Abstract
Mentioning the recipient’s name in a persuasive message is one way to personalize messages in an attempt to increase persuasion. However, this type of personalization may lead to a self-threat that activates defensive reactions and to a subsequent decrease in persuasion. A self-affirmation procedure that induces open-mindedness may prevent this drawback. Smokers were exposed to a message advocating smoking cessation in one of three experimental conditions presenting: A standard text, a text with the recipient’s name incorporated four times, or a text with the recipient’s name incorporated twelve times. The extent to which smokers indicated at pretest to value their health was used as a measure of personal relevance of the message, and tested as a moderator. Half of the smokers was exposed to a self-affirmation procedure before they read the text. The dependent variable was the intention to quit smoking. When health value was moderate, mentioning the recipient’s name twelve times induced a defensive reaction, significantly lowering persuasion. This was supported by the observation that self-affirmation prevented this effect. When health value was high, mentioning the recipient’s name twelve times significantly increased persuasion. However, when self-affirmation was applied, persuasion was significantly lowered. The effects of mentioning the recipient’s name depend on individual differences in personal relevance of the message (health value) before exposure to the message: Name mentioning can increase, but also decrease persuasion, through defensive processes.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allport, G.W., Vernon, P.E., Lindzey, G.: Study of Values, 3rd edn. Houghton Mifflin, Boston (1960)
Armitage, C.J., Harris, P.R., Arden, M.A.: Evidence that self-affirmation reduces alcohol consumption: randomized exploratory trial with a new, brief means of self-affirming. Health Psychol. 30, 633–641 (2011)
Borland, R., Balmford, J., Hunt, D.: The effectiveness of personally tailored computer-generated advice letters for smoking cessation. Addiction 99, 369–377 (2004)
Burnkrant, R.E., Unnava, H.R.: A strategy for increasing processing of message content. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 15, 628–638 (1989)
Burnkrant, R.E., Unnava, H.R.: Effects of self-referencing on persuasion. J. Consum. Res. 22, 17–26 (1995)
Block, L.G., Williams, P.: Undoing the effects of seizing and freezing: decreasing defensive processing of personally relevant messages. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 32, 803–833 (2002)
Chang, C.: Enhancing self-referencing to health messages. J. Consum. Affairs 45, 147–164 (2011)
Cohen, G.L., Aronson, J., Steele, C.M.: When beliefs yield to evidence: reducing biased evaluation by affirming the self. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 26, 1151–1164 (2000)
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G., Aiken, L.S.: Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associate Publishers, Mahwah (2003)
Correll, J., Spencer, S.J., Zanna, M.P.: An affirmed self and an open mind: self-affirmation and sensitivity to argument strength. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 40, 350–356 (2004)
Dijkstra, A.: Working mechanisms of computer-tailored health education: evidence from smoking cessation. Health Educ. Res. 20, 527–539 (2005)
Dijkstra, A.: The psychology of tailoring-ingredients of computer-tailored persuasion. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Compass 2, 765–784 (2008a)
Dijkstra, A.: Computer tailored persuasion: effectiveness and side-effects. Key-note presentation at the Michigan Tailoring Workshop (2008b). http://chcr.umich.edu/mts/presentations/monday/ArieDijkstra20080804.pdf
Dijkstra, A., Ballast, K.: Personalization and perceived personal relevance in computer-tailored persuasion in smoking cessation. Br. J. Health Psychol. 17, 60–73 (2012)
Dijkstra, A., Buunk, A.P.: Self-evaluative emotions and expectations of self-evaluative emotions in health behavior change. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 19, 119–137 (2008)
Dijkstra, A., Den Dijker, L.: Physical threat and self-evaluative emotions in smoking cessation. journal of applied social psychology. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 35, 1859–1878 (2005)
Dijkstra, A., De Vries, H., Roijackers, J.: Long-term effectiveness of computer-generated tailored feedback in smoking cessation. Health Educ. Res. 13, 207–214 (1998)
Dijkstra, A., De Vries, H., Kok, G., Roijackers, J.: Self-evaluation and motivation to change: social cognitive constructs in smoking cessation. Psychol. Health 14, 747–759 (1999)
Dijkstra, A., De Vries, H., Roijackers, J.: Compu-terized tailored feedback to stimulate precontempla-tors to quit smoking: three basic efficacy questions. Health Psychol. 17, 513–519 (1998)
Eagly, A.H.: In defence of ourselves: the effects of defensive processing on attitudinal phenomena. In: Hewstone, H., Schut, H.A.W., de Wit, J.B.F., van den Bos, K., Stroebe, M.S. (eds.) The Scope of Social Psychology: Theory and Application, pp. 65–83. Psychology Press, New York (2007)
Etter, J.F.: Comparing the efficacy of two internet-based, computer-tailored smoking cessation programs: a randomized trial. J. Med. Internet Res. 7(1), e2 (2005)
Harris, P.R., Napper, L.: Self-affirmation and the biased processing of threatening health-risk information. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 31, 1250–1263 (2005)
