiveness in Online Advertising
3.1 Conceptual Introduction
Intrusiveness is considered one of the most important dimensions of the perception
of a medium’s advertising clutter (Edwards et al. 2002;Ha1996; Nelson and
Teeter 2001; Sipior and Ward 1995), a key factor in explaining the consumer’s
behavioral response of advertising avoidance. It is defined as ‘‘the degree to which
advertisements in a media vehicle interrupt the flow of an editorial unit’’ (Li et al.
2002; p. 39); i.e., when a user is taken away from their reason for navigating the
Internet or from their reason for visiting a specific website by being cutoff by an
advertising message. Also, the perception of intrusiveness can be heightened when
an individual has little time to accomplish a task in a medium. Therefore, the users
of a medium will have to evade advertisements when they are perceived as
intrusive. In summation, the perception of intrusion is the materialization of a
Online Advertising Intrusiveness and Consumers’ Avoidance Behaviors 569
mechanism by which the ad causes annoyance and triggers emotional reactions in
the user, possibly driving the user to advertising evasion (Edwards et al. 2002). In
other words, perceived intrusion is a measure of how distracting an ad is and of the
consequent wandering of attention from the user’s task (McCoy et al. 2008).
An analysis of the literature allows perceived intrusion to be approached from
diverse perspectives that we detail next.
Interference with private life. In relation to the consumer’s privacy, intrusion
could be defined as an invasion into an individual’s solitude, including intrusion
into private subjects (Nelson and Teeter 2001; Sipior and Ward 1995). From this
perspective, the perceived intrusion of the ad could be defined as the degree to
which the non-desired marketing interferes with an individual’s cognitive process
and task completion; also the degree of interference with the content of the
medium being viewed. In this vein, authors such as Sheehan and Hoy (1999)
observed that consumers do not consider ads intrusive if they have previously
contacted the advertiser responsible for the ad. The non-desired ads, those that
appear without the user’s permission, could be considered an encroachment on the
user’s privacy. One of the main conclusions is that consumers tend to consider ads
intrusive if they are not familiar with the advertisers or if they are not expecting to
receive ads (see Milne et al. 2004).
The following approach is related to cognitive process and task performance.
The most relevant studies of the term intrusion make use of it (e.g., Ha 1996;Li
et al. 2002). It has been found that the intrusion of an ad during cognitive pro-
cessing could cause the user to perceive the ads as harmful. In general, the
experimental research into this issue has tried to identify the determining factors of
the consumers’ response when faced with an interruption of their specific tasks. In
this case of disturbances on the Internet, a rise of intrusive feeling can drive the
user to complete evasion of the advertising format in order to finish their planned
tasks (Mormoto and Chang 2009). Therefore, it is essential to evaluate what
situations or circumstances lead to online advertising being perceived as inter-
ruptive to the users’ navigation experience. It has been concluded that the per-
ception of task interruption depends on the type of navigation being done (goal-
directed versus exploratory) as well as on other factors such as (Edwards et al.
2002; Moe 2006): the characteristics of the advertising format, the moment of
interruption, the factor that causes the interruption, and the context and cognitive
intensity with which the user is performing his/her task.
The third perspective from which advertising intrusion has been studied is
related with the content of the communication media (Ha 1996). From this per-
spective, the perception of an ad’s intrusion is tied to the user’s motive for
accessing the medium’s content. In other words, in order to observe the level of
annoyance that the advertising message arouses in an individual, it is necessary to
also understand the motivations or objectives that have brought the user to access
the medium that is broadcasting the ad. From these possible motivations and
objectives Ha and McCann (2008a,b) highlight the following: information,
entertainment, purchasing and exploration. Therefore, if these objectives,
depending on which explains the purpose of the user’s navigation on a case-by-
570 F. Rejón-Guardia and F. J. Martínez-López
case basis, are perceived as being interrupted by ads, the perception of intrusion
will be present.
3.2 Perceived Intrusiveness and Online Advertising Formats
Currently, the common individual frequents different communication media. Each
individual is subjected to advertising messages, presented through various media
formats. On the Internet, ads can be considered even more annoying that in tradi-
tional media; this is the case, for instance, of the massive and uninvited advertise-
ments delivered through spam. In Table 1, a concise review of the most relevant
studies on the subject of the consumer’s perceived intrusiveness is shown; moreover,
details are provided about diverse advertising formats that have been analyzed.
Until now, most of the research that studies how interruption of the user’s tasks
or objectives affects their attitudes of advertisement processing has based its
analysis in experimental methodologies. Generally, this research tries to identify
the factors that determine the consumers’ response when their tasks are inter-
rupted. In this vein, some studies have identified which characteristics of a stim-
ulus result in interruption of the task at hand. Since users normally have a specific
task when viewing a website’s editorial content (written), the interruption caused
by the online ad can be seen as even more intrusive than in other conventional
communication media (Li et al. 2002). As a result of the interruption, users can
show negative feelings towards the ad in general or might perceive the advertised
brands in a negative light. They will consequently develop unfavorable attitudes
towards purchasing the advertised brands (Batra and Ray 1986; MacKenzie et al.
1986). Furthermore, these negative attitudes can drive the user towards complete
evasion of the advertising format in order to finish their planned tasks (Mormoto
and Chang 2009). Hence, as previously said, it is necessary to know what causes
the ad to be perceived as disruptive to the user’s experience. To do this evaluation,
issues such as the user’s type of task or navigation style should be considered.
