DOI: 10.2501/JAR-51-3-511-523 september 2011 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 511

InTRODUCTIOnAlthough the past decade has witnessed the

unprecedented growth of the internet as an online

tool for advertisers, the effectiveness of online

advertising is still in question (Patsioura, Vla-

chopoulou, and Manthou, 2009). Although some of

the effectiveness dilemma is due to issues regard-

ing advertising clutter, prominence, and notice-

ability of online advertising (Becker-Olsen, 2003;

Ha and McCann, 2008; Yaveroglu and Donthu,

2008), a less studied component deals with con-

sumer views of advertising and advertisers and

the potential for these views to influence behav-

ioral responses to advertising (Choi and Rifon,

2002; McDonald and Cranor, 2010; Treise, Weigold,

Conna, and Garrison, 1994).

Consumer views of advertising and advertiser

ethics are of particular concern in light of grow-

ing consumer angst regarding online privacy

surrounding information disclosure and behav-

ioral advertising (Antón, Earp, and Young, 2010;

McDonald and Cranor, 2010; Milne, Bahl, and

Rohm, 2008; Sprott, 2008). Indeed, if negative

consumer views of online advertisers continue

to persist, more comprehensive and restrictive

government regulation would seem to be immi-

nent (Federal Trade Commission [FTC], 2009;

Miyazaki, Stanaland, and Lwin, 2009; Murphy,

1998).

Some consumers perceive advertisers (and mar-

keters in general) to have questionable ethical stand-

ards (Beltramini, 2003; Treise et al., 1994; Tsalikis

and Fritzsche, 1989). These negative perceptions,

coupled with general consumer trust concerns with

the online marketplace (Corbitt, Thanasankit, and

Yi, 2003; Miyazaki and Fernandez, 2000, 2001), sug-

gest a need to investigate mechanisms by which

online advertisers can elevate consumer opinions

regarding advertiser ethicality and to understand

which consumer segments can benefit from such

interventions. This need follows a growing interest

in how advertising can counter negative attitudes

toward both general and specific advertising (e.g.,

Ashworth and Free, 2006; Dean, 2005).

In this study, the authors present an empirical

examination of a particular type of online seal of

approval—the privacy trustmark—with respect

to its ability to influence consumer evaluations of

advertiser ethics and consumer concerns regard-

ing information privacy. In an empirical study,

the authors also analyze the effectiveness of a pri-

vacy trustmark for consumer groups who differ in

terms of their desire for privacy and their a priori

attitudes toward advertising in general. Finally,

OnlinePrivacyTrustmarksEnhancingthePerceivedEthicsofDigitalAdvertising

AnDREAJ.S.STAnALAnDRadford universityajstanala@radford.edu

MAYO.LWInnanyang Technological

universitytmaylwin@ntu.edu.sg

AnTHOnYD.MIYAZAKIFlorida International

universitymiyazaki@fiu.edu

consumer views of advertiser ethics are of industry concern due to growing consumer

angst regarding data privacy and behavioral advertising. several privacy trustmarks have

been created to address consumer concerns, potentially acting as seals of approval

regarding privacy practices. The authors examine whether a privacy trustmark’s ability to

influence consumer perceptions of advertiser ethics and privacy concerns is moderated

by consumer desire for privacy and attitude toward advertising in general. using an online

advertising context, the results show that a privacy trustmark can enhance the perceived

ethics of an online advertiser for certain market segments but not for others.

512 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH september 2011

OnLInE PRIvAcy TRusTMARks

the authors discuss the relevance of the

results for online advertisers and public

policymakers.

TRUSTMARKS,PRIvACY,AnDADvERTISERETHICSOnline advertising continues to grow,

both as a percentage of total advertising

spending (Nielsen, 2009) and in absolute

numbers, with third-quarter 2010 Inter-

net advertising revenue reaching a record

$6.4 billion—a 17-percent increase over

third quarter 2009 and a 257-percent jump

over the same period in 2001 (IAB 2010).

Likewise, the online retail channel contin-

ues to grow despite the current recession

(Nielsen, 2009), with 2010 seeing almost

three times the number of consumers

shopping on a retailer Web site as com-

pared to 2008 (KPMG, 2010).

This growth, however, has been met

with questions regarding the credibility

and ethics of online advertisers (Choi and

Rifon, 2002; Drumwright and Murphy,

2009; McMillan, Hwang, and Lee, 2003;

Nairn and Dew, 2007). Moreover, negative

perceptions regarding advertiser ethics are

exacerbated by consumer concerns about

online information privacy, resulting in

calls for the study of online privacy with

respect to advertising ethics (Ashworth and

Free, 2006; Rapp et al., 2009).

Speaking on recent developments in

terms of online consumer access, United

States Secretary of Commerce Gary Lock

stated, “As powerful, exciting, and inno-

vative as these developments are, they

also bring with them new concerns. New

devices and applications allow the col-

lection and use of personal information

in ways that, at times, can be contrary to

many consumers’ privacy expectations”

(United States Department of Commerce,

2010, p. i).

A recent KPMG study of global consum-

ers found higher levels of consumer anxi-

ety over online data privacy in 2010 than

in prior years’ studies, with the complex-

ity of privacy policies only fueling this

concern (KPMG, 2010).

Negative views of online advertising

are not surprising, particularly consider-

ing studies that show a significant portion

of consumers who have relatively low lev-

els of trust in online advertisers and mar-

keters (e.g., Bart et al., 2005; Corbitt et al.,

2003). In fact, 79 percent of global consum-

ers are concerned about unauthorized

access of personally identifiable informa-

tion (KPMG, 2010). In addition, research-

ers have pointed out that online ads often

deviate from FTC standards when mak-

ing disclosures (Hoy and Lwin, 2007),

perhaps justifying consumers’ concerns.

The introduction of a bipartisan “online

privacy bill of rights” to the United States

Senate appears imminent (Tapellini, 2011),

underscoring the public policy impor-

tance of online privacy issues. As such,

advertising managers are under pressure

to enhance consumer trust and consumer

perceptions of advertiser ethics both to

improve advertising effectiveness and to

reduce the potential for reactive govern-

ment regulation.

In an effort to enhance consumer per-

ceptions and potentially avert regulation,

many online advertisers have agreed to

participate in online seal of approval pro-

grams that require advertisers to adhere

to a particular set of standard practices

in exchange for the right to display a seal

icon on their Web pages or other online

advertising. These seal-of-approval pro-

grams often are promoted as an oppor-

tunity for advertisers to demonstrate to

potential and current clients a dedication

to high ethical standards, with the hopes

that consumer trust will be enhanced and

consumer privacy concerns reduced.

Various types of online seal of approval

programs exist, dealing with a variety of

online concerns such as product or serv-

ice reliability, system security, Web site

vulnerability, and information privacy

(TRUSTe, 2010). Several online seal pro-

grams employ trustmarks, which are com-

posed with a logo, symbol, or picture that

online advertisers can place on their Web

sites or on their advertisements in an effort

to convey the qualities (privacy protection,

reliability, etc.) of the program to consum-

ers (Aiken and Boush, 2006). In that pri-

vacy concerns have endured as a key issue

for online consumers (Miyazaki and Fern-

andez, 2000; Sheehan and Hoy, 2000; Rapp

et al., 2009), the authors examine privacy

trustmarks due to their focus on privacy-

related attitudes and behavior.