Harris, P.R., Mayle, K., Mabbott, L., Napper, L.: Self-affirmation reduces smokers’ defensiveness to graphic on-pack cigarette warning labels. Health Psychol. 26, 437–446 (2007)
Hawkins, R.P., Kreuter, M., Resnicow, K., Fishbein, M., Dijkstra, A.: Understanding tailoring in communicating about health. Health Educ. Res. 23, 454–466 (2008)
Howard, D.J., Kerin, R.A.: The effects of personalized product recommendations on advertisement response rates: the ’try this. It works!’ technique. J. Consum. Psychol. 14, 271–279 (2004)
Jessop, D.C., Simmonds, L.V., Sparks, P.: Motivational and behavioural consequences of self-affirmation interventions: a study of sunscreen use among women. Psychol. Health 24, 529–544 (2009)
Johnson, B.T., Eagly, A.H.: The effects of involvement on persuasion: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 106, 290–314 (1989)
Koole, S.L., Smeets, K., Van Knippenberg, A., Dijksterhuis, A.: The cessation of rumination through self-affirmation. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 77, 111–125 (1999)
Leshner, G., Bolls, P.D., Thomas, E.: Scare’em or disgust ‘em: the effects of graphic health promotion messages. Health Commun. 24, 447–458 (2009)
Leshner, G., Vultee, F., Bolls, P.D., Mooe, J.: When na fear appeal isn’t just a fear appeal: the effects of graphic anti-tobacco messages. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 54, 485–507 (2010)
McQueen, A., Klein, W.M.P.: Experimental manipulations of self-affirmation: a systematic review. Self Identity 5, 289–354 (2006)
Meyers-Levy, J., Peracchio, L.A.: Moderators of the impact of self-reference on persuasion. J. Consum. Res. 22, 408–423 (1996)
Na, E.Y.: Is biased processing of strong attitudes peripheral? An extension of dual-process models of attitude change. Psychol. Rep. 85, 589–605 (1999)
Noar, S.M., Benac, C., Harris, M.: Does tailoring matter? Meta-analytic review of tailored print health behavior change interventions. Psychol. Bull. 133, 673–693 (2007)
Op den Akker, H., Jones, V.M., & Hermens, J.H.: Tailoring real-time physical activity coaching systems: a literature survey and model. User Modeling and User–Adapted Interaction (this issue)
Orji, R., Vassileva, J., & Mandryk, R.L.: Modeling the efficacy of persuasive strategies for different gamer types in serious games for health. User Modeling and User–Adapted Interaction (this issue)
Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T.: The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In: Berkowitz, L. (ed.) Advance in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 19, pp. 123–205. Academic Press, Orlando (1986)
Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T.: Involvement and persuasion: tradition versus integration. Psychol. Bull. 107, 367–374 (1990)
Pietersma, S., Dijkstra, A.: Do behavioral health intentions engender health behavior change? A study on the moderating role of self-affirmation on actual fruit intake versus vegetable intake. Br. J. Health Psychol. 16, 815–827 (2011)
Pietersma, S.: Persuasive Health Communication: A Self-perspective. Kurt Lewin Dissertation Series. Groningen University (2009). http://irs.ub.rug.nl/ppn/321089278
Postma, O.J., Brokke, M.: Personalisation in practice: the proven effects of personalisation. J. Database Market. 9, 137–142 (2002)
Reed, M.B., Aspinwall, L.G.: Self-affirmation reduces biased processing of health-risk information. Motiv. Emotion 22, 99–132 (1998)
Reiter, E., Robertson, R., Osman, L.M.: Lessons from a failure: generating tailored smoking cessation letters. Artif. Intell. 144, 41–58 (2003)
Rogers, T.B., Kuiper, N.A., Kirker, W.S.: Self-reference and the encoding of personal information. In: Baumeister, R.F. (ed.) The Self in Social Psychology, pp. 139–148. Psychology Press, Philadelphia (1999)
Sherman, D.K., Cohen, G.L.: The psychology of self-defense: self-affirmation theory. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 38, 183–242 (2006)
Siero, F.W., Huisman, M., Kiers, H.A.L.: Voortgezette regressie-en variantieanalyse. Bohn Stafleu van Loghum (2009)
Steele, C.M.: The psychology of self-affirmation: sustaining the integrity of the self. In: Berkowitz, L. (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 21, pp. 261–302. Academic Press, New York (1988)
Strecher, V.J., Kreuter, M., Den Boer, D.J., Kobrin, S., Hospers, H.J., & Skinner, C.S.: The effects of computer-tailored smoking cessation messages in family practice settings. J. Family Practice. 39, 262–270 (1994)
Strecher, V.J., McClure, J., Alexander, G., et al.: The role of engagement in a tailored web-based smoking cessation program: randomized controlled trial. J. Med. Internet Res. 10(5), 373–381 (2008)
Sherman, D.A.K., Nelson, L.D., Steele, C.M.: Do messages about health risks threaten the self? Increasing the acceptance of threatening health messages via self-affirmation. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 26, 1046–1058 (2000)
Symons, C.S., Johnson, B.T.: The self-reference effect in memory: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 121, 371–394 (1997)
Van Koningsbruggen, G.M., Das, E., Roskos-Ewoldsen, D.R.: How self-affirmation reduces defensive processing of threatening health information: evidence at the implicit level. Health Psychol. 28, 563–568 (2009)
Webb, T.L., Sheeran, P.: Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychol. Bull. 132, 249–268 (2006)
Webb, M.S., Simmons, V.N., Brandon, T.H.: Tailored interventions for motivating smoking cessation: using placebo tailoring to examine the influence of expectancies and personalization. Health Psychol. 24, 179–188 (2005)
