Advertisement

A Study on Effect of Big Five Personality Traits on Ad Targeting and Creative Design

  • Akihiro KobayashiEmail author
  • Yuichi IshikawaEmail author
  • Atsunori MinamikawaEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11433)

Abstract

This paper examines two personalization approaches to web advertisements focusing on the Big Five personality traits: (i) personality-based ad targeting, which predicts users’ receptiveness to ads from their Big Five personality and delivers ads to those with high receptiveness, and (ii) personality-based ad creative design, which specifies target Big Five personalities and tailors ad creative design for each personality. Previous research on (i) has not sufficiently verified whether it works for various ad products/services and ad creatives. To address this, we examined correlation between individuals’ Big Five and their general receptiveness to ads across various ad products/services and ad creatives. Regarding (ii), though its effectiveness has already been demonstrated, what to tailor in the ad creative and how to tailor it have not been clarified in previous research. We focused on cognitive bias, of which various kinds are commonly used in ad creatives today, and, assumed that using different cognitive bias depending on Big Five personality improves ad reaction (e.g., click through rate). Conducting a questionnaire survey, which included over 3,000 subjects and 20 ad creatives, we confirmed that Big Five personality can be significant predictor of receptiveness to ads and verified the potential of (i) to work for various products/services and creatives. On the other hand, regarding (ii), survey results did not support our assumption, the reason for which we consider is that there is no/little interaction effect between Big Five and cognitive bias on ad reaction.

Keywords

Personalization Big Five Advertisement Cognitive bias 

References

  1. 1.
    Alkış, N., Taşkaya Temizel, T.: The impact of individual differences on influence strategies. Pers. Individ. Differ. 87, 147–152 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PAID.2015.07.037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anagnostopoulou, E., Magoutas, B., Bothos, E., Schrammel, J., Orji, R., Mentzas, G.: Exploring the links between persuasion, personality and mobility types in personalized mobility applications. In: de Vries, P.W., Oinas-Kukkonen, H., Siemons, L., Beerlage-de Jong, N., van Gemert-Pijnen, L. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2017. LNCS, vol. 10171, pp. 107–118. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55134-0_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andersen, P., Nordvik, H.: Possible Barnum effect in the five factor model: do respondents accept random neo personality inventory-revised scores as their actual trait profile? Psychol. Rep. 90, 539–545 (2002).  https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.2002.90.2.539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Asch, S.E.: Opinions and social pressure. Sci. Am. 193, 31–35 (1955).  https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1155-31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brehm, J.W.: A Theory of Psychological Reactance. Academic Press, Oxford (1966)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen, J., Haber, E., Kang, R., Hsieh, G., Mahmud, J.: Making use of derived personality: the case of social media ad targeting. In: Ninth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, pp. 51–60 (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cialdini, R.: Harnessing the science of persuasion. Harv. Bus. Rev. 79, 72–81 (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cristani, M., Vinciarelli, A., Segalin, C., Perina, A.: Unveiling the multimedia unconscious: implicit cognitive processes and multimedia content analysis. In: Proceedings of the 21st ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pp. 213–222. ACM, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ferwerda, B., Tkalcic, M.: Predicting users’ personality from Instagram pictures. In: Proceedings of the 26th Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization - UMAP 2018, pp. 157–161. ACM Press, New York (2018)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Forer, B.R.: The fallacy of personal validation; a classroom demonstration of gullibility. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 44, 118–123 (1949)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goldberg, L.R.: The development of markers for the big five factor structure. Psychol. Assess. 4, 26–42 (1992).  https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Halko, S., Kientz, J.A.: Personality and persuasive technology: an exploratory study on health-promoting mobile applications. In: Ploug, T., Hasle, P., Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6137, pp. 150–161. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13226-1_16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haselton, M.G., Nettle, D., Andrews, P.W.: The evolution of cognitive bias. In: The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, pp. 724–746. Wiley, Hoboken (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hirsh, J.B., Kang, S.K., Bodenhausen, G.V.: Personalized persuasion. Psychol. Sci. 23, 578–581 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611436349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kahneman, D., Tversky, A.: Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47, 263–291 (1979).  https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kaptein, M.C.: Personalized persuasion in ambient intelligence. Technische Universiteit Eindhoven (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lin, C.: Segmenting customer brand preference: demographic or psychographic. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 11, 249–268 (2002).  https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420210435443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Marks, G., Miller, N.: Ten years of research on the false-consensus effect: an empirical and theoretical review (1987)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Matz, S.C., Kosinski, M., Nave, G., Stillwell, D.J.: Psychological targeting as an effective approach to digital mass persuasion. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 114, 12714–12719 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1710966114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moray, N.: Attention in dichotic listening: affective cues and the influence of instructions. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 11, 56–60 (1959).  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470215908416289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Murakami, Y., Murakami, C.: Scale construction of a “Big Five” personality inventory. Jpn. J. Personal. 6, 29–39 (1997). (in Japanese).  https://doi.org/10.2132/jjpjspp.6.1_29
  22. 22.
    Murakami, Y., Murakami, C.: The standardization of a Big Five personality inventory for separate generations. Jpn. J. Personal. 8, 32–42 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Murray, D.J., Ellis, R.R., Bandomir, C.A., Ross, H.E.: Charpentier (1891) on the size—weight illusion. Percept. Psychophys. 61, 1681–1685 (1999).  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Oinas-Kukkonen, H., Harjumaa, M.: Persuasive systems design: key issues, process model, and system features. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 24, 485–500 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351252928-14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    van Schalkwyk, C.L.: Consumer personality and bandwagon consumption behaviour. Auckland University of Technology (2014)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Seemann, E., Buboltz, W., Thomas, A., Soper, B., Wilkinson, L.: Normal personality variables and their relationship to psychological reactance (2005)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Josekutty Thomas, R., Masthoff, J., Oren, N.: Adapting healthy eating messages to personality. In: de Vries, P.W., Oinas-Kukkonen, H., Siemons, L., Beerlage-de Jong, N., van Gemert-Pijnen, L. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2017. LNCS, vol. 10171, pp. 119–132. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55134-0_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zeigarnik, B.: On finished and unfinished tasks. In: A Source Book of Gestalt Psychology, pp. 300–314. Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Company, London (1938)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.KDDI Research, Inc.Fujimino-shiJapan

Personalised recommendations