STAY AWAY FROM ME

Examining the Determinants of Consumer Avoidance of Personalized Advertising

Tae Hyun Baek and Mariko Morimoto

ABSTRACT: This study attempts to identify the potential determinants of advertising avoidance in the context of person-
alized advertising media, including unsolicited commercial e-mail, postal direct mail, telemarketing, and text messaging.
Using a self-administered survey (n = 442), the proposed model is tested with structural equation modeling analysis. The
findings indicate that while ad skepticism partially mediates the relationship between ad avoidance and its three determi-
nants (perceived personalization, privacy concerns, and ad irritation), both privacy concerns and ad irritation have a direct
positive effect on ad avoidance. However, increased perceived personalization leads directly to decreased ad avoidance.

Today, the advanced development of information-processing is used by approximately 13 million people. Consumers have
technology allows advertisers to shift the focus of their efforts registered more than 198 million telephone numbers on the
from traditional mass advertising to personalized advertis- do-not-call list (Federal Trade Commission 2011).
ing to deliver messages tailored to individual preferences. Over the past five decades, there has been a well-articulated
In this study, we define personalized advertising as a form of body of academic research on advertising avoidance (Abernethy
customized promotional messages that are delivered to each 1990; Bellman, Schweda, and Varan 2010; Nuttall 1962;
individual consumer through paid media based on personal Rich, Owens, and Ellenbogen 1978). In particular, potential
information (such as consumers’ names, past buying history, determinants of advertising avoidance across traditional (e.g.,
demographics, psychographics, locations, and lifestyle inter- Speck and Elliott 1997) and online media (e.g., Cho and
ests). Personalized advertising has provided more opportunities Cheon 2004; Edwards, Li, and Lee 2002) have emerged as an
for advertisers in customer relationship management due to its important focus of research inquiry to provide insights that
advantageous characteristics regarding the availability of one- may suggest strategic ways to decrease advertising avoidance.
to-one marketing communication, segmentation/targeting of However, little scholarly attention has been paid to the under-
prospective audiences, and the ability to obtain measurable lying factors that drive advertising avoidance in the context
responses in direct marketing communication campaigns (Kim of personalized media. The current research will attempt to
et al. 2001). Many personalized advertisements are considered provide an integrated theoretical approach to resistance for
to be unwelcome, however, and therefore elicit advertising understanding the dynamics of consumer avoidance of per-
avoidance. Consumers have often used various ad avoidance sonalized advertising. Resistance can be conceptualized as an
tools, such as blocking online advertisements, filtering e‑mail, outcome, a process, and a motivation (Knowles and Linn 2004;
and subscribing to do-not-call, do-not-mail, or do-not track Tormala and Petty 2004). Of these standpoints of resistance,
programs. It is estimated that more than half of all American the dominant view is the motivation to resist. Brehm’s (1966)
households use ad-blocking technologies (e.g., spam filters) psychological reactance theory suggests that people are moti-
to avoid unwanted commercial messages via e‑mail (Forrester vated to resist change when they perceive that their personal
Research 2006). Recently, Mozilla (2011) reported that Ad- freedoms are threatened.
block Plus, a function available on the Firefox Web browser, The purpose of this study is to examine the key factors that
can influence personalized advertising avoidance. This study
also aims to investigate how such underlying processes may
differ across a variety of advertising formats, including unso-
licited commercial e‑mail, direct mail, telephone calls, and
text messages. An understanding of what drives personalized
Tae Hyun Baek (Ph.D., University of Georgia) is an assistant profes- ad avoidance can not only help advertising scholars develop
sor of advertising, Department of Communication Studies, Indiana a comprehensive theoretical framework of ad avoidance that
University–Southeast. goes beyond traditional mass advertising, but can also help
Mariko Morimoto (Ph.D., Michigan State University) is an assistant practitioners fine-tune their direct marketing communica-
professor of marketing communication, Department of Marketing tion strategies in an effort to decrease consumer avoidance of
Communication, Emerson College. personalized advertising.
Journal of Advertising, vol. 41, no. 1 (Spring 2012), pp. 59–76.
© 2012 American Academy of Advertising. All rights reserved.
ISSN 0091-3367 / 2012 $9.50 + 0.00.
DOI 10.2753/JOA0091-3367410105
60  The Journal of Advertising

BACKGROUND have the intent of selling products or services to consumers)

(Morimoto and Chang 2006); (3) telemarketing calls initiated
Personalization in marketing and advertising is no longer a by marketers for sending commercial messages to consumers
novel phenomenon (Stewart and Ward 1994). Using consumer with regard to outbound calls; and (4) text messages (wireless
information such as demographics, locations, and lifestyles, commercial messages that are sent to consumers’ cell phones,
marketers can select personalization strategies ranging from pagers, and personal data assistants [PDAs] by advertisers)
mass customization/personalization to one-to-one market- (Petty 2003).
ing to satisfy consumers’ needs (Vesanen and Raulas 2006). Some issues should be taken into consideration in the
Several scholars have attempted to define “personalization” discussion of personalized advertising. First, personalized
in the context of marketing. Despite such efforts, it appears advertisements may not necessarily be addressed to individual
that coming to an agreement on the definition is not an easy consumers since they may be sent to a subset of consumer
task, as personalization means something different to each groups based on information such as location. This is par-
marketer (Vesanen 2007). ticularly applicable to promotions using mobile phones (e.g.,
For the purpose of the current study, we distinguish the text messaging) due to geo-location technologies such as
differences among personalized marketing, promotion, and Global Positioning System (GPS) or Cell of Origin (COO)
advertising. Personalized marketing, as defined by Gillen- that allow marketers to localize cell-phone users (Bauer et
son, refers to “marketers offering customers specific products al. 2005).
for their consideration based on the consumer information” Another point is that personalized ads can be sent to con-
(2000, p. 21). This definition focuses more on what market- sumers who do not necessarily provide permission to marketers
ers offer (products or services). As such, personalization in the directly. In the United States, the CAN-SPAM Act requires
marketing context involves tailoring the product differently marketers to provide consumers with information on how to
for each consumer while retaining the principle of mass pro- opt-out from mailing lists and unsolicited commercial e‑mail
duction (Goldsmith and Freiden 2004). For example, within (Federal Trade Commission 2009a). As for postal direct mail,
the application of personalized marketing, customer rating the Direct Marketing Association offers a service called DMA
systems provide product recommendations to customers by Mail Preference for a small fee. This service allows consumers
matching their interests with product content (i.e., content- to refuse subscriptions to mailing lists for unsolicited com-
based system) or by using overlap of preference ratings to mercial mail. The direct mail categories to which the service
combine “like-minded” customers’ opinions (i.e., collaborative is applicable are credit offers, catalogs, magazine offers, and
system) (Cheung et al. 2003). Personalized promotions, on the other mail offers such as donation requests, bank offers, and
other hand, can be a wide array of communicative activities retail promotions (Direct Marketing Association 2011a).
whose purpose is to make individually customized offers. As However, the service does not apply to mailings from orga-
suggested by Zhang and Wedel (2009), personalized promo- nizations that do not use the DMA’s Mail Preference Service
tions are primarily funded by consumer products companies (Federal Trade Commission 2009b). Regarding telemarketing,
based on special agreements, such as customized coupons and the National Do Not Call Registry allows consumers to limit
consumer loyalty programs. They are also provided to selected telemarketing calls they receive. However, this is applicable
households in a covert manner and are not easily observed by only to calls from telemarketers covered by the registry, and
competitors. While the lines between promotion and adver- telemarketers have up to 31 days from the date of registra-
tising are blurred in today’s marketplace, personalization in tion to stop calling (Federal Trade Commission 2009b). In
advertising gives more weight to commercial messages that addition, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act states that financial
are customized to each individual consumer. Such messages institutions that issue their own credit, such as banks, credit
encompass, but are not limited to, product special offers and unions, real estate appraisers, insurance companies, automo-
product recommendations based on individual consumers’ bile leasing companies, and retailers, must provide consumers
preferences and personal information (Kramer 2007). with a detailed privacy notice and the opportunity to opt-out
The focus of the current study is on personalized com- before they share nonpublic personal information with third
mercial messages sent via direct marketing and telemarket- parties (Direct Marketing Association 2011b). At a state level,
ing communication media without permission. Among a California Civil Code Section 1798.83 requires businesses
variety of advertising media, four major types of personalized to “disclose types of personal information they share with
advertising media were selected for the study: (1) unsolicited third parties, and if a consumer requests, they must provide
commercial e‑mail (spam; any commercial electronic commu- the information shared with other businesses as well as the
nication message sent by marketers without consumer permis- names and addresses of parties with whom the information is
sion to correspond) (Morimoto and Chang 2006); (2) direct shared” (Lustigman 2007, p. 3). However, notwithstanding
mail (any unsolicited postal mail piece in which companies federal, state, and industry regulations, consumers may still
 Spring 2012  61

