Personalized persuasion, attitude, behavior and personality traits in a non-profit e-commerce
Transcript of Personalized persuasion, attitude, behavior and personality traits in a non-profit e-commerce
RUNNING HEAD: PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
The Influence of Previous Behavior and Personality Traits on the Effect of
Personalized Marketing Communication for Non-Profit Purposes
A case study about personalized persuasion in Kiva Microfunds' advertisements
Merel Sonnemans
ANR 863953
Master thesis
Communication and Information Sciences
Specialization: Business Communication and Digital Media
Faculty of Humanities
Tilburg University, Tilburg
Supervisor: Dr. A. Alishahi
Second Reader: Dr. J. Schilperoord
June 2014
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
2
Acknowledgement
This master thesis represents the final stage of my master Communication and Information
Sciences at Tilburg University. The master Communication and Information Sciences was the
next step after successfully finishing my Bachelor's degree Communication and Information
Sciences at the Radboud University Nijmegen. The switch to Tilburg University provided the
opportunity to approach Communication and Information Sciences from another angle and the
specialization Business Communication and Digital Media allowed me to gain specialized
knowledge about an interesting and growing field of study. With this master thesis about
personalized persuasion in online advertisements I hope to have made a valuable contribution
to the body of research in this field and more specifically about the role of personalized
persuasion in online non-profit marketing communication.
This master thesis would not have been possible without the help of my supervisor Dr.
A. Alishahi, who provided valuable feedback on the design, execution and writings of this
thesis. Secondly, I would like to express my gratitude towards Dr. C.S. Shahid. Without him,
I would not have been able to conduct this research about personalized advertising as a case
study of Kiva Microfunds. Especially in the early stage of the research, his insights provided
much guidance through a sometimes complicated design and provided valuable tips and
feedback. Also towards Dr. J. Schilperoord I would also like to express my gratitude. He did
not only provide valuable insights about the design, but also helped me through the statistical
challenges. His guidance prevented me to get lost in the web of statistical tests and results.
Finally, I would like to say a word of appreciation to all friends and family members
that contributed in any way. Their support and enthusiasm motivated me through the process
and the realization of this master thesis.
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
3
Abstract
The aim of this study is to explore the role of personalization in marketing communication for
non-profit purposes and to identify specific consumer characteristics which influence the
effect of personalized advertisements. This research was designed as a case study to
investigate how the effect of the four persuasive principles reciprocity, social proof,
commitment & consistency and sympathy in personalized advertisements for micro funding
projects of Kiva Microfunds is influenced by whether or not a person contributed to a micro
funding project before and by a person's personality traits.
A sample of 347 participants participated in the study by filling out an online
questionnaire. They all evaluated five advertisements of micro funding projects. Four of the
advertisements were embedded with one of the four persuasive communication strategies and
one advertisement was neutral. The participant's behavior and attitude determined the
effectiveness of the advertisement. Attitude was measured by means of an evaluation of the
project on several statements. Behavior was measured by asking all the participants to divide
a (fictional) amount of 100 dollar among at least two of the projects. All participants were
asked about their previous contributing behavior to non-profit organizations and micro
funding projects in particular. Their personality traits were determined by the HEXACO
model, which distinguishes six personality traits: Honesty-Humility, Emotionality,
Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience.
The findings reveal that overall, social proof was evaluated most positive. Furthermore
the results indicate an important role for previous behavior in the effectiveness of
personalized advertisements through the persuasive strategies. When a person has contributed
in the past, the strategies social proof and reciprocity lead to the highest contributions, but
when a person has not contributed before the strategy sympathy leads to the highest
contributions. In addition to previous behavior, personality traits also influence the effect of
the persuasive communication strategies in personalized advertisements. Also, the results
indicate the existence of a three-way interaction between personality traits, previous behavior
and the communication strategies.
The findings of this explorative study provide an initial insight into the influence of
previous behavior and personality traits on personalized advertising for non-profit purposes
and provide many angles for future research to further investigate the initial results.