As can be observed in Table 1, the study of ad intrusiveness has frequently
focused on several ad formats, a priori considered intrusive, such as pop-ups,
interstitials and spam (Edwards et al. 2002; Fuxi et al. 2009; Li et al. 2002; McCoy
et al. 2008; Morimoto and Macias 2009; Truong and Simmons 2010; Ying et al.
2009). Different advertising formats have been observed providing differing levels
of perceived intrusion. Some formats have the capacity to mix their content with
that of the websites that house them; other, like interstitials, are designed to
forcefully interrupt the user’s flow thereby capturing their attention (McCoy et al.
2007, 2008; McCoy and Fernández Robin 2011).
The interest in evaluating distinct advertising formats stems from the desire to
understand which format arouses only a minor perception of intrusion in the
consumer, thereby not hindering the goals of the ad. McCoy et al. (2008) distin-
guish between ads that do and do not obscure the website content. They noted that
banner ads, in their different variations, do not hide website content, or in other
Online Advertising Intrusiveness and Consumers’ Avoidance Behaviors 571
Table 1 Studies on the users’ perceived intrusiveness in online advertising
Studies
(chronological
order)
Analyzed ad format Related variables Research aims and main findings
Li et al. (2002)•Pop-up interstitial
•Television Commercials
•Magazine Ads
Consequences: Irritation
•Cognitive evasión
•Behavioral evasion
•A measurement scale for perceived intrusiveness (8 items)
is validated.
Edwards et al.
(2002)•Pop-up interstitial
•Different exposure times: ten
and twenty seconds
Antecedents
•Cognitive intensity
•Editorial-ad congruence
•Duration of interruption
•Ad entertainment
•Ad informativeness
Consequences
•Ad irritation
•Ad avoidance
•Evaluation of cognitive intensity in relation to the degree of
perception of intrusion.
•A direct correlation is observed between the degree of
cognitive intensity applied to the user’s task-at-hand and
the perceived intrusion. The greater the cognitive intensity
is, the greater the perceived intrusion experienced will be.
•Feelings of irritation and ad avoidance are consequences of
perceived intrusiveness.
•When ads are perceived as informative, the viewers’
perception of ad intrusiveness is lower. So, the more value
(information or entertainment) viewers perceive in an ad,
the less intrusive it is perceived
Morimoto and
Chang
(2006)
•Commercial E-mail and direct
postal mail
Independent variables
•Intrusiveness
Dependent variables
•Ad Irritation
•Attitude towards Spam
•Ad Skepticism
•Ad Avoidance
•Unsolicited commercial emails are more irritating than
direct postal mail.
•The theory of reactance in the context of email and postal
mail with commercial ends is not completely supported.
This explains why reestablishing control is not one of the
habitual behaviors observed in the recipients of these
advertising formats.
•The more intrusive an e-mail is perceived as by an
individual, the stronger his/her reactance against it will be.
Consequently, the worse his/her attitude towards it is, the
stronger his/her avoidance response will be.
(continued)
572 F. Rejón-Guardia and F. J. Martínez-López
Table 1 (continued)
Studies
(chronological
order)
Analyzed ad format Related variables Research aims and main findings
McCoy et al.
(2008)•Pop-up interstitial
•Online formats
Manipulated variables
•User’s control to close ad
•Obscuring of site content
Consequences
•Irritation
•Attitude towards website
•Behavioral Intention
•Advertisement content recognition
•Perceived control over closing the ad as well as obstruction
of the ad influence recognition of the ad; this influence is
direct and positive in the case of control and negative in
the case of obstruction.
•Intrusion is considered an antecedent of irritation. In turn,
irritation is a direct antecedent of attitude towards the
website and an indirect antecedent of the user’s behavioral
intentions (revisiting or recommending the website to
others).
•If ads are included that obscure site content, it is important
to provide the user with the control to remove them.
Fuxi et al.
(2009)•Different types of ad formats
from 500 distinct webpages
Manipulated Variables
•Size and shape
•Web advertising characteristics
•Format
•Modeling perceived intrusiveness using artificial neural
networks.
•Perceived ad intrusiveness is influenced by several factors.
Features of the ad and the hosting website (e.g. semantic
and color differences) are also analyzed.
•A three layer neural network is proposed. The model has
high accuracy, based on the simulation results.
Morimoto and
Macias
(2009)
•Direct marketing using
unsolicited commercial e-
mails
Independent variables
•Intrusion
Dependent variables
•Attitude toward the brand
•Advertising evasion
•Attitudes toward advertising medium
•The greater the perceived intrusiveness of an unsolicited
commercial email is, the more the consumers’ reactance
will be. Such reactance causes ad avoidance and negative
attitudes.
(continued)
Online Advertising Intrusiveness and Consumers’ Avoidance Behaviors 573
Table 1 (continued)
Studies
(chronological
order)
Analyzed ad format Related variables Research aims and main findings
Ying et al.
(2009)•Interstitials (pop-up and pop-
under)
Manipulated variables
•Content congruence
•Appearance rate
•Frequency
•Quantity
•Content page integrity
•Sound effect
•Size
•Animation effect
•Perceived intrusiveness of ads can be controlled through
manipulation of certain aspects of the ad such as: its value
to the user, placement and quality of execution.
•When an ad provides value, in other words, when it is
considered informative or entertaining, it is perceived as
less intrusive.
•It is equally as positive for the advertisers as for the
consumers that pop-ups are related to the website’s
content.
•If the frequency and quantity of ads is carefully controlled,
they will be perceived as less intrusive.