receive personalized ads from marketers because they may conceptualized as an outcome, a process, and a motivation
have previously opted in with other marketers or because the of attitude changes (Knowles and Linn 2004; Tormala and
marketers who send personalized ads may not be subject to Petty 2004). There are many important things to note, the
the regulated fields. As a result, the third party might have first being that resistance as an outcome refers to the absence
access to consumer information and personalize ads based on of attitude change, or even attitude change away from the
the information provided. In such a case, consumer responses message position (e.g., advertising avoidance) ( Johnson et al.
may be negative because they may perceive such targeting 2004; Tormala and Petty 2004). Second, Knowles and Linn
efforts as too personal (White et al. 2008). (2004) have asserted that resistance is viewed as a sequential
Despite such concerns, personalized advertising provides process of attitudinal response to pressures for change. Adopt-
benefits to both consumers and marketers. For consumers, it ing the tripartite model of attitude formation, resistance could
enables a quick focus on what they really want because relevant be formed through affective (“I don’t like it”), cognitive (“I
communication messages are based on their preferences, mini- don’t believe it”), and behavioral (“I won’t do it”) processes.
mizing the time that consumers spend searching for informa- Finally, resistance has been used to describe the motivation
tion through an entire product assortment to find precisely to resist unwanted influence or protect the existing attitude.
what they want (Srinivasan, Anderson, and Ponnavolu 2002). In light of the motivational desire for resistance, Knowles
For marketers, personalized advertising will be more cost ef- and Linn (2004) identify four different but possibly related
fective, compared with traditional mass advertising, because components of resistance, including reactance, distrust, scru-
it has the potential to distribute highly tailored commercial tiny, and inertia. Among these faces of resistance, the concept
messages to an individual consumer who has been identified of reactance represents the affective and motivational sides
as a viable prospect in the target market (Kim et al. 2001). of resistance to persuasion (Brehm 1966; Knowles and Linn
In addition, personalized advertising plays a central role in 2004). Though resistance and reactance do not theoretically
customer relationship management. Vesanen stated, “the overlap, the precise definition of these terms remains somewhat
urge to personalize is largely driven by the expected benefits elusive and they are often used interchangeably in the literature
of one-to-one marketing and customer relationship manage- (Knowles and Linn 2004).
ment” (2007, p. 409). Acknowledging the importance of reactance as an integral
While personalization is attractive for advertising and element of resistance, psychological reactance theory (Brehm
marketing practices, it is not without drawbacks. Early work 1966; Brehm and Brehm 1981) provides a richer understand-
found no effects of personalized mailings on response rates ing of how and why people resist unwanted advertising persua-
(Weilbacher and Walsh 1952). More recent research shows sion. This theory postulates that whenever people perceive that
that consumers have negative attitudes toward personalized a free behavior is restricted or eliminated, they tend to expe-
ads when they feel that the ad message is not well targeted rience reactance and are motivated to modify their attitudes
to them. As suggested by Pavlou and Stewart (2000), con- and behaviors to reaffirm their freedom and autonomy. That
sumers tend to receive only relevant messages that are most is, reactance arises from external threats to one’s freedom of
likely to generate purchases or other desired responses. Tsang, choice. In one demonstration, Edwards, Li, and Lee (2002) use
Ho, and Liang (2004) found that consumers generally have psychological reactance theory to examine negative responses
negative attitudes toward personalized mobile advertising to pop‑up ads, indicating that ad intrusiveness triggered by
(text message–based), which, in turn, negatively impacts forced exposure leads to advertising avoidance. Similarly, per-
their behavior, suggesting that mobile advertising messages sonalized advertising may result in consumer reactance with
should not be sent to consumers without prior permission. respect to advertising avoidance because ad messages contain-
In this respect, personalized advertising has the potential to ing too much personal information often threaten consumers’
raise issues of privacy invasion because most marketers rely on perceived ability to avoid being closely observed by the firms
consumer databases for developing more relevant and targeted (White et al. 2008).
messages. Recognizing the importance of privacy concerns, In considering the issue of privacy invasion, highly per-
personalized advertising itself may trigger negative responses sonalized ad messages may raise consumer fears about loss of
to advertising, such as ad avoidance. freedom to control the use of private information. For example,
consumers who receive personalized messages from unknown
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK advertisers may perceive their personal information as being
AND HYPOTHESES abused (Okazaki, Li, and Hirose 2009). If ad messages are per-
ceived as too personal, then consumers are likely to experience
Abundant research has demonstrated the phenomenon of a reactance state because they suspect that the right of autono-
resistance to persuasion and the psychological mechanisms mous choice to handle their private data would be threatened
by which it works. Across numerous studies, resistance is and invaded by unknown advertisers or third parties. There
62  The Journal of Advertising

is evidence that consumers tend to experience psychological component of ad avoidance refers to a consumer’s actions to
reactance in response to highly personalized messages when avoid an object. In the context of personalized advertising,
they feel constrained by the sense of being too identifiable or these three elements of ad avoidance may lead consumers
observable by companies (White et al. 2008). In sum, per- to intentionally ignore any personalized ads (cognitive ad
sonalized advertising has the potential to threaten consumers’ avoidance), avoid any personalized ads if they hate the ads
perceptions of freedom to control how personal information is (affective ad avoidance), or discard any personalized e‑mail
used and thereby may result in greater reactance. ads immediately without opening them (behavioral ad
Drawing on theoretical frameworks of resistance (Knowles avoidance).
and Linn 2004) and reactance (Brehm 1966; Brehm and
Brehm 1981), we will develop a conceptual model of person- Skepticism Toward Advertising
alized ad avoidance that integrates a series of motivational
factors, including perceived privacy concerns, ad irritation, Ad avoidance can be caused by consumer skepticism toward
perceived personalization, and skepticism toward personal- advertising. According to Obermiller and Spangenberg (1998),
ized advertising. skepticism toward advertising is defined as a tendency to dis-
believe the informational claims of advertising. It is argued
Advertising Avoidance that skepticism toward advertising is a stable characteristic
of consumers that plays a role in responses to advertisements
Understanding why people avoid advertising has been (Obermiller and Spangenberg 1998, 2000). In light of cur-
a long-standing area of inquiry for both researchers and rent knowledge, Knowles and Linn (2004) assert that one of
practitioners in the domains of advertising and marketing. the most prominent facets of resistance is a general distrust
Advertising avoidance has been cited as one of the greatest of persuasive stimuli manifested by consumer skepticism. As
obstacles for advertisers. According to Speck and Elliott, such, people are likely to become guarded and wary when
ad avoidance is characterized as “all actions by media us- faced with a proposal, offer, or message to change because they
ers that differentially reduce their exposure to ad content” are aware of the persuasive intent that makes them engage in
(1997, p. 61). There has been a great deal of research on ad biased processing.
avoidance across different media. Many early studies have Virtually all advertising claims have some degree of disbe-
examined the causes and consequences of ad avoidance, lief because consumers recognize that advertisers have specific
emphasizing traditional media such as television, radio, motives, such as persuading consumers and selling products
magazines, and newspapers. For instance, Clancey (1994) (Mangleburg and Bristol 1998). According to the Persuasion
articulates that people can remove a television commercial Knowledge Model (PKM; Friestad and Wright 1994), con-
from their attention by ignoring the ad (cognitive avoidance), sumers have developed beliefs about the tactics (e.g., adver-
leaving the room (physical avoidance), or switching channels tising and other promotional programs) that advertisers use
(mechanical avoidance). Zapping television commercials is to try to persuade them, and thus become more skeptical of
related to zapping radio ads (Heeter and Greenberg 1985), such tactics over time. Extant literature has provided empirical
and flipping through television channels is also similar to evidence supporting the extent of skepticism as a determinant
flipping through magazine and newspaper pages (Bellamy of reactance responses to pervasive advertising attempts. For
and Walker 1996). Speck and Elliott (1997) found that the instance, Obermiller and Spangenberg (1998) found that
predictors of ad avoidance in television, radio, magazines, more skeptical consumers evaluated advertised offers more
and newspapers include demographic characteristics (e.g., negatively than did less skeptical consumers. Obermiller,
age and income), media-related variables (e.g., overall media Spangenberg, and MacLachlan (2005) found that consumers
exposure advertising perceptions (e.g., ad irritation), and with high skepticism like advertising less, rely on it less, and
communication problems (e.g., search hindrance). Recent thus tend to avoid advertisements (e.g., more zipping through/
research has focused on ad avoidance on the Internet. Cho zapping television commercials). Consistent with the notion
and Cheon (2004) found that perceived goal impediment, of persuasion knowledge, consumers may perceive advertis-
perceived ad clutter, and prior negative experiences can lead ers’ claims of customization to their personal preferences as
consumers to avoid advertising on the Internet. attempts to persuade and manipulate (Simonson 2005). Taken
According to Cho and Cheon (2004), ad avoidance has together, it is expected that those who are high in ad skepticism
three components of consumer advertising responses: cog- are inclined to avoid advertising since consumer skepticism
nition, affect, and behavior. The cognitive component of ad toward personalized advertising reflects a general distrust of
avoidance refers to a consumer’s belief about an object. The advertiser tactics, which include using their name and other
affective component of ad avoidance represents a consumer’s personal information. Accordingly, the following hypothesis
feeling or emotional reaction to an object. The behavioral is presented.
 Spring 2012  63

