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 accessOverview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“an exploratory field study on Facebook and secondary data about a personalized advertising campaign indicate sharp drops in click-through rates when customers realize their personal information has been collected without their consent.”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Abstract
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we find that employing covert data collection undermines the beneficial impact of increased relevance on advertising effectiveness.”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Trust-building marketing strategies that transfer trust from another website or signal trust with informational cues can offset this negative effect.”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“this study uses three experiments that confirm a firm's strategy for collecting information from social media websites is a crucial determinant of how customers react to online personalized advertising.”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Abstract
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results of the analysis (see Fig. 2) show that CTR significantly drops from the baseline immediately after the introduction of the cookie law (-11%);”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Prestudy 2
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similar findings emerged for the dog food brand, with significant CTR increases from no to moderate personalization (CTR no personalization = .047%,CTR moderate personalization = .064%;z = -1.38,p = .084,one-tailed) but significant decreases from moderate to high personalization (CTR moderate personalization = .064%,CTR high personalization = 033%; z = 2.60, p = .009,two-tailed; see”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Results
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, when participants received a targeted advertisement with specific personal information, the CTR significantly decreased (CTR moderate personalization = .077%,CTR high personalization = .032%;z = 3.15, p = .002;see Fig. 1, Panel a).”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Results
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Observing consumers' behaviors in the real world, we find that they react differently to advertisements with varied personalization levels.”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results for the financial services brand showed significant increases in CTR when participants received more relevant advertisements, reflecting their indicated preferences (CTR no personalization = .017%,CTR moderate personalization = .077%;z = -4.61,p ≤ .001).”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Results
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the personalization × information collection interaction effect on click-through intentions was significant (F(1,116) = 4.64, p = .033),”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Click-through intentions.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 35
- The quote only partly states this claim. 3
- Probably not a substantial claim. 33
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When firms engage in overt information collection, participants exhibit greater clickthrough intentions in response to more personalized advertisements, in contrast with their reactions when firms collect information covertly.”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Continued use of the services after information provision creates an ad hoc consent to the data collection.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similar findings emerged for the dog food brand, with significant CTR increases from no to moderate personalization (CTR no personalization = .047%,CTR moderate personalization = .064%;z = -1.38,p = .084,one-tailed) but significant decreases from moderate to high personalization (CTR moderate personalization = .064%,CTR high personalization = 033%; z = 2.60, p = .009,two-tailed; see”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Results
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Some personalized advertisements are effective, but others fail to induce desired behaviors, such as clicking on the advertisement.”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“after nine weeks, the CTR rebounds, exceeds the initial baseline, and then continues to increase thereafter.”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Prestudy 2
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The conditional indirect effects (Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes 2007) confirmed the mediating role of perceived vulnerability for the covert condition (z = -2.00,p = .045)but not for the overt condition (z = .66,p = .510).”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Perceived vulnerability.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes 2007 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“We thus confirmed an indirect effect of personalization, through perceived vulnerability, when participants belonged to the covert condition and saw a personalized advertisement on Facebook (β = -.20), for which the 95% confidence interval (CI) excluded zero (-.45, -.04); the same effect did not emerge for CNN (β = -.03), and the 95% CI included zero (-.18, .10).”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Click-through intentions.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Hayes 2013
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were no significant main effects but a significant interaction effect (F(1,119) = 4.75, p = .031;see Fig. 7).”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Click-through intentions.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The interviews revealed an affective feeling associated with information collection”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Appendix D. Vulnerability Scale Development Procedure
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The model revealed a small chi-square value (χ 2 = 2.13; df = 5; p = .831),and a good fit (root mean square error of approximation < .01,goodness-offit index = .99,adjusted goodness-of-fit index = .98,normed fit index = .99).”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Appendix D. Vulnerability Scale Development Procedure
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“and the composite reliability (CR) exceeded the recommended minimum of .7 (Fornell and Larcker 1981; CR = .941).”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Appendix D. Vulnerability Scale Development Procedure
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Fornell and Larcker 1981 source
plainn = 39- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, in a series of 50 qualitative interviews, we identified that vulnerability went beyond an understanding of risk to include affective feelings of discomfort”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Appendix D. Vulnerability Scale Development Procedure