•The congruence between a website’s content and the ad
content were not significant in this study. In other words,
advertising creativity does not have to match the website’s
content for it to be effectively perceived or remembered by
the user.
•The execution of the ad, in other words, the perception of it
being well or poorly done, shows no effect in this study.
The same is true for the ad’s sound. Nevertheless, the ad’s
size does influence the perception of the message.
•There is a direct and proportional correlation between how
intrusive an interstitial is perceived to be and it’s duration.
The longer the ad is, the more intrusive it is considered.
Truong and
Simmons
(2010)
•Digital advertising in mobile
environments
Qualitative analysis of 20 individuals on
the perceived intrusiveness of
advertising in mobile media.
•The exploratory analysis shows that banner, pop-up, spam
and disingenuous email are the advertising formats most
negatively viewed by the audience.
(continued)
574 F. Rejón-Guardia and F. J. Martínez-López
Table 1 (continued)
Studies
(chronological
order)
Analyzed ad format Related variables Research aims and main findings
Goldfarb and
Tucker
(2011)
•Highly visible advertising and
context-based advertising
(e.g., Google Ad sense)
Manipulated variables
•The ad’s content (oriented or non-
oriented
•Visibility (high vs. low)
Independent variables
•Gender
•Hours spent on the Internet
•Age
•Income
Dependent variables
•Purchasing intention
•Ads that appear frequently (highly visible) are considered
annoying. Both highly visible and context-based ads work
better when used separately.
•The fact that context-based ads and high visibility ads (e.g.
display ads) are best used separately is even truer for
individuals who want a high level of privacy on the
Internet.
•Context-based ads are more tolerated as they are more likely
to offer better information.
McCoy et al.,
(2012)•Causal model of online
advertising intrusiveness and
irritation
Manipulated variables
•Attitude towards the ad
•Repeated exposure of the ad
Dependent variables
•Ad Irritation
•Ad intrusiveness
•Intention to revisit the website
•Intention to recommend the website to
others.
•Performance level in successfully
completing several tasks on the
website.
•A model is proposed to ultimately predict, on the one hand,
the users’ intentions to return to the website and
recommend the site to others, and, on the other, his/her
performance in successfully completing information
retrieval tasks on a website. These variables’ direct
antecedents are ad irritation and ad intrusiveness.
•The proposed model is capable of explaining up to 50% of
the irritation produced by the message.
•Six of the eleven hypotheses that compose the model are
supported. So, the proposed model is only partially
supported.
(continued)
Online Advertising Intrusiveness and Consumers’ Avoidance Behaviors 575
Table 1 (continued)
Studies
(chronological
order)
Analyzed ad format Related variables Research aims and main findings
Varnali et al.,
(2012)•SMS-based mobile advertising
campaigns
Manipulated variables
•Message Characteristics (prior
permission, incentive).
•Individual Differences (content
involvement, prior experience,
perceived medium-fit)
Dependent variables
•Perceived intrusiveness
•Attitude towards the campaign
•Both the existence of an incentive and prior permission
positively influence campaign outcomes.
•Perceived medium-fit components (e.g., perceived brand-
medium fit) and content involvement are strong predictors
of consumers’ perceived intrusiveness of an SMS-based
advertising message.
•There is no relationship between consumer’s campaign
attitude and their perceptions regarding brand-medium fit,
which is mostly influenced by content involvement.
•Prior experience with the mobile medium has no
relationship with the attitudinal reactions towards the
campaign.
•Perceived brand-medium fit is the strongest predictor of the
affective response caused by an advertising message.
576 F. Rejón-Guardia and F. J. Martínez-López
words, they do not block it from view; other online ad formats like pop-up ads,
however, do appear in the user’s screen, obscuring website content. In their study,
they found that the level of perceived intrusion could predict attitudes towards the
website and behaviors like intention to return to the page. It is also seen that the
perception of intrusion is directly related to ad recognition. This distinction
between ads that do and do not obscure the website content allowed authors to
verify that pop-ups that block content produce higher rates of perceived intrusion
than conventional pop-ups, resulting in their being more irritating for users. Recent
studies explore the premise that ads are more intrusive when they have such
characteristics as (Smith 2011): being poorly executed, being too long or large or
being located in a medium that users already perceive as having too many ads,
being overrun by pop-ups (clutter overload) or having an advertising style
inconsistent with the containing website, among others.
With regards to an advertising message’s characteristics or content, it would be
reasonable to think that they influence the effectiveness of the ad and the user’s
response. Ducoffe (1996) points out that a message’s characteristics have to pro-
vide some important value to the consumer. Thus, the informational value meets
the consumers’ need for utilitarian value and cognitive value, while the enter-
taining information covers the hedonistic and emotional value of the message
(Brown and Stayman 1992; Edwards et al. 2002). Information or entertaining ads
are perceived as less intrusive, as the informational characteristic shows a large
effect on the concept of intrusion. This explains why individuals looking for an ad
to be informative are more oriented towards the completion of a task (Ducoffe
1996; Xu et al. 2008). In the same vein, Smith (2011) concludes that ads that put
forth content not related to information sought by the user are perceived as more
intrusive.
The ad’s location and frequency of exposure also affect the perception of
intrusion, since users want their experience to conform to their expectations of the
site being navigated. Thus, when the users feel that they are too frequently sub-
jected to ads, they tend to view the ads as thwarting their navigation. This, as well
as having too many ads in too small a space, can lead to feelings of irritation
(Morimoto and Macias 2009).
