ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Blending in or standing out? The disclosure dilemma of ad cues of social media native advertising.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Covert Promotional Cancer-Related Content in Korean Search Engines: Computational Content Analysis of Naver and Google.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- The Influence of Social Media-like Cues on Visual Attention-An Eye-Tracking Study with Food Products.Journal of eye movement research · 2025Article
- Disrupting the browsing experience: impact of sponsored social media content on affective flow without driving engagement.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Instructional design complexity and pop-up notification interference: effects on attention allocation and information retention in virtual classrooms.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: As social media platforms increasingly rely on native advertising embedded within user feeds, an open question is whether sponsored posts garner comparable, greater, or reduced attention relative to surrounding non-sponsored content. Subtle cues (e.g., disclosures, call-to-action (CTA) buttons) may alert users to the commercial nature of these posts or remain unnoticed in rapid-scroll environments. In this study, we aimed to disentangle the dynamics of the "disclosure dilemma" in native advertising, examining whether ad cues blend into the content flow unnoticed or stand out and prompt rapid disengagement. Methods: This study adopted a mixed-methods design with 152 participants randomly assigned to one of three mock-up Instagram feeds containing both sponsored and organic posts. Eye-tracking measured visual attention (dwell time, fixation counts), while cued-retrospective think-aloud (CRTA) interviews probed underlying user rationales for focusing on or overlooking specific content. Results: Sponsored posts received significantly less dwell time and fewer fixations than their organic counterparts, indicating persistent ad avoidance despite a native design. Moreover, early fixation on disclosures or CTA elements in sponsored posts often triggered an immediate decline in further engagement, functioning as "flags" that activate learned avoidance. CRTA data revealed divergent user interpretations: some participants felt misled by the subtlety of sponsored posts, whereas others remained unaware of disclosures until late in their viewing. Discussion: These findings point to an evolving form of "native ad blindness," shaped by rapid heuristic scanning and schema-based recognition of minimal ad signals. Conceptually, this study refines theories of banner blindness, persuasion knowledge, and dual-process filtering, providing practical insights for advertisers seeking to balance transparency with user engagement amid competition from non-sponsored content.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.