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
4
Table of contents
Acknowledgement ...................................................................................................................... 2
Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 3
Table of contents ........................................................................................................................ 4
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 5
2. Theoretical framework ........................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Personalization in marketing communication ............................................................. 7
2.2 Implementing personalization in persuasive strategies ............................................... 9
2.3 The influence of previous behavior ........................................................................... 11
2.4 How personality traits affect behavior ....................................................................... 12
2.5 HEXACO personality traits and persuasive strategies .............................................. 13
3. Method ................................................................................................................................. 18
3.1 Design ........................................................................................................................ 18
3.2 Data collection ........................................................................................................... 19
3.3 Sample ....................................................................................................................... 19
3.4 Procedure ................................................................................................................... 19
3.5 Stimuli ....................................................................................................................... 20
3.6 Measurements ............................................................................................................ 21
4. Results .................................................................................................................................. 23
4.1 Hypothesis 1 .............................................................................................................. 23
4.2 Hypothesis 2 .............................................................................................................. 25
4.3 Hypotheses 3a-3f ....................................................................................................... 26
4.4 Hypothesis 4 .............................................................................................................. 32
5. Discussion & Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 37
5.1 Discussion .................................................................................................................. 37
5.2 Limitations ................................................................................................................. 39
5.3 Future research .......................................................................................................... 41
5.4 Conclusion and implications ..................................................................................... 42
References ................................................................................................................................ 43
Appendix A: Questionnaire ...................................................................................................... 48
Appendix B: Advertisements ................................................................................................... 60
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
5
1. The Influence of Previous Behavior and Personality Traits on the Effect of
Personalized Marketing Communication for Non-Profit Purposes
More and more organizations are conducting business in online environments.
Organizations commonly integrate web shops and communication tools such as online
customer services these days. An organization’s website can be considered the main channel
of communication with consumers (Miller, 2012).
A new trend in these online environments is creating a high level of personalization
(Pappas, Giannakos, Kourouthanassis & Chrissikopoulos, 2013), which is often applied in e-
commerce. E-commerce can be seen as a technical online assistance for selling and buying
products and services (Adolphs & Winkelman, 2010). But personalization can also be applied
in other areas of marketing such as advertising, which is used to built a product image and
stimulate direct purchase through providing information about the product, service or business
itself (Park, Shenoy & Salvendy, 2008). Personalization in e-commerce or advertising refers
to the act of providing customers with tailored content (such as products and services) with
certain goals in mind. Personalization is based on knowledge about customers and visitors of
the website. This information is obtained through service and user interaction (Pappas et al.,
2013) and is used to make personalized adaptations in the online environment (Goy,
Ardissono & Petrone, 2007).
That personalization is a concept worth considering is supported by the finding that a
majority of consumers are interested in receiving personalized content (Goy, Ardissono &
Petrone, 2007). But what benefits does personalization bring for marketing purposes?
Personalization in websites and other communication tools enables a personal dialogue with
the customer, which strengthens their tie to the organization (Adolphs & Winkelman, 2010).
Online personalization helps companies to recognize and understand their customers and
helps to collect customer feedback. In the end, this helps to gain more insight into the needs
and wants of customers, which can be translated into improvement of existing products and
services or the creation of new products and services. Furthermore, it enables organizations to
follow market trends (Goy, Ardissono & Petrone, 2007; Schubert & Ginsburg, 2000).
There are three types of information that offer possibilities for online personalization:
information about the customer, information about the device on which a person accesses the
internet and contextual information (Goy, Ardissono & Petrone, 2007). The first type of
information takes into account among other things the customer's interests, preferences, needs
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
6
and wants (Goy, Ardissono & Petrone, 2007). This can include for example previous behavior
and personal characteristics, which form the base of preferences or interests.
To create the most effective personalized communication, it should be understood and
evaluated how personalization should be designed to create the best match between the
interests and preferences of individuals in an organization’s target group and the message
(Chellappa & Sin, 2005). It would therefore seem that besides information about individuals
in the target group, also understanding which type of personalization fits which individual’s
characteristics is key to create the most effective personalized communication.
Fogg (2002) initiated the term persuasive technology. Persuasive technology refers to
the interactive systems which are designed to affect the attitudes and behavior of their users.
For persuasive technology to have an effect, they should not only deliver the right message,
but also deliver it at the right time and in the right way (Fogg & Eckles, 2007). Related to this
is the relatively new term persuasive profiling. Persuasive profiling is strongly tied to
personalization in marketing communication. It creates personal profiles which indicate which
influence strategies are expected to be most effective in changing attitudes and behavior of an
individual. Persuasive profiles can be used in persuasive technologies to adapt to user’s
responses by selecting the most effective influence strategy based on collected information
about the user in their profile. Systems that implement this method have shown to increase
their effectiveness (Kaptein, 2012).