3.3 Perceived Intrusiveness and Negative Attitudes
The perception of and attitudes towards a brand can be damaged by the perceived
intrusiveness of ads (MacKenzie and Lutz 1989). Together with the perceptions
about the ad’s content, attitude towards advertising is used to evaluate the effects
of an ad; consumer’s attitude towards advertising can also moderate the response
to a specific message (MacKenzie and Lutz 1989) and can differ between media
(Elliott and Speck 1998). It is understood as the learned predisposition to respond
favorable or unfavorably to an ad (Pollay and Mittal 1993). Morimoto and Macias
(2009) point out that perceived intrusion directly influences behaviors towards an
Online Advertising Intrusiveness and Consumers’ Avoidance Behaviors 577
ad. Furthermore, responses to advertising stimuli are also moderated by the
individual’s affective responses towards the ad. The relevancy or interest of an ad
to the individual can also moderate the level of perceived intrusiveness. Thus, if an
ad is relevant or of interest to a user, the perception of intrusion will be lesser
(Wehmeyer 2007).
The consumer’s attitude towards where the ad is shown is also going to play a
part in their response to the ad. According to Cotte et al. (2006), Internet-based
environments, whether they have advertisements or editorial content, also have a
hedonistic value for the navigators. It is therefore recommendable that the
advertising content within be coherent with this value. As previously stated, if the
ad is in line with the values the consumer is looking for, the ad ceases to be seen as
intrusive and does not generate negative responses (Edwards et al. 2002).
Another negative emotional reaction related to the individual’s perception of
intrusiveness of online advertising is irritation. For example, it can be irritating if a
user has to close an ad in order to continue viewing the content of the website
hosting the ad. This irritation can emerge if the consumer is unable to close an ad
and is, therefore, obligated to view the ad (e.g. video, animation) or simply wait for
the ad to disappear. On the other hand, in the time it takes to close an ad the user
stops paying attention to the website and starts focusing on the advertising stim-
ulus. This proves inconvenient for the user, as it requires a greater cognitive effort
(Edwards et al. 2002).
There seems to be a correlation between the perception of an ad as irritating and
its perception as intrusive. The aspects of an ad that can cause irritation have been
studied although the psychological mechanisms that can elicit these feelings have
not been reviewed in great detail. According to Aaker and Bruzzone (1985),
irritation corresponds with the sensation of displeasure that consumers experience
when faced with diverse forms of advertising stimuli. It is important to note that
irritation has nothing to do with the value of an ad in and of itself, but rather with
the negative emotional reaction the consumers have towards the ad. Said negative
reaction is what causes users to perceive the ad as intrusive (Edwards et al. 2002;
Wehmeyer 2007). Various factors have been identified in the literature as plausible
causes of irritation to the consumer such as: the type of product advertised, the
intrusion of the ad and the loss of control perceived by the user (Aaker and
Bruzzone 1985; Edwards et al. 2002;Ha1996; Li et al. 2002; Stayman and Aaker
1988), the ad being directed at the wrong audience, manipulative messages, delays
caused by ads being place in inappropriate spaces, excessive repetition during a
short period of time and forced exposure to the ad (Rotzoll et al. 1996; Li et al.
2002).
For a user to sense that an ad is intrusive, he or she must see the ad as
interrupting his or her experience or navigation in the medium, i.e., a certain
website. Interruption can generate negative attitudes, results of the ensuing psy-
chological reactance. This tends to make the user try to reestablish control over
navigation, avoiding the ad and reducing the possibilities of processing the mes-
sage (Edward et al. 2002). Thus, based on the psychological reactance theory
(Brehm and Brehm 1981), it can be argued that users will try to reestablish their
578 F. Rejón-Guardia and F. J. Martínez-López
independence when they notice that an ad is disrupting their freedom to navigate a
website; their defensive behaviors will lead them to avoid or close the ad that
incites this conflict. Similarly, when a message stays on the screen for some time,
the navigator becomes a captive of the ad. This can bring the user to abandon their
initial navigation purpose or even to engage in avoidance behavior such as leaving
the website. In this scenario, if an ad does not offer ways for the user to eliminate
or close it, it interrupts the user’s purpose of navigation; on the other hand, if it can
be closed, the perceived interruption will be minor. The possibility to close an ad is
an example of what some authors call ‘‘control over an ad’’ (McCoy et al. 2008).
Therefore, the lack of perceived control over online advertising is related to not
being able to close the intrusively perceived ad. Nevertheless, if an advertising
message obstructs but does not fully block the website’s content, closing the ad
will not be necessary and the message will only be considered an interruption
(Goldfarb and Tucker 2011). Some authors like McCoy et al. (2008) point out that
consumers might even consider the mechanisms for controlling or closing an ad as
intrusive. The goal is that users will have to voluntarily act to close the ad, when
what they really want is not to have advertisements.
4 Advertising Avoidance
4.1 Brief Overview
Various negative perceptions sometimes aroused in consumers by advertising have
previously been noted. These perceptions influence the formation of attitudes
towards the ad and brand, although, fundamentally, they are the trigger that
unleashes the user’s mechanisms for advertising avoidance. Next, the general
concept of advertising avoidance in online environments is introduced and
analyzed.
