Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41153114›Full record

ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Triggering the Personalization Backfire Effect: The Moderating Role of Situational Privacy Concern.

Hyeongseok Kim, Seunghee Han

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Hyeongseok KimDepartment of Business Administration, Chung-Ang University, Seoul 06974, Republic of Korea.
Seunghee HanDepartment of Business Administration, Chung-Ang University, Seoul 06974, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-1723-6891

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Personalized marketing presents a powerful but delicate strategy, as its benefits can be negated by rising consumer privacy concerns. To illuminate this tension, this study investigates what causes personalization to fail, focusing on the interaction between the level of message personalization and situationally activated privacy concerns. We conducted a 3 (Message Personalization: Low, Medium, High) × 2 (Situational Privacy Concern: Low, High) between-subjects experiment with 360 participants. These personalization levels were designed as an ecologically valid "intrusiveness ladder," moving from a generic message to one using contextual data and to one using personally identifiable information (PII). Situational privacy concern was experimentally induced using a news article prime, after which participants were exposed to one of the marketing messages. The results revealed a significant interaction effect that demonstrates a critical "tipping point." In the low privacy concern condition, increasing personalization boosted purchase intention. Conversely, when privacy concerns were activated, a 'backfire effect' occurred: highly intrusive, PII-based personalization was no more effective than a generic message and was significantly less effective than moderate, contextual personalization. Our findings provide causal evidence for the moderating role of situational privacy concern, demonstrating that activating this state is a key condition that triggers a non-linear consumer response. Practitioners must calibrate the level of data intrusiveness, as the most aggressive tactics can be counterproductive when consumer privacy sensitivities are high.

Indexed as

personalization–privacy paradoxpersonalized marketingprivacy concern

Identifiers

PMID41153114
PMCPMC12561546

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.