Researchers have found some evidence

that privacy trustmarks can enhance

consumer trust and evaluations of Web

sites and facilitate information disclo-

sure (Aiken and Boush, 2006; Miyazaki

and Krishnamurthy, 2002; Moores and

Dhillon, 2003; Rifon, LaRose, and Choi,

2005). Reports that Web sites with and

without trustmarks do not necessarily

differ with respect to the content of their

privacy policies, however, suggest poten-

tial ethical issues that may cross over

to consumer perceptions (LaRose and

Rifon, 2006; Miyazaki and Krishnamurthy,

2002). Considering the importance of ethi-

cal judgments as a significant predictor of

attitude toward the ad and the importance

of trust in the messenger as an anteced-

ent to message effectiveness (Bower and

Landreth, 2001; Priester and Petty, 2003;

Tinkham and Weaver-Lariscy, 1994), it has

become essential to study trustmarks with

respect to consumer perceptions of adver-

tiser ethics.

The purpose of trustmarks, in general,

is to elevate consumer trust in the adver-

tiser. In that trust typically is seen as an

antecedent, component, or other correlate

of ethical beliefs, it follows that trustmarks

should have a positive influence on con-

sumer perceptions of advertiser ethics and

on trust in the advertiser. Considering the

september 2011 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 513

OnLInE PRIvAcy TRusTMARks

importance of privacy concerns in online

commerce, it is prudent also to examine

the conditions under which a privacy

trustmark will reduce consumer privacy

concerns regarding an online advertiser.

Finally, an examination of behavioral

intentions such as intended recommen-

dations and patronage is appropriate,

considering that recommendations have

been shown to be important influencers of

online consumer choice (Senecal and Nan-

tel, 2004) and advertiser credibility has

been shown to influence purchase inten-

tions in the context of online advertising

(Choi and Rifon, 2002).

Thus, it is expected that the use of a pri-

vacy trustmark will result in more posi-

tive consumer perceptions of advertiser

ethics and trust, lower privacy concerns,

and more favorable behavioral intentions.

Yet these expectations must be qualified

by potential variations in consumer seg-

ments that exist in the online marketplace.

Indeed, most studies of online seals of

approval—and privacy trustmarks in par-

ticular—have been fairly simplistic, look-

ing only at main effects without regard for

potential moderating variables that con-

sider consumer differences and the poten-

tial for targeted campaigns to improve

attitude toward advertisers for particular

market segments.

There are notable exceptions, with find-

ings that trustmark effects can be stronger

for consumers who are more involved with

Web site content, have less confidence in

their ability to protect their privacy, and/

or feel considerable risk with online shop-

ping (Miyazaki and Krishnamurthy, 2002;

Rifon, LaRoi, and Choi, 2005). As signifi-

cant moderators have the ability to alter

interpretation of main effects, the authors

have focused on those potential interac-

tion effects. Therefore, though privacy

trustmarks should have the aforemen-

tioned effects, the authors suggest that

these effects will be moderated by two

individual difference variables—desire

for privacy and general attitudes toward

advertising—as noted in the following

section.

MODERATInGInDIvIDUALDIFFEREnCEvARIABLESEarlier research has shown that the effects

of privacy trustmarks vary, depending on

consumer perceptions of online shopping

risk (Miyazaki and Krishnamurthy, 2002).

Although such perceptions of risk still are

prevalent in today’s e-commerce environ-

ment, they have been found to vary across

product categories, brands, and online

retailers. As such, more enduring individ-

ual difference variables may have greater

use in the study of trustmark effectiveness.

Two such variables—desire for privacy

and general attitudes toward advertis-

ing—are examined here as moderators of

the influence of privacy trustmarks.

DesireforPrivacyAlthough prior research has examined

perceptions of online shopping risk as

a moderator of trustmark effectiveness

(Miyazaki and Krishnamurthy, 2002),

there have been considerable marketplace

changes since the time of those studies.

Specifically, there has been enormous

growth in online access and usage (Nielsen,

2009) and online shopping (KPMG, 2010).

Nielsen concluded from its study of global

consumers (2009, p. 3), “Around the globe

the online population is looking more and

more like the overall population meaning

that in a few short years, online access has

moved from being a luxury or something

cool to an essential, basic requirement.”

For a great number of consumers, these

changes in the online marketplace have

removed the uncertainty of the Inter-

net with respect to its novelty. As such,

general online shopping risk toward

the Internet likely has been supplanted

for many consumers with more-specific

concerns regarding information privacy

and security. Indeed, recent work examin-

ing consumer privacy and the potential for

mistrust of online advertisers found con-

sumers’ desire for privacy to moderate the

effects of an ethical issue (the covert col-

lection of consumer information) on nega-

tive evaluations of a Web site organization

(Miyazaki, 2008). The authors, therefore,

examine the desire for privacy as a poten-

tial moderating variable.

Although privacy concerns for most con-

sumers may be situationally determined

(Sheehan, 2002), the “desire for informa-

tion control” was found to be present at

least to some degree in the majority of

consumers (Phelps, Nowak, and Ferrell,

2000). The more-comprehensive “desire

for privacy” has been conceptualized and

measured in terms of the dimensions of

online consumer privacy (Sheehan and

Hoy, 2000) such that it consists of a set of

consumer desires for information control,

fair exchange for information provision,

and power to deny information disclosure

(Miyazaki, 2008).

Prior research has shown stronger

effects of unethical behavior on consum-

ers’ Web site evaluations when consumer

desire for privacy is high than when it is

low (Miyazaki, 2008). In the case of pri-

vacy trustmarks, higher desire for privacy

would seem to result in more attention to

(and consideration of) a privacy trustmark

than lower desire for privacy. As such, a

privacy trustmark’s proposed effects of

enhanced consumer perceptions of adver-

tiser ethics and trust, lower privacy con-

cerns, and higher likelihood of favorable

behavioral intentions would be moder-

ated by desire for privacy.

When desire for privacy is high, the

presence (versus absence) of a privacy

trustmark, therefore, will result in more

favorable perceptions of advertiser ethics,

more trust in the advertiser, lower privacy

concerns, and more favorable behavioral

514 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH september 2011

OnLInE PRIvAcy TRusTMARks

intentions. When desire for privacy is

low, however, these effects will be

attenuated.

A PrioriAttitudestowardAdvertisingEvidence exists that consumers harbor

negative attitudes toward advertising,

including online advertising in general

(Coulter et al., 2001; Karson et al., 2006;

Wolin and Korgaonkar, 2003). Although

prior research has found advertiser ethics

and practices sometimes to be question-

able (see Maciejewski, 2005 for a review), it

is likely that events, circumstances, or sit-

uations that lead consumers to view par-

ticular advertisers or advertising actions

to be unethical (Dean, 2005) are viewed

differently depending on a priori attitudes

toward advertising in general.

Similarly, the impact of events or situ-

ations that lead consumers to raise their

ethical opinions of advertisers can be

moderated by previously held general

attitudes toward advertising. Specifically,

consumers with relatively negative atti-

tudes toward advertising would be less

likely to believe in advertiser-generated

claims of fairness or assertions of high

ethical standards and instead would be

more likely to rely on objective third-party

evaluations or endorsements of ethical

standards.