Hypothesis 1: Personalized advertising skepticism will be make consumers perceive their privacy as threatened and
positively related to personalized ad avoidance. thus evoke greater resistance since they are likely to object to
advertising practices that involve keeping track of and storing
Perceived Privacy Concerns their personal preferences (Simonson 2005).
A considerable amount of research has examined attitudinal
As mentioned earlier, personalized advertising has the potential and behavioral consumer reactions that stem from privacy con-
to raise consumer privacy concerns because customizing com- cerns. For example, Milne and Boza (1999) find that privacy
munication messages in advertising is based on consumer in- concerns are negatively related to purchase behavior and trust
formation. With the rapid advances of information processing and perceived information control. In addition, Sheehan and
and communication technologies, most marketers collect and Hoy (1999) reveal that as privacy concerns increase, consum-
track personal information about specific consumer purchase ers are likely to have negative behavior responses to online
histories and characteristics to identify the best prospects, advertising, such as providing incomplete information to
customized advertising, and promotion strategies; imple- Web sites, requesting removal from e‑mailing lists, or sending
ment highly targeted direct-marketing efforts; and establish highly negative messages (i.e., a “flame”) to online advertis-
reward and loyalty programs (e.g., Dolnicar and Jordaan 2007; ers sending unsolicited e‑mail. Dolnicar and Jordaan (2007)
Hughes 2005; Phelps, Nowak, and Ferrell 2000). show that the vast majority of consumers intend to take action
However, information privacy is a key concern for consum- (e.g., requesting removal of information or supporting privacy
ers (Gurau, Ranchhod, and Gauzente 2003; Nowak and Phelps protection policies) when they suspect that their personal
1992). In a legal context, the notion of privacy refers to “the information is not protected.
right to be left alone” (Warren and Brandeis 1890, p. 205). These preceding results support our prediction that high
Taking into account the multidimensional nature of privacy, privacy concerns will result in ad skepticism (e.g., distrust
Burgoon et al. define it as “the ability to control and limit advertising claims or suspect the intent of the advertiser)
physical, interactional, psychological, and informational ac- and ultimately ad avoidance (e.g., ignore ads intentionally
cess to the self or one’s group” (1989, p. 132). Central to the or request removal from e‑mailing, mailing, and phone lists)
definition of privacy is the issue of privacy concerns (Paine et in personalized media. Thus, the following hypotheses are
al. 2007; Westin 1967). Adopting Westin’s (1967) terminol- proposed:
ogy of privacy, perceived privacy concerns are defined here as
Hypothesis 2: Perceived privacy concerns will be positively
the degree to which a consumer is worried about the potential
related to personalized advertising skepticism.
invasion of the right to prevent the disclosure of personal infor-
mation to others. Many public opinion surveys have revealed Hypothesis 3: Perceived privacy concerns will be positively
that the majority of American consumers are concerned about related to personalized ad avoidance.
what companies know about them, how companies obtain and
use personal information, and the accuracy of the information Perceived Ad Irritation
used (Equifax-Harris 1995, 1996; Harris-Equifax 1992; for
a review, see Phelps, Nowak, and Ferrell 2000). In an online Perceived ad irritation is defined here as consumers’ percep-
environment, for example, Pew Internet and American Life tions of the extent to which advertising is causing displeasure
Project (2008) report that 95% of American consumers said and momentary impatience (Aaker and Bruzzone 1985). Prior
it was important to control who has access to their personal research has indicated that there are several factors that may
information and they are concerned about online privacy. trigger perceived ad irritation, such as ad content and execu-
Pew Research Center also reports that approximately 40% tion. Consumers are likely to be irritated when ad content
of individuals who have managed their personal information is untruthful, exaggerated, or confusing, when there are too
online indicate that they worry about how much information many ads, or when the same ad appears too frequently (Aaker
is available about them (Madden and Smith 2010). and Bruzzone 1985; Edwards, Li, and Lee 2002).
In applying the principles of psychological reactance theory Beyond these factors, ad irritation results in unfavor-
in an advertising context, it can be argued that resistance able attitudes toward advertising (Fennis and Bakker 2001;
occurs if advertising is perceived as intending to direct or Morimoto and Chang 2006) and thus negatively affects the
control one’s choices. Nowadays, many consumers feel that value of advertising (Ducoffe 1995, 1996). According to
they have little control over the volume of e‑mails, direct psychological reactance theory, people are often inclined to
mail pieces, and phone calls intruding into their daily lives react against persuasive messages perceived as dissatisfying
(Dolnicar and Jordaan 2007). Given the potential utility of their need for self-determination and control (Brehm 1966;
information-processing technology designed to intrude in a Burgoon et al. 2002). We propose the extension of the theo-
consumer’s private domain, personalized advertising could retical position. If consumers feel they lack control over their
64  The Journal of Advertising

personal information posed by personalized advertising, they utility (e.g., some rewards and benefits from the restricted
are likely to have irritating experiences that could contribute freedom) significantly decreases consumer reactance against
to cognitive or behavioral components of resistance, including the loyalty program.
ad skepticism and avoidance. Empirical evidence in support of Like the concept of perceived utility that involves valu-
this argument shows that perceived ad irritation strongly influ- able benefits from personalized advertising, perceived per-
ences skepticism toward the advertising medium in the context sonalization is essential for optimizing advertising messages
of unsolicited commercial e‑mail (Morimoto and Chang 2009). that match consumer interests and preferences. As such,
Li, Edwards, and Lee (2002) show that ad irritation directly perceived personalization is closely associated with advertis-
influences both cognitive and behavioral aspects of ad avoid- ing relevance. Xu (2006) suggests that the personalization of
ance. Their findings are in accordance with Speck and Elliott’s content is the most effective way to prevent mobile advertising
(1997) study, indicating that ad irritation is highly associated from being perceived as intrusive and irritating. Since well-
with ad avoidance. Proceeding from what has been discussed made personalized ad messages contain useful information,
above, the following hypotheses are proposed: advertising itself can be valuable. Accumulated empirical
Hypothesis 4: Perceived ad irritation will be positively related evidence has shown that the ad information value is dimin-
to personalized advertising skepticism. ished to the extent that consumers are skeptical of advertising
(Obermiller and Spangenberg 1998). Furthermore, when ads
Hypothesis 5: Perceived ad irritation will be positively related are perceived as useful and valuable, they elicit lower avoid-
to personalized ad avoidance. ance responses from consumers (Pasadeos 1990). Therefore,
it is expected that perceived personalization may evoke less
Perceived Personalization skepticism toward advertising and ad avoidance in a context
of personalized media.
Since personalized advertising is the optimal execution of
customization that interlinks marketers and consumers, it Hypothesis 6: Perceived personalization will be negatively
is imperative to clarify the concept of personalization. Over related to personalized advertising skepticism.
the past few decades, the concept of personalization has Hypothesis 7: Perceived personalization will be negatively
been given a considerable amount of attention in market- related to personalized ad avoidance.
ing and advertising literature. There are several conceptual
definitions of personalization among scholars. Peppers and
Rogers (1997) define personalization as the process of using a METHOD
customer’s information to deliver a targeted solution to that Procedures
customer. According to Imhoff, Loftis, and Geiger, person-
alization is “the ability of a company to recognize and treat We collected the data through an online survey-based proce-
its customers as individuals through personal messaging, dure. The self-report questionnaire took between 30 and 40
targeted banner ads, special offers on bills, or other personal minutes to complete. Participants were randomly assigned
transactions” (2001, p. 467). Roberts (2003) conceptualizes to a questionnaire that covered one of the four personalized
personalization as the process of preparing an individualized ad media, including unsolicited commercial e‑mail, direct
communication for a specific person on the basis of stated or mail, telemarketing, and text message ads. A Random Link
implied preferences. Generator was used to randomize questionnaire distribution.
Given that personalized advertising is often perceived as a Preceding this, the pooled data of all the personalized ad
threat to consumers’ freedom to have control over their pri- media were analyzed to test the proposed model.
vate information, does personalized advertising always yield Samples for the main study were college students attend-
consumer reactance? For example, personalized advertising ing a large state university in the southeastern United States.
usually provides an “opt out” option for receiving future Despite the fact that the sampling criteria may be a potential
promotional offers. If consumers are aware of this option, limitation to the generalization of the results, students are
reactance to personalized advertising is likely to be allevi- one of the largest Internet and cell-phone user segments and
ated because they may have a sense of regaining control over thus are an important target group for direct marketers. Al-
their personal information. Prior research has further asserted loy Media and Marketing (2009) claims that, in total, eight
that consumer reactance to personalized messages can be de- million college students can be reached either by direct mail
termined by whether the perceived utility of the advertised pieces or e‑mail, and the National Mail Order Association
products or services offsets the psychological costs of receiving (2009) also indicates that college students make up a market
inappropriate personal messages (White et al. 2008). To il- worth $100 billion for direct marketers. As these examples
lustrate, Wendlandt and Schrader (2007) found that perceived illustrate, college students are becoming an important market
 Spring 2012  65

for direct marketers. Furthermore, the use of a homogeneous RESULTS

student sample might help reduce error variance, resulting in
a stronger test of theory (e.g., DuFrene et al. 2005; Malhotra Measurement Model
and King 2003). The hypothesized relationships were tested with Amos  16
Examinations of the proposed model were undertaken us- by using a two-step procedure. For a two-step approach to
ing structural equation modeling (SEM). SEM allows for the structural equation modeling, a confirmatory factor analy-
simultaneous estimation of both direct and indirect effects. sis (CFA) of the measurement model was first conducted to
In particular, this technique provides advanced informa- evaluate whether the measurement items had the appropriate
tion about testing for the mediational relationships among properties to represent each construct. After achieving a sat-
latent constructs, controlling for measurement error (Kline isfactory fit in the measurement model, the structural model
2005). was estimated (Anderson and Gerbing 1988). As Close et al.
(2006) suggest, this method allows for rigorous testing of
Measurement Instruments measurement reliability and validity before subjecting the
Using seven-point Likert scales (1  =  strongly disagree and structural model to tests of fit.
7  =  strongly agree), five latent constructs—ad avoidance, Prior to the main analysis, several underlying assumptions
ad skepticism, perceived privacy concerns, ad irritation, and for SEM were checked and verified (e.g., normality, linearity,
perceived personalization—were measured in this study. First, no extreme multicollinearity, and sampling adequacy) (Hair
ad avoidance was measured with a five-item scale derived et al. 1998). In particular, the normality assumption was
from Cho and Cheon (2004) and Elliott and Speck (1998). satisfied because all Skewness and Kurtosis values associated
Ad skepticism was measured with a nine-item scale adopted with each item were within the range of ±1.96 (–1.53 < all
from Obermiller and Spangenberg (1998). Perceived privacy Skewness values < 1.04; –1.24 < all Kurtosis values < 1.67).
concerns were measured with a six-item scale derived from Since the normality assumption was met, the maximum
Dolnicar and Jordaan (2007). Perceived ad irritation was mea- likelihood estimation method was employed for the CFA in
sured with an eight-item scale used by Fritz (1979). Finally, the study. Overall goodness-of-fit indices were satisfactory:
perceived personalization was measured by a five-item scale χ² (480) = 1,179.7 ( p < .001), GFI (goodness-of-fit) = .86,
adopted from Srinivasan, Anderson, and Ponnavolu (2002). CFI (comparative fit index) = .93, SRMR (standardized root
All items used in this study were slightly modified to fit the mean residual) = .05, and RMSEA (root mean square error of
context of each personalized ad medium. An initial version of approximation)  =  .06. Given that the measurement model
the questionnaire was pretested with a convenience sample of revealed a good fit, measurement respecification, which refers
20 college students to refine the measurement instruments. to a process of adding or deleting estimated parameters from
Based on suggestions from the pretest respondents, the word- the original model (Hair et al. 1998), was not performed.
ing of two items for perceived personalization were found to In this study, reliability and validity were evaluated us-
be confusing and were adjusted to make them easier to under- ing the pooled data across four personalized ad media. For
stand. With the exception of two items, no major measurement internal reliability, Cronbach’s α coefficients were calculated
problems emerged from the pretest. for all items of each construct. Results indicated that all the
scales were considered to be reliable (Cronbach’s αs for privacy
Participants concerns  =  .86, perceived personalization  =  .93, ad irrita-
tion = .91, skepticism toward personalized advertising = .94,
The initial sample consisted of 467 college students (27.5% and personalized advertising avoidance = .89). In the next step,
male and 72.5% female) enrolled in large introductory courses convergent validity was evaluated by examining the factor
at a major U.S. university. Participants who completed the loading for statistical significance (Sujan, Weitz, and Kumar
survey were given extra course credit as an incentive. Respon- 1994). As indicated in Table 1, all factor loadings were statis-
dents’ ages ranged from 18 to 31 years, with an average age tically significant ( p < .05) within an acceptable range (from
of 20.4 years. In the context of personalized advertising, the .24 to .96). Furthermore, the average variance extracted (AVE)
respondents estimated that they received approximately 87.5 was calculated for rigorous testing of measurement validity.
spam, 32.4 direct mail pieces, 1.4 telemarketing calls, and Fornell and Larcker (1981) asserted that the average variance
1.8 text messages per week, on average. After missing data extracted (AVE) should be greater than the recommended .50
(n = 25) were treated with listwise deletion, a total of 442 to achieve convergent validity. As shown in Table 2, it was
observations (unsolicited commercial e‑mail  =  113, direct found that the AVE values were greater than .50 for all con-
mail = 110, phone call = 110, and text message = 109) were structs (.520 < all AVE values < .731), thus providing strong
used to analyze the pooled data. evidence of convergent validity.
66  The Journal of Advertising