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“the modification index values indicated a single-factor model with five items (Lastovicka et al. 1999)”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Appendix D. Vulnerability Scale Development Procedure
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Lastovicka et al. 1999 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Cronbach's alpha was .864.”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Appendix D. Vulnerability Scale Development Procedure
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This process led to the retention of seven items.”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Appendix D. Vulnerability Scale Development Procedure
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“The corrected item-to-total correlations were all above .50(Brocato, Voorhees, and Baker, 2012), as well the interitem correlations (Netemeyer, Bearden, and Sharma 2003).”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Appendix D. Vulnerability Scale Development Procedure
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Brocato, Voorhees, and Baker, 2012 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Netemeyer, Bearden, and Sharma 2003
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A prestudy with 108 students in a laboratory setting established the minimum (11.20 s) and maximum (29.05 s) time needed to examine the manipulation containing the advertisement.”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Appendix D. Vulnerability Scale Development Procedure
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A two-cell post-control condition resulted in no significant differences for the covert conditions pertaining to either click-through intentions or vulnerability.”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Appendix D. Vulnerability Scale Development Procedure
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Perceived vulnerability and privacy are not only moderately correlated (r = -.480;p = .002)but also move in similar directions, as predicted by theory (lower values indicate higher privacy concerns).”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Appendix D. Vulnerability Scale Development Procedure
plaincorrelationaln = 39- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This phenomenon gives rise to what we refer to as the personalization paradox: Personalization can be both an effective and an ineffective marketing strategy, depending on the context.”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Abstract
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we operationalize consumer vulnerability with a newly developed, robust, five-item measure and validate its impact on advertising effectiveness.”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Such affective responses strongly influence retail shopping experiences (Arnold and Reynolds 2009) and consumer judgments (Avnet, Pham, and Stephen 2012).”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Abstract
What the sources say
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Milne, Bahl, and Rohm (2008) suggest that consumers may experience an affective sense of vulnerability in response to covert information collection, but empirical tests of this proposition or its implications for consumer behavior are lacking.”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Milne, Bahl, and Rohm (2008) source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In an online advertising context, firms also benefit from greater recall, higher content evaluations, and more purchases (Tam and Ho 2006), such that personalized advertisements appear twice as effective as similar, impersonal versions (Tucker 2014).”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Personalization
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Tucker 2014 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Research also indicates that this feeling of vulnerability may shape privacy concerns, which suggests the potential relationship between these constructs (Bandyopadhyay 2009;Dinev and Hart 2004).”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Psychological Ownership and Vulnerability as an Affective Alternative
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Bandyopadhyay 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Dinev and Hart 2004 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Milne, Bahl, and Rohm (2008) suggest that exposure to such cues results in negative customer reactions and thus harms the firm's reputation and future business.”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Link Between the Personalization Paradox and Information Collection
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Milne, Bahl, and Rohm (2008) source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Building on this finding, Tucker (2014) shows that introducing privacy controls increases the effectiveness of personalized advertisements by reducing reactance.”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Cognitive Theories
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Tucker (2014) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In online settings, this last stage translates into evaluating the effectiveness of the personalized strategy with measurable instruments, such as click-through rates.”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Personalization
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When customers recognize covert information collection, through exposure to highly personalized advertisements, they likely perceive a loss of control and experience feelings of vulnerability.”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Psychological Ownership and Vulnerability as an Affective Alternative
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Vulnerability is highly undesirable, so consumers avoid objects associated with it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast with cognitive theory-based predictions, feelings of vulnerability emerge subconsciously and may be hard to express, despite their strong impact.”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Psychological Ownership and Vulnerability as an Affective Alternative
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The unobtrusiveness of this form of data collection helps the firm gain unbiased data, and thus a richer customer understanding that it can use to tailor its services (Verhoef et al. 2010).”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Information Collection
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Verhoef et al. 2010 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The Internet Advertising Bureau UK (2011) urges firms to incorporate icons to inform users about data collection and usage practices”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > H3.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Internet Advertising Bureau UK (2011)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“such icons could increase trust perceptions (Pan and Zinkhan 2006), benevolence and integrity beliefs (Schlosser, White, and Lloyd 2006), and behavioral intentions (Wang, Beatty, and Foxx 2004).”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > H3.
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Online visitors suddenly confronted evidence of the extent to which their information was being collected, similar to the effects of receiving a highly personalized advertisement.”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Prestudy 2
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Information collection strategies largely determine the personalization process, so we investigate how such strategies affect customers' reactions to personalized advertisements.”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(These standards remained constant across all three of our main studies.)”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Method
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Perceived vulnerability was measured using a multi-item, self-reported scale, which we developed for this study (see Appendix 4) using the suggested procedures for multi-item scale development (Netemeyer, Bearden, and Sharma 2003).”
- Also stated in: § Method · plain
“Respondents indicated the extent to which the advertisement made them feel “exposed,” “unprotected,” “susceptible,” “unsafe,” and “vulnerable” (α = .88).”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Method
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Netemeyer, Bearden, and Sharma 2003
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § Method · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the more personalized advertisement in the overt condition increased click-through intentions, but in the covert condition, we found no changes.”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Click-through intentions.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One hundred thirty-seven participants from an online panel who were familiar with Facebook completed the survey.”
- Also stated in: § Method · plain
“Thus, 120 respondents participated in a 2 (less vs. more personalized advertisement) × 2 (overt vs. covert information collection) between-subjects design.”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Method
plainn = 120- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § Method · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, as time passed and people grew accustomed to the data collection, they apparently began to appreciate the transparency provided by the cookie information and increased their CTR.”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Prestudy 2
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, 194 participants were included in the analysis.”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Method
plainn = 194- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, vulnerability mediated the effects of personalization and information collection on click-through intentions, and participants in the covert condition expressed lower click-through intentions because they felt vulnerable,”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Perceived vulnerability.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two hundred fifty-one participants from an online panel who were familiar with Facebook participated in a 2 (less vs. more personalized advertisement) × 2 (overt vs. covert information collection) × 2 (Facebook vs. CNN) between-subjects design.”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Method
plainn = 251- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When firms covertly collect data though, consumers feel more vulnerable when they realize their information has been collected without their permission, which decreases their click-through intentions.”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also demonstrate that the outcomes vary, depending on the credibility of the website on which advertisements appear (Study 2) and the presence of trust-building cues (Study 3).”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > General Discussion
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, if firms take the initiative to inform customers about their data collection procedures, this negative effect disappears, likely because proactive information provision signals the firms' benevolence and reliability (Kim and Kim 2011), increases trust, and thus minimizes the negative effects of covert data collection.”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kim and Kim 2011 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When firms practice covert strategies, click-through intentions do not change (Studies 1-2), because respondents who were previously unaware of the information collection felt more vulnerable in the face of a highly personalized advertisement.”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > General Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One hundred forty participants from an online panel who were familiar with Facebook completed the survey.Seventeen respondents did not meet the preset requirements, leaving a sample of 123 participants in the 2 (overt vs. covert information collection) × 2 (icon present vs. absent) between-subjects design.”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Method
plainn = 123- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, when firms covertly collect data and present highly personalized advertisements, customers feel vulnerable (see Fig. 6, Panel a) and express lower click-through intentions (Fig. 6, Panel b) if the advertisements appear on an untrustworthy website but not if they show up on a trustworthy website, in support of H3.”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Click-through intentions.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We find that the credibility of the website can mitigate the negative effects of covert data collection, in that the results persisted for respondents viewing an advertisement on Facebook, whereas people who viewed the advertisement on CNN-a more trustworthy website-indicated different clickthrough intentions.”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both elements likely determine consumer acceptance of a personalization strategy.”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Implications for Retailers