From a psychological point of view, behavior and intention are influenced by
attitudes (Eagly and Chaiken 1993). Similarly, the behaviors resulting from the
processing of the advertising message are preceded by cognitive and emotional
evaluations (Vakratsas and Ambler 1999). If cognitive and affective responses are
negative, it is logical to expect a negative behavioral response as well. The kind of
negative response we focus on here is known as advertising avoidance. Speck and
Elliott (1997) define it as the users of a medium’s reaction to reduce exposure time
to the advertised content. This phenomenon has been widely studied by diverse
authors in relation to various media. For instance, evasive behavior towards TV
advertisement goes by many names such as: zipping, zapping, flipping, flicking
and grazing (Abernethy 1991; Bellamy and Walker 1996; Cronin and Menelly
1992; Zufryden et al. 1993).
The consumer’s evasion of ads can be examined from the following perspec-
tives or dimensions (Duff and Faber 2008): cognitive, in which the user decides to
Online Advertising Intrusiveness and Consumers’ Avoidance Behaviors 579
ignore the ad that is being presented; affective, in which the user develops negative
emotions towards the ad, making its processing more difficult; and behavioral, in
which the evasion materializes in behaviors like changing the channel, leaving the
room or closing the ad (Heeter and Greenberg 1985; Speck and Elliott 1997).
With respect to the main precursors of evasion, the perception of advertising
clutter is believed to drive cognitive and physical evasion of the ad (Burke and
Srull 1988). Cronin and Menelly (1992) point out some evidence suggesting that
advertisement evasion occurs as a result of attitudes towards advertising in gen-
eral. In other words, since the consumers who avoid ads do not solely do it because
of the ads’ content, but rather because they perceive ads as intrusive, they tend to
avoid all types of advertising messages. Thus, advertising avoidance happens
when consumers perceive ads as intrusive (Cronin and Menelly 1992). Specifi-
cally, when consumers get the sense that an ad is hindering them from achieving
their goals or tasks in the medium where the ad appears, they consider the ad to be
an obstacle; this is a significant predictor of advertising evasion in any type of
medium (Speck and Elliott 1997).
4.2 Online Advertising Avoidance
On the Internet, advertising avoidance occurs in a different way than it does in
other traditional media, for various reasons. Internet use is characterized by the
possibility of doing tasks quickly, thanks to the speed of access to data. Internet
users have the capacity to interact and control what they are viewing. Thus, the
negative attitude that consumers have towards Internet ads resides, fundamentally,
in the perception held about online advertising. In general, it is believed that online
advertising decreases the rate of access to data, delaying the completion of tasks.
Interruption of the navigation activity could give rise to a negative response
towards the ad, in the form of avoidance (Edward et al. 2002). Hence, perceived
intrusion is considered a precursor both directly and negatively related with online
advertising avoidance (Morimoto and Macias 2009).
Cho and Cheon (2004) performed various experiments to arrive at a detailed
explanation as to why people avoid online advertisement. They calculated the roles
of three variables that are very important at the moment of eluding this type of
advertising format: the users’ belief that online advertising is an impediment to
achieving navigation goals; their perception that the quantity of ads on the Internet
is overwhelming; and their previous negative experiences. They also analyzed the
affective, cognitive and behavioral factors that cause users to avoid online ads.
They concluded that one of the main causes of advertising avoidance comes from a
user’s belief that the Internet is more a tool for completing tasks than it is a
medium for entertainment. This makes users avoid ads more willfully, especially
when they have a time limit to complete their task.
Analysis of advertising avoidance across diverse advertising formats on the
Internet has been done with an emphasis on the banner format. It has been noted
580 F. Rejón-Guardia and F. J. Martínez-López
that cognitive avoidance is produced unconsciously when consumers avoid
focusing the ad in their visual field. Benway (1998,1999) calls this phenomenon
banner blindness; this author suggests that consumers’ vision unconsciously adapts
to avoid online ads. Thus, cognitive avoidance is considered an automatic process;
this includes visual stimuli incorporated in the ad and does not require a conscious
behavioral decision or action by the consumer. Some authors propose that the
cognitive dimension is the most important dimension of the online advertising
avoidance phenomenon (see Li and Meeds 2007). On the other hand, behavioral or
mechanical avoidance comes from the consumer’s conscious decision to, for
example, avoid the ad, close the ad or leave the website (Cho and Cheon 2004;
Chatterjee 2007; Duff and Faber 2008).
5 Concluding Remarks
Analysis of the literature reveals that an advertisement’s efficacy can be reduced
by the presence of certain perceptions, attitudes and behaviors on the part of the
consumers. This loss of efficacy has been studied in relation to both conventional
mass media and the Internet. Awareness of the deciding factors of advertising
effectiveness, and how to manage them, is of growing importance because of
companies’ large investment in online advertising in recent years.
Advertising clutter is a unique phenomenon that strongly impacts the effec-
tiveness of companies’ online advertising campaigns. It is measured by the degree
of advertising pressure put on consumers in a particular medium. Considering the
diverse compounding dimensions of advertising clutter, the dimension intrusive-
ness stands out; i.e., the perception that the ad is invading a space where it does not
belong, which causes irritation in the consumer. It is this irritation along with the
perceived loss of control the consumer experiences over which of the medium’s
content they are viewing that can drive them to advertising avoidance.
The most recent studies that have analyzed perceived intrusiveness within the
context of websites have found various circumstances under which it is much more
likely that an ad will be perceived as intrusive; e.g., poor execution of the ads,
presence of too many ads in general, or pop-ups in particular (see Smith 2011).
