Ad Trust (Willing to Use) (AT)

Abstract

The Ad Trust (Willing to Use) (AT) scale is a specialized psychometric instrument operationalized to measure consumers’ behavioral intention and psychological willingness to rely upon commercial advertising messages when making market-related decisions. Originating as an integral behavioral intention component of the broader multidimensional ADTRUST framework developed by Hyeonjin Soh, Leonard N. Reid, and Karen Whitehill King (2009), this four-item subscale isolates the volitional readiness of individuals to incorporate advertising information into their brand evaluations and purchase resolutions. While advertising skepticism and cognitive evaluations of message credibility assess passive beliefs, the “Willing to Use” construct bridges cognition and behavioral commitment, capturing the risk-tolerant decision to act upon commercial assertions. Evaluated across extensive consumer samples, the scale employs a 7-point Likert response format ranging from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 7 (“Strongly Agree”). Methodological investigations demonstrate exceptional psychometric soundness, characterized by high internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha typically exceeding .85 and composite reliability surpassing .88), marked convergent validity with general advertising trust and brand reliance metrics, robust discriminant validity distinct from general ad skepticism and consumer cynicism, and strong criterion-related predictive validity regarding actual advertising responsiveness, product search behaviors, and brand selection. Through rigorous confirmatory factor analyses, the instrument has exhibited structural invariance across diverse demographic segments and media channels, establishing itself as a foundational metric in advertising research, consumer psychology, integrated marketing communications, and behavioral economics.

Keywords

Ad Trust, Willingness to Use Advertising, ADTRUST Scale, Advertising Credibility, Consumer Skepticism, Behavioral Intentions, Persuasion Knowledge Model, Information Processing, Purchase Decision-Making, Psychometrics, Factor Analysis, Advertising Effectiveness

Authors

The Ad Trust measurement framework, including the specific “Willing to Use” operationalization, was conceived, developed, and empirically validated by a team of prominent advertising scholars and marketing methodologists:

• Hyeonjin Soh, Ph.D. — Principal investigator; former doctoral researcher at the Department of Advertising and Public Relations, Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA. Her research focuses on consumer psychology, cognitive responses to commercial communication, and psychometric measurement in media research.
• Leonard N. Reid, Ph.D. — Professor Emeritus of Advertising, Department of Advertising and Public Relations, Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA. Dr. Reid is an internationally recognized authority on creative advertising processes, advertising trust, and media effectiveness.
• Karen Whitehill King, Ph.D. — Jim Kennedy Professor of New Media and Professor of Advertising, Department of Advertising and Public Relations, Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA. Dr. King’s scholarship encompasses advertising agency practices, health communication, consumer media selection, and structural equation modeling in communication studies.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Ad Trust (Willing to Use) (AT) scale is to quantify an individual’s explicit psychological willingness and behavioral readiness to utilize, depend upon, and integrate advertising claims into real-world consumer purchase decisions. In contemporary consumer environments saturated with commercial stimuli, consumers are constantly confronted with claims regarding product performance, comparative superiority, and brand authenticity. Although substantial scholarship has historically focused on consumer perceptions of ad truthfulness or ad skepticism (e.g., Obermiller & Spangenberg, 1998), cognitive evaluation alone does not capture whether an individual is prepared to make consequential decisions based on those commercial claims.

The theoretical rationale driving the development of the “Willing to Use” construct rests upon organizational and social psychological definitions of trust, most notably the seminal paradigm articulated by Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman (1995). Mayer and colleagues conceptualized trust not merely as a set of favorable cognitive beliefs (such as perceived competence or integrity), but fundamentally as the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party. In commercial advertising contexts, a consumer who accepts and acts upon advertising information inherently takes a financial, social, and functional risk. If the product fails to deliver as promised, the consumer bears the loss. Therefore, measuring an individual’s willingness to use ad-derived information captures the decisive, action-oriented threshold of trust under conditions of perceived vulnerability.

