Personalization and perceived personal relevance in computer-tailored persuasion in smoking cessation.

OBJECTIVES In most computer-tailored interventions, the recipient's name is used to personalize the information. This is done to increase the process of persuasion but few empirical data exist that support this notion. DESIGN An experimental laboratory study was conducted to test the effects of mentioning the participants name and to study whether it was related to the depth of processing in a 2 (personalization/standard) × 2 (weak/strong arguments) design. METHODS Over 120 student smokers were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions in which they read smoking cessation messages offering (pre-tested) strong or weak arguments. Personalization was applied by mentioning the recipient's first name three times in the text. The intention to quit smoking was the dependent variable. RESULTS Personalization increased persuasion when perceived personal relevance was high, but it decreased persuasion when perceived personal relevance was low. The effects on persuasion were only present in the case of strong arguments. CONCLUSIONS Personalization is not always effective, and it may even lead to less persuasion. Therefore, this often used way to tailor messages must be applied with care.

[1]  Hammond Ec,et al.  Smoking in relation to the death rates of one million men and women. , 1966 .

[2]  T. Brandon,et al.  Tailored interventions for motivating smoking cessation: using placebo tailoring to examine the influence of expectancies and personalization. , 2005, Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association.

[3]  T. B. Rogers,et al.  Self-reference and the encoding of personal information. , 1977, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[4]  Lisa G. Aspinwall,et al.  Self-Affirmation Reduces Biased Processing of Health-Risk Information , 1998 .

[5]  H. Rao Unnava,et al.  Self-Referencing , 1989 .

[6]  Z. Kunda,et al.  Motivated inference: Self-serving generation and evaluation of causal theories. , 1987 .

[7]  A. Eagly.  In defence of ourselves: The effects of defensive processing on attitudinal phenomena , 2007 .

[8]  Leif D. Nelson,et al.  Do Messages about Health Risks Threaten the Self? Increasing the Acceptance of Threatening Health Messages Via Self-Affirmation , 2000 .

[9]  S. Ashford,et al.  Self-consciousness and the processing of self-relevant information. , 1988 .

[10]  Blair T. Johnson,et al.  The self-reference effect in memory: a meta-analysis. , 1997, Psychological bulletin.

[11]  Blair T. Johnson,et al.  Effects of involvement on persuasion: a meta-analysis , 1989 .

[12]  S. Noar,et al.  Does tailoring matter? Meta-analytic review of tailored print health behavior change interventions. , 2007, Psychological bulletin.

[13]  E. C. Hammond,et al.  Smoking in relation to the death rates of one million men and women. , 1966, National Cancer Institute monograph.

[14]  A Dijkstra,et al.  Subtypes within a sample of precontemplating smokers: a preliminary extension of the stages of change. , 1997, Addictive behaviors.

[15]  Lauren G. Block,et al.  Undoing the Effects of Seizing and Freezing: Decreasing Defensive Processing of Personally Relevant Messages , 2002 .

[16]  A. Good,et al.  Measuring defensive responses to threatening messages: a meta-analysis of measures , 2007 .

[17]  Shelly Chaiken,et al.  Defensive Processing of Personally Relevant Health Messages , 1992 .

[18]  H. Leventhal,et al.  Fear appeals and persuasion: the differentiation of a motivational construct. , 1971, American journal of public health.

[19]  Arie Dijkstra,et al.  Working mechanisms of computer-tailored health education: evidence from smoking cessation. , 2005, Health education research.

[20]  Arie Dijkstra,et al.  The Psychology of Tailoring-Ingredients in Computer-Tailored Persuasion , 2008 .

[21]  Geoffrey L. Cohen,et al.  The Psychology of Self‐defense: Self‐Affirmation Theory , 2006 .

[22]  H. Vries,et al.  Clusters of precontemplating smokers defined by the perception of the pros, cons, and self-efficacy. , 2000, Addictive behaviors.

[23]  John T. Cacioppo,et al.  The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion , 1986, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology.

[24]  Peter R. Harris,et al.  Self-Affirmation and the Biased Processing of Threatening Health-Risk Information , 2005, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[25]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences , 1979 .

[26]  C. Steele.  The Psychology of Self-Affirmation: Sustaining the Integrity of the Self , 1988 .

[27]  M. Fishbein,et al.  Understanding tailoring in communicating about health. , 2008, Health education research.

[28]  Roger A. Kerin,et al.  The Effects of Personalized Product Recommendations on Advertisement Response Rates: The “Try This. It Works!” Technique , 2004 .