TABLE 1
Summary of Measurement Model Statistics
Factor
Constructs Measurement items Mean SD loadings

Ad avoidance 1. I intentionally ignore any personalized advertising on [MEDIA TYPE]. 5.72 1.41 .84*
  2. I hate any personalized advertising on [MEDIA TYPE]. 5.62 1.45 .96*
  3. It would be better if there were no personalized advertising on [MEDIA TYPE]. 5.46 1.53 .84*
  4. I discard (throw away, hang up) personalized advertising on [MEDIA TYPE] 5.51 1.57 .62*
immediately without opening (reading, listening to) it.
  5. I have asked marketers to take me off their e-mail (mailing, telephone) lists. 4.61 2.19 .24*
Ad skepticism 1. We can depend on getting the truth in most personalized advertising on [MEDIA 5.48 1.33 .76*
TYPE]. (R)
  2. Personalized advertising’s aim is to inform the consumer. (R) 4.38 1.56 .56*
  3. I believe personalized advertising on [MEDIA TYPE ] is informative. (R) 4.93 1.47 .74*
  4. Personalized advertising on [MEDIA TYPE ] is generally truthful. (R) 5.04 1.37 .87*
  5. Personalized advertising on [MEDIA TYPE ] is a reliable source of information 5.23 1.37 .90*
about the quality and performance of products. (R)
  6. Personalized advertising on [MEDIA TYPE ] is truth well told. (R) 5.34 1.38 .88*
  7. In general, personalized advertising on [MEDIA TYPE ] presents a true picture of 5.32 1.35 .88*
the product being advertised. (R)
  8. I feel I have been accurately informed after viewing (reading, listening to) most 5.26 1.42 .87*
personalized advertising on [MEDIA TYPE ]. (R)
  9. Most personalized advertising on [MEDIA TYPE ] provides consumers with 5.24 1.38 .83*
essential information. (R)
Privacy concerns When I receive personalized advertising on [MEDIA TYPE ],
  1. I feel uncomfortable when information is shared without permission. 6.08 1.39 .65*
  2. I am concerned about misuse of personal information. 5.82 1.31 .77*
  3. It bothers me to receive too much advertising material of no interest. 5.9 1.34 .63*
  4. I feel fear that information may not be safe while stored. 5.48 1.38 .81*
  5. I believe that personal information is often misused. 5.54 1.25 .81*
  6. I think companies share information without permission. 5.48 1.4 .63*
Ad irritation When I receive personalized advertising on [MEDIA TYPE ], I think it is . . .
  1. Negative. 4.75 1.60 .73*
  2. Irritating. 5.84 1.49 .77*
  3. Pointless. 5.16 1.73 .75*
  4. Unappealing. 5.65 1.50 .83*
  5. Regressive. 4.79 1.49 .79*
  6. Unattractive. 5.11 1.53 .81*
  7. Vulgar. 3.61 1.75 .59*
  8. Awful. 4.35 1.76 .76*
Perceived 1. This personalized advertising on [MEDIA TYPE ] makes purchase 2.57 1.46 .82*
personalization recommendations that match my needs.
  2. I think that this personalized advertising on [MEDIA TYPE ] enables me to order 2.59 1.48 .88*
products that are tailor-made for me.
  3. Overall, this personalized advertising on [MEDIA TYPE ] is tailored to my 2.55 1.51 .92*
situation.
  4. This personalized advertising on [MEDIA TYPE ] makes me feel that I am a unique 2.29 1.55 .76*
customer.
  5. I believe that this personalized advertising on [MEDIA TYPE ] is customized to my 2.45 1.47 .89*
needs.
Notes: Each question was rephrased in accordance with the media type: unsolicited commercial e-mail, direct mail, telephone call, and text message. All
items were measured using a seven-point “strongly disagree/strongly agree” scale. (R) after an item indicates that it was reversed for inclusion in the
model. Factor loading is based on standardized estimates.
* p < .05.
 Spring 2012  67

TABLE 2
Correlation Matrix of Constructs
Constructs AVE 1 2 3 4 5

1. Ad avoidance .557 1
2. Ad skepticism .663 .48 1
3. Privacy concerns .520 .50 .35 1
4. Ad irritation .572 .56 .46 .33 1
5. Perceived personalization .731 –.46 –.47 –.28 –.49 1
Notes: Average variance extracted (AVE) was calculated based on the formula provided by Fornell and Larcker (1981). AVE = S (standardized factor
loading²) / {S (standardized factor loading²) + S (measurement error)}.

Discriminant validity was assessed by comparing the AVE FIGURE 1

estimates for each construct with the square of the parameter Proposed Model
estimates between the two constructs. According to Fornell
and Larcker (1981), discriminant validity is achieved if the
AVE of each construct exceeds the square of the standardized
correlations between the two constructs. All AVE estimates
(.557 and .663 for ad avoidance and ad skepticism, respec-
tively) were greater than the squared correlations between all
constructs (e.g., .48² = .23). Thus, both convergent validity
and discriminant validity were established.

Full Structural Model and

Hypothesis Testing

The structural model was analyzed using the maximum

likelihood estimation method. To determine whether the Notes: χ² (485) = 1,283.2 ( p < .001), GFI = .84, CFI = .92, SRMR = .05,
hypotheses were supported, each structural path coefficient and RMSEA = .06.
was examined with fit indices of the proposed model. Guided GFI = goodness-of-fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; SRMR =
by Hu and Bentler (1998), we used multiple fit indexes to standardized root mean residual; RMSEA = root mean square error of
ensure that multiple aspects of full structural model fit could approximation.
* p < .05.
be captured. Overall, the fit indices showed a good fit for the
model: χ² (485) = 1,283.2 ( p < .001), GFI = .84, CFI = .92,
SRMR = .05, and RMSEA = .06. Testing the Mediation Effects
Each of the path coefficients was statistically significant Using Bootstrapping
( p < .05) in the predicted direction. That is, all hypothesized
paths and directions are supported. As indicated in Figure 1, Following Cheung and Lau’s (2008) procedure, a bootstrap-
skepticism toward personalized advertising is positively related ping analysis with Amos was also performed to test the me-
to personalized ad avoidance (H1). Perceived privacy concerns diation effects of latent constructs. Specifically, we tested the
were found to increase skepticism toward personalized ad- significance of indirect effects by examining the bias-corrected
vertising (H2) and have a positive impact on personalized ad (BC) 95% confidence intervals. In this study, 5,000 bootstrap
avoidance (H3). In addition, perceived ad irritation positively samples with replacements drawn from the original data set
affects skepticism toward personalized advertising (H4) and were requested (Preacher and Hayes 2008).
personalized ad avoidance (H5). Finally, the results indicated As shown in Table 3, significant indirect effects of ad
that perceived personalization is negatively related to skepti- skepticism emerged for perceived privacy concerns on ad
cism toward personalized advertising (H6) and personalized avoidance (standardized estimate = .03; BC 95% confidence
ad avoidance (H7). Thus, H1, H2, H3, H4, H5, H6, and H7 intervals = .01 to .07; p < .01), perceived ad irritation on ad
were supported. avoidance (standardized estimate = .04; BC 95% confidence
68  The Journal of Advertising

TABLE 3
Testing for Mediation with Bootstrapping
BC 95% CI

Path Estimate SE Lower Upper

PVC → AAV .29** .07 .17 .43

IRR → AAV .31** .07 .18 .44
PSL → AAV –.15** .05 –.26 –.05
PVC → ASK → AAV .03** .02 .01 .07
IRR → ASK → AAV .04** .02 .01 .08
PSL → ASK → AAV –.05** .02 –.10 –.01
Notes: BC = bias corrected; CI = confidence interval; SE = standard error; PVC = privacy concerns; AAV = ad avoidance; IRR = ad irritation;
PSL = perceived personalization; ASK = ad skepticism.
There were 5,000 bootstrap samples. All estimates are standardized.
** p < .01.