But which target group characteristics are interesting to focus on? What makes people
unique? Every person has his own personality, which combines a set of personality traits
(Sarker, Bose, Palit & Haque, 2013). Several previous studies revealed that a person’s
personality traits determine the extent to which persuasive communication messages make an
impact on individuals (Hirsh, Kang & Bodenhausen, 2012) and that personality traits
influence behavior (Chavosh, Halimi & Namdar, 2011; Verplanken & Herabadi, 2001). This
could imply that personality traits could be an important factor to consider in the design of
personalized persuasive marketing communication.
And as communication for e-commerce is mostly concerned with attempting to
persuade people to perform desired behavior, a person’s previous actions might be a good
indicator of future behavior. No studies were found that looked into this subject in this area,
but in other areas of research, such as psychology, past experience did prove to be a factor to
consider (e.g. Hensley, Cashen & Lewis, 1985).
In the field of personalized communication, plenty of previous studies have been
conducted, but most of the studies about online personalization in persuasive communication
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
7
focus on profit-orientated organizations. Less is known about the effect of embedding
personalized strategies into non-profit e-commerce websites. Results of one of the few studies
that have dealt with the topic of persuasive communication in non-profit marketing revealed
that it can be very effective and that especially personal contact is an important determinant
for effectiveness (Dellavigna & Gentzkow, 2009). This reinforces the idea that
personalization can be beneficial to implement in persuasive communication such as
advertising, for non-profit purposes as well. This, together with the possible relation between
personality traits, previous behavior and the most effective personalization strategy has led to
the following research question:
RQ: How does the effectiveness of the persuasive (marketing) communication strategies in
personalized advertisements for non-profit purposes interact with a person’s previous
behavior and personality traits?
To investigate this research question, this study was designed as a case-study, focusing
on the non-profit micro-funding organization Kiva Microfunds (www.kiva.org). This non-
profit organization allows people to lend small loans to different projects all over the world.
These projects vary in nature, but are mostly small entrepreneurs in need of financial means to
make their business profitable.
2. Theoretical framework
2.1 Personalization in marketing communication
The general goal of marketing communication is reaching (potential) customers and
influencing their attitudes and behavior by informing them about products, services or ideas.
This should influence their decision-making and turn them into customers. Moreover, an
organization wants to differentiate itself from other organizations, by creating an additional
value and communicating this to (future) customers and other stakeholders (Solomon,
Marshall & Stuart, 2008). There are many ways to engage in marketing communication using
an online environment, from sending mailings to the overall style of the website. Many
organizations have included e-commerce to their business model and the website nowadays
does not only function as a possibility to brand the organization online, but has become the
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
8
main point of interaction between organizations and consumers (Dolnicar & Lazarevski,
2009).
The website as main point of interaction offers organizations the possibility to
differentiate themselves from other organizations by offering an additional value to the
consumer. Therefore it is not surprising that websites are a common field for implementing
personalization techniques. Common forms of personalization found in websites are
anthropomorphized personalization (such as welcoming returning customers by mentioning
their name), recommendation systems and comparison shopping agents (Adolphs &
Winkelman, 2010; Wu et al., 2003). The value of personalization through the use of
recommendation agents lies in the increased customer's trust. This can be explained by the
higher perceived similarity between the consumer and the agent, enhancing the perceived
consensus between the two and only perceiving a small distinction between what the
recommendation agents recommends and what the decision of the consumer would have been,
increasing their intention to make a purchase (Komiak & Benbasat, 2006). Peppers and
Rogers' survey among web users found that in an e-commerce environment, customers expect
to be treated as individuals and expect to be offered personalized content. If this does not
happen they might even get annoyed. When permission is given, they not only expect but
moreover, they want websites to remember their basic personal data (as cited in Millard,
2003).
Personalization based on knowledge about consumer's characteristics can also be used
to enhance customer experience. A more positive customer experiences reinforces the
performance of e-commerce. Reinforcing web experience to enable greater e-commerce
performance would work quite the same across ethnic groups, nations and cultures and can be
achieved through communication and community services (Lee, 2006). This indicates that
tailoring persuasive marketing communication strategies to the appropriate characteristics of
groups of consumers can increase the positive experience and result in a higher degree of
desired behavior.