Advertising avoidance is one of the most significant defense mechanisms used to
cope with the disturbing perception of clutter in a specific website. This phe-
nomenon is studied through three perspectives or dimensions (cognitive, affective
and behavioral), although cognitive avoidance stands out in Web-based environ-
ments. We must be aware of the fact that there exist ad formats in conventional
websites that can be blocked automatically by the Internet browser, without the
consumer realizing it, thanks to pop-up killers or banner killers, among others.
Under these circumstances, advertising avoidance by the consumers does not take
place. However, the proliferation and consumption of multimedia content (e.g.,
video, audio) complicate the automatic elimination of ads in certain circumstances;
in these cases, advertising avoidance’s behavioral dimension plays a bigger role
Online Advertising Intrusiveness and Consumers’ Avoidance Behaviors 581
than the cognitive and affective avoidance responses. If the consumer perceives an
ad as intrusive but does not have means to close it, he or she will experience a
perceived loss of control over the website being viewed, which will in turn lead to
negative reactance (e.g., negative attitudes towards the website, message or brand).
Finally, this will result in the ad losing efficacy and decreased intention on the
consumer’s part to purchase the advertised products.
In summation, the literature suggests that the information offered by the ad must
be in line with the users reasons for using the medium. The uses and gratification
theory proposes online advertising is more likely to be accepted when it is useful
for the Internet user. Being useful reduces the probability that any kind of
advertising avoidance will occur and produces desired effects on memory, attitudes
and purchasing behavior. The case of entertaining and informative ads is espe-
cially relevant as it can also moderate the appearance of negative reactions towards
the ad.
To avoid online users employing avoidance mechanisms, ads should not
compromise consumers’ navigational freedom or impede their tasks (Edward et al.
2002). If a loss of control is perceived, based on the psychological reactance theory
(Brehm and Brehm 1981), the consumer will try to reestablish independence or
control over the situation by means of advertising avoidance. This type of
defensive response is not good for the advertised brands and the ad, ultimately,
damages the advertising campaign.
6 Practical Implications and Research Opportunities
In concurrence with the theoretical advertising issues presented and discussed
throughout the article, some useful recommendations for practitioners are briefly
noted here:
•Use of relevant campaigns based in the tastes and preferences of the users.
Having campaigns based in content marketing significantly increases engage-
ment and involvement with the brand and with the ad. This engagement leads to
better processing of the advertisements, which will positively affect memory and
recognition. Consequently, users’ attitudes will improve, reducing ad irritation
and avoidance.
•Use of contextual ads or ads based in the user’s behavior. Nowadays, thanks to
the information about users’ navigational habits, it is advantageous to take into
account the interests and tastes of the users in order to offer them more relevant
messages, thereby decreasing advertising avoidance.
•Correctly executed, entertaining ads. Having correctly executed, entertaining
ads can be a decisive factor in terms of the ad’s efficacy, causing better
advertising memory.
•Avoiding intrusive advertising formats. Developing new, non-intrusive formats
will prove to be crucial for gaining the consumers’ acceptance. In this sense, the
582 F. Rejón-Guardia and F. J. Martínez-López
Internet advertising’s white papers offered by various organizations (Interactive
Advertising Bureau, Nielsen Company, etc.) provide companies with useful
information on how to avoid bothering users with their ads, as is often the case
with pop-ups, pop-unders, etc.
•Incorporation of mechanisms to close the ad. For the ad to be considered less
intrusive, it is necessary that users can freely close the ad. Hence, buttons that
allow the window to be closed should be included. Specifically, in the case of
video and audio based ads, the potential for perceived intrusiveness should be
reduced by only obligating the consumer to watch or hear a brief fragment of the
ad, then giving them the option to close the ad. This is enough time to inform the
consumer about the ad’s content without bothering them by making them view
the entire ad if it is not of interest. If this tactic is followed, the user could
resume their navigational objectives with only a minor interruption.
Finally, with regards to future research opportunities, it would be helpful to
know which advertising formats generate lower perceptions of advertising clutter;
this information should be pursued through experimental research. It would also be
interesting to evaluate the effect of the ad formats that can be consciously and
voluntarily avoided by the user. Additionally, studying the motivations for use of
specific websites (e.g., companies’ websites, retailers’ websites, social networks,
video-sharing websites, etc.) will help increase the understanding of which formats
are most appropriate in each specific case.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the Research Project ECO2012-31712
under Subprogram for Non-Oriented Fundamental Research Projects, Ministry of Economy and
Competitiveness, Spain for their financial support.
References
Aaker, D. A., & Bruzzone, D. E. (1985). Causes of irritation in advertising. Journal of Marketing,
49(2), 47–55.
Abernethy, A. M. (1991). Physical and mechanical avoidance ot television commercials: an
exploratory study of zipping, zapping and leaving.Proceedings presented at the proceedings
of the American academy of advertising.
Batra, R., & Ray, M. L. (1986). Affective responses mediating acceptance of advertising. Journal
of Consumer Research, 13(2), 234–249.
Bellamy, R. V., Walker, J. R. (1996). Television and the remote control: Grazing on a vast
wasteland. NY: The Guilford Press.
Benway, J. P. (1998). Banner blindness: The irony of attention grabbing on the world wide web.
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 42(5), 463–467.
Benway, J. P. (1999). Banner blindness: What searching users notice and do not notice on the
World Wide Web. Ph.D. Thesis, Rice University, Texas, USA.
Bhattacharjee, A. (2010). Constraints and consequences: Psychological reactance in consumption
contexts. Advances in Consumer Research—North American Conference Proceedings, 37,
53–56.
