More from these Authors

• Article | Journal of Consumer Research

  Why Am I Seeing this Ad? The Effect of Ad Transparency on Ad Effectiveness

  Tami Kim, Kate Barasz and Leslie K. John

  Given the increasingly specific ways marketers can target ads, many consumers and regulators are demanding ad transparency: disclosure of how consumers’ personal information was used to generate ads. We investigate how and why ad transparency impacts ad effectiveness. Drawing on literature about offline norms of information-sharing, we posit that ad transparency backfires when it exposes marketing practices that violate norms about “information flows”—consumers’ beliefs about how their information ought to move between parties. Study 1 inductively shows that consumers deem information flows acceptable (or not) based on whether their personal information was: 1) obtained within versus outside of the website on which the ad appears and 2) stated by the consumer versus inferred by the firm (the latter of each pair being less acceptable). Studies 2 and 3 show that revealing unacceptable information flows reduces ad effectiveness, which is driven by increasing consumers’ relative concern for their privacy over desire for the personalization that such targeting affords. Study 4 shows the moderating role of platform trust: when consumers trust a platform, revealing acceptable information flows increases ad effectiveness. Studies 5a and 5b, conducted in the field with a loyalty program website (i.e., a trusted platform), demonstrate this benefit of transparency.

  Keywords: Online Advertising; Customization and Personalization; Information; Trust; Performance Effectiveness;

  Citation:

  Kim, Tami, Kate Barasz, and Leslie K. John. "Why Am I Seeing this Ad? The Effect of Ad Transparency on Ad Effectiveness." Journal of Consumer Research 45, no. 5 (February 2019): 906–932.  View Details

  CiteView DetailsFind at Harvard Read Now

  Related

• Working Paper | HBS Working Paper Series | 2019

  Communicating Resource Scarcity

  Grant E. Donnelly, Anne Wilson, A.V. Whillans and Michael I. Norton

  The development and maintenance of interpersonal relationships require investments of both money and time—resources that are often limited in supply, but in great demand. Indeed, consumers are regularly asked to dedicate their money and time to social engagements, and need to manage these resources efficiently. Therefore, consumers often choose to cite insufficient time or money as an excuse for rejecting social invitations. But how does using the excuse of financial versus time scarcity influence interpersonal relationships? Across eight experiments, we demonstrate that using financial scarcity as an excuse (e.g., “I don’t have money”) increases perceptions of interpersonal closeness and helping behavior compared to using time scarcity as an excuse (e.g., “I don’t have time”). This effect is explained by the fact that time is perceived as a more personally controllable resource than money, resulting in consumers who cite financial (vs. temporal) constraints as being perceived as more trustworthy. However, excuse-givers do not correctly predict this difference in interpersonal outcomes. These findings advance our theoretical understanding of how excuses revolving around resource constraints affect interpersonal perceptions and behaviors and provides practical insights for consumers desiring to minimize social repercussions when turning down social invitations.

  Keywords: interpersonal relationships; time; Communication; Relationships; Money; Perception;

  Citation:

  Donnelly, Grant E., Anne Wilson, A.V. Whillans, and Michael I. Norton. "Communicating Resource Scarcity." Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 19-066, January 2019.  View Details

  CiteView Details Read Now

  Related

• Article | Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

  Seeker Beware: The Interpersonal Costs of Ignoring Advice

  Hayley Blunden, Jennifer M. Logg, Alison Wood Brooks, Leslie John and Francesca Gino

  Prior advice research has focused on why people rely on (or ignore) advice and its impact on judgment accuracy. We expand the consideration of advice-seeking outcomes by investigating the interpersonal consequences of advice seekers’ decisions. Across nine studies, we show that advisors interpersonally penalize seekers who disregard their advice, and that these reactions are especially strong among expert advisors. This penalty also drives advisor reactions to a widely-recommended advice-seeking strategy: soliciting multiple advisors to leverage the wisdom of crowds. Advisors denigrate and distance themselves from seekers who they learn consulted others, an effect mediated by perceptions that their own advice will be disregarded. Underlying these effects is an asymmetry between advisors’ and seekers’ beliefs about the purpose of the advice exchange: whereas advisors believe giving advice is more about narrowing the option set by providing direction, seekers believe soliciting advice is more about widening the option set by gathering information.

  Keywords: advice; advice seeking; expertise; impression management; wisdom of crowds; Interpersonal Communication; Relationships; Behavior; Experience and Expertise; Perception; Judgments; Outcome or Result;

  Citation:

  Blunden, Hayley, Jennifer M. Logg, Alison Wood Brooks, Leslie John, and Francesca Gino. "Seeker Beware: The Interpersonal Costs of Ignoring Advice." Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 150 (January 2019): 83–100.  View Details

  CiteView DetailsFind at Harvard

  Related