Yu, J.H., Cude, B.: ‘Hello, Mrs. Sarah Jones! We recommend this product!’ consumers’ perceptions about personalized advertising: comparisons across advertisements delivered via three different types of media. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 33, 503–514 (2009)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix: The standard persuasive texts
Appendix: The standard persuasive texts
Screen 1: The long term consequences |
The serious consequences |
Smoking is responsible for 82 % of the deaths caused by lung cancer; of the 10 people who died from lung cancer, almost 8 have been smoking. The risk of a stroke doubles. Furthermore, in the Netherlands smoking is responsible for 32 % of the deaths. Research shows that 1 in 2 smokers die from smoking. And this is not only about dying earlier. It is also about the quality of life. After many years of smoking most smokers develop chronic bronchitis. They cough and are short of breath. We now know that dying from lung diseases is for 68 % caused by smoking. Most of these smokers were short of breath 5–10 years before they died. That is awful. |
Quitting smoking lowers the risk for serious diseases caused by smoking. Already after 1 year the risk of a heart disease has halved. After 5–15 years your risk of lung cancer has even declined to the level of a never-smoker. This depends on how much one smoked. This might look a long time but every day you don’t smoke, your body works to recover. |
Screen 2: The short term consequences |
Not later, but now |
Every cigarette you smoke harms your body at that very moment. But also when you do not smoke the chemicals slowly exert their effects. Firstly, there are thousands of chemicals in tobacco smoke. Some are so poisonous that they paralyze your lung cleaning mechanisms after one single cigarette; your lungs will not be able to clean themselves anymore. Other toxic compounds lower your lung volume and activate the secretion of mucus. Secondly, you inhale carbon monoxide when you smoke. Carbon monoxide replaces oxygen in your red blood cells. Therefore, as a smoker you have less oxygen in your blood. You can observe that in smokers. They often look paler. Smoking also leads to 30 % deeper wrinkles. That’s because the skin also got less oxygen, mostly for years. And that is only what you can see, that is how it goes in your whole body. All tissues suffer from your smoking. |
Quitting smoking stops this demolition process. Every day, every week you don’t smoke your body gets cleaner and healthier. Your lung volume will readily become larger and even after a couple of days your blood contains more oxygen. Many ex-smokers notice every day that their physical stamina improves. Also your risk of the flue, pneumonia and bronchitis rapidly decreases. |
Screen 3: Social consequences |
Societal changes |
In our society people are more and more negative about tobacco smoking. Sometimes, smokers are depicted as junks who are responsible for high health care costs. Luckily, the government does not prohibit smoking but the regulations around smoking are becoming more stringent. There is a smoking ban in still more public places and at the work place. And there are reasons for that. Firstly, secondary smoke can be dangerous for non-smokers. Research shows that the risk of lung cancer because of secondary smoke in non-smokers increases with 24 % and that of a heart disease with 23 %. Secondly, many non-smokers have physical complaint from exposure to cigarette smoke, such as tearing eyes and a rough throat. Just as noise disturbance, involuntary smoking is annoying. Dutch research shows that 55 % of the non-smokers is bothered by tobacco smoke regularly, and even 76 % of the non-smokers find that there should be a complete smoking ban at the work place, aside of smoking rooms. |
Screen 4: Self-evaluative consequences |
What do you think of it yourself? |
Many smokers are not satisfied with their smoking. That is because deep down inside they know it is better to quit. Smoking often is in violation with people’s own important values, such as “Health is important to me”, “I am a sensible person”, and “I don’t do stupid things”. Many smokers are dissatisfied with themselves and they worry every day about what smoking can do to their body. Many non-smokers find smokers stupid because they smoke, and many smokers think the same about themselves. You may have heard about the “satisfied smoker”. This is a smoker who enjoys smoking and is satisfied about it. Do you belief that? Research shows that these smokers spend a great deal of effort to not have to think about their smoking. They do this by using excuses. Excuses help them to avoid facing the reality of their smoking. They fool themselves. Beneath these excuses lies their dissatisfaction with themselves and the fear of dying through their own fault. |
Quitting smoking makes the dissatisfaction, the fear, and the worry disappear, like snow in the sun. That is because an ex-smoker finally does what he or she finds really important in life: Not do stupid things that can make you ill. That feels good. |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dijkstra, A. The persuasive effects of personalization through: name mentioning in a smoking cessation message. User Model User-Adap Inter 24, 393–411 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-014-9147-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-014-9147-x