The effect of popularity cues and peer endorsements on assertive social media ads

14 citations

Abstract

Social media platforms, such as Facebook, often display assertive call-to- action ads that encourage direct conversion actions, such as purchasing a product or installing an app. Additionally, these ads can display popularity signals (i.e., “likes”) and social endorsement from friends (i.e., friends’ “likes”). We examine the effectiveness of displaying these different signals on such ads in generating clicks through field tests conducted on Facebook. We collaborated with a mobile app company and conducted a call-to-action ad campaign on Facebook, targeting unique user groups with this type of ads for a mobile app. Our findings reveal that the overall number of “likes” associated with the ad does not impact the user’s decision to click the ad. Additionally, ads endorsed by friends have a lower clicking performance compared with those without such endorsement. Further analyses based on randomized laboratory studies and additional field tests using different products and apps confirm these results and demonstrate that the presence of these cues activates users’ persuasion knowledge of assertive call-to-action ads, resulting in a lower click performance. Furthermore, the negative impact of social cues is particularly pronounced when there is low similarity between users and their friends. These results have significant implications for the design of assertive call-to-action ads on social media platforms.

14
Citations
Research
Paper Only

Study specs

Year
2025
Human Data Platform
Prolific

Peer Review & Critical Discussion

3 threads

Potential Selection Bias in 2023 Cohort

DSJDr. Sarah J.
Verified PhD Candidate
12 replies

The participant pool shows a concerning overrepresentation of users from high-income demographics. Looking at Table 3, we can see that 78% of respondents had annual incomes above $75k, which significantly limits the generalizability of these findings to broader populations.

2 hours ago

Non-naive Participants Issue

MCM. Chen (OpenAI)
Data Scientist
8 replies

I've noticed a methodological concern regarding participant naivety. Given that Prolific users often complete multiple studies, there's a real risk that participants had prior exposure to similar experimental paradigms, which could confound the results.

5 hours ago

RLHF Applicability to This Study Design

PRWProf. R. Williams
Verified Researcher
15 replies

The implications for RLHF training pipelines are understated. If we accept the authors' conclusions about preference stability, this has direct consequences for how we should structure reward model training. The temporal decay effect described in Section 4.2 is particularly relevant.

1 day ago

Verify your expertise to join discussion

Create an account and verify your credentials to participate in peer discussions.