Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
research-article

When does web-based personalization really work? The distinction between actual personalization and perceived personalization

Published: 01 January 2016 Publication History

Abstract

A number of prior studies have suggested that personalization is more efficacious than non-personalization. However, the existing literature is somewhat ambiguous on whether the test of personalization effects should be based on a message sender's actual personalization process or a message recipient's perception of the message. It is argued in this article that an actual personalization process does not automatically yield more favorable effects because people's perceptions of personalized messages tend to be biased. Through three experiments, it is demonstrated that testing personalization effects based on a message sender's actual personalization process can be problematic and produce misleading results. Specifically, a personalized message can be perceived as non-personalized and a non-personalized message can be perceived as personalized. The key finding is that perceived personalization, instead of actual personalization, is the underlying psychological mechanism of message effectiveness. A message will show superior effects when it is perceived to be personalized by a message recipient, regardless of whether it is actually personalized or not. Personalized messages are not always more effective than generic messages.Actual personalization and perceived personalization are two distinct constructs.A personalized message may be accidentally perceived as non-personalized.A non-personalized message may be accidentally perceived as personalized.Perceived personalization is the real driver of favorable personalization effects.

References

[1]
W. Abrahamse, L. Steg, C. Vlek, T. Rothengatter, The effect of tailored information, goal setting, and tailored feedback on household energy use, energy-related behaviors, and behavioral antecedents, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27 (2007) 265-276.
[2]
N. Arora, X. Dreze, A. Ghose, J.D. Hess, R. Iyengar, B. Jing, Putting one-to-one marketing to work: personalization, customization, and choice, Marketing Letters, 19 (2008) 305-321.
[3]
J.R. Bettman, M.F. Luce, J.W. Payne, Constructive consumer choice processes, Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (1998) 187-217.
[4]
P. Briñol, R.E. Petty, Fundamental processes leading to attitude change: implications for cancer prevention communications, Journal of Communication, 56 (2006) S81-S104.
[5]
R.E. Burnkrant, H.R. Unnava, Self-referencing: a strategy for increasing processing of message content, Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 15 (1989) 628-638.
[6]
M.J. Culnan, How did they get my name? An exploratory investigation of consumer attitudes toward secondary information use, MIS Quarterly, 17 (1993) 341-363.
[7]
B.R. Dineen, J. Ling, S.R. Ash, D. DelVecchio, Aesthetic properties and message customization: navigating the dark side of web recruitment, Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (2007) 356-372.
[8]
N. Franke, P. Keinz, C.J. Steger, Testing the value of customization: when do customers really prefer products tailored to their preferences?, Journal of Marketing, 73 (2009) 103-121.
[9]
N. Franke, M. Schreier, Product uniqueness as a driver of customer utility in mass customization, Marketing Letters, 19 (2008) 93-107.
[10]
R.P. Hawkins, K. Kreuter, K. Resnicow, M. Fishbein, A. Dijkstra, Understanding tailoring in communication about health, Health Education Research, 23 (2008) 454-466.
[11]
D.J. Howard, R.A. Kerin, The effects of personalized product recommendations on advertising response rates: the "Try this. It works!" technique, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14 (2004) 271-279.
[12]
C. Huffman, B.E. Kahn, Variety for sale: mass customization or mass confusion?, Journal of Retailing, 74 (1998) 491-513.
[13]
S. Kalyanaraman, S.S. Sundar, The psychological appeal of personalized content in web portals: does customization affect attitudes and behavior?, Journal of Communication, 56 (2006) 110-132.
[14]
T. Kramer, The effect of measurement task transparency on preference construction and evaluation of personalized recommendations, Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (2007) 224-233.
[15]
T. Kramer, S. Spolter-Weisfeld, M. Thakkar, The effect of cultural orientation on consumer response to personalization, Marketing Science, 26 (2007) 246-258.
[16]
H. Lavine, M. Snyder, Cognitive processing and the functional matching effect in persuasion: the mediating role of subjective perceptions of message quality, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32 (1996) 580-604.
[17]
C. Li, S. Kalyanaraman, What if website editorial content and ads are in two different languages? A study of bilingual consumers' online information processing, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 11 (2012) 198-206.
[18]
C. Li, S. Kalyanaraman, "I, me, mine" or "Us, we, ours?": the influence of cultural psychology on web-based customization, Media Psychology, 16 (2013) 272-294.
[19]
S.B. MacKenzie, R.J. Lutz, G.E. Belch, The role of attitude toward the ad as a mediator of advertising effectiveness: a test of competing explanations, Journal of Marketing Research, 23 (1986) 130-143.
[20]
D.M. Mackie, L.T. Worth, A.G. Asuncion, Processing of persuasive in-group messages, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58 (1990) 812-822.
[21]
R.E. Nisbett, T.D. Wilson, Telling more than we can know: verbal reports on mental processes, Psychological Review, 84 (1977) 231-259.
[22]
S.M. Noar, N.G. Harrington, R.S. Aldrich, The role of message tailoring in the development of persuasive health communication messages, in: Communication yearbook 33, Routledge, New York, NY, 2009, pp. 73-133.
[23]
R.E. Petty, J.T. Cacioppo, Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change, Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, 1986.
[24]
R.E. Petty, S.C. Wheeler, G.Y. Bizer, Attitude functions and persuasion: an elaboration likelihood approach to matched versus mismatched messages, in: Why we evaluate: Functions of attitudes, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 2000, pp. 133-162.
[25]
V.K. Pilling, L.A. Brannon, Assessing college students' attitudes toward responsible drinking messages to identify promising binge drinking intervention strategies, Health Communication, 22 (2007) 265-276.
[26]
T. Randall, C. Terwiesch, K.T. Ulrich, User design of customized products, Marketing Science, 26 (2007) 268-280.
[27]
B.K. Rimer, M.K. Kreuter, Advancing tailored health communication: a persuasion and message effects perspective, Journal of Communication, 56 (2006) S184-S201.
[28]
J. Rosen, Who do online advertisers think you are?, New York Times, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/magazine/who-do-online-advertisers-think-you-are.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
[29]
I. Simonson, Determinants of customers' responses to customized offers: conceptual framework and research propositions, Journal of Marketing, 69 (2005) 32-45.
[30]
H.J. Smith, S.J. Milberg, S.J. Burke, Information privacy: measuring individuals' concerns about organizational practices, MIS Quarterly, 20 (1996) 167-196.
[31]
Y. Sohn, J.K. Han, S.H. Lee, Communication strategies for enhancing perceived fit in the CSR sponsorship context, International Journal of Advertising, 31 (2012) 133-146.
[32]
S.S. Sundar, S.S. Marathe, Personalization versus customization: the importance of agency, privacy, and power usage, Human Communication Research, 36 (2010) 298-322.
[33]
N. Syam, P. Krishnamurthy, J.D. Hess, That's what I thought I wanted? Miswanting and regret for a standard good in a mass-customized world, Marketing Science, 27 (2008) 379-397.
[34]
K.Y. Tam, S.Y. Ho, Understanding the impact of web personalization on user information processing and decision outcomes, MIS Quarterly, 30 (2006) 865-890.
[35]
K.T. Tian, W.O. Bearden, G.L. Hunter, Consumers' need for uniqueness: scale development and validation, Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (2001) 50-66.
[36]
A. Valenzuela, R. Dhar, F. Zettelmeyer, Contingent response to self-customization procedures: implications for decision satisfaction and choice, Journal of Marketing Research, 46 (2009) 754-763.
[37]
S.C. Wheeler, R.E. Petty, G.Y. Bizer, Self-schema matching and attitude change: situational and dispositional determinants of message elaboration, Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (2005) 787-797.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Nudging with Narrative Visualization: Communicating to a Young Adult Audience in the PandemicProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36869508:CSCW2(1-21)Online publication date: 8-Nov-2024
  • (2024)Exploring the Impact of User-Participated Customization in Experiencing Chatbot FailureExtended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613905.3651102(1-7)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
  • (2023)Who's in Charge?Companion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction10.1145/3568294.3580152(580-586)Online publication date: 13-Mar-2023
  • Show More Cited By
  1. When does web-based personalization really work? The distinction between actual personalization and perceived personalization