Bonds-Raacke, J., & Raacke, J. (2010). MySpace and Facebook: Identifying dimensions of uses
and gratifications for friend networking sites. Individual Differences Research, 8(1), 27–33.
Online Advertising Intrusiveness and Consumers’ Avoidance Behaviors 583
Brehm, S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control.
NY: Academic Press.
Brown, S. P., & Stayman, D. M. (1992). Antecedents and consequences of attitude toward the ad:
A meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(1), 34–51.
Brown, T. J., Rothschild, M. L. (1993). Reassessing the impact of television advertising clutter.
Journal of Consumer Research, 138–146.
Burke, R. R., & Srull, T. K. (1988). Competitive interference and consumer memory for
advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(1), 55–68.
Chatterjee, P. (2007). Forced vs. voluntary exposure web ads: Immediate and long-term impact of
ad avoidance on communication outcomes. Advances in Consumer Research,34, 304.
Cho, C.-H., & Cheon, H. J. (2004). Why do people avoid advertising on the internet? Journal of
Advertising, 33(4), 89–97.
Cotte, J., Chowdhury, T. G., Ratneshwar, S., & Ricci, L. M. (2006). Pleasure or utility? Time
planning style and web usage behaviors. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 20(1), 45–57.
Cronin, J. J., & Menelly, N. E. (1992). Discrimination vs. Avoidance: ‘‘Zipping’’ of television
commercials. Journal of Advertising, 21(2), 1–7.
Ducoffe, R. H. (1996). Advertising value and advertising on the web. Journal of Advertising
Research, 36(5), 21–35.
Duff, B. R. L., Faber, R. J. (2008). Ignored ads =liked brands? Advertising avoidance and the
affective devaluation of brands. American Academy of Advertising Conference Proceedings,
261.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Orlando: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich College Publishers.
Edwards, S. M., Li, H., & Lee, J.-H. (2002). Forced exposure and psychological reactance:
Antecedents and consequences of the perceived intrusiveness of pop-up ads. Journal of
Advertising, 31(3), 83–95.
Elliott, M. T., & Speck, P. S. (1998). Consumer perceptions of advertising clutter and its impact
across various media. Journal of Advertising Research, 38(1), 29–41.
Fuxi, Z., Changsheng, G., & Zhiyi, Y. (2009). Research on intrusiveness model of online
advertising based on neural network. Asia-Pacific Conference on Computational Intelligence
and Industrial Applications, (PACIIA 2009), 2, 100–103.
Goldfarb, A., & Tucker, C. (2011). Online display advertising: Targeting and obtrusiveness.
Marketing Science, 30(3), 389–404.
Ha, L., & Litman, B. R. (1997). Does advertising clutter have diminishing and negative returns?
Journal of Advertising, 26(1), 31–42.
Ha, L., & McCann, K. (2008a). An integrated model of advertising clutter in offline and online
media. International Journal of Advertising, 27(4), 569–592.
Ha, L. (1996). Observations: Advertising clutter in consumer magazines: Dimensions and effects.
Journal of Advertising Research, 36(4), 76–84.
Ha L. (2003). Crossing offline and online media: A comparison of online advertising on TV web
sites and online portals. Journal of Interactive Advertising,3(2). Available at: http://jiad.org/
article33.
Ha, L., & McCann, K. (2008b). An integrated model of advertising clutter in offline and online
media. International Journal of Advertising, 27(4), 569–592.
Hammer, P., Riebe, E., & Kennedy, R. (2009). How clutter affects advertising effectiveness.
Journal of Advertising Research, 49(2), 159–163.
Heeter, C., & Greenberg, B. S. (1985). Profiling the zappers. Journal of Advertising Research,
25(2), 215–219.
Hong, C. P. (2006). An experimental study of persuasion on the internet: A functional approach
to attitudes toward internet advertising. Ph.D. Thesis, Florida State University, USA.
Li, H., Edwards, S. M., & Joo-Hyun, L. (2002). Measuring the intrusiveness of advertisements:
Scale development and validation. Journal of Advertising, 31(2), 37–47.
584 F. Rejón-Guardia and F. J. Martínez-López
Li, C., & Meeds, R. (2007). Factors affecting information processing of Internet dvertisements: A
test on exposure condition, psychological reactance, and advertising frequency. American
Academy of Advertising Conference Proceedings, 93–101.
MacKenzie, S. B., Lutz, R. J., & Belch, G. E. (1986). The role of attitude toward the ad as a
mediator of advertising effectiveness: A test of competing explanations. Journal of Marketing
Research, 23(May), 130–143.
MacKenzie, S. B., & Lutz, R. J. (1989). Am empirical examination of the structural antecedents
of attitude toward the ad in an advertising pretesting context. Journal of Marketing, 53(2),
48–65.
Maclnnis, D. J., & Jaworski, B. J. (1989). Information processing from advertisements: Toward
an integrative framework. The Journal of Marketing, 53(4), 1–23.
McCoy, S., Everard, A., Galletta, D., Moody G. (2012). A rational choice theory approach
towards a causal model of online advertising intrusiveness and irritation. ECIS 2012
Proceedings.
McCoy, S., Everard, A., Polak, P., & Galletta, D. F. (2007). The effects of online advertising.
Communications of the ACM, 50(3), 84–88.
McCoy, S., Everard, A., Polak, P., & Galletta, D. F. (2008). An experimental study of antecedents
and consequences of online ad intrusiveness. International Journal of Human-Computer
Interaction, 24(7), 672–699.
