Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
Individual differences |
Methods | Statistics | Clinical | Educational | Industrial | Professional items | World psychology |
Cognitive Personalization Edit
We define personalization as tailoring a consumer product, electronic or written medium to a user based on personal details or characteristics they provide. More recently, it has especially been applied in the context of the World Wide Web . Personalization, as we define it, thus is a mental operation initiated by the reader and elicited by the external stimuli. In a broader sense, personalization also may refer to a tailored environment, product, service, or technology. Thus, personalization could mean the deliberate decoration or modification of the environment to fit a person's tastes or preferences, such as decorating one's own room or engaging in a process that changes the functionality, interface, information content, or distinctiveness of a product, service, or system such as a Web site interface. The purpose of personalization is to increase the element's personal relevance to an individual. Research shows that consumers welcome personalized product offerings and that personalized messages enhance responsiveness. Consumers perceive personalized offers as more relevant to their needs and better aligned with their preferences, which in turn enhances their purchase intentions.
Our concept of cognitive personalization differs from the traditional concept of personalization, which is primarily physical. Cognitive personalization is a mental operation that takes place in a person's mind. In the medical field, defines personalization as a cognitive operation by which people interpret events in a self-referential manner. Beck addresses certain disorders that cause people to practice self-referential thinking excessively; in our definition, we refer to self-referential thinking that occurs as a result of emotional resonance with a message.
Antecedents of Cognitive Personalization Edit
The level of cognitive personalization experienced by a consumer reading an online review depends on a variety of factors. We discuss three factors and their relationships with personalization: (1) affect intensity, an individual trait; (2) type of review, or experiential versus factual; and (3) the nature of the product, namely, search versus experience goods.
Affect intensity. Affect intensity (AI) is an individual difference that refers to people's emotional responses to various events. People with high AI are more likely to be bursting with joy in happy situations and sense the end of the world when facing a disconcerting problem. Those with relatively higher AI also are more likely to respond to an event with more intense emotions and be responsive to a wider spectrum of emotions, both positive and negative.
Type of review. The extent to which information seekers sense resonance with a review may depend on the nature of the review. In a review, consumers look for cues that suggest validity. With no apparent demographic or background information about a reviewer, such cues likely come from the content of the review, which might be predominantly factual or experiential. Factual reviews focus on plain facts, such as product attributes, whereas experiential reviews may focus on the reviewer's own specific experience when buying or using the product.
Nature of the product. Products can be classified as search or experience goods. Search goods, such as electronics, are products that consumers can evaluate according to their specific attributes before purchase. Experience goods, such as recreational services, vary across consumers and are difficult to describe using specific attributes. Experience goods thus typically must be evaluated by affective evaluative cues (i.e., aesthetics of the product), whereas search goods may be evaluated by instrumental evaluative cues (i.e., technical or performance aspects of a product).
- ↑ (Murthi and Sarkar 2003)
- ↑ (Blom 2000)
- ↑ (Howard and Kerin 2004)
- ↑ (Blom 2000)
- ↑ (Beck 1976)
- ↑ (Larsen, Diener, and Cropanzana 1987)
- ↑ (Larsen and Diener 1987)
- ↑ (Schindler and Bickart 2005)
- ↑ (Nelson 1970)
- ↑ (Ben-Sira 1980)
Batson, C. Daniel, Shannon Early, and Giovanni Salvarani (1997), "Perspective Taking: Imagining How Another Feels Versus Imagining How You Would Feel," Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 23 (7), 751-759.
Beck, A.T. (1976), Cognitive Therapy and the Emotional Disorders. New York: International Universities Press.
Ben-Sira, Zeev (1980), "Affective and Instrumental Components in the Physician-Patient Relationship: An Additional Dimension of Interaction Theory," Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21 (June), 170-180.
Blom, J (2000), "Personalization-A Taxonomy," CHI 2000 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, New York, 313-314
Howard, Daniel J. and Roger A. Kerin (2004), "The Effects of Personalized Product Recommendations on the Advertisement Response Rates: The ‘Try This, It Works!' Technique," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14 (3), 271-279.
Kahneman, Daniel and Amos Tversky (1984), "Choice, Values, and Frames," American Psychologist, 39, 341-350.
Larsen, R.J. and E. Diener (1987), "Affect Intensity As An Individual Difference Characteristics: A Review," Journal of Research in Personality, 21, 1-39.
Murthi B.P.S and Sumit Sarkar (2003), "The Role of Management Sciences in Research on Personalization," Management Science, 49 (10), 1344-62.
Nelson, P. (1970), "Information and Consumer Behavior," Journal of Political Economy, 78 (2), 311-329.
Schindler, Robert M. and Barbara Bickart (2005), "Published Word of Mouth: Referable, Consumer-Generated Information on the Internet," in Online Consumer Psychology: Understanding and Influencing Consumer Behavior in the Virtual World, Curtis P. Haugtvedt and Karen A. Machleit (Eds.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 35-61.