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image Computers in Human Behavior
    Computers in Human Behavior  Volume 54, Issue C
    January 2016
    701 pages

    Publisher

    Elsevier Science Publishers B. V.

    Netherlands

    Publication History

    Published: 01 January 2016

    Author Tags

    1. Actual personalization
    2. Perceived personalization
    3. Personalization
    4. Personalized communication
    5. Personalized messages

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
    Reflects downloads up to 13 Jan 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)Nudging with Narrative Visualization: Communicating to a Young Adult Audience in the PandemicProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36869508:CSCW2(1-21)Online publication date: 8-Nov-2024
    • (2024)Exploring the Impact of User-Participated Customization in Experiencing Chatbot FailureExtended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613905.3651102(1-7)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
    • (2023)Who's in Charge?Companion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction10.1145/3568294.3580152(580-586)Online publication date: 13-Mar-2023
    • (2022)Getting a little too personal? Positive and negative effects of personalized advertising on online multitaskersTelematics and Informatics10.1016/j.tele.2022.10183171:COnline publication date: 1-Jul-2022
    • (2022)Sharing news with online friendsTelematics and Informatics10.1016/j.tele.2021.10176367:COnline publication date: 1-Feb-2022
    • (2022)Let’s get personalElectronic Commerce Research and Applications10.1016/j.elerap.2022.10118355:COnline publication date: 1-Sep-2022
    • (2021)Personalised Recommendations in Mental Health Apps: The Impact of Autonomy and Data SharingProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3411764.3445523(1-12)Online publication date: 6-May-2021
    • (2020)Beyond user experienceInternational Journal of Information Management: The Journal for Information Professionals10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.10206152:COnline publication date: 1-Jun-2020
    • (2020)An Exploration of Personalization in Digital Communication. Insights in FashionHCI in Business, Government and Organizations10.1007/978-3-030-50341-3_35(456-473)Online publication date: 19-Jul-2020
    • (2019)The placebo effect in web-based personalizationTelematics and Informatics10.1016/j.tele.2019.10126744:COnline publication date: 1-Nov-2019
    • Show More Cited By

    View Options

    View options

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media