Personalization has shown to impact the decision-making process (Komiak &
Benbasat, 2006), which is in line with the general goal of marketing communication. Most of
the studies about personalization in e-commerce focus on implementations in e-commerce,
such as recommendation systems. For marketing communication purposes, personalization
offers opportunities to base messages on where the interest of the customer lies. Personalized
content is found to be perceived as more affective and it helps customers to decide (Tam &
Ho, 2005). Besides adding value, it supports consumers in their daily lives and can be
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
9
seamlessly integrated in their daily activities. Customers needs can be met more easily, by
presenting a product at the right place and time. After exposure to personalized advertising,
consumers are left with a good impression, which increases their desire to make a purchase
(Chen & Hshieh, 2012). This way it seems that personalization in advertising is capable of
enhancing advertisings effectiveness.
However, the mentioned studied focused on commercial advertisements. Not much is
known about the effect of personalization in advertising for non-profit purposes. Studies that
focused on non-profit advertising generally looked at other differences. For example, Sciulli
and Bebko (2005) analyzed advertisements and came to the conclusion that non-profit
advertisements use more emotional appeals, where profit advertisements focus more on
information content. And even though personalization is becoming more prevalent in e-
commerce environments, no studies have tried to identify the possible value of
personalization for non-profit purposes.
2.2 Implementing personalization in persuasive strategies
Personalization is based on customer data (Pappas et al., 2013), which means that also
personalized advertising is based on customer data. But which specific customer data would
increase the effectiveness of personalization in advertising?
A person's personality traits make every individual unique (Sarker et al., 2013) and
might therefore be a good approach for implementing personalization in advertising. And how
about past experience? That could also play an important role in the context of making a loan
to a micro funding project. But before the possible influence of personality traits and previous
experience on effective personalization is discussed in more detail, this study starts with
exploring how implementations of several persuasive communication strategies, as proposed
by Cialdini (2001) influence an advertisement’s effectiveness. Those persuasive strategies
form the base of this study on which personalization in advertising takes place and are
expected to influence the attitude and behavior of customers, when embedded in e-commerce
advertisements for micro-funding projects.
The first strategy is reciprocity. Reciprocity relies on an essential rule in human social
conduct: the act of giving a (sometimes) unrequested and free favor, making the recipient to
feel indebt to return the favor (Cialdini, 2001). This does not only preside in relations between
individuals, but also between consumers and organizations (Goldstein, Griskevicius &
Cialdini, 2007). However, these different types of relations should be approached differently
to acquire the highest intention to reciprocate. While in personal relationship the symbolic
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
10
character of gifts is valued, in commercial situations, such as e-commerce transactions, gifts
that are characterized by their economic, functional or social value that are perceived as more
valuable. This perception of high economic, functional or social value increases the
experienced satisfaction and the intention of the recipient to return the favor (Antón,
Camarero & Gil, 2013). Embedding reciprocity in persuasive communication might thus
increase desired behavior.
The second principle is social proof. As social beings, one important factor to
determine how to behave and decide is by looking at others. What do they do or what have
others done? Through this form of social validation people evaluate the correctness of their
opinions and decisions (Cialdini, Wosinka, Barrett, Butner & Gornik-Durose, 1999).
Especially important others such as friend and family affect attitude towards online
personalization (Lee & Park, 2009). By using techniques whereby previous actions of others
are indicated, people should be more easily persuaded to perform a certain behavior (Cialdini,
2001). A person's intention to perform behavior is partly determined by subjective norms.
These subjective norms themselves are a result of the normative beliefs of that individual and
their motivation to comply (Azjen & Fishbein, 1975). Moreover, consumers perceive ratings
and opinions of other customers as objective, resulting in perceiving the product or service as
more trustworthy (Schubert & Ginsburg, 2000). In other words: embedding the social proof
principle could be an effective method to stimulate specific behavior.
The third strategy of commitment and consistency has to do with the phenomenon
that people attempt to behave consistently with previously made statements (Cialdini, 2001).
Among individuals, especially in Western cultures, there is a prevalent need to be consistent.