As such, for consumers with a priori neg-

ative attitudes toward advertising in gen-

eral, the privacy trustmark should interact

with desire for privacy and have the effects

posited in the preceding section.

When general attitudes toward adver-

tising are already relatively positive, how-

ever, there should be less focus on privacy

trustmarks as an indicator of advertiser

ethics or trust regardless of consumers’

desire for privacy (i.e., whether it is low

or high). This is due to the expectation

that consumers who already have posi-

tive attitudes toward advertising will less

likely depend on the trustmark as a cue to

elicit positive attitude change. As for pri-

vacy concerns, however, higher desire-for-

privacy consumers should still be affected

by privacy trustmarks such that the pres-

ence of such a trustmark would result in

lower privacy concerns.

Thus, a three-way interaction is pro-

posed wherein—under conditions of a

priori negative attitudes toward adver-

tising—the privacy trustmark will affect

the stated dependent variables for high

desire-for-privacy consumers but not for

low desire-for-privacy consumers. When

consumers hold positive attitudes toward

advertising, however, the privacy trust-

mark will lower privacy concerns but will

not affect trust or ethical evaluations for

high desire-for-privacy consumers, and

will have no effects for low desire-for-

privacy consumers. No predictions are

made for behavioral intentions under the

positive attitude toward advertising, high

desire-for-privacy condition due to a lack

of knowledge regarding how consumers

weight privacy concerns, trust, and ethi-

cal evaluations when forming behavioral

intentions. Thus:

H1: When a priori consumer attitudes

toward advertising are negative, the

presence (versus absence) of a privacy

trustmark will result in

– more favorable perceptions of

advertiser ethics;

– more trust in the advertiser;

– lower privacy concerns; and

– more favorable behavioral

intentions

when desire for privacy is high but not

when desire for privacy is low.

H2: When a priori consumer attitudes

toward advertising are positive, the

presence (versus absence) of a privacy

trustmark will not result in

– more favorable perceptions of

advertiser ethics; and

– more trust in the advertiser;

but will result in

– lower privacy concerns when desire

for privacy is high;

there will be no effects when desire for

privacy is low.

METHODOLOGYTo test the hypothesized relationships, the

authors conducted a quasi-experimental

study that manipulated the key independ-

ent variable—the presence or absence

of a trustmark—and measured the two

moderating variables—a priori attitude

toward advertising and desire for privacy.

As hypothesized, the dependent variables

were advertiser ethics, trust, advertiser-

focused privacy concerns, and the two

behavioral intention measures.

SampleandProcedureTo ensure reasonable involvement in the

experimental task and to limit the effects

of experiential attitudes toward a par-

ticular brand, the authors conducted an

examination of Internet users who likely

had a desire for an advertised service

that they had not yet experienced. Spe-

cifically, the sampling domain consisted of

first-time cruise ship passengers who had

recently booked an upcoming 5- to 14-day

Caribbean cruise vacation with a variety

of major cruise lines.

As is common on such cruises, these

new travelers have the opportunity to

book shore excursions either through

their respective cruise lines or through a

number of other vacation service firms

that specialize in shore excursions at vari-

ous ports of call. These bookings often are

made and purchased online. The study

capitalized on this marketplace environ-

ment by presenting participants with a

scenario that involved the evaluation

of online information about a firm that

offered shore excursion services for their

cruise ports of call.

september 2011 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 515

OnLInE PRIvAcy TRusTMARks

Participants were recruited from two

popular Web-site forums that cater to past

and future cruise-ship passengers. Forum

users who indicated their first-time status

(either directly by stating so or indirectly

by participation in relevant discussion

threads) were contacted and asked to

take part in two short academic surveys

(which were the two parts of this study).

As incentives, each participant was

offered a nominal cash payment for com-

pleting both parts of the study and also

was given the opportunity to be entered

into a drawing for a much larger mon-

etary prize. Participants were assured of

the confidentiality of their responses and

were allowed to be anonymous (other

than their Web-site username and their

mailing addresses) if desired, although

they were informed that anonymity

would result in not being placed in the

pool for the larger monetary prize draw-

ing. Participants who decided to offer

no additional identifying information

(i.e., mailing addresses) other than their

Web-site usernames (which already were

known) were able to choose from a list of

charities to which their nominal payment

was donated.

The data were collected in two waves,

described as separate “surveys” to partici-

pants. The first wave asked for preliminary

information regarding any prior vacation

experiences (as a ruse and to screen for

first-time cruisers) and the measurement

of the two moderating variables: desire

for privacy and general attitudes toward

advertising (scales are discussed further).

The final item reminded participants that

they would have to complete the second

“survey” in 2 weeks and, to do so, they

would have to create a self-generated

identification code that consisted of alpha-

numeric characters related to specific ques-

tions that were asked (Yurek et al., 2008).

They also were informed that they would

have to recreate the same code (using the

same prompt questions) to complete the

second survey.

Two weeks after the initial invitation,

the selected forum users were invited to

participate in the second “survey” (pro-

vided they had completed the first). This

second wave presented the experimen-

tal scenario and manipulation and then

measured the dependent variables and

some demographic items. The combina-

tion of the data from the two waves was

facilitated by the use of the self-generated

identification code.

ScenarioandExperimentalManipulationThe scenario focused the participants on

the task of booking shore excursions for

their upcoming cruise. The following sce-

nario was provided:

Imagine that after booking your cruise and

before booking your shore excursions, you

perform an online search for “shore excur-

sions” and click on the first entry in the set

of results. On the following page is a screen

shot of the Web page that you encounter.

Please examine the page, click the “next-

page” button at the bottom of the screen,

and then answer the questions regarding

that Web page.

Participants then were instructed to

click to the next page, where they were

shown a screen shot of a homepage for

a fabricated shore excursion travel firm.

Participants randomly were assigned to a

privacy trustmark “present” or “absent”

condition. For the “present” condition,

the TRUSTe “certified privacy” trustmark

was placed prominently near the top of

the page. The page featured general infor-

mation regarding the company’s offerings

and claims of being “an experienced shore

excursion service provider.”

The rationale for using a search-

related advertising ruse with a homepage

was two-fold: a continually growing

portion of online advertising spending

is focused on search advertising, and

homepages are often the first significant

source of promotional information an

online consumer views (Geissler et al.,

2006; Patsioura et al., 2009; Yang and

Ghose, 2010).

The presentation of the fabricated

homepage was followed by measurement

of the dependent variables and some gen-

eral demographic items. Respondents then

were thanked for their participation and

informed that the Web site in the study

was not real but created only for research

purposes.

DependentMeasuresThe measured dependent variables were

• advertiser ethics,

• trust,

• advertiser-focused privacy concerns,

and

• patronage intention and recommen-

dation (the two behavioral intention

measures).

Multiple-item scale responses were

averaged for the analyses and coefficient

alpha scores for the first three scales were,

respectively, 0.91, 0.93, and 0.92.

Advertiser ethics was measured with

three items that began with “from what

you can tell about the company shown

previously, its dealings with customers is

…” followed by three bipolar 7-point scale

items anchored with “unethical/ethical,”

“unfair/fair,” and “wrong/right” (Chung

and Monroe, 2003; Freestone and Mitchell,

2004; Valentine and Rittenburg, 2004).