intervals = .01 to .08; p < .01), and perceived personalization tal cognitive component of resistance is normally associated
on ad avoidance (standardized estimate = –.05; BC 95% con- with a general distrust of persuasive stimuli represented by
fidence intervals = –.10 to –.01; p < .01). Furthermore, the consumer skepticism.
direct paths from perceived privacy concerns, ad irritation, and At the same time, the second competing model (CM2)
perceived personalization to ad avoidance were statistically is proposed to see whether perceived personalization has
significant ( p < .01). Thus, the findings provide evidence for an indirect effect on advertising avoidance through privacy
partial mediation of ad skepticism. concerns, ad skepticism, and ad irritation. As the third com-
peting model (CM3), it is equally plausible that perceived
Competing Models personalization mediates the effects of privacy concerns, ad
skepticism, and ad irritation on ad avoidance. It could be
The final step of the model validation process is to compare justified by the general principles of acquisition-transaction
the proposed model with a series of competing models, which utility theory (Thaler 1985), which suggest that consumers’
serve as alternative explanations to the proposed model, in an purchase probabilities depend on the perceived benefits (e.g.,
attempt to demonstrate that no better-fitting model exists. personalization) compared with the perceived costs (e.g., pri-
This is particularly important in structural equation modeling vacy concerns, ad irritation, and ad skepticism). Given that
because a proposed model can be shown only to have accept- perceived personalization is a function of consumer’s expected
able fit, but acceptable fit alone does not guarantee that an utility, it may play a critical role in the psychological processes
alternative model will not fit better or equally well (Hair et of advertising avoidance.
al. 1998). Therefore, it is suggested that “the strongest test Table 4 indicates the proposed model and other competing
of a proposed model is to identify and examine competing models with simple path diagrams, standardized path coef-
models that represent truly different hypothetical structural ficients, and goodness-of-fit measures. Compared with these
relationships” (Hair et al. 1998, p. 591). competing models, the proposed model has the best fit when
In this study, we propose three alternative models based taking into consideration the AIC (Akaike’s information cri-
on theoretical justification and empirical evidence. The first terion), SRMR, and RMSEA. In other words, smaller values
competing model (CM1) rules out the direct effects of pri- of AIC, SRMR, and RMSEA are indicative of better-fitting
vacy concerns, ad irritation, and perceived personalization on models. In this study, the AIC for the proposed model was
advertising avoidance to see whether the influence of early 1,443.16, while the AIC was 1,561.01 for CM1, 1,502.64
latent variables (e.g., privacy concerns, ad irritation, and per- for CM2, and 1,568.87 for CM3. Respectively, the proposed
ceived personalization) is fully mediated by ad skepticism. As model is lowest on the SRMR (.05) and the RMSEA (.06).
detailed earlier, the tripartite model of resistance advocated Although other fit indices show identical results across the
by Knowles and Linn (2004) implies that the key stages of competing models, the AIC, SRMR, and RMSEA measures
consumer resistance are presented in the order of affective (“I truly provide strong evidence supporting that the proposed
don’t like it”), cognitive (“I don’t believe”), and behavioral (“I model is the best model that explains the underlying process
won’t do it”) factors. It is important to note that the fundamen- of personalized advertising avoidance.
 Spring 2012  69

TABLE 4
Goodness-of-Fit Indices in Competing Models
Model Diagrams of competing Model χ² (df ) GFI CFI SRMR RMSEA AIC

PM 1,283.2 .84 .92 .05 .06 1,443.16

(485)

CM1 1,415.0 .83 .91 .09 .07 1,561.01

(488)

CM2 1,358.6 .83 .92 .09 .06 1,502.64

(489)

CM3 1,422.9 .83 .91 .09 .07 1,568.87

(488)

Notes: GFI = goodness-of-fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; SRMR = standardized root mean residual; RMSEA = root mean square error of
approximation; AIC = Akaike’s information criterion; PM = proposed model; PVC = privacy concerns; PSL = perceived personalization; IRR = ad
irritation; ASK = ad skepticism; AAV = ad avoidance; CM = competing model.

Multiple-Group Comparison invariance of path coefficients, each gamma (i.e., all paths
in Personalized Ad Media from exogenous variables to endogenous variables), as well as
β path (i.e., all paths among endogenous variables) was tested
As a post hoc analysis, we also examined how the interplay of individually for equivalency by fixing each path coefficient in
advertising avoidance with its antecedents differs across the one group to be equal to another one by one. Next, a χ2 dif-
different personalized ad media using a multigroup approach. ference test method was used to examine the path coefficient
The pooled data was divided into separate covariance matri- differences across the personalized ad media. Given that the χ2
ces for unsolicited commercial e‑mail (n = 113), direct mail difference test provides significant results, the path coefficients
(n = 110), phone call (n = 110), and text message (n = 109), were significantly different across ad media.
and was used as input for the multiple-group analysis. Due As shown in Table 5, there was a significant difference,
to the limited sample size of each personalized ad medium, Δχ² (df = 1) > 3.84, in path coefficient of perceived privacy
we performed multigroup path analysis instead of structural concerns  ×  personalized ad avoidance between unsolicited
equation modeling (Kline 2005). Unconstrained models, commercial e‑mail and direct mail (Δχ² = 4.87 at p < .05),
where all paths are free to vary across the personalized ad me- as well as between direct mail and telephone call (Δχ² = 3.86
dia, were generated to be used as a basis of comparison. After at p < .05). In addition, the path coefficient of perceived ad
the unconstrained models were run simultaneously, without irritation  ×  personalized ad avoidance between unsolicited
 70  The Journal of Advertising

TABLE 5
Multiple-Group Path Coefficients Across Personalized Ad Media
Media type χ2 difference (Δdf = 1)

Δχ² Δχ² Δχ² Δχ²

(SPAM (SPAM (SPAM Δχ² Δχ² (TELE
Versus Versus Versus (DM Versus (DM Versus Versus
Path SPAM DM TELE TEXT DM) TELE) TEXT) TELE) TEXT) TEXT)

ASK → AAV .17* .11 .16* .27* .23 .04 .45 .06 4.26* .65
PVC → AAV .44* .26* .39* .32* 4.87* .08 .76 3.86* .81 .98
PVC → ASK .11 .09 .21* .19* .04 1.19 .58 1.56 .87 .19
IRR → AAV .36* .35* .05 .22* .01 5.89* 1.48 5.59* 1.56 1.39
IRR → ASK .19* .14 .27* .39* .08 .59 4.61* 1.12 4.99* .68
PSL → AAV –.27* –.15* –.15* –.05 1.66 1.66 3.40* .00 .22 .22
PSL → ASK –.25* –.33* –.24* –.36* .16 .01 .74 .27 .24 1.01
Notes: SPAM = unsolicited commercial e-mail; DM = direct mail; TELE = telephone call; TEXT = text message; ASK = ad skepticism; AAV = ad avoidance; PVC = privacy concerns; IRR = ad
irritation; PSL = perceived personalization.
If Δχ² (df = 1) > 3.84, the path coefficient difference between two groups are significant ( p < .05).
* p < .05.
 Spring 2012  71

commercial e‑mail and telephone call (Δχ² = 5.89 at p < .05), sonalized ad skepticism), and behavioral (personalized ad
as well as between direct mail and telephone call (Δχ² = 5.59 avoidance) stages. The findings of this study provide insights
at p < .05), was significantly different. The path coefficient into understanding the mechanisms invoked under different
from perceived ad irritation to ad skepticism was also sig- personalized media formats and identifying determinants of
nificantly different between unsolicited commercial e‑mail personalized ad avoidance.
and text message (Δχ² = 4.61 at p < .05), as well as between In essence, our findings shed new light on the impor-
direct mail and text message (Δχ² = 4.99 at p < .05). It is tance of perceived privacy concerns and personalization of
interesting to note that the difference of path coefficient from ad messages in building a comprehensive theoretical model
skepticism toward personalized advertising to personalized of personalized advertising avoidance. They demonstrate the
ad avoidance was statistically significant between direct mail mediating role that ad skepticism partially plays in affecting
and text message (Δχ² = 4.26 at p < .05). Overall, most path the causal relationships between ad avoidance and its three
coefficients were steady across the four personalized ad media. antecedents (perceived personalization, privacy concerns,
Regarding unsolicited commercial e‑mail, the perceived pri- and ad irritation). The interrelationships among latent con-
vacy concerns ×  skepticism toward personalized advertising structs also indicate significant differences across unsolicited
path was not significant. Similarly, in the context of direct commercial e‑mail, postal direct mail, telemarketing, and
mail, the path coefficients of skepticism toward personalized text messaging. Several reasons can be considered for these
advertising  ×  personalized ad avoidance, perceived privacy phenomena.
concerns × skepticism toward personalized advertising, and One of the most notable findings is the predominant influ-
perceived ad irritation × skepticism toward personalized ad- ence of personalization. When advertisements are personalized
vertising were not statistically significant. Finally, the path to specific customers, skepticism toward the ads tends to be
of perceived ad irritation  ×  personalized ad avoidance for lower. This is consistent with previous findings that targeted
telemarketing calls was also not significant. advertising efforts result in more favorable attitudes toward
the advertisement (Aaker, Brumbaugh, and Grier 2000). A
DISCUSSION possible explanation is that personalization may create a sense
of having previous contacts with advertisers in the mind of
This study attempts to identify potential antecedents of consumers, hence easing the negative perceptions toward
personalized advertising avoidance. As the importance of advertisements in general. As Morimoto and Chang (2006)
message customization in advertising rises, assessing the suggest, consumers tend to have less negative feelings toward
knowledge of the effect of personalization on advertising messages/ads from marketers with whom they had previous
responses is critical to developing effective communication business interactions (e.g., purchase and correspondence).
campaigns. From a theoretical standpoint, our results advance Specifically, by addressing consumers’ names on ads, such
understanding of the psychological processes of advertising negative advertising responses may be eased to some degree.
avoidance in the context of personalized media that have not Also, by personalizing ads for specific consumers, advertisers
been investigated before, whereas prior research has focused may be able to enhance their credibility because consumers
on predictors of advertising avoidance in traditional media may see that they have made additional efforts to target them
(e.g., Speck and Elliott 1997) or on the Internet (e.g., Cho more precisely. As a result, personalization can lead to less
and Cheon 2004; Edwards, Li, and Lee 2002). Recognizing negative perceptions toward ads compared with nonpersonal-
the nature of advertising avoidance associated with resistance ized and mass-targeted ads.
as an outcome, we suggested a series of motivational factors It is noteworthy that consumers may resist an entire related
from an integrative perspective of resistance and reactance, set of traditions, promotions, and marketplace activities. Ac-
namely, perceived privacy concerns, ad irritation, perceived cording to Close and Zinkhan, market resistance is concep-
personalization, and skepticism toward personalized adver- tualized as “an opposition to traditions in the marketplace,
tising. Since personalized advertising could intrude into with the purpose of creating new behaviors” (2007, p. 256).
consumers’ private domains, consumers tended to perceive Related to anticonsumption, market resistance is apparent
their personal information as threatened, became annoyed and when people do not engage in the marketplace behaviors or
distrustful of persuasive efforts, and therefore avoided such rituals (e.g., Valentine’s Day) associated with a particular
messages. At the same time, perceived personalization in ads market (Close and Zinkhan 2009). The process of market
appeared to make consumers less resistant to ads. resistance may be partially attributed to the economic, social,
Following the sequential process of resistance formation cultural, and marketing communication environments (Close
suggested by Knowles and Linn (2004), our proposed model and Zinkhan 2007). In this sense, advertisers need to take
is established through affective (perceived privacy concerns, consumers’ market resistance into account in their execution
ad irritation, and perceived personalization), cognitive (per- of highly personalized advertising.
72  The Journal of Advertising

Consistent with previous findings (e.g., Dolnicar and personalized media is executed on a repetitive basis and thus
Jordaan 2007; Milne and Boza 1999; Nowak and Phelps may become habitual without causing irritation.
1992; Sheehan and Hoy 1999), this study confirmed that Furthermore, it is possible to argue that the process of psy-
privacy concerns can influence consumers’ perceptions toward chological reactance (Brehm 1966; Brehm and Brehm 1981)
advertising practices as well as behavioral intentions. However, may take place, as predicted by Edwards, Li, and Lee (2002),
the effect of privacy concerns is smaller than that of person- in the case of pop‑up ads. A similar process was also found
alization. This may be explained by the sample. Compared with regard to unsolicited commercial e‑mail (Morimoto and
with older generations, younger generations, including col- Chang 2009). Because consumers think that these personalized
lege students, are more likely to use multiple Internet media advertising media are irritating since they can intervene their
simultaneously, since the Internet has been available to them cognitive tasks, they may avoid ads even if they are addressed
as a communication medium while growing up. They may to them in order to regain control over processing.
be more comfortable conducting business transactions online, The multiple-group analysis took this study one step
and therefore their online privacy concerns may be relatively further to better understand how the process of personalized
lower. Personalization, compared with privacy concerns, has ad avoidance differs across the advertising media. While
become a stronger indicator of ad skepticism. the paths of perceived privacy concerns  ®  ad avoidance,
Although the use of student samples is sometimes criticized, and perceived personalization ® ad skepticism were all sig-
students are a prime consumer group for online businesses nificant across the four advertising media, the other paths
(Harris Interactive 2002; McAllister and Turow 2002) and show differences. For instance, the path between ad skepti-
the current study examines online/mobile platforms such as cism and ad avoidance in direct mail was insignificant, and
spam and text messages with this particular audience. Col- specifically, the path comparison between direct mail and
lege students are also said to respond to online ads (Electronic text messaging turned out significantly different. Unlike
Advertising and Marketplace Report 2000), and therefore can the other advertising media studied in the current study,
be considered a target audience for personalized advertising. text messaging does cost money for consumers to receive,
In this regard, the use of student samples in the current study resulting in a more hostile perception toward ads sent via
can be justified, and the results found in the study are certainly that medium. However, postal direct mail is considered
applicable to audiences of personalized advertising. Similar easier to avoid compared with electronic forms of advertis-
outcomes may be found when individuals have had more ex- ing media such as unsolicited commercial e‑mail (Morimoto
periences with online business transactions/interactions. and Chang 2006), and therefore, the difference of the path
The findings from the current study confirmed the signifi- coefficients between ad skepticism and ad avoidance across
cant effect of perceived ad irritation on both ad skepticism electronic media was not significant. For unsolicited com-
and ad avoidance. While ad skepticism partially mediated mercial e‑mail and direct mail, the paths of perceived privacy
the relationship between irritation and avoidance, perceived concerns ® ad skepticism, and perceived ad irritation ® ad
ad irritation had a direct effect on avoidance. According to a avoidance were insignificant, whereas these two path coeffi-
recent report of Vizu Answers (2008), the largest driving fac- cients were significant for telemarketing and text messaging.
tor to avoid advertising is a general sense of irritation (29%), As suggested by Newell, Pilotta, and Thomas (2008), one’s
followed by a lack of trust (i.e., ad skepticism) (19%). usage of a medium is at the expense of using other media,
We found a strong correlation between perceived ad irrita- and this audience group may be more engaged in text mes-
tion and ad avoidance, which sheds light on the major deter- saging compared with postal mail and e‑mail. As a result,
minant of ad avoidance. The higher the perceived ad irritation, they may encounter more personalized advertisements sent
the greater the consumer avoidance of personalized advertising. via text messages, leading to more negative responses.
Our results are in accordance with previous research suggest- It is interesting to note that with regard to the path between
ing that feelings of irritation have a significant impact on ad perceived irritation and ad avoidance, telemarketing did not
avoidance (e.g., Li, Edwards, and Lee 2002; Speck and Elliott show any significant effect compared with the other three
1997). Note that this does not necessarily mean that high ad formats. Meanwhile, the paths from privacy concerns to
degrees of ad avoidance result in high levels of irritation. In skepticism and from irritation to skepticism were significant
other words, perceived ad irritation can predict ad avoidance, for telemarketing. This may be because the sample we selected
but ad avoidance does not automatically connote the existence may use cell phones more often than landlines, and telemarket-
of irritation. This is because ad avoidance may be attributed ers tend to contact landlines. In addition, the national do-not-
to people’s habitual behavior activated by automated cogni- call list hinders marketers from contacting consumers without
tive processes rather than elaborate decision processes (i.e., a prior permission. While participants generally perceive such
decision based on attitudes and intentions) (Aarts, Verplanken, calls from advertisers negatively, they may not necessarily
and Knippenberg 1998). Indeed, advertising avoidance in have to deal with them on a regular basis, and therefore the
 Spring 2012  73

influence of perceived irritation on avoidance of personalized question for future research can be stated as: Which types (or
telemarketing calls was insignificant for this sample. degrees) of personalized advertising facilitate the least degree
of perceived privacy concerns, ad irritation, ad skepticism, and
SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ad avoidance? In addition, future research needs to examine
AND CONCLUSIONS conditions under which consumers are more or less reluctant to
receive personalized ads by using well-controlled experiments.
This study aimed to map out the conceptual model of consum- Specifically, it is noteworthy to investigate how formation of
ers’ tendency in avoidance of personalized advertising, such personalized advertising avoidance differs between opted‑in
as unsolicited commercial e‑mail, text messages, postal direct and opted-out consumers.
mail, and telemarketing, to provide a general understanding Taken together, this line of research holds great promise
of the influence of privacy concerns, personalization, and per- for contributing to both academia and industry, since the cus-
ceived irritations by these advertising media. However, the tomization of ad messages is becoming popular in the field of
generalizability of the findings from this study may be limited advertising. At the same time, the technological advancements
because we used a student sample. Further research is needed that allow marketers to implement personalized advertising
to replicate the conceptual model on nonstudent samples strategies are also changing the traditional definition of adver-
with a broader age spectrum to enhance external validity. On tising, such as one-way communication targeted toward mass
the other hand, as more and more advertising media become audiences. Hence, academics are also encouraged to revisit
available due to technological advancement, the amount of the definition of advertising to accommodate the changes tak-
ads consumers receive also increases, meaning that ad clutter ing place on the practical front. Some keywords used in the
is going to remain a major concern for advertisers to effectively traditional definition of advertising, such as “mass audiences”
communicate with consumers. One way to overcome the chal- and “one-way communication,” may require some modifi-
lenge is personalization to make consumers feel that messages cation/extension because, depending on the media choice,
are relevant to them. Therefore, this study helps both academics personalized advertising can be considered a combination of
and practitioners to take the first step of understanding the traditional advertising (nonpersonal) and personal selling.
influence of personalization on advertising-related variables in Thus, promotional elements in the marketing mix are more
conjunction with privacy concerns. However, more research in integrated and the boundaries among these elements are be-
this area is certainly called for as more new advertising media, coming blurred for personalized advertising. It is hoped that
particularly in digital form, are emerging. this study provides not only a general picture of advertising
Acknowledging the importance of personalization in reduc- responses toward personalized advertising messages, but also
ing advertising avoidance, one fruitful avenue for future re- some food for thought for more investigation on decreasing
search is to examine whether our proposed model can be applied advertising avoidance.
to the social media environment (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, and
Foursquare). For example, Facebook’s instant personalization REFERENCES
feature allows any Web site to retrieve personal information
about a user’s friends on the site. Foursquare, a location-based Aaker, David S., and Donald E. Bruzzone (1985), “Causes of Irrita-
service, alerts consumers about personalized offers available tion in Advertising,” Journal of Marketing, 49 (2), 47–57.
Aaker, Jennifer L., Anne M. Brumbaugh, and Sonya A. Grier
nearby. However, such social media tools could raise privacy
(2000), “Nontarget Markets and Viewer Distinctiveness:
concerns about misuse of personal information. With this idea The Impact of Target Marketing on Advertising Attitudes,”
in mind, a possible research question we propose is: If consum- Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9 (3), 127–140.
ers feel their privacy is invaded, how and why do they resist Aarts, Henk, Bas Verplanken, and Ad Van Knippenberg (1998),
personalized advertising tactics embedded in social media? “Predicting Behavior from Actions in the Past: Repeated
We also suggest for future studies that attempt to ma- Decision Making or a Matter of Habit?” Journal of Applied
nipulate the degree/types of personalization in ad messages Social Psychology, 28 (15), 1355–1374.
to rigorously examine the influence that personalization has Abernethy, Avery M. (1990), “Television Exposure: Programs
across different media platforms on consumer responses (pos- Vs. Advertising,” Journal of Current Issues and Research in
sibly in an experimental setting), as this study found that the Advertising, 13 (1), 61–77.
Alloy Media and Marketing (2009), “College Database/Direct
level of influence varied across different media. For example,
Marketing,” available at www.alloymarketing.com/media/
the degree/types of personalization can be manipulated by college/directmarketing.htm (accessed August 23, 2009).
(1) use of customer’s name, (2) providing product recommen- Anderson, James C., and David W. Gerbing (1988), “Structural
dations based on keyword searches (e.g., Google AdWords) or Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recom-
previous purchase information, and (3) a combination of the mended Two-Step Approach,” Psychological Bulletin, 10 (3),
first two factors. Based on this idea, another possible research 441–423.
74  The Journal of Advertising

Bauer, Hans H., Stuart J. Barnes, Tina Reichardt, and Marcus M. Dolnicar, Sara, and Yolanda Jordaan (2007), “A Market-Oriented
Neumann (2005), “Driving Consumer Acceptance of Mobile Approach to Responsibly Managing Information Privacy
Marketing: A Theoretical Framework and Empirical Study,” Concerns in Direct Marketing,” Journal of Advertising, 36
Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 6 (3), 181–192. (2), 123–149.
Bellamy, Robert V., Jr., and James R. Walker (1996), Television Ducoffe, Robert H. (1995), “How Consumers Assess the Value
and the Remote Control: Grazing on a Vast Wasteland, New of Advertising,” Journal of Current Issues and Research in
York: Guilford Press. Advertising, 17 (1), 1–18.
Bellman, Steven, Anika Schweda, and Duane Varan (2010), “The ——— (1996), “Advertising Value and Advertising on the Web,”
Residual Impact of Avoided Television Advertising,” Journal Journal of Advertising Research, 36 (5), 21–35.
of Advertising, 39 (1), 67–81. DuFrene, Debbie D., Brian T. Engelland, Carol M. Lehman,
Brehm, Jack W. (1966), A Theory of Psychological Reactance, New and Rodney A. Pearson (2005), “Changes in Consumer
York: Academic Press. Attitudes Resulting from Participation in a Permission
Brehm, Sharon S., and Jack W. Brehm (1981), Psychological Reac- E‑mail Campaign,” Journal of Current Issues and Research in
tance: A Theory of Freedom and Control, New York: Academic Advertising, 27 (1), 65–77.
Press. Edwards, Steven M., Hairong Li, and Joo-Hyun Lee (2002),
Burgoon, Judee K., Roxanne Parrott, Beth A. Le Poire, Douglas “Forced Exposure and Psychological Reactance: Antecedents
L. Kelley, Joseph B. Walther, and Denise Perry (1989), and Consequences of the Perceived Intrusiveness of Pop‑Up
“Maintaining and Restoring Privacy Through Communica- Ads,” Journal of Advertising, 31 (3), 83–95.
tion in Different Types of Relationships,” Journal of Social Electronic Advertising and Marketplace Report (2000), “College
and Personal Relationships, 6 (2), 131–158. Students Respond to E‑mail Ad Offers, New Survey Says,”
Burgoon, Michael, Eusebio Alvaro, Joseph Grandpre, and Michael Electronic Advertising and Marketplace Report, 14 (11), 7.
Voulodakis (2002), “Revisiting the Theory of Psychologi- Elliott, Michael T., and Paul S. Speck (1998), “Consumer Percep-
cal Reactance,” in The Persuasion Handbook: Developments in tions of Advertising Clutter and Its Impact Across Various
Theory and Practice, James Price Dillard and Michael Pfau, Media,” Journal of Advertising Research, 38 (1), 29–41.
eds., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 213–232. Equifax-Harris (1995), Mid-Decade Consumer Privacy Survey, At-
Cheung, Gordon W., and Rebecca S. Lau (2008), “Testing Me- lanta: Equifax Corporate Marketing Department.
diation and Suppression Effects of Latent Variables: Boot- ——— (1996), Consumer Privacy Survey, Atlanta: Equifax Cor-
strapping with Structural Equation Models,” Organizational porate Marketing Department.
Research Methods, 11 (2), 296–325. Federal Trade Commission (2009a), “The CAN-SPAM Act: A
Cheung, Kwok-Wai, James T. Kwok, Martin H. Law, and Kwok- Compliance Guide for Business,” available at http://business
Ching Tsui (2003), “Mining Customer Product Ratings .ftc.gov/documents/bus61-can-spam-act-compliance-guide-
for Personalized Marketing,” Decision Support Systems, 35 business/ (accessed January 11, 2011).
(2), 213–243. ——— (2009b), “FTC Consumer Alert,” available at www.ftc
Cho, Chang-Hoan, and Hongsik J. Cheon (2004), “Why Do .gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/alerts/alt107.shtm (accessed
People Avoid Advertising on the Internet?” Journal of Ad- January 11, 2011).
vertising, 33 (4), 89–97. ——— (2011), “Reporter Resources: The National Do Not Call
Clancey, Maura (1994), “The Television Audience Examined,” Registry,” available at www.ftc.gov/opa/reporter/dnc.shtm
Journal of Advertising Research, 34 (4), 2–11. (accessed September 10, 2011).
Close, Angeline G., and George M. Zinkhan (2007), “Consumer Fennis, Bob M., and Arnold B. Bakker (2001), “Stay Tuned—We
Experiences and Market Resistance: An Extension of Resis- Will Be Back Right After These Messages: Need to Evaluate
tance Theories,” in Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 34, Moderates the Transfer of Irritation in Advertising,” Journal
Gavan J. Fitzsimons and Vicki G. Morwitz, eds., Duluth, of Advertising, 30 (3), 15–25.
MN: Association for Consumer Research, 256–262. Fornell, Claes, and David F. Larcker (1981), “Evaluating Struc-
———, and ——— (2009), “Market-Resistance and Valentine’s tural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and
Day Events,” Journal of Business Research, 62 (2), 200–207. Measurement Error,” Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1),
———, R. Zackary Finney, Russell L. Lacey, and Julie Z. Sneath 39–50.
(2006), “Engaging the Consumer Through Event Market- Forrester Research (2006), “Consumers Love to Hate Advertis-
ing: Linking Attendees with the Sponsor, Community, and ing,” available at www.forrester.com/Research/Document/
Brand,” Journal of Advertising Research, 46 (4), 420–433. Excerpt/0,7211,39631,00.html (accessed March 22,
Direct Marketing Association (2011a), “Direct Mail 101,” avail- 2009).
able at www.dmachoice.org/dma/static/learn_more.jsp (ac- Friestad, Marian, and Peter Wright (1994), “The Persuasion
cessed January 11, 2011). Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion At-
——— (2011b), “What Direct Marketers Need to Know About tempts,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (1), 1–31.
the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act,” available at www.the-dma Fritz, Nancy K. (1979), “Claim Recall and Irritation in Television
.org/government/grammleachblileyact#1/ (accessed January Commercials: An Advertising Effectiveness Study,” Journal
11, 2011). of the Academy of Marketing Science, 7 (1), 1–13.
 Spring 2012  75

Gillenson, Mark L. (2000), “How Electronic Commerce Has Led Lustigman, Andrew B. (2007), Direct Marketing Basics, New York:
to the Return of Personalized Marketing,” Business Perspec- Lustigman Firm.
tives, 12 (3), 21–25. Madden, Mary, and Aaron Smith (2010), “Managing Your Profile
Goldsmith, Ronald E., and Jon B. Freidan (2004), “Have It Your Online,” Pew Internet and American Life Project, avail-
Way: Consumer Attitudes Toward Personalized Marketing,” able at http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1606/managing-your-
Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 22 (2), 228–239. online-reputation-profile-facebook-searching-for-ourselves/
Gurau, Calin, Ashok Ranchhod, and Claire Gauzente (2003), (accessed September 10, 2011).
“To Legislate or Not to Legislate: A Comparative Study Malhotra, Naresh K., and Tracey King (2003), “Don’t Negate the
of Privacy/Personalization Factors Affecting French, UK Whole Field,” Marketing Research, 15 ( January), 43–44.
and U.S. Web Sites,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 20 (7), Mangleburg, Tamara F., and Terry Bristol (1998), “Socialization
652–664. and Adolescents’ Skepticism Toward Advertising,” Journal
Hair, Joseph F., Jr., Rolph E. Anderson, Ronald L. Tatham, and of Advertising, 27 (3), 11–21.
William C. Black (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th McAllister, Matthew P., and Joseph Turow (2002), “New Media
ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. and the Commercial Sphere: Two Intersecting Trends, Five
Harris-Equifax (1992), Consumer Privacy Survey, Atlanta: Equifax Categories of Concern,” Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic
Corporate Marketing Department. Media, 46 (4), 505–514.
Harris Interactive (2002), “College Students Spend $200 Billion Milne, George R., and Maria-Eugenia Boza (1999), “Trust and
per Year,” available at www.harrisinteractive.com/news/all- Concern in Consumers’ Perceptions of Marketing Informa-
newsbydate.asp?NewsID=480/ (accessed March 29, 2009). tion Management Practices,” Journal of Interactive Marketing,
Heeter, Carrie, and Bradley S. Greenberg (1985), “Profiling the 13 (1), 5–24.
Zappers,” Journal of Advertising Research, 25 (2), 15–19. Morimoto, Mariko, and Susan Chang (2006), “Consumer Attitudes
Hu, Li-tze, and Peter M. Bentler (1998), “Fit Indices in Co- Toward Unsolicited Commercial E‑mail and Postal Direct
variance Structure Modeling: Sensitivity to Underparam- Mail Marketing Methods: Intrusiveness, Perceived Loss of
eterized Model Misspecification,” Psychology Methods, 3 (4), Control, and Irritation,” Journal of Interactive Advertising, 7
424–453. (1), 8–20.
Hughes, Arthur M. (2005), Strategic Database Marketing: The Mas- ———, and ——— (2009), “Psychological Factors Affecting
terplan for Starting and Managing a Profitable, Customer-Based Perceptions of Unsolicited Commercial E‑mail,” Journal of
Marketing Program, 3rd ed., New York: McGraw-Hill. Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 31 (1), 63–73.
Imhoff, Claudia, Lisa Loftis, and Jonathan G. Geiger (2001), Mozilla (2011), Add-Ons for FireFox, available at https://addons
Building the Customer-Centric Enterprise, Data Warehousing .mozilla.org/en-US/statistics/addon/1865/ (accessed Sep-
Techniques for Supporting Customer Relationship Management, tember 10, 2011).
New York: John Wiley & Sons. National Mail Order Association (2009), “Advertisers Attract
Johnson, Blair T., Aaron Smith-McLallen, Ley A. Killeya, and Elusive 18–24 Demographic Using New Interactive Services
Kenneth D. Levin (2004), “Truth or Consequences: Over- on Experience.com,” available at www.nmoa.org/articles/
coming Resistance to Persuasion with Positive Thinking,” dmnews/18-24yroldmarket905.htm (accessed August 23,
in Resistance and Persuasion, Eric S. Knowles and Jay A. Linn, 2009).
eds., Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 215–233. Newell, Jay, Joseph J. Pilotta, and John C. Thomas (2008), “Mass
Kim, Jong Woo, Byung Hun Lee, Michael J. Shaw, Hsin-Lu Media Displacement and Media Saturation,” International
Chang, and Matthew Nelson (2001), “Application of Journal of Media Management, 10 (4), 131–138.
Decision-Tree Induction Techniques to Personalized Ad- Nowak, Glen J., and Joseph Phelps (1992), “Understanding Pri-
vertisements on Internet Storefronts,” International Journal vacy Concerns: An Assessment of Consumers’ Information-
of Electronic Commerce, 5 (3), 45–62. Related Knowledge and Belief,” Journal of Direct Marketing,
Kline, Rex B. (2005), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation 6 (4), 28–39.
Modeling, 2nd ed., New York: Guilford. Nuttall, C. G. F. (1962), “TV Commercial Audiences in the United
Knowles, Eric S., and Jay A. Linn (2004), “The Importance of Kingdom,” Journal of Advertising Research, 2 (3), 19–28.
Resistance to Persuasion,” in Resistance and Persuasion, Eric Obermiller, Carl, and Eric R. Spangenberg (1998), “Development
S. Knowles and Jay A. Linn, eds., Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, of a Scale to Assess Consumer Skepticism Toward Advertis-
3–9. ing,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7 (2), 159–186.
Kramer, Thomas (2007), “The Effect of Measurement Task ———, and ——— (2000), “On the Origin and Distinctness
Transparency on Preference Construction and Evaluations of of Skepticism Toward Advertising,” Marketing Letters, 11
Personalized Recommendation,” Journal of Market Research, (4), 311–322.
44 (2), 224–233. ———, ———, and Douglas L. MacLachlan (2005), “Ad Skepti-
Li, Hairong, Steven M. Edwards, and Joo-Hyun Lee (2002), cism: The Consequences of Disbelief,” Journal of Advertising,
“Measuring the Intrusiveness of Advertisements: Scale 34 (3), 7–17.
Development and Validation,” Journal of Advertising, 31 Okazaki, Shintaro, Hairong Li, and Morikazu Hirose (2009),
(2), 37–47. “Consumer Privacy Concerns and Preference for Degree
76  The Journal of Advertising

of Regulatory Control,” Journal of Advertising, 38 (4), Stewart, David W., and Scott Ward (1994), “Media Effects on
63–77. Advertising,” in Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Re-
Paine, Carina, Ulf-Dietrich Reips, Stefan Stieger, Adam Joinson, search, Jennings Bryant and Dolf Zillmann, eds., Hillsdale,
and Tom Buchanan (2007), “Internet Users’ Perceptions NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 315–363.
of ‘Privacy Concerns’ and ‘Privacy Actions,’” International Sujan, Harish, Barton A. Weitz, and Nirmalya Kumar (1994),
Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65 (6), 526–536. “Learning Orientation, Working Smart, and Effective Sell-
Pasadeos, Yorgo (1990), “Perceived Informativeness of and Ir- ing,” Journal of Marketing, 58 (3), 39–52.
ritation with Local Advertising,” Journalism Quarterly, 67 Thaler, Richard (1985), “Mental Accounting and Consumer
(1), 35–39. Choice,” Marketing Science, 4 (3), 199–214.
Pavlou, Paul A., and David W. Stewart (2000), “Measuring Tormala, Zakary L., and Richard E. Petty (2004), “Resisting Per-
the Effects and Effectiveness of Interactive Advertising: A suasion and Attitude Certainty: A Meta-Cognitive Analy-
Research Agenda,” Journal of Interactive Advertising, 1 (1), sis,” in Resistance and Persuasion, Eric S. Knowles and Jay A.
1–22. Linn, eds., Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 65–82.
Peppers, Don, and Martha Rogers (1997), Enterprise One-to- Tsang, Melody M., Shu-Chun Ho, and Ting-Peng Liang (2004),
One: Tools for Competing in the Interactive Age, New York: “Consumer Attitudes Toward Mobile Advertising: An
Doubleday. Empirical Study,” International Journal of Electronic Commerce,
Petty, Ross D. (2003), “Wireless Advertising Messaging: Legal 8 (3), 65–78.
Analysis and Public Policy Issues,” Journal of Public Policy Vesanen, Jari (2007), “What Is Personalization? A Concep-
and Marketing, 22 (2), 71–82. tual Framework,” European Journal of Marketing, 41 (5/6),
Pew Internet and American Life Project (2008), “Mixed Signals 409–418.
on Privacy Concerns,” available at www.pewinternet.org/ ———, and Mika Raulas (2006), “Building Bridges for Per-
Media-Mentions/2008/Mixed-signals-on-privacyconcerns sonalization: A Process Model for Marketing,” Journal of
.aspx (accessed March 23, 2009). Interactive Marketing, 20 (1), 5–20.
Phelps, Joseph, Glen Nowak, and Elizabeth Ferrell (2000), Vizu Answers (2008), “Why Consumers Hate Advertising and
“Privacy Concerns and Consumer Willingness to Provide What They Are Doing About It,” available at http://answers
Personal Information,” Journal of Public Policy and Market- .vizu.com/solutions/pr/pdf/Why_Consumers_Hate_Ads
ing, 19 (1), 27–41. .pdf (accessed March 15, 2009).
Preacher, Kristopher J., and Andrew F. Hayes (2008), “Asymp- Warren, Samuel D., and Louis D. Brandeis (1890), “The Right
totic and Resampling Strategies for Assessing and Compar- to Privacy,” Harvard Law Review, 4 (5), 193–220.
ing Indirect Effects in Multiple Mediator Models,” Behavior Weilbacher, William M., and H. Robert Walsh (1952), “Mail
Research Methods, 40 (3), 879–891. Questionnaires and the Personalized Letter of Transmittal,”
Rich, Tom, David Owens, and Irving Ellenbogen (1978), “What Journal of Marketing, 16 (3), 331–336.
Canadians Disliked About TV Commercials,” Journal of Wendlandt, Mark, and Ulf Schrader (2007), “Consumer Re-
Advertising Research, 18 (6), 37–44. actance Against Loyalty Programs,” Journal of Consumer
Roberts, Mary L. (2003), Internet Marketing: Integrating Online and Marketing, 24 (5), 293–304.
Offline Strategies, Boston: McGraw-Hill. Westin, Alan F. (1967), Privacy and Freedom, New York:
Sheehan, Kim B., and Mariea G. Hoy (1999), “Flaming, Com- Atheneum.
plaining, Abstaining: How Online Users Respond to Privacy White, Tiffany Barnett, Debra L. Zarhay, Helge Thorbjørnsen,
Concerns,” Journal of Advertising, 28 (3), 37–52. and Sharon Shavitt (2008), “Getting Too Personal: Reac-
Simonson, Itamar (2005), “Determinants of Customers’ Responses tance to Highly Personalized E‑mail Solicitations,” Market-
to Customized Offers: Conceptual Framework and Research ing Letters, 19 (1), 39–50.
Propositions,” Journal of Marketing, 69 (1), 32–45. Xu, David J. (2006), “The Influence of Personalization in Af-
Speck, Paul S., and Michael T. Elliott (1997), “Predictors of Ad- fecting Consumer Attitudes Toward Mobile Advertising
vertising Avoidance in Print and Broadcast Media,” Journal in China,” Journal of Computer Information Systems, 47 (2),
of Advertising, 26 (3), 61–76. 9–19.
Srinivasan, Srini S., Rolph Anderson, and Kishore Ponnavolu Zhang, Jie, and Michel Wedel (2009), “The Effectiveness of Cus-
(2002), “Customer Loyalty in E‑Commerce: An Exploration tomized Promotions in Online and Offline Stores,” Journal
of Its Antecedents and Consequences,” Journal of Retailing, of Marketing Research, 46 (2), 190–206.
78 (1), 41–50.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.