The need for consistency has to do with preserving a positive self-image and avoiding being
called terms such as having two faces. This is illustrated by the study of Suh (2002), who
found that people who stay consistent in their opinions are evaluated more positively. This
need for consistency comes from an inborn need for predictability, stability and familiarity
(Swan, Stein-Seroussi & Giesler, 1992). The motivation for consistency influences
individual's expressions of preferences, where a person thus desires to stay consistent as well
(Gopinath & Nyer, 2009). This desire is especially persistent when the statement is made in
public and freely chosen (Cialdini et al., 1999). Especially in e-commerce, where data of
previous behavior of consumers is available, this principle can be applied easily and might be
accountable for an increase in desired behavior.
The fourth principle is sympathy and is based on the proposition that most people
prefer to agree to people they like, such as friends (Cialdini, 2001). However, in most cases of
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
11
online persuasive communication other implementations are necessary, as the majority of
commercial transactions do not take place between friends. People feel more sympathy for
people who are physically attractive, who give complements or who are similar to themselves
(Cialdini, 2001). These findings offer possibilities for the sympathy strategy and these
strategies are effective in the sense that when a viewer experiences feelings of sympathy and
empathy, positive attitudes towards the advertisement are enhanced (Escalas & Stern, 2003).
The effect of experiencing sympathy in advertisements generates positive attitudes by
recognizing the positive feelings that the ad communicates. Moreover, experiencing sympathy
can cause that people develop more positive advertisement judgments and fewer negative
ones (Wright, 1973).
These persuasive principles and the effect they are expected to have, have led to the
first hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Online advertisements for a non-profit organization with an embedded
persuasive communication strategy will positively affect attitude and behavior, as opposed to
online advertisements for a non-profit organization without an embedded persuasive
communication strategy.
2.3 The influence of previous behavior
Not many studies focused on the role of previous behavior with online contributions to
non-project projects. In other areas of research though, past experience has shown to be a
factor to consider in behavior. Hensley, Cashen and Lewis (1985) found clear differences in
preferences for counseling approaches due to past experience. Ouellette and Wood (1998)
found that especially for behavior which is not performed as frequently to create a habit (such
as making loans to micro funding projects), it is more likely that previous behavior
contributes to behavior intention. Also, previous experience has been shown to affect online
purchasing behavior by influencing risk perception and purchase intentions (Park & Stoe,
2005) and reduces perceived risks, as the customer has developed knowledge about the
vendor, online orders and product or service performance (Dai, Forsythe, Kwon, 2014).
Even though the lastly mentioned studies focused on commercial e-commerce
environments with a profit orientated view, their findings might be applicable to non-profit e-
commerce as well. Making a loan to a micro funding project is probably not the most
widespread and well known possibility to contribute to a social cause. Experience with this
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
12
type of contributing might play a role in the effectiveness of certain strategies. In these
situations, perceived risk might be higher when someone has no experience with contributing
to a micro funding project before. As a result, people's perception of the projects might differ
among the group with experience and the group without experience. People with more
experience might value other elements in a project advertisement as they have developed a
knowledge about which elements of an advertisement should be paid attention to. It might for
example be the case that persuasive strategies which increase the economic value of the loan
are more effective for the group that has experience with making loans. On the other hand, the
(perceived) risk-reducing strategies might work better for people that have no experience with
making a loan.
The previous hypothesis is therefore further specified by the expectation that there are
differences in effectiveness between the persuasive strategies due to having experience with
micro funding or not. That has led to the second hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: There are differences in effectiveness of the persuasive communication
strategies between people who have contributed to micro funding projects in the past,
compared to people who have not contributed to micro funding projects in the past.
2.4 How personality traits affect behavior
Then the question arises which other factors besides previous behavior should be kept
in mind when implementing these persuasive communication strategies. As shortly mentioned
earlier, every individual intrinsically combines a different set of traits, attitudes and aptitudes.
This concept is understood as personality (Sarker et al., 2013). It reflects individual
preferences and differences and is therefore an interesting factor to consider in the decision-
making process and in designing online advertisements.
Customers make certain purchases to reflect their personality, which is especially
important for them in this time in which people are concerned about their image. Therefore, it
is essential for marketers to be aware of the possibility that personality traits influence
consumer behavior. Understanding specific consumer responses that are influenced by
personality traits provides marketers with beneficial customer insights (Sarker et al., 2013).
With this knowledge, marketers can try to tailor their communication to be relevant and
appealing for their target group, keeping the traits that characterize them in mind.