Trust was measured with a 4-item scale

that incorporates both the benevolence

and competence components of trust

(Garbarino and Lee, 2003; Miyazaki, 2008;

Sirdeshmukh, Singh, and Sabol, 2002). The

items stated that the Web-site advertiser

“has practices that indicate respect for you

516 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH september 2011

OnLInE PRIvAcy TRusTMARks

as a customer”; “has practices that show

it values you as a customer”, “has prac-

tices that favor you as a customer”, and

“can be relied on to be honest.” Each item

was followed by a 7-point scale anchored

with “strongly disagree” (1) and “strongly

agree” (7).

The measurement for advertiser-

focused privacy concerns was measured

with a 4-item scale. Each item started with

“compared to other companies with an

online presence, I feel this company is . . .”

and was followed with items that assessed

whether the advertiser was “serious about

consumer privacy”, “dedicated to con-

sumer privacy”, “likely to treat consum-

ers fairly” with respect to privacy issues,

and “likely to violate privacy standards”

(Miyazaki and Krishnamurthy, 2002). Item

responses were averaged such that higher

scores indicated more privacy concerns

(i.e., the first three were reverse-coded).

Finally, each of the two behavioral

intentions was measured with single items

followed by 7-point scales anchored with

“strongly disagree” (1) and “strongly

agree” (7). The patronage intention item

read, “If I were looking for this type of

service, I would register with this company

to gain more information”, and the recom-

mendation item read, “If I had friends

looking for this type of service, I would

recommend this company to them.”

ModeratingvariableMeasuresGeneral attitudes toward advertising have

been measured in a variety of ways, with

the most notable being Bauer and Grey-

ser’s advertising beliefs scale.1 Although

others have used more in-depth methods

such as personal interviews combined

with semantic differential pairs (Dur-

vasula et al., 1993) or interviews using the

1 Advertising in America: The Consumer View, Raymond A. Bauer and Stephen A. Greyser, 1968, Boston: Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University.

Zaltman metaphor elicitation technique

(Coulter et al., 2001), these were not fea-

sible here.

The authors used the three social

dimension items of the Bauer and Grey-

ser (1968) scale. Pollay and Mittal (1993)

noted that the three social items loaded

together “considerably” on one factor,

although one, the “true picture” item,

loaded more highly on another factor.

Andrews (1989) also found discrepancies

with the “true picture” item, leading him

to suggest a change to the wording of the

item to help resolve any inconsistencies

in meaning. The authors apply that revi-

sion in this study, changing the words “in

general” to “for most people” (Andrews,

1989; Bauer and Greyser, 1968), with the

resulting three items being “most advertis-

ing insults the intelligence of the average

consumer”, “advertising often persuades

people to buy things they shouldn’t buy”,

and “for most people, advertisements

present a true picture of the product being

advertised.” Each item was followed by a

7-point scale (1 = “strongly disagree” and

7 = “strongly agree”). The first and second

items were reverse-coded so that higher

numbers represented a more positive atti-

tude toward advertising.

Desire for privacy was measured using

a 5-item scale from Miyazaki (2008) that

incorporated three privacy factors that

online users typically consider (Sheehan

and Hoy, 2000): control over the collection

and usage of their personal information,

an exchange of something of value for the

requested information, and whether there

is a business relationship between the

advertiser and the online consumer. Both

moderating variable scales were median-

split to facilitate the analyses, provide a

basis on which to discuss the potential for

attitude-based segmentation, and make

the reporting of the results more under-

standable. Coefficient alphas for general

attitude toward advertising and desire

for privacy were, respectively, 0.91 and

0.92.

AnalysisandResultsOf the 968 individuals who initially were

contacted to participate, 345 satisfactorily

completed both waves of the study for an

effective response rate of 36 percent. Par-

ticipants had an average age of 37.6 years;

58 percent were female. They reported

using the Internet on average for 9.7 years

and spending 3.1 hours per day online.

For the initial test of the hypotheses, the

authors performed a 2 (trustmark present

vs. absent) × 2 (a priori attitude toward

advertising) × 2 (desire for privacy) multi-

ple analysis of variance (MANOVA) with

advertiser ethics, trust, privacy concerns,

and the two behavioral intention meas-

ures as dependent variables. Subjects were

fairly evenly distributed across the experi-

mental conditions (cell sizes ranged from

39 to 49).

The MANOVA results showed the

hypothesized three-way interaction

between the trustmark, attitude toward

advertising, and desire for privacy

(Wilks’ Λ = 0.957, F5,333 = 3.02, p = 0.01, η =

0.21). The three-way interaction was then

investigated further by conducting sepa-

rate 2 (trustmark) × 2 (desire for privacy)

MANOVA tests for each (low and high)

attitude toward advertising group.2

For the group of online consumers who

had a priori negative attitudes toward

advertising, H1 posited that the presence

of a privacy trustmark would elicit higher

perceptions of advertiser ethics, more

advertiser trust, lower privacy concerns,

and more favorable behavioral intentions,

but only when desire for privacy was high

and not when it was low.

2 The authors report η as a measure of effect size. In that it is comparable to r (Cohen, 1988, 1992), values around 0.1, 0.3, and 0.5 may be interpreted respectively as small, medium, and large effect sizes.

september 2011 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 517

OnLInE PRIvAcy TRusTMARks

The 2 × 2 MANOVA confirmed this

hypothesized interaction (Wilks’ Λ = 0.924,

F5,174 = 2.88, p = 0.02, η = 0.28). As shown

by the means and univariate statistics

presented, individual ANOVA analyses

showed that the presence (versus absence)

of the privacy trustmark resulted in more

favorable perceptions of advertiser ethics,

higher trust, lower privacy concerns, and

higher behavioral intentions when desire

for privacy was high (See Table 1 and Fig-

ure 1). When desire for privacy was low,

however, there were no such effects.

For the group of online consumers who

had a priori positive general attitudes

about advertising, H2 predicted trustmark

effects on privacy concerns for high desire-

for-privacy consumers but no effects on

advertiser ethics or trust.

As with H1, no effects were expected

when desire for privacy was low. In sup-

port of H2, the means and univariate sta-

tistics shown show that the presence of

the trustmark lowered privacy concerns

when desire for privacy was high but had

no effect on privacy concerns when desire

for privacy was low (See Table 2 and Fig-

ure 2). No other trustmark effects were

found for the positive attitude toward

advertising group, regardless of the level

of desire for privacy.

DISCUSSIOnThe examination of online consumers

showed that a privacy trustmark can be

useful in enhancing the perceived ethics

of an online advertiser for certain market

segments.