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“it is difficult to say whether the results generalize to other contexts, especially those in which the personalization implies different levels of information sensitivity (Mothersbaugh et al. 2012).”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Limitations and Avenues for Further Research
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Mothersbaugh et al. 2012 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results reveal mediation, in support of the robustness of these outcomes.”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Implications for Theory
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The icons have been advocated by industry associations as a best practice solution (Internet Advertising Bureau UK 2011)”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Implications for Retailers
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Internet Advertising Bureau UK 2011
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“which has a direct correlation with recommendation intentions, loyalty, and share of wallet (IBM Institute for Business Value 2012)”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Implications for Retailers
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites IBM Institute for Business Value 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the scenario resembled reality, consumer decision making in the real world may differ.”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Limitations and Avenues for Further Research
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fourth, our main studies demonstrate the discriminant, convergent, and nomological validity of the measure.”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Appendix D. Vulnerability Scale Development Procedure
boostedn = 39- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The limitations of this study stem largely from the experimental context we used to test our predictions.”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Limitations and Avenues for Further Research
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, online publishers other than Facebook could produce different results.”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Limitations and Avenues for Further Research
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“From a thorough review of literature, we concluded that instruments available to measure vulnerability did not apply readily to our study.”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Appendix D. Vulnerability Scale Development Procedure
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Therefore, we followed established procedures and adopted a four-step scale development approach (Netemeyer, Bearden, and Sharma 2003): construct definition and content domain, generating and judging measurement items, designing and conducting studies to develop and refine the scale, and finalizing the scale.”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Appendix D. Vulnerability Scale Development Procedure
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Netemeyer, Bearden, and Sharma 2003
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“for item reduction efforts, college students are an acceptable population (Netemeyer, Bearden, and Sharma 2003)”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Appendix D. Vulnerability Scale Development Procedure
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Netemeyer, Bearden, and Sharma 2003
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This relationship, as well as those between perceived vulnerability and the constructs in Studies 1 and 2, provide support for our measure of perceived vulnerability.”
§ Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness > Appendix D. Vulnerability Scale Development Procedure
plaincorrelationaln = 39- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Perceived vulnerability is a positive predictor of privacy protective behaviors (Aguirre et al., 2015;Ham, 2017;Mousavi et al., 2020).”
From The validation of the Perceived Surveillance Scale (2022) · cites this paper as Aguirre et al., 2015
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Higher degrees of personalization in advertising have been shown to increase perceived severity among individuals (Aguirre et al., 2015).”
From The validation of the Perceived Surveillance Scale (2022) · cites this paper as Aguirre et al., 2015
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“academic research shows that personalized ads can positively influence attention, attitudes, purchases, and click-through rates (e.g., Aguirre, Mahr, Grewal, Ruyter, & Wetzels, 2015;Bang and Wojdynski 2016;Bartsch and Kloβ 2019;Lambrecht and Tucker 2013;Matz, Kosinski, Nave, & Stillwell, 2017).”
From When is personalized advertising crossing personal boundaries? How type of information, data sharing, and personalized pricing influence consumer perceptions of personalized advertising (2021) · cites this paper as Aguirre, Mahr, Grewal, Ruyter, & Wetzels, 2015
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Furthermore, research has shown that adding personal information (e.g., name, age, transaction information, and/or location) to a targeted ad (based on browsing history) makes it more intrusive (Van Doorn and Hoekstra 2013) and make people feel more vulnerable (Aguirre et al., 2015).”
From When is personalized advertising crossing personal boundaries? How type of information, data sharing, and personalized pricing influence consumer perceptions of personalized advertising (2021) · cites this paper as Aguirre et al., 2015
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“As described in the 'personalization paradox' (Aguirre et al., 2015;Awad and Krishnan 2006), the mere collection of one's personal data, followed by feelings of vulnerability and unfairness, may not weigh up to the perceived benefits of personalized ads, such as economic discounts, receiving more personally relevant offers, and optimizing the shopping experience.”
