Advertisement

Marketing Letters

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 39–50 | Cite as

Getting too personal: Reactance to highly personalized email solicitations

  • Tiffany Barnett WhiteEmail author
  • Debra L. Zahay
  • Helge Thorbjørnsen
  • Sharon Shavitt
Article

Abstract

Research on the effects of personalized messages on consumers’ behavioral responses has yielded mixed findings. We explore how e-mail personalization influences click-through intentions. Our results suggest that consumers experience personalization reactance in response to highly personalized messages when the fit between the offer in the message and consumers’ personal characteristics is not explicitly justified by firms. Consequently, consumers are less willing to respond favorably to the offer. Results of two studies suggest that this effect primarily emerges for consumers who perceive the utility of the service to be relatively low. For those consumers with higher perceived utility, justification of personalization is less important because highly personalized messages are less likely to elicit reactance.

Keywords

Personalization Reactance Relationships Email Consumers 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This research was supported by a grant from the Teradata Center for Customer Relationship Management at Duke University.

References

  1. Aggarwal, P. (2004). The effects of brand relationship norms on consumer attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 87–101 (June).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ansari, A., & Mela, C. (2003). E-customization. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(2), 131–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 51, 11731182(December).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  5. Campbell, M. C. (1995). When attention-getting advertising tactics elicit consumer inferences of manipulative intent. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4(3), 225–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caudill, E. M., & Murphy, P. E. (2000). Consumer online privacy: Legal and ethical issues. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 19(1), 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Edwards, S., Li, H., & Lee, J.-H. (2002). Forced exposure and psychological reactance: antecedents and consequences of the perceived intrusiveness of pop-up ads. Journal of Advertising, XXXI(3), 83–95.Google Scholar
  9. Fitzsimons, G. J., & Lehmann, D. R. (2004). Reactance to recommendations: When unsolicited advice yields contrary responses. Marketing Science, 23(1), 82–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ho, S. Y. (2006). The attraction of internet personalization to web users. Electronic Markets, 16(1), 41–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (1996). Marketing in hypermedia computer mediated environments: Conceptual foundations. Journal of Marketing, 60, 50–68 (July).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hong, S.-M., & Faedda, S. (1996). Refinement of the hong psychological reactance scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56(1), 173–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  14. Lin, H.-F. (2006). Understanding behavioral intention to participate in virtual communities. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 9(5), 540–547.Google Scholar
  15. Monroe, K. (2003). Pricing: Making profitable decisions 3rd Ed. Burr Ridge, IL: McGraw-Hill/ Irwin.Google Scholar
  16. Nysveen, H., Pedersen, P. E., & Thorbjornsen, H. (2005). Intentions to use mobile services: Antecedents and cross-service comparisons. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(3), 330–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Porter, S. R., & Whitcomb, M. E. (2003). The impact of contact type on web survey response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 579–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Postma, O. J., & Brokke, M. (2002). Personalization in practice: The proven effects of personalisation. Journal of Database Management, 9(2), 137–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Simonson, I. (2005). Determinants of customers’ responses to customized offers: Conceptual framework and research propositions. Journal of Marketing, 69, 32–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.) Sociological methodology (pp. 290–312). San Francisco: : Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  21. Thorbjørnsen, H., Supphellen, M., Nysveen, H., & Pedersen, P. E. (2002). Building brand relationships online. A comparison of two interactive applications. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 16(3), 17–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. White, T. B. (2004). Consumer disclosure and disclosure avoidance: A motivational framework. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(1&2), 41–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Zahay, D., & Griffin, A. (2003). Information antecedents of personalisation and customisation in business-to-business service markets. Journal of Database Marketing, 10(3), 255–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tiffany Barnett White
    • 1
    Email author
  • Debra L. Zahay
    • 2
  • Helge Thorbjørnsen
    • 3
  • Sharon Shavitt
    • 4
  1. 1.College of BusinessUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignChampaignUSA
  2. 2.Northern Illinois UniversityDeKalbUSA
  3. 3.Norwegian School of Economics and Business AdministrationBergenNorway
  4. 4.University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignChampaignUSA

Personalised recommendations