Specifically, the authors found that

for consumers who had a priori nega-

tive general attitudes toward advertising

and high desire for privacy, the presence

(versus absence) of a privacy trustmark

raised perceptions of advertiser ethics and

trust, lowered advertiser-related privacy

concerns, and resulted in more favorable

behavioral intentions. For consumers with

TABLE1Means and univariate statistics for negative Attitudes toward Advertising Group

DependentvariableDesireforPrivacy SealAbsent SealPresent F(p)h

Advertiser Ethics Low 3.47 3.67 0.38 (0.54) 0.06

High 3.22 4.56 15.55(0.00)0.38

Trust in web site Low 3.87 4.01 0.23 (0.64) 0.05

High 3.40 4.57 15.67(0.00)0.38

Privacy concerns Low 3.87 3.63 0.68 (0.41) 0.09

High 4.49 3.46 15.90(0.00)0.38

Patronage Intention Low 3.70 3.76 0.03 (0.87) 0.00

High 3.08 3.96 8.34(0.01)0.29

Recommendation Intention

Low 3.58 3.73 0.19 (0.67) 0.04

High 3.22 3.89 4.65(0.03)0.22

(a) For Negative Attitudes toward Advertising Group

Note: “DfP” = Desire for Privacy

33.23.43.63.8

44.24.44.64.8

5

Absent PresentPrivacy Trustmark

Adve

rtis

er E

thic

s

Low DfPHigh DfP

(b) For Positive Attitudes toward Advertising Group

33.23.43.63.8

44.24.44.64.8

5

Absent PresentPrivacy Trustmark

Adve

rtis

er E

thic

s

Low DfPHigh DfP

Figure1 Trustmark Effects on Advertiser Ethics

518 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH september 2011

OnLInE PRIvAcy TRusTMARks

negative general attitudes toward adver-

tising and low desire for privacy, no such

effects were found.

For consumers who already had positive

attitudes toward advertising, the privacy

trustmark failed to influence perceptions

of advertiser ethics and trust regardless

of the level of desire for privacy. For high

desire-for-privacy individuals, however,

the privacy trustmark did reduce privacy

concerns. These effects apparently were

not translated into elevated behavioral

intentions in that the trustmark had no

effects on them regardless of desire for

privacy.

Although one may be tempted to

explain the lack of findings for the posi-

tive attitude group as ceiling effects with

respect to advertiser ethics and trust, the

means for these variables in the absence of

the trustmark were fairly close to the scale

midpoint (4.0), suggesting sufficient room

for the trustmark to show effects.

More likely, consumers with relatively

positive attitudes toward advertising

have lower motivation to attend to cues

that would infer higher advertiser ethics

or trust. This apparently was not the case

for consumers with negative attitudes

toward advertising wherein the trustmark

affected not only privacy concerns for high

desire-for-privacy consumers but per-

ceived advertiser ethics, trust, and behav-

ioral intentions for the same group.

ManagerialandPolicyImplicationsIn light of the negative impression that

advertising often has among consumers,

attempts to raise the perceived ethics of

online advertisers are of interest to adver-

tising managers.

This is particularly important in that

online advertising has been shown to

be an important component in improv-

ing the overall efficiency of advertising

spending (Pergelova et al., 2010). The find-

ings indicate that, for consumers who are

TABLE2Means and univariate statistics for Positive Attitudes toward Advertising GroupDependentvariable

DesireforPrivacy SealAbsent SealPresent F(p)h

Advertiser Ethics Low 4.31 4.48 0.40 (0.53) 0.07

High 3.96 4.17 0.37 (0.54) 0.07

Trust in web site Low 4.83 4.91 0.12 (0.73) 0.04

High 4.68 4.74 0.06 (0.81) 0.03

Privacy concerns Low 3.16 3.28 0.26 (0.61) 0.05

High 3.75 3.11 5.08(0.03)0.24

Patronage Intention Low 4.35 4.49 0.21 (0.65) 0.05

High 3.93 4.14 0.54 (0.47) 0.08

Recommendation Intention

Low 4.40 4.41 0.00 (0.97) 0.00

High 3.88 4.24 1.59 (0.21) 0.14

(a) For Negative Attitudes toward Advertising Group

Note: “DfP” = Desire for Privacy

Absent PresentPrivacy Trustmark

Low DfPHigh DfP

(b) For Positive Attitudes toward Advertising Group

Absent PresentPrivacy Trustmark

Low DfPHigh DfP

3

3.5

4

4.5

Priv

acy

Con

cern

s

3

3.5

4

4.5

Priv

acy

Con

cern

s

Figure2 Trustmark Effects on Privacy concerns

september 2011 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 519

OnLInE PRIvAcy TRusTMARks

more prone to consider advertising (and

perhaps advertisers) to be questionable

in terms of ethical standards, the use of a

privacy trustmark can elevate consumer

perceptions of advertiser ethics.

Participation in privacy trustmark pro-

grams, therefore, has the potential to result

in

• higher perceptions of advertiser ethics

and trust;

• lower advertiser-focused privacy con-

cerns; and

• higher intentions to patronize the adver-

tiser and recommend it to others.

As inferred by the findings of this study,

any participation should be made appar-

ent to Web surfers who come across the

Web page by having a prominently notice-

able privacy trustmark viewable.

Trustmarks, in short, provide a concise

way for advertisers to communicate their

commitment to consumer privacy in a

way that is recognized and rewarded by

customers, particularly those customers

who are skeptical of advertiser ethics.

The use of segmentation efforts to

understand which visitors to an adver-

tiser’s Web site are more or less favorable

toward advertising and more or less desir-

ous of privacy would be useful in know-

ing to which consumers the prominent

presentation of privacy trustmarks is most

pertinent. Fortunately for advertisers,

as consumer information becomes more

accessible, online advertisers, in particu-

lar, will be better able to segment consum-

ers based on attitudinal differences.

It is notable that, although the privacy

trustmark did not raise perceptions of eth-

ics or lower privacy concerns for all seg-

ments, there were no segments that reacted

adversely to the trustmark. This means that

the use of trustmarks produced no known

negative outcomes from those consumers

who did not respond positively to them,

suggesting that advertisers can improve

reactions from responsive segments (those

with negative attitudes toward advertis-

ing and a high desire for privacy) without

being penalized by other less-responsive

consumer segments.

Participation in trustmark programs,

however, comes with particular costs—

more precisely, the cost of membership in

the trustmark organization and the cost of

compliance with the rules and standards

of the organization.

For the most part, these rules do not

focus on particular types or levels of pri-

vacy intrusion but mainly focus on only

one of the FTC’s Fair Information Practice

Principles, that of Notice/Awareness (FTC,

2007). This usually is done by requiring that

the advertiser’s privacy policy be avail-

able publicly and that the firm is diligent

in adhering to the privacy practices con-

tained therein (LaRose and Rifon, 2007).

In that consumers typically do not read or

understand privacy policies (Milne, Cul-

nan, and Green, 2006), there is concern that

the “notice” of privacy practices in privacy

policies does not translate into “awareness”

by consumers (Cranor, 2002).

Advertising managers should be con-

cerned not only with maintaining or

improving consumer perceptions of their

own advertiser ethics but the potentially

detrimental effects that lenient enforce-

ment of privacy trustmark rules will have

on the ability of the trustmark to elicit

favorable attitudinal responses from target

consumer segments.

Moreover, the general desire of the

advertising industry to favor self-regu-

lation over government regulation man-

dates that industry-sponsored regulatory

systems be earnest in their attempts to

control or otherwise expose advertisers

not meeting up to prescribed standards.

The current research demonstrates that

the presence of a privacy trustmark is

shown to be effective in raising consumer

views of advertiser ethics. As noted in

prior research, however, the mere partici-

pation in a privacy trustmark program is

not necessarily an indication of noninva-

sive privacy practices (LaRose and Rifon,

2007; Miyazaki and Krishnamurthy, 2002).