From When is personalized advertising crossing personal boundaries? How type of information, data sharing, and personalized pricing influence consumer perceptions of personalized advertising (2021) · cites this paper as Aguirre et al., 2015
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Such contextual fluency can lead to a greater sense of relevance and less creepiness of overly specific and mechanically delivered advice (Aguirre et al., 2015).”
From The Impact of Generative AI on Personalized Content Marketing in E-Commerce (2025) · cites this paper as Aguirre et al., 2015
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Additionally, previous research has found that the perception of personalized messages could carry over to the message's effectiveness (Acquisti et al., 2006;Aguirre et al., 2015).”
From The validation of the Perceived Surveillance Scale (2022) · cites this paper as Aguirre et al., 2015
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“This paradox describes how personalized advertising can be both an effective and an ineffective marketing strategy: personalization can increase ad relevance which consequently stimulates click-through, but it can also increase feelings of vulnerability which lowers click-through rates.”
From When is personalized advertising crossing personal boundaries? How type of information, data sharing, and personalized pricing influence consumer perceptions of personalized advertising (2021) · cites this paper as Aguirre et al., 2015
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Moreover, scenario-based experiments are commonly used in the domain of online personalized communication (e.g., Aguirre et al., 2015;Bleier and Eisenbeiss 2015;Bol et al., 2018;Van Doorn and Hoekstra 2013).”
From When is personalized advertising crossing personal boundaries? How type of information, data sharing, and personalized pricing influence consumer perceptions of personalized advertising (2021) · cites this paper as Aguirre et al., 2015
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”
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
Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3151312 · Cited by 109,314
Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224378101800104 · Cited by 109,190
On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/bf02723327 · Cited by 26,163
James, W. (1891) · Personality Culture Society · doi:10.1037/11059-000 · Cited by 25,876
Not So Different After All: A Cross-Discipline View Of Trust
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1998.926617 · Cited by 10,274
Addressing Moderated Mediation Hypotheses: Theory, Methods, and Prescriptions
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1080/00273170701341316 · Cited by 9,973
Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical Mediation Analysis in the New Millennium
Hayes, A. F. (2009) · Communication Monographs · doi:10.1080/03637750903310360 · Cited by 9,757
Possessions and the Extended Self
Belk, R. W. (1988) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/209154 · Cited by 9,064
A Theory of Psychological Reactance
Torrance, E. P., & Brehm, J. W. (1968) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1420824 · Cited by 4,758
When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated.
Müller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2005) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.852 · Cited by 3,435
Pavlou, P. A., Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2007) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148783 · Cited by 2,646
Toward a Theory of Psychological Ownership in Organizations
Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2001) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2001.4378028 · Cited by 2,546
eTailQ: dimensionalizing, measuring and predicting etail quality
Wolfinbarger, M., & Gilly, M. C. (2003) · Journal of Retailing · doi:10.1016/s0022-4359(03)00034-4 · Cited by 2,340
(2003) · Cited by 2,093
Heart and Mind in Conflict: The Interplay of Affect and Cognition in Consumer Decision Making
Shiv, B., & Fedorikhin, A. (1999) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/209563 · Cited by 2,044
A Theory of Psychological Reactance
Mishler, E. G. (1968) · Psychosomatic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00006842-196811000-00013 · Cited by 1,665
Bart, Y., Shankar, V., Sultan, F., & Urban, G. L. (2005) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jmkg.2005.69.4.133 · Cited by 1,482
Awad, N. F., & Krishnan, M. S. (2006) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148715 · Cited by 1,252