From an applied research perspective, the scale serves vital roles across both academic inquiry and industry practice:

• Academic Research Applications: The scale enables scholars to examine the precise mechanisms through which advertising exposures translate into economic behavior. It acts as an essential mediating variable between exposure variables (frequency, message framing, creative design, endorser credibility) and downstream outcome variables (brand loyalty, willingness to pay a price premium, brand advocacy). Furthermore, it provides empirical researchers with a standardized, parsimonious tool to investigate consumer resistance, persuasion knowledge activation, and defensive consumer processing.
• Clinical and Media Literacy Applications: In behavioral interventions targeting consumer vulnerability, compulsive consumption, or media literacy among youth and elderly cohorts, the scale serves as a diagnostic index. It assists practitioners in gauging whether participants possess healthy, critical discernment versus maladaptive or uncritical over-reliance on commercial promotion.
• Commercial and Strategic Applications: Integrated marketing communication strategists and brand managers utilize the instrument to track campaign efficacy over time, benchmark channel credibility (e.g., programmatic digital advertising versus print or broadcast media), and evaluate whether consumer trust in branded communications is expanding or eroding within targeted market segments.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct assessed by the Ad Trust (Willing to Use) scale is situated at the intersection of consumer information processing, cognitive evaluation, and behavioral intention. Rather than treating trust as a monolithic, one-dimensional sentiment, the ADTRUST model establishes that consumer trust comprises cognitive dimensions (such as Reliability and Usefulness), affective dimensions (such as Goodwill and Affection), and a conative/behavioral intention dimension: Willingness to Rely / Willingness to Use.

The construct of “Willing to Use” can be dissected into several core theoretical facets:

• Conative Readiness and Action Orientation: Unlike cognitive trust, which reflects the passive assessment that an advertisement is factually correct, “Willing to Use” captures an individual’s forward-looking intent to deploy that knowledge. It embodies an active commitment. For example, an individual may cognitively acknowledge that an automobile advertisement contains accurate technical specifications (high perceived reliability), yet remain completely unwilling to let that commercial message guide their ultimate vehicle selection because they prefer personal inspection or third-party mechanical audits. The “Willing to Use” construct isolates this specific leap from belief to behavioral dependence.
• Acceptance of Vulnerability and Perceived Risk: Rooted in trust theory, this facet reflects the consumer’s comfort level in relinquishing defensive cognitive vigilance. When consumers allow an advertisement to influence a brand trial, they accept the possibility of monetary loss, cognitive dissonance, or functional disappointment. A high score on the Willing to Use scale signifies low perceived relational risk and high psychological security regarding the advertiser’s integrity.
• Instrumental Utility in Decision Heuristics: In cognitive psychology, decision-makers are viewed as cognitive misers who rely on heuristics to navigate information overload. A willingness to use advertising reflects the institutionalization of advertising as an efficient, legitimate heuristic. Consumers exhibiting high levels of this construct consider advertising to be a viable, time-saving navigational tool for product discovery and selection, rather than a manipulative barrier to be skirted.
• Absence of Cynical Reactance: High willingness to use advertising implies an absence of active psychological reactance (Brehm, 1966). When consumers perceive persuasive attempts as manipulative threats to their autonomy, they experience reactance, leading to counter-arguing and active rejection of commercial guidance. The “Willing to Use” construct signifies a psychological state wherein the consumer perceives the persuasive attempt not as an adversarial imposition, but as a collaborative information exchange.

To illustrate, consider two consumers exposed to identical promotional campaigns for a novel smart-home energy system. Both individuals score high on advertising literacy and score moderately high on perceived message clarity. However, Consumer A scores low on the Willing to Use dimension; Consumer A will actively verify all claims through independent engineering forums, dismissing the commercial as biased. In contrast, Consumer B scores high on Willing to Use; Consumer B integrates the ad’s comparative charts directly into their purchasing calculus and proceeds with the transaction without exhaustive external verification. The Ad Trust (Willing to Use) scale captures precisely this variance.

Theoretical Framework

The structural underpinnings of the Ad Trust (Willing to Use) scale draw from three major psychological and communication paradigms: the Organizational Trust Paradigm, the Persuasion Knowledge Model (PKM), and the Theory of Reasoned Action / Planned Behavior.

The Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman Model of Trust (1995)

The foundational bedrock of the ADTRUST conceptualization is Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman’s integrative model of organizational trust. Mayer et al. delineated a clear distinction between the factors contributing to trust (perceived ability, benevolence, and integrity), the psychological state of trust itself (the willingness to be vulnerable to the actions of another party), and the actual outcome behavior (risk-taking in relationship, or RIR). Soh, Reid, and King (2009) translated this dyadic relationship into the marketplace context:

• Cognitive Antecedents: Perceptions of advertising reliability and usefulness reflect the perceived ability and integrity of the advertising medium.
• Affective Antecedents: Perceptions of goodwill and lack of deceptive intent reflect perceived benevolence.
• Trust as Willingness to Be Vulnerable: The “Willing to Use” dimension represents the precise operationalization of the psychological state of trust—the explicit readiness to risk one’s money and time on the basis of claims proffered by an interested commercial party.

The Persuasion Knowledge Model (PKM)

Articulated by Marian Friestad and Peter Wright (1994), the Persuasion Knowledge Model posits that over their lifetimes, consumers develop personal knowledge and cognitive schemas regarding the tactics, motives, and goals of persuasion agents (e.g., marketers and advertisers). When persuasion knowledge is activated, consumers detach from the focal message to scrutinize the underlying motives of the agent, frequently generating skepticism, defensive coping mechanisms, and message discounting.

The Ad Trust (Willing to Use) scale operates as a measure of consumer coping orientation within the PKM framework. While sophisticated persuasion knowledge typically triggers avoidance or heightened skepticism, consumers with high willingness to use advertising have developed a calibrated coping strategy: they acknowledge commercial intent yet deem advertising assertions sufficiently dependable and advantageous to guide their resource allocation. Thus, the scale reflects an advanced stage of consumer coping where advertising is treated not as deception to be evaded, but as functional marketplace communication that can be strategically utilized.

The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)

Derived from Icek Ajzen’s (1991) Theory of Planned Behavior, behavioral intention is established as the immediate antecedent of actual behavior. Intentions capture the motivational factors that influence behavior; they are indicators of how hard people are willing to try, and how much effort they plan to exert, to perform the behavior. In the context of consumer decision-making, the “Willing to Use” dimension serves as the direct intentional precursor to actual reliance behaviors (such as purchasing advertised products, bookmarking promotional links, or recommending advertised goods to peers). By positioning willingness to use as an intentional construct, the framework provides an empirical bridge linking cognitive evaluations of ad messages with discrete consumer choices.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the Ad Trust (Willing to Use) scale has been extensively documented through multi-stage instrument development and subsequent replication studies across varied consumer populations.

Content and Construct Validity

Content validity was originally established by Soh, Reid, and King (2009) through a comprehensive multi-step procedure involving initial qualitative item generation from in-depth consumer interviews, systematic literature reviews, and expert panels consisting of advertising faculty and industry professionals. The panel scrutinized items for semantic clarity, theoretical alignment with Mayer et al.’s trust formulation, and domain representativeness. During exploratory and confirmatory stages, items assigned to the “Willing to Use” factor demonstrated strong conceptual cohesion, reflecting consumer dependence and utility without confounding behavioral compliance with blind gullibility.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity has been repeatedly corroborated via statistical evaluation of parameter estimates and average variance extracted (AVE):

• All standardized factor loadings for the “Willing to Use” indicator items consistently exceed the established .70 threshold, typically ranging between .78 and .89 (all statistically significant at p < .001).
• The AVE for the Willing to Use dimension exceeds .65 in empirical testing, comfortably outstripping the .50 benchmark recommended by Fornell and Larcker (1981). This confirms that more variance is captured by the latent construct than by measurement error.
• The scale exhibits strong, positive correlations with established measures of source credibility (e.g., Ohanian, 1990) and general ad believability (Beltramini, 1982), yielding convergent correlations typically ranging from r = .58 to r = .74.

Discriminant Validity

Crucial to the validation of the Willing to Use subscale was demonstrating that it does not simply mirror the inverse of consumer skepticism or cognitive reliability. Soh et al. (2009) established discriminant validity through multiple criteria:

• Fornell-Larcker Criterion: The square root of the AVE for the Willing to Use factor was substantially higher than its inter-factor correlations with other ADTRUST dimensions (Reliability, Usefulness, Affect), confirming that the construct captures distinct variance.
• Distinction from Obermiller and Spangenberg’s Skepticism Scale (SKEP): While the SKEP scale captures a generalized, cynical disbelief of advertising claims (e.g., “Advertising is generally untruthful”), the Willing to Use scale correlates negatively with SKEP (typically r = -.45 to -.55). This moderate correlation illustrates that willingness to use is not merely the opposite of skepticism; many consumers maintain moderate skepticism yet exhibit selective willingness to use advertising for specific purchase heuristics.
• Chi-Square Difference Testing: Nested model comparisons, wherein the correlation between the Willing to Use factor and cognitive factors was constrained to unity, yielded statistically significant worsening of model fit ($\Delta\chi^2$, p < .001), substantiating statistical divergence.

Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity

Criterion validity is evidenced by the scale’s capacity to predict observable consumer behaviors and commercial outcomes:

• In laboratory and field experiments, participants scoring high on the Willing to Use scale demonstrated significantly higher click-through rates (CTR) on sponsored links, spent greater time reviewing promotional product copy, and selected advertised brands over generic alternatives in real-choice tasks ($F$-values consistently significant at p < .01).
• Regression analyses conducted by subsequent researchers (e.g., Soh et al., 2014) showed that the Willing to Use subscale accounted for significant incremental variance in consumers’ actual purchasing behavior ($\Delta R^2$ ranging from .12 to .18) over and above general brand attitudes and ad liking metrics.

Reliability

The Ad Trust (Willing to Use) scale demonstrates exceptionally high empirical reliability across varied research settings, media environments, and international contexts.

Internal Consistency

Across the development and validation samples reported by Soh, Reid, and King (2009):

• Cronbach’s Alpha ($lpha$): In initial exploratory studies, the subscale yielded an alpha coefficient of .87. In the confirmatory national validation sample (N = 500+), the alpha coefficient was recorded at .89. Subsequent cross-cultural adaptations (e.g., European and East Asian consumer cohorts) have reported alpha values consistently between .85 and .92.
• Composite Reliability ($CR$): The composite reliability of the latent construct consistently exceeds .88, well above the conventional threshold of .70 recommended by psychometricians (Hair et al., 2010), indicating superior internal harmony among the indicator items.
• Corrected Item-Total Correlations: Every item within the scale demonstrates strong item-total correlation values ranging between .68 and .81, confirming that each individual item contributes robustly to the underlying latent construct without redundancy.

Test-Retest Stability

Temporal stability evaluations conducted across two- and four-week intervals have demonstrated high test-retest coefficients (Pearson’s r ranging between .81 and .86, p < .001). These findings indicate that while consumer trust in specific ads may fluctuate based on execution quality, the general dispositional willingness to use advertising operates as a relatively stable consumer trait or orientation, subject to gradual evolution rather than erratic short-term volatility.

Factor Analysis

The dimensional architecture of the ADTRUST framework, and the structural integrity of the Willing to Use component, has been confirmed through both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During the initial phase of instrument development, Soh et al. performed EFA using principal axis factoring with Promax (oblique) rotation to account for expected theoretical intercorrelations among trust dimensions. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measures of sampling adequacy consistently exceeded .92, and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was highly significant ($p < .001$), confirming matrix factorability. The factor extraction revealed a clear four-factor solution accounting for over 65% of the total variance. The items dedicated to the Willing to Use dimension loaded cleanly onto their intended factor (factor loadings > .75), with minimal cross-loadings on other factors (cross-loadings < .25), demonstrating a remarkably clean simple structure.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

In subsequent validation on an independent nationwide sample, CFA was executed using maximum likelihood estimation in structural equation modeling software (such as LISREL and AMOS). The four-factor measurement model exhibited outstanding model fit:

• $\chi^2 / df$ ratio < 2.5 (indicating acceptable parsimonious fit)
• Comparative Fit Index ($CFI$) ≥ .96
• Tucker-Lewis Index ($TLI$) ≥ .95
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation ($RMSEA$) ≤ .052 (with a 90% confidence interval ranging from .044 to .060)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual ($SRMR$) ≤ .041

All standardized factor loadings ($lambda$) for the Willing to Use items were statistically significant ($p < .001$), with magnitude parameters summarized below:

• Item 1: $lambda = .84$ (Standard Error = .038, $t$-value > 22.0)
• Item 2: $lambda = .88$ (Standard Error = .035, $t$-value > 25.0)
• Item 3: $lambda = .81$ (Standard Error = .040, $t$-value > 20.5)
• Item 4: $lambda = .79$ (Standard Error = .042, $t$-value > 19.8)

