Purpose This study examines how consumers respond to sponsored hotel listings on online travel agency (OTA) platforms. Grounded in the persuasion knowledge model (PKM), it tests a sequential chain in which advertising recognition activates persuasion knowledge, which generates advertising skepticism, which suppresses purchase intention – with both direct paths from recognition predicted to be non-significant under full serial mediation. Design/methodology/approach A cross-sectional survey of 426 OTA users in Delhi, India, was conducted using purposive sampling to ensure prior sponsored-label exposure. Partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM)via SmartPLS 4 with 5,000-subsample bootstrapping was used for estimation. Findings All five hypotheses were supported. Advertising recognition is positively associated with persuasion knowledge (β = 0.483), which in turn is positively associated with advertising skepticism (β = 0.493); skepticism is negatively associated with purchase intention (β = −0.419). Both direct paths from advertising recognition, to skepticism and to purchase intention, were statistically non-significant, consistent with full mediation. The advertising recognition → persuasion knowledge → advertising skepticism → purchase intention (AR→PK→AS→PI) indirect effect (β = −0.100, p < 0.001) is consistent with the sponsored label's behavioural association being transmitted through this cognitive–evaluative sequence rather than through label visibility alone; because the design is cross-sectional, this pattern is interpreted as association, not proof of causal or temporal sequence. Originality/value This is among the first studies to test the complete PKM chain as an integrated sequential model in which both direct paths from advertising recognition are statistically non-significant, consistent with full mediation. The findings extend PKM boundary conditions to high-involvement, transactional digital environments and an Indian emerging market, though as a cross-sectional, single-market study these should be read as an initial extension rather than an established boundary condition.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chandra* et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: