Cited by 868Digital Marketing and Social MediaPrivacy, Security, and Data ProtectionConsumer Market Behavior and Pricing

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 74 of the 74 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 49 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Unraveling the Personalization Paradox: The Effect of Information Collection and Trust-Building Strategies on Online Advertisement Effectiveness

Open access

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jretai.2014.09.005

Cites

74 of 74 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

52 Own result · 36 Own interpretation · 33 No full text of the sources · 19 Own method · 8 No basis given · 7 Sources not found · 1 Not checked yet

Show all 94 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 35
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 3
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 33
62 of 62
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Continued use of the services after information provision creates an ad hoc consent to the data collection.

    “The underlying assumption is that continued use of the services, after this information provision, creates an ad hoc consent to the data collection.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Reactions to the enforcement of the cookie law mimic reactions to the recognition of covert information collection.

    “Therefore, reactions to the enforcement of the cookie law might mimic the reactions to the recognition of covert information collection.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Vulnerability is highly undesirable, so consumers avoid objects associated with it.

    “Vulnerability is highly undesirable, so consumers avoid objects associated with it.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The effects of personalized advertisements in the lab studies are similar to those prompted by the Dutch cookie law.

    “To specify the mechanism that drives this phenomenon, we embarked on a series of studies to test the effect when customers consider personalized advertisements, which may create responses similar to those prompted by the Dutch cookie law.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Retailers prefer to reach the vast Facebook market.

    “But Facebook attracts approximately 66% of the U.S. population (Nielson 2013), and retailers prefer to reach this vast market, so other strategies are needed to offset the vulnerability effect.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Firms consider the U.K. Internet Advertising Bureau icon an effective means to prevent government regulations.

    “Firms appear to consider this icon an effective means to prevent government regulations, yet to the best of our knowledge, no research has tested its effectiveness empirically.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Consumers are increasingly aware that firms collect their information, online and offline.

    “Increased media attention and the spread of personalization practices mean that consumers are increasingly aware that firms collect their information, online and offline.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    When consumers receive personalized advertising, they likely express more skepticism toward the retailer, especially if it cites information they did not explicitly consent to provide.

    “When they receive personalized advertising, these consumers likely express more skepticism toward the retailer, especially if it cites information they did not explicitly consent to provide.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Consumers believe that they own their personal information.

    “Consumers believe that they own such personal information”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    It is difficult to implement proactive communications in all circumstances and across the various complex relationships on the Web.

    “it is difficult to implement proactive communications in all circumstances and across the various complex relationships on the Web”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Icons are not universally implemented yet.

    “but not universally implemented yet”
11 of 11

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Not confirmedF(1, 116) = 0.01reported p = .946 · recomputed p = .921

    “F(1,116) = .01,p = .946”

  • Consistentz = 3.15reported p = .002 · recomputed p = .002

    “;z = 3.15, p = .002”

  • Consistentz = -1.38reported p = .084 · recomputed p = .168

    “;z = -1.38,p = .084”

    The paper states a one-tailed test

  • Consistentz = 2.6reported p = .009 · recomputed p = .009

    “z = 2.60, p = .009”

  • Consistentt(118) = -2.53reported p = .013 · recomputed p = .013

    “t(118) = -2.53,p = .013”

  • Consistentt(118) = -4.01reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(118) = -4.01,p < .001”

  • Consistentt(118) = -6.85reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(118) = -6.85,p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 116) = 7.79reported p = .006 · recomputed p = .006

    “F(1,116) = 7.79, p = .006”

  • ConsistentF(1, 116) = 1.87reported p = .174 · recomputed p = .174

    “F(1,116) = 1.87, p = .174”

  • ConsistentF(1, 116) = 4.64reported p = .033 · recomputed p = .033

    “F(1,116) = 4.64, p = .033”

  • ConsistentF(1, 116) = 0.22reported p = .641 · recomputed p = .640

    “F(1,116) = .22,p = .641”

  • ConsistentF(1, 116) = 11.44reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,116) = 11.44,p = .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 116) = 1.92reported p = .168 · recomputed p = .169

    “F(1,116) = 1.92, p = .168”

  • ConsistentF(1, 116) = 5.88reported p = .017 · recomputed p = .017

    “F(1,116) = 5.88, p = .017”

  • ConsistentF(1, 116) = 7.8reported p = .006 · recomputed p = .006

    “F(1,116) = 7.80, p = .006”

  • ConsistentF(1, 116) = 0.5reported p = .479 · recomputed p = .481

    “F(1,116) = .50,p = .479”

  • Consistentt(116) = 2.15reported p = .033 · recomputed p = .034

    “t(116) = 2.15, p = .033”

  • Consistentt(116) = -2.42reported p = .017 · recomputed p = .017

    “t(116) = -2.42,p = .017”

  • Consistentt(114) = -2.82reported p = .006 · recomputed p = .006

    “t(114) = -2.82,p = .006”

  • Consistentt(114) = 1.45reported p = .15 · recomputed p = .150

    “t(114) = 1.45, p = .150”

  • Consistentz = -2reported p = .045 · recomputed p = .046

    “(z = -2.00,p = .045”

  • Consistentz = 0.66reported p = .51 · recomputed p = .509

    “(z = .66,p = .510”

  • Consistentt(192) = -10.07reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(192) = -10.07,p < .001”

  • Consistentt(192) = -7.59reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(192) = -7.59,p < .001”

  • Consistentt(192) = -6.96reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(192) = -6.96,p < .001”

  • Consistentt(193) = -3.96reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(193) = -3.96,p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 186) = 31.95reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,186) = 31.95,p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 186) = 1.01reported p = .315 · recomputed p = .316

    “F(1,186) = 1.01, p = .315”

  • ConsistentF(1, 186) = 1.69reported p = .196 · recomputed p = .195

    “F(1,186) = 1.69, p = .196”

  • ConsistentF(1, 186) = 3.29reported p = .071 · recomputed p = .071

    “F(1,186) = 3.29, p = .071”

  • ConsistentF(1, 186) = 0.32reported p = .572 · recomputed p = .572

    “F(1,186) = .32,p = .572”

  • ConsistentF(1, 186) = 0.04reported p = .835 · recomputed p = .842

    “F(1,186) = .04,p = .835”

  • ConsistentF(1, 186) = 1.18reported p = .278 · recomputed p = .279

    “F(1,186) = 1.18, p = .278”

  • ConsistentF(1, 92) = 4.25reported p = .042 · recomputed p = .042

    “F(1,92) = 4.25, p = .042”

  • ConsistentF(1, 92) = 1.13reported p = .29 · recomputed p = .291

    “F(1,92) = 1.13, p = .290”

  • ConsistentF(1, 92) = 17.16reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,92) = 17.16, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 94) = 0.263reported p = .609 · recomputed p = .609

    “F(1,94) = .263,p = .609”

  • ConsistentF(1, 94) = 8.55reported p = .004 · recomputed p = .004

    “F(1,94) = 8.55, p = .004”

  • ConsistentF(1, 94) = 10.64reported p = .002 · recomputed p = .002

    “F(1,94) = 10.64,p = .002”

  • ConsistentF(1, 94) = 0.56reported p = .455 · recomputed p = .456

    “F(1,94) = .56,p = .455”

  • Consistentt(119) = -5.13reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(119) = -5.13,p < .001”

  • Consistentt(119) = -4.66reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(119) = -4.66,p < .001”

  • Consistentt(119) = -5.69reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(119) = -5.69,p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 119) = 4.75reported p = .031 · recomputed p = .031

    “F(1,119) = 4.75, p = .031”

  • ConsistentF(1, 119) = 5.48reported p = .021 · recomputed p = .021

    “F(1,119) = 5.48, p = .021”

  • ConsistentF(1, 119) = 0.58reported p = .448 · recomputed p = .448

    “F(1,119) = .58,p = .448”

  • ConsistentF(1, 119) = 3.08reported p = .082 · recomputed p = .082

    “F(1,119) = 3.08, p = .082”

  • ConsistentF(1, 119) = 1.73reported p = .19 · recomputed p = .191

    “F(1,119) = 1.73, p = .190”

48 of 48

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Self-check results appear here once an independent check has confirmed them.

Citations

Cites

Show all 73 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Aguirre, E., Mahr, D., Grewal, D., de Ruyter, K., & Wetzels, M.
Affiliations
  • Maastricht University (NL)
  • Babson College (US)
Corresponding author
Aguirre, Elizabeth
Venue
Journal of Retailing
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-03
Volume
91
Issue
1
Pages
34-49
ISSN
0022-4359 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2097118035
Cited by
868
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 179 · 2025: 134 · 2024: 83 · 2023: 100 · 2022: 78 · 2021: 91 · 2020: 69 · 2019: 48 · 2018: 45 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 7
FWCI
44.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Retailing (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • City Research Online (City University London) (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Digital Marketing and Social Media
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Consumer Market Behavior and Pricing
Keywords
personalized advertising, information gathering, consumer trust, consumer vulnerability, click-through rate, online advertising effectiveness, social media data collection, Facebook, consumer privacy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review