Trust Transfer on the World Wide Web
Stewart, K. J. (2003) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.14.1.5.12810 · Cited by 1,067
Schlosser, A. E., White, T. B., & Lloyd, S. M. (2006) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jmkg.70.2.133 · Cited by 947
Psychological Ownership: Theoretical Extensions, Measurement, and Relation to Work Outcomes
Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., Crossley, C. D., & Luthans, F. (2009) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.583 · Cited by 920
Building Understanding of the Domain of Consumer Vulnerability
Baker, S. M., Gentry, J. W., & Rittenburg, T. L. (2005) · Journal of Macromarketing · doi:10.1177/0276146705280622 · Cited by 895
Social Networks, Personalized Advertising, and Privacy Controls
Tucker, C. E. (2014) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1509/jmr.10.0355 · Cited by 829
Online Display Advertising: Targeting and Obtrusiveness
Avi Goldfarb, B., & Tucker, C. E. (2011) · Marketing Science · doi:10.1287/mksc.1100.0583 · Cited by 801
The Value of Purchase History Data in Target Marketing
Rossi, P. E., McCulloch, R. E., & Allenby, G. M. (1996) · Marketing Science · doi:10.1287/mksc.15.4.321 · Cited by 754
Determinants of Perceived Web Site Interactivity
Song, J. H., & Zinkhan, G. M. (2008) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jmkg.72.2.99 · Cited by 665
Lifestyle of the Tight and Frugal: Theory and Measurement
Lastovicka, J. L., Bettencourt, L. A., Hughner, R. S., & Kuntze, R. J. (1999) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/209552 · Cited by 645
Ansari, A., & Mela, C. F. (2003) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1509/jmkr.40.2.131.19224 · Cited by 639
Tam, K. Y., & Ho, S. Y. (2006) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148757 · Cited by 609
Reactance to Recommendations: When Unsolicited Advice Yields Contrary Responses
Fitzsimons, G. J., & Lehmann, D. R. (2004) · Marketing Science · doi:10.1287/mksc.1030.0033 · Cited by 604
Personalization versus Customization: The Importance of Agency, Privacy, and Power Usage
Sundar, S. S., & Marathe, S. S. (2010) · Human Communication Research · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01377.x · Cited by 588
Putting one-to-one marketing to work: Personalization, customization, and choice
Arora, N., Drèze, X., Ghose, A., Hess, J. D., Iyengar, R., Jing, B., Joshi, Y. V., Kumar, V., Lurie, N. H., Neslin, S. A., et al. (2008) · Marketing Letters · doi:10.1007/s11002-008-9056-z · Cited by 548
Internet Privacy Concerns and Their Antecedents: Measurement Validity and a Regression Model
Dinev, T., & Hart, P. (2004) · Behaviour & Information Technology · doi:10.1080/01449290410001715723 · Cited by 544
Marketing Models of Service and Relationships
Rust, R. T., & Chung, T. S. (2006) · Marketing Science · doi:10.1287/mksc.1050.0139 · Cited by 519
Innovations in Shopper Marketing: Current Insights and Future Research Issues
Shankar, V., Inman, J. J., Mantrala, M. K., Kelley, J. E., & Rizley, R. (2011) · Journal of Retailing · doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2011.04.007 · Cited by 442
State of the Information Privacy Literature: Where Are We Now and Where Should We Go?
Pavlou (2011) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/41409969 · Cited by 429
Shu, S. B., & Peck, J. (2011) · Journal of Consumer Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2011.01.002 · Cited by 418
Strangers on a Plane: Context-Dependent Willingness to Divulge Sensitive Information
John, L. K., Acquisti, A., & Loewenstein, G. (2011) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/656423 · Cited by 414
Online Trust: State of The Art, New Frontiers, and Research Potential
Urban, G. L., Amyx, C., & Lorenzon, A. (2009) · Journal of Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2009.03.001 · Cited by 393
Brocato, E. D., Voorhees, C. M., & Baker, J. (2012) · Journal of Retailing · doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2012.01.006 · Cited by 374
The Role of the Management Sciences in Research on Personalization
Murthi, B. P. S., & Sarkar, S. (2003) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.49.10.1344.17313 · Cited by 372
Getting Too Personal: Reactance to Highly Personalized Email Solicitations
White, T. B., Zahay, D. L., Thorbjørnsen, H., & Shavitt, S. (2008) · Marketing Letters · doi:10.1007/s11002-007-9027-9 · Cited by 365 · cited 2×
“n light of this, White et al. (2008) find that higher levels of ersonalization are less effective if customers receive no justifiation for why their information has been used.”