Thus, the potential for deception is clear

in that the mere presence of a privacy

trustmark may lower privacy concerns for

certain consumer segments, yet not neces-

sarily result in any verifiable differences in

privacy practices on the part of the adver-

tiser. This is an issue the advertising indus-

try cannot ignore. Indeed, it is essential

that seal programs in general, and privacy

trustmark programs in particular, move

from mere symbols of privacy protection

to actual indicators of privacy standards

that have lasting meaning to consumers

(La Rose and Rifon, 2007; Moores, 2005).

To fail to do so is to risk diluting the impact

of trustmarks on consumer perceptions of

advertisers’ ethical standards and to lower

general attitudes toward the advertising

industry as a whole.

Another policy implication is related to

findings that seals of approval can mitigate

the negative effects of warnings regarding

invasive online privacy practices (LaRose

and Rifon, 2007). As shown in the present

study, certain consumer segments seem

more likely to respond favorably to pri-

vacy trustmarks, which may display a

particular vulnerability with respect to the

influence (or lack thereof) of warnings in

the presence of such trustmarks.

Finally, in the corporate social responsi-

bility arena, there is evidence that cause-

related marketing efforts that involve

the support of non-profit organizations

may be misconstrued such that consum-

ers feel that the non-profit is endorsing

the for-profit firm, even to the point that

the non-profit association may be seen as

a seal of approval regarding the activities

of the for-profit firm (Bower and Grau,

2009). The present findings suggest that

520 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH september 2011

OnLInE PRIvAcy TRusTMARks

such situations may lead consumers to

infer higher levels of trust and advertiser

ethics although there may be no objective

reasoning to do so.

LimitationsandFutureResearchDespite the high external validity of the

current study, the literature would benefit

from future research that examines these

relationships in actual purchase situations

to gauge consumer reactions when there

is true financial and privacy risk. It is pos-

sible that, under those circumstances, the

findings of the current study would be

more pronounced.

Although it is important to examine

consumer reactions to the presence of

trustmarks, future research should focus

on consumer interpretation of those trust-

marks as well. As mentioned, the require-

ments of trustmarks in terms of Web-site

compliance are modest. Yet we now

know that they produce significant effects

among particular consumer segments.

Among the critical questions that need to

be addressed:

• Do consumers assume more protections

than are actually granted?

• Do consumers make assumptions about

privacy policies of Web sites with or

without the trustmark?

• If, in fact, consumers presume a more

global set of protections from the pres-

ence of a privacy trustmark, do adver-

tisers have any ethical responsibility to

go above and beyond the basic require-

ments of the trustmark?

There also may be contextual variables

that would influence these relationships.

For example, prior work suggests that par-

ents play an integral role in the protection

of their children’s online privacy (Lwin et

al., 2008), suggesting that consumers may

respond differently to privacy trustmarks

depending on their particular consumer

role, such as a parental role. Other contex-

tual factors that may influence consumer

response would include a consumer’s

purpose for visiting a Web site, a vari-

able shown to influence the effective-

ness of various Web-site design elements

(Stanaland and Tan, 2010). Future research

should examine such contextual factors as

potential moderators in the relationships

between trustmarks, trust and privacy

concern.

COnCLUSIOnThere have been a number of calls for

empirical research regarding advertising

and advertiser ethics. With the advent

of behavioral advertising and the inher-

ent consumer information gathering that

accompanies it, the issue of online privacy

is one that has become a key ethical issue

for online advertisers.

The authors have examined online pri-

vacy as it relates to advertising ethics by

exploring the influence of a privacy trust-

mark on consumer perceptions of adver-

tiser ethics, trust, and advertiser-focused

privacy concerns. They find that, for con-

sumers who harbor negative attitudes

toward general advertising, the privacy

trustmark raises perceptions of advertiser

ethics but only when desire for privacy

is high. When desire for privacy is low

or when consumers have a priori positive

attitudes toward general advertising, the

privacy trustmark has no effect on percep-

tions of advertiser ethics. Findings regard-

ing the other dependent variables—trust,

privacy concerns, and behavioral inten-

tions—suggest a more complex relation-

ship between these variables than has

been explored in the past.

The findings also highlight the poten-

tial for online privacy trustmarks to be

the catalyst for a renewed ethical debate

with respect to the advertising industry

and consumer information collection and

usage.

If the advertising industry desires to

maintain the influential meaning of trust-

marks in the minds of consumers and ele-

vate their representativeness with respect

to actual privacy practices, the industry

must be purposeful both in creating trust-

marks that have objective standards and

in enforcing those standards among its

members .

andrea stanaLand (Ph.D., university of Houston) is

associate professor of marketing in the college of

Business and Economics at Radford university. Her

research interests are focused on consumer response

to advertising, including emotional appeals, cultural

symbols, and sex appeals, and health promotion,

public policy, and consumer privacy issues. Her

research has appeared in journals such as Journal

of Communication, Journal of Retailing, Journal of

Advertising, and others.

may LWin (Ph.D., national university of singapore) is

associate chair and head of the Division of Public

and Promotional communication, wee kim wee

school of communication and Information in nanyang

Technological university, singapore. Her research in the

area of privacy and cybersafety looks at how contextual

mediators, safeguards, and parental guidelines influence

user behavior. she has published in many journals

including the Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of

Communication, and Journal of Academy of Marketing

Science. she has received and managed major research

grants in the areas of health and safety.

antHony miyazaki (Ph.D., university of south carolina)

is knight Ridder Research Professor and professor

of marketing at Florida International university. His

research on online privacy, digital copyright infringement,

risky decision making, and pricing has appeared in a

variety of journals such as Journal of Marketing, Journal

of Consumer Research, Journal of Public Policy &

Marketing, and Journal of Retailing.

september 2011 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 521

OnLInE PRIvAcy TRusTMARks

REFEREncEs

aiKen, K. damon, and david m. BoUsH.

“Trustmarks, Objective-Source Ratings, and

Implied Investments in Advertising: Inves-

tigating Online Trust and the Context-Spe-

cific Nature of Internet Signals.” Journal of

the Academy of Marketing Science 34, Summer

(2006): 308–323.

andrews, J. craiG. “The Dimensionality of

Beliefs toward Advertising in General.” Journal

of Advertising 18 1 (1989): 26–35.

antón, annie i., JUlia B. earP, and Jessica d.

yoUnG. “How Internet Users’ Privacy Concerns

Have Evolved Since 2002.” IEEE Security and

Privacy 8 January/February (2010): 21–27.

asHwortH, laUrence, and clinton Free.

“Marketing Dataveillance and Digital Privacy:

Using Theories of Justice to Understand Con-

sumers’ Online Privacy Concerns.” Journal of

Business Ethics 67 (2006): 107–123.

Bart, yaKov, venKatesH sHanKar, Fareena

sUltan, and Glen l. UrBan. “Are the Drivers

and Role of Online Trust the Same for All Web

Sites and Consumers? A Large-Scale Explora-

tory Empirical Study.” Journal of Marketing 69,

October (2005): 133–152.

BaUer, raymond a., and stePHen a. Greyser.