McCoy, S., Fernández Robin, C., Cortés, J. L. (2011). Investigating online advertising in chile. In
J. A. Jacko (Ed.), Human-computer interaction. users and applications (pp. 255–256). LNCS
6764, Berlin: Springer.
Milne, G. R., Rohm, A. J., & Bahl, S. (2004). Consumers’ protection of online privacy and
identity. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 38(2), 217–232.
Moe, W. W. (2006). A field experiment to assess the interruption effect of pop-up promotions.
Journal of Interactive Marketing, 20(1), 34–44.
Morimoto, M., & Chang, S. (2006). Consumers’ attitudes toward unsolicited commercial e-mail
and postal direct mail marketing methods: intrusiveness, perceived loss of control, and
irritation. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 7(1), 1–11.
Morimoto, M., & Chang, S. (2009). Psychological factors affecting perceptions of unsolicited
commercial e-mail. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 31(1), 63–73.
Morimoto, M., & Macias, W. (2009). A conceptual framework for unsolicited commercial e-
mail: Perceived intrusiveness and privacy concerns. Journal of Internet Commerce, 8(3–4),
137–160.
Nelson, H. L., & Teeter, D. L. (2001). Law of mass communications: Freedom and control of
print and broadcast media (10th ed.). NY: Foundation Press.
Nielsen. (2012). Nielsen global adview Q3. Nielsen Company. Available at: http://
www.nielsen.com.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion–classic and contemporary
approaches. Dubuque: W.C. Brown Co. Publishers.
Pollay, R. W., & Mittal, B. (1993). Here’s the beef: Factors, determinants, and segments in
consumer criticism of advertising. Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 99–114.
Ray, M. L., & Webb, P. H. (1986). Three prescriptions for clutter. Journal of Advertising
Research, 26(1), 69–77.
Riebe, E., & Dawes, J. (2006). Recall of radio advertising in low and high advertising clutter
formats. International Journal of Advertising, 25(1), 71–86.
Rotzoll, K. B., Haefner, J. E., & Hall, S. R. (1996). Advertising in contemporary society:
Perspectives toward understanding. Urbana and Chicago: Univ of Illinois Press.
Roy, S. K. (2009). Internet uses and gratifications: A survey in the Indian context. Computers in
Human Behavior, 25(4), 878–886.
Rubin, A. M. (1983). Television uses and gratifications: The interactions of viewing patterns and
motivations. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 27(1), 37–51.
Ruggiero, T. E. (2000). Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass Communication
and Society, 3(1), 3–37.
Online Advertising Intrusiveness and Consumers’ Avoidance Behaviors 585
Schneider, W., Dumais, S. T., Shiffrin, R. M. (1982). Automatic/control processing and attention.
Technical report, Illinois University Champaign, Human Attention Research Lab.
Sheehan, K. B., & Hoy, M. G. (1999). Flaming, complaining, abstaining: How online users
respond to privacy concerns. Journal of Advertising, 28(3), 37–51.
Sipior, J. C., & Ward, B. T. (1995). The ethical and legal quandary of email privacy.
Communications of the ACM, 38(12), 48–54.
Smith, K. T. (2011). Digital marketing strategies that Millennials find appealing, motivating, or
just annoying. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 19(6), 489–499.
Smith, R. E., & Buchholz, L. M. (1991). Multiple resource theory and consumer processing of
broadcast advertisements: An involvement perspective. Journal of Advertising, 20(3), 1–7.
Speck, P. S., Elliott, M. T. (1997). Predictors of advertising avoidance in print and broadcast
media. Journal of Advertising,26(3), 61–76.
Stafford, T. F., Stafford, M. R., & Schkade, L. L. (2004). Determining uses and gratifications for
the internet. Decision Sciences, 35(2), 259–288.
Stayman, D. M., & Aaker, D. A. (1988). Are all the effects of ad-induced feelings mediated by
A
ad
?Journal of Consumer Research, 15(3), 368–373.
Truong, Y., & Simmons, G. (2010). Perceived intrusiveness in digital advertising: strategic
marketing implications. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 18(3), 239–256.
Vakratsas, D., & Ambler, T. (1999). How advertising works: What do we really know? Journal of
Marketing, 63(1), 26–43.
Varnali, K., Yilmaz, C., & Toker, A. (2012). Predictors of attitudinal and behavioral outcomes in
mobile advertising: A field experiment. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications,
11(6), 570–581.
Wehmeyer, K. (2007). Mobile ad intrusiveness–the effects of message type and situation.
Proceedings of the 20th bled eConference, June, 4–6.
Wickens, C. D. (1991). Processing resources and attention. In D. Damos (Ed.), Multiple-task
performance (pp. 3–34). Washington, DC: Taylor and Francis.
Xu, D. J., Liao, S. S., & Li, Q. (2008). Combining empirical experimentation and modeling
techniques: A design research approach for personalized mobile advertising applications.
Decision Support Systems, 44(3), 710–724.
Ying, L., Korneliussen, T., & Grønhaug, K. (2009). The effect of ad value, ad placement and ad
execution on the perceived intrusiveness of web advertisements. International Journal of
Advertising, 28(4), 623–638.
Zufryden, F. S., Pedrick, J. H., & Sankaralingam, A. (1993). Zapping and its impact on brand
purchase behavior. Journal of Advertising Research, 33(1), 58–66.
586 F. Rejón-Guardia and F. J. Martínez-López