BackgroundUnderstanding the impact of web personalization on user information processing and decision outcomes
Tam, K. Y., & Ho, S. Y. (2006) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.5555/2017317.2017322 · Cited by 355
Innovations in Retail Pricing and Promotions
Grewal, D., Ailawadi, K. L., Gauri, D. K., Hall, K., Kopalle, P. K., & Robertson, J. R. (2011) · Journal of Retailing · doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2011.04.008 · Cited by 327
Self-citationAmericans Reject Tailored Advertising and Three Activities that Enable It
Turow, J., King, J., Hoofnagle, C. J., Bleakley, A., & Hennessy, M. (2009) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1478214 · Cited by 315
What is personalization? A conceptual framework
Vesanen, J. (2007) · European Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1108/03090560710737534 · Cited by 309
The Effectiveness of Customized Promotions in Online and Offline Stores
Zhang, J., & Wedel, M. (2009) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1509/jmkr.46.2.190 · Cited by 298
Exploring the Impact of Online Privacy Disclosures on Consumer Trust
Pan, Y., & Zinkhan, G. M. (2006) · Journal of Retailing · doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2006.08.006 · Cited by 291
Signaling the Trustworthiness of Small Online Retailers
Wang, S., Beatty, S. E., & Foxx, W. (2004) · Journal of Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1002/dir.10071 · Cited by 287
Prospects for Personalization on the Internet
Montgomery, A. L., & Smith, M. D. (2009) · Journal of Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2009.02.001 · Cited by 264
Lwin, M. O., Stanaland, A. J. S., & MIYAZAKI, A. (2008) · Journal of Retailing · doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2008.04.004 · Cited by 262
Disclosure Antecedents in an Online Service Context: The Role of Sensitivity of Information
Mothersbaugh, D. L., Foxx, W. K., Beatty, S. E., & Wang, S. (2012) · Journal of Service Research · doi:10.1177/1094670511424924 · Cited by 257
Location, Location, Location: Insights for Advertising Placement on the Web
Shamdasani, P. N., Stanaland, A. J. S., & Tan, J. (2001) · Journal of Advertising Research · doi:10.2501/jar-41-4-7-21 · Cited by 253
Choi, S. M., & Rifon, N. J. (2002) · Journal of Interactive Advertising · doi:10.1080/15252019.2002.10722064 · Cited by 248
Affect and Retail Shopping Behavior: Understanding the Role of Mood Regulation and Regulatory Focus
Arnold, M. J., & Reynolds, K. E. (2009) · Journal of Retailing · doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2009.05.004 · Cited by 208
Working mechanisms of computer-tailored health education: evidence from smoking cessation
Dijkstra, A. (2005) · Health Education Research · doi:10.1093/her/cyh014 · Cited by 193
Social Networks, Personalized Advertising, and Privacy Controls
Tucker, C. E. (2013) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224371305000501 · Cited by 176
Online Privacy and the Disclosure of Cookie Use: Effects on Consumer Trust and Anticipated Patronage
Miyazaki, A. D. (2008) · Journal of Public Policy & Marketing · doi:10.1509/jppm.27.1.19 · Cited by 175
The Economics of Advertising and Privacy
Tucker, C. E. (2012) · International Journal of Industrial Organization · doi:10.1016/j.ijindorg.2011.11.004 · Cited by 169
CRM in Data-Rich Multichannel Retailing Environments: A Review and Future Research Directions
Verhoef, P. C., Venkatesan, R., McAlister, L., Malthouse, E. C., Krafft, M., & Ganesan, S. (2010) · Journal of Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2010.02.009 · Cited by 160
Persuasion knowledge and consumer reactions to pricing tactics
Hardesty, D. M., Bearden, W. O., & Carlson, J. P. (2007) · Journal of Retailing · doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2006.06.003 · Cited by 151
Consumers’ Trust in Feelings as Information
Avnet, T., Pham, M. T., & Stephen, A. T. (2012) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/664978 · Cited by 110
Shen, A., & Dwayne Ball, A. (2009) · Journal of Services Marketing · doi:10.1108/08876040910946341 · Cited by 105
Employee perceptions of invasion of privacy: A field simulation experiment.