Advertising in America: The Consumer View. Bos-

ton, MA: Harvard University, 1968.

BecKer-olsen, Karen l. “And Now, a Word

from our Sponsor: A Look at the Effects of Spon-

sored Content and Banner Advertising.” Journal

of Advertising 32, Summer (2003): 17–32.

Beltramini, ricHard F. “Advertising Ethics:

The Ultimate Oxymoron?” Journal of Business

Ethics 48, (2003): 215–216.

Bower, amanda B., and stacy landretH. “Is

Beauty Best? Highly Versus Normally Attractive

Models in Advertising.” Journal of Advertising

30, Spring (2001): 1–12.

Bower, amanda B., and stacy landretH

GraU. “Explicit Donations and Inferred

Endorsements: Do Corporate Social Responsi-

bility Initiatives Suggest a Nonprofit Organiza-

tion Endorsement?” Journal of Advertising 38,

Fall (2009): 113–126.

cHoi, seJUnG marina, and nora J. riFon.

“Antecedents and Consequences of Web

Advertising Credibility: A Study of Consumer

Response to Banner Ads.” Journal of Interactive

Advertising 3, Fall (2002):12–24.

cHUnG, Janne, and Gary s. monroe.

“Exploring Social Desirability Bias.” Journal of

Business Ethics 44, June (2003): 291–302.

coHen, JacoB. Statistical Power Analysis for the

Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). New York, NY:

Routledge Academic, 1988.

coHen, JacoB. “A Power Primer.” Psychology

Bulletin 112 (1992): 155–159.

corBitt, Brian J., tHeerasaK tHanasanKit,

and Han yi. “Trust and E-commerce: A Study

of Consumer Perceptions.” Electronic Commerce

Research and Applications 2 (2003): 203–215.

coUlter, roBin a., Gerald zaltman, and

KeitH s. coUlter. “Interpreting Consumer

Perceptions of Advertising: An Application of

the Zaltman Metaphor Elicitation Technique.”

Journal of Advertising 30, Winter (2001): 1–21.

cranor, lorrie FaitH. Web Privacy with P3P.

Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, 2002.

dean, dwane Hal. “After the Unethical Ad:

A Comparison of Advertiser Response Strate-

gies.” Business and Society Review 110, 4 (2005):

433–458.

drUmwriGHt, minette e., and PatricK e. mUr-

PHy. “The Current State of Advertising Ethics:

Industry and Academic Perspectives.” Journal of

Advertising 38, Spring (2009): 83–108.

dUrvasUla, srinivas, J. craiG andrews, steven

lysonsKi, and ricHard G. netemeyer. “Assess-

ing the Cross-national Applicability of Con-

sumer Behavior Models: A Model of Attitude

toward Advertising in General.” Journal of Con-

sumer Research 19, March (1993): 626–636.

Federal trade commission. “Fair Informa-

tion Practice Principles.” Retrieved June 24, 2011

at <http://www.ftc.gov/reports/privacy3/

fairinfo.shtm>, June 25 (2007).

Federal trade commission. “FTC Staff

Report: Self-Regulatory Principles for Online

Behavioral Advertising.” February) Retrieved

June 24, 2011 at <http://www.ftc.gov/

os/2009/02/P085400behavadreport.pdf>, Feb-

ruary (2009).

Freestone, o., and v. mitcHell. “Generation

Y Attitudes Towards E-ethics and Internet-

Related Misbehaviours.” Journal of Business Eth-

ics 54, October (2004): 121–128.

GarBarino, ellen, and olivia F. lee.

“Dynamic Pricing in Internet Retail: Effects on

Consumer Trust.” Psychology & Marketing 20,

June (2003): 495–513.

Geissler, Gary l., GeorGe m. zinKHan, and

ricHard t. watson. “The Influence of Home

Page Complexity on Consumer Attention, Atti-

tudes, and Purchase Intent.” Journal of Advertis-

ing 35, Summer (2006): 69–80.

Ha, loUisa, and Kim mccann. “An Integrated

Model of Advertising Clutter in Offline and

Online Media.” International Journal of Advertis-

ing, 27, 4 (2008): 569–592.

Hoy, mariea, and may o. lwin. “Disclosures

Exposed: Banner Ad Disclosure Adherence to

522 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH september 2011

OnLInE PRIvAcy TRusTMARks

FTC Guidance in the Top 100 U.S. Web sites.”

Journal of Consumer Affairs 41, 2 (2007): 285–325.

iaB. “IAB Internet Advertising Revenue Report

conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers.”

Retrieved December 31, 2010 at <http://www.

iab.net/AdRevenueReport> (2010).

Karson, eric J., samUel d. mccloy, and

P. GreG Bonner. “An Examination of Con-

sumers’ Attitudes and Beliefs Towards Web

Site Advertising.” Journal of Current Issues and

Research in Advertising 28, 2 (2006): 77–91.

KPmG. “Consumers and Convergence IV.”

Retrieved June 24, 2011 at <http://www.

kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/

ArticlesPublications/consumers-and-conver-

gence/Documents/Consumers-Convergence-

IV-july-2010.pdf>, July (2010).

larose, roBert, and nora riFon. “Your Pri-

vacy Is Assured – Of Being Disturbed: Web Sites

With and Without Privacy Seals.” New Media &

Society 8, 6 (2006): 1009–1029.

larose, roBert, and nora J. riFon. “Pro-

moting i-Safety: Effects of Privacy Warnings

and Privacy Seals on Risk Assessment and

Online Privacy Behavior.” Journal of Consumer

Affairs 41, Summer (2007): 127–149.

lwin, may o., andrea J. s. stanaland, and

antHony d. miyazaKi. “Protecting Children’s

Privacy Online: How Parental Mediation Strat-

egies Affect Web Site Safeguard Effectiveness.”

Journal of Retailing 84, June (2008): 205–217.

macieJewsKi, JeFFrey J. “From Bikinis to Basal

Cell Carcinoma: Advertising Practitioners’

Moral Assessments of Advertising Content.”

Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertis-

ing 27, Fall (2005): 107–115.

mcdonald, aleecia m., and lorrie FaitH

cranor. “Americans’ Attitudes About Internet

Behavioral Advertising Practices.” Proceedings

of the 9th Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic

Society: October 4, 2010.

mcmillan, sally J., JanG-sUn HwanG, and

GUioHK lee. “Effects on Structural and Percep-

tual Factors on Attitudes Toward the Web Site.”