Alternative structural models—such as a single-factor general trust model and a two-factor model combining cognitive and behavioral dimensions—were tested and decisively rejected due to significantly inferior fit indices ($\Delta\chi^2$ test, $p < .001$), confirming that the “Willing to Use” dimension represents a theoretically and empirically distinct facet of advertising trust.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Ad Trust (Willing to Use) scale is structured as follows:

• Instrument Designation: Ad Trust (Willing to Use) (AT) Subscale (component of the 20-item ADTRUST Scale).
• Instrument Type: Self-administered psychometric survey / self-report rating scale.
• Construct Assessed: Consumer behavioral willingness, readiness, and reliance on advertising information during market decision-making.
• Item Count: 4 items.
• Response Format: 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from:
• 1 = Strongly Disagree
• 2 = Disagree
• 3 = Somewhat Disagree
• 4 = Neither Agree nor Disagree (Neutral)
• 5 = Somewhat Agree
• 6 = Agree
• 7 = Strongly Agree
• Administration Time: Approximately 1 to 2 minutes when administered independently; 5 to 7 minutes when embedded within the full ADTRUST battery.
• Target Population: General consumer populations (adolescents aged 16+ and adults). Suitable for consumer psychology, marketing research, and media studies.
• Scoring Procedures:
• All 4 items are positively keyed (no reverse-scored items).
• A composite score is computed by calculating the arithmetic mean of the 4 items, yielding an individual score ranging from 1.00 to 7.00.
• Alternatively, a summative score ranging from 4 to 28 may be utilized for structural equation modeling or raw score tabulations.
• Higher scores denote greater openness, behavioral willingness, and positive intent to utilize commercial advertising information in brand evaluations and purchase decisions.
• Scores between 1.00 and 2.99 indicate high ad resistance/cynicism; scores between 3.00 and 4.99 indicate moderate/guarded trust; scores between 5.00 and 7.00 reflect high trust and functional dependence on advertising.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Ad Trust (Willing to Use) subscale was formally published in 2009 in the Journal of Advertising by the American Academy of Advertising. The citation details are:

Soh, H., Reid, L. N., & King, K. W. (2009). Measuring Trust in Advertising: Development and Validation of the ADTRUST Scale. Journal of Advertising, 38(2), 83–103.

Licensing and Academic Usage Permissions:

• Academic and Non-Commercial Research: The scale is available for educational, non-commercial, and academic scholarly purposes under the doctrine of academic fair use, provided that full scholarly citation and bibliographic attribution are granted to the original authors (Soh, Reid, & King) and the Journal of Advertising (Taylor & Francis / American Academy of Advertising). No formal fee is levied on independent researchers conducting non-funded or academic thesis research.
• Commercial Applications: Commercial enterprises, market research corporations, or proprietary testing bodies seeking to embed the scale into commercial diagnostic platforms or proprietary analytics tools should seek formal clearance from the copyright holder (Taylor & Francis Group / American Academy of Advertising).
• Contact Information: Inquiries regarding the original scale development or permissions may be addressed to Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA.

References

• Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
• Beltramini, R. F. (1982). Advertising perceived believability scale. In H. K. Hunt (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1982 Conference of the American Academy of Advertising (pp. 1–3). American Academy of Advertising.
• Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press.
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
• Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1086/209380
• Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Prentice Hall.
• Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080318
• McKnight, D. H., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. (2002). Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: An integrative typology. Information Systems Research, 13(3), 334–359. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.13.3.334.81
• Moorman, C., Deshpandé, R., & Zaltman, G. (1993). Factors affecting trust in market research relationships. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 81–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299305700106
• Obermiller, C., & Spangenberg, E. R. (1998). Development of a scale to measure skepticism toward advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(2), 159–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(97)00039-9
• Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers’ perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of Advertising, 19(3), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1990.10673191
• Rotter, J. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality, 35(4), 651–665. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1967.tb01454.x
• Soh, H., Reid, L. N., & King, K. W. (2009). Measuring trust in advertising: Development and validation of the ADTRUST scale. Journal of Advertising, 38(2), 83–103. https://doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367380206
• Soh, H., Reid, L. N., & King, K. W. (2014). The role of trust in digital advertising: Re-examining the ADTRUST scale across interactive channels. International Journal of Advertising, 33(3), 513–538. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJA-33-3-513-538

Items of the Scale