Tolchinsky, P. D., McCuddy, M. K., Adams, J., Ganster, D. C., Woodman, R. W., & Fromkin, H. L. (1981) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.66.3.308 · Cited by 98
Kim, K., & Kim, J. (2011) · Journal of Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2010.09.003 · Cited by 97
Gupta, P., Yadav, M. S., & Varadarajan, R. (2009) · Journal of Retailing · doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2009.02.001 · Cited by 96
Chellappa, R. K., & Shivendu, S. (2010) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1100.1210 · Cited by 80
Toward a Framework for Assessing Covert Marketing Practices
Milne, G. R., Bahl, S., & Rohm, A. (2008) · Journal of Public Policy & Marketing · doi:10.1509/jppm.27.1.57 · Cited by 69
Strategic Assortment Decisions in Information-Intensive and Turbulent Environments
Dekimpe, M. G., Gielens, K., Raju, J., & Thomas, J. S. (2011) · Journal of Retailing · doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2011.04.006 · Cited by 60
Antecedents And Consequences Of Consumers Online Privacy Concerns
Bandyopadhyay, S. (2011) · Journal of Business & Economics Research (JBER) · doi:10.19030/jber.v7i3.2269 · Cited by 32
Jones, J., & Preziosi, R. (2011) · Journal of Business & Economics Research (JBER) · doi:10.19030/jber.v7i12.2365 · Cited by 10
Chellappa, R., & Shivendu, S. (2009) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.991384 · Cited by 1
The Role of the Management Sciences in Research on Personalization
Murthi, B. P. S., & Sarkar, S. (2003) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.407940
Evaluating Vehicle Source Effects
Aaker, D. A., & Brown, P. K. (1972) · Journal of Advertising Research · doi:10.1080/00218499.1972.12519244
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, L., Ismagilova, E., Aarts, G., Coombs, C., Crick, T., Duan, Y., Dwivedi, R., Edwards, J., Eirug, A., et al. (2021) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.08.002 · Cited by 4,611
“Consumer awareness of personalised targeting through extracted data alter consumers’ responses to online behavioural advertisements (Aguirre et al., 2015).”
BackgroundHow artificial intelligence will change the future of marketing
Davenport, T., Guha, A., Grewal, D., & Bressgott, T. (2020) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-019-00696-0 · Cited by 2,875
“Finally, we consider the privacy – personalization paradox (Aguirre et al. 2015).”
BackgroundSelf-citationThe future of social media in marketing
Appel, G., Grewal, L., Hadi, R., & Stephen, A. T. (2020) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-019-00695-1 · Cited by 1,893
“For example, research has focused on the connections between personalization and privacy (e.g., Aguirre et al. 2015; White et al. 2008), the relationship of privacy as it relates to consumer trust and firm performance (e.g., Martin 2018; Martin et al. 2017), and the legal and ethical aspects of…”
BackgroundGrewal, D., Roggeveen, A. L., & Nordfält, J. (2017) · Journal of Retailing · doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2016.12.008 · Cited by 1,195
“Retailers therefore need to be careful to use their knowledge about customers in a way that balances out this personalization–privacy paradox (Aguirre et al. 2015).”
BackgroundSelf-citationMore than meets the eye: The functional components underlying influencer marketing
Campbell, C., & Farrell, J. R. (2020) · Business Horizons · doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2020.03.003 · Cited by 1,101
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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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