Journal of Advertising Research 43, December

(2003): 400–409.

milne, GeorGe r., sHalini BaHl, and

andrew roHm. “Toward a Framework for

Assessing Covert Marketing Practices.” Journal

of Public Policy & Marketing 27, Spring (2008):

57–62.

milne, GeorGe r., mary J. cUlnan, and

Henry Greene. “A Longitudinal Assessment

of Online Privacy Notice Readability.” Jour-

nal of Public Policy & Marketing 25, Fall (2006):

238–249.

miyazaKi, antHony d. “Online Privacy and

the Disclosure of Cookie Use: Effects on Con-

sumer Trust and Anticipated Patronage.” Jour-

nal of Public Policy & Marketing 27, Spring 1

(2008): 9–33.

miyazaKi, antHony d., and ana Fernan-

dez. “Internet Privacy and Security: An Exami-

nation of Online Retailer Disclosures.” Journal

of Public Policy & Marketing 19, Spring (2000):

54–61.

miyazaKi, antHony d., and ana Fernan-

dez. “Consumer Perceptions of Privacy and

Security Risks for Online Shopping.” Journal of

Consumer Affairs 35, Spring (2001): 27–44.

miyazaKi, antHony d., and sandeeP

KrisHnamUrtHy. “Internet Seals of Approval:

Effects on Online Privacy Policies and Con-

sumer Perceptions.” Journal of Consumer Affairs

36, Summer (2002): 28–49.

miyazaKi, antHony d., andrea J. s. stan-

aland, and may o. lwin. “Self-Regulatory

Safeguards and the Online Privacy of Preteen

Children.” Journal of Advertising 38, Winter

(2009): 79–91.

moores, trevor. “Do Consumers Understand

the Role of Privacy Seals in E-Commerce?”

Communications of the ACM 48, March (2005):

86–91.

moores, trevor t., and GUrPreet dHillon.

“Do Privacy Seals in E-Commerce Really

Work?” Communications of the ACM 46, Decem-

ber (2003): 265–271.

mUrPHy, PatricK e. “Ethics in Advertising:

Review, Analysis, and Suggestions.” Journal

of Public Policy & Marketing 17, Fall (1998):

316–319.

nairn, aGnes, and aleXander dew. “Pop-ups,

Pop-unders, Banners and Buttons: The Ethics

of Online Advertising to Primary School Chil-

dren.” Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Market-

ing Practice 9 (2007): 30–46.

nielsen. “The Global Online Media Land-

scape.” Retrieved June 24, 2011 at <http://

blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/wp-content/

uploads/2009/04/nielsen-online-global-

lanscapefinal1.pdf> April (2009).

PatsioUra, Fotini, maro vlacHoPoUloU,

and vicKy mantHoU. “A New Advertising

Effectiveness Model for Corporate Advertising

Web Sites.” Benchmarking: An International Jour-

nal 16, 3 (2009): 372–386.

PerGelova, alBena, dieGo Prior, and JoseP

rialP. “Assessing Advertising Efficiency.” Jour-

nal of Advertising 39, Fall (2010): 39–54.

PHelPs, JosePH, Glen nowaK, and elizaBetH

Ferrell. “Privacy Concerns and Consumer

Willingness to Provide Personal Information.”

Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 19, Spring

(2000): 27–41.

september 2011 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 523

OnLInE PRIvAcy TRusTMARks

Pollay, ricHard w., and Banwari mittal.

“Here’s the Beef: Factors, Determinants, and

Segments in Consumer Criticism of Adver-

tising.” Journal of Marketing 57, July (1993):

99–114.

Priester, JosePH r., and ricHard e. Petty. “The

Influence of Spokesperson Trustworthiness on

Message Elaboration, Attitude Strength, and

Advertising Effectiveness.” Journal of Consumer

Psychology 13, 4 (2003): 408–421.

raPP, JUstine, ronald PaUl Hill, Jeannie

Gaines, and r. marK wilson. “Advertising

and Consumer Privacy.” Journal of Advertising

38, Winter (2009): 51–61.

riFon, nora J., roBert larose, and seJUnG

marina cHoi. “Your Privacy Is Sealed: Effects

of Web Privacy Seals on Trust and Personal Dis-

closures.” Journal of Consumer Affairs 39, Winter

(2005): 339–462.

senecal, sylvain, and JacQUes nantel.

“The Influence of Online Product Recommen-

dations on Consumers’ Online Choices.” Journal

of Retailing 80 (2004): 159–169.

sHeeHan, Kim Bartel. “Toward a Typology of

Internet Users and Online Privacy Concerns.”

The Information Society 18, January (2002): 21–32.

sHeeHan, Kim Bartel, and mariea GrUBBs

Hoy. “Dimensions of Privacy Concern Among

Online Consumers.” Journal of Public Policy &

Marketing 19, Spring (2000): 62–73.

sirdesHmUKH, deePaK, JaGdiP sinGH, and Barry

saBol. “Consumer Trust, Value, and Loyalty in

Relational Exchanges.” Journal of Marketing 66,

January (2002): 15–37.

sPrott, david e. “The Policy, Consumer, and

Ethical Dimensions of Covert Marketing: An

Introduction to the Special Section.” Journal of

Public Policy & Marketing 27, Spring (2008): 4–6.

stanaland, andrea J. s., and JUliana tan.

“The Impact of Surfer/Seeker Mode on the

Effectiveness of Web Site Characteristics.” Interna-

tional Journal of Advertising 29, 4 (2010): 569–595.

taPellini, donna. “Senate to Consider New

Online Privacy Law.” Retrieved June 24, 2011 at

<http://blogs.consumerreports.org/electronics/

2011/03/senate-to-consider-new-online-

privacy-law-.html>, March 10 (2011).

tinKHam, sPencer F., and rUtH ann

weaver-lariscy. “Ethical Judgments of Politi-

cal Television Commercials as Predictors of

Attitude Toward the Ad.” Journal of Advertising

23, September (1994): 43–57.

treise, deBBie, micHael F. weiGold, Jenne-

ane conna, and HeatHer Garrison. “Ethics

in Advertising: Ideological Correlates of Con-

sumer Perceptions.” Journal of Advertising 23,

September (1994): 59–69.

trUste. “Making Sense of Web Site Privacy

and Security Seals.” Retrieved October 28, 2010,

at http://www.truste.com/privacy_seals_and_

services/consumer_privacy/Seal_Compari-

sons.html.

tsaliKis, JoHn, and david J. FritzscHe. “Busi-

ness Ethics: A Literature Review with a Focus

on Marketing Ethics.” Journal of Business Ethics

8 (1989): 695–743.

United states dePartment oF commerce.

“Commercial Data Privacy and Innovation in

the Internet Economy: A Dynamic Policy Frame-

work.” Retrieved June 24, 2011 at <http://

www.ntia.doc.gov/reports/2010/IPTF_Pri-

vacy_GreenPaper_12162010.pdf>, 2010.

valentine, sean r., and terri l. rit-

tenBUrG. “Spanish and American Business

Professionals’ Ethical Evaluations in Global

Situations.” Journal of Business Ethics 51, April

(2004): 1–14.

wolin, lori d., and PradeeP K. Kor-

GaonKar. “Web Advertising: Gender Dif-

ferences in Beliefs, Attitudes and Behavior.”

Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applica-

tions and Policy 13, 53 (2003): 75–385.

yanG, sHa, and anindya GHose. “Analyzing

the Relationship Between Organic and Spon-

sored Search Advertising: Positive, Negative,

or Zero Interdependence?” Marketing Science 29,

July (2010): 602–623.

yaveroGlU, idi, and naveen dontHU.

“Advertising Repetition and Placement Issues

in On-Line Environments.” Journal of Advertis-

ing 37, Summer (2008): 31–44.

yUreK, leo a., JosePH vasey, and donna

sUllivan Havens. “The Use of Self-Generated

Identification Codes in Longitudinal Research.”

Evaluation Review 32, October (2008): 435–452.

Copyright of Journal of Advertising Research is the property of Warc LTD and its content may not be copied or

emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.

However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.