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
13
The role that an individual's personality traits play in driving behavior has been the
topic for many researchers, however the findings have been inconclusive (Gopinath & Nyer,
2009). A supporting finding is the tendency for buying to be strongly based in personality,
implied by significant correlations that were found between purchase frequencies of typical
impulse products and individual differences, which were personality-based (Verplanken &
Herabadi, 2001). Another more recent study among Singaporean consumers also found that a
consumer’s characteristics impacted impulse buying behavior (Chavosh, Halimi & Namdar,
2011). But not all studies seem to support these findings (Sarker et al., 2013).
Nevertheless, especially in personalized persuasive marketing communication these
personality traits could be a factor that explains why specific persuasive strategies are
possibly more effective for certain individuals than for others. Previous research by Hirsh,
Kang and Bodenhausen (2012) studied the effect that adapting persuasive communication to
personality traits has on the impact of the message. The findings revealed that effectiveness of
persuasive communication that is matched to personality traits is correlated higher compared
to advertisements that are not matched to personality traits. Therefore it seems that tailoring
persuasive communication to fit an individual's personality traits, offers additional value to
marketing communication.
Besides these results, not much is yet known about the effectiveness of matching
personality traits to persuasive strategies. But as the results seem to indicate that personality
traits are a factor to consider, is it expected that persuasive strategies of Cialdini (2001) will
be most effective when they are combined with a personality trait that 'fits' the strategy. Thus,
an individual's personality might be correlated with the persuasive strategy that would be
most effective for them.
2.5 HEXACO personality traits and persuasive strategies
In order to identify the matches between persuasive strategies and personality traits, it
is necessary to introduce a model which describes personality traits. The model used in this
study is the HEXACO model, which consists of six dimensions. The model was created as an
alternative to the widely used Big Five and Five-Factor Model. It was re-organized to
eliminate some of the limitations of those models and to create a simpler theoretical
interpretation (Lee & Ashton, 2004).
The most obvious difference is the additional dimension of Honesty-Humility. The
importance of assessing this extra dimension is that the Honesty-Humility trait provides better
prediction on certain facets than the Big Five or Five Factor Model (Ashton & Lee, 2005).
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
14
The Big Five and Five Factor Model combine in the two domains of Agreeableness and
Emotional Stability the same facets as the HEXACO does in three domains: Agreeableness,
Emotionality and Honestly-Humility. This three dimensional space creates the possibility for
a more accurate matching in personality structure, a better understanding of the personality
domain and practical utility in combining personality traits with related criteria (Ashton &
Lee, 2007). The remaining three dimensions (Extraversion, Conscientiousness and Openness
to Experience) are similar in the models.
These six dimensions each subsume a set of facets, which describe the dimension in
more depth (Ashton & Lee, 2005). The characteristics of each of the six facets provide the
possibility to predict which facets match best with specific persuasive strategies.
Honesty-Humility is the first factor in the HEXACO model and entails the facets
sincerity, avoidance of greed, modesty and fairness (Lee & Ashton, 2004). High scores on the
trait of Honesty-Humility imply that a person genuinely cares about interpersonal
relationships, avoids fraud and corruption, does not care about high social status or luxury and
is modest. Past research has shown that persons who score low in Honesty-Humility are
hypersensitive to reward, less sensitive to potential losses and take greater risk (Weller &
Thulin, 2012). If this is true for people low in Honestly-Humility, that might imply that
people who score high on this dimension are less risk-taking and will look for affirmative
support. The strategies of social proof and reciprocity might both provide means to decrease
perceived risk, by showing that others have supported this cause and by getting a reward,
which might decrease the sense of risk. Therefore these strategies were expected to be
positively related to Honesty-Humility.
The second dimension Emotionality represents a person's emotional vulnerability and
emotional sensitivity and is described with the facets fearfulness, dependence, anxiety, and
sentimentality (Lee & Ashton, 2004). They depend on the emotional support from others,
which is why it is expected that social proof is positively related to Emotionality. Also
reciprocity is expected to relate positively, as people with high scores on Emotionality are
quickly anxious about uncertain situations (Lee & Ashton, 2004). Reciprocity might reduce
that uncertainty by providing a reward for their support. Finally, high scores on Emotionality
indicate a strong social bond and empathic sensitivity to the feelings of others (Lee & Ashton,
2004), which could imply a positive relation with the strategy of sympathy. For people who
score high on this dimension, the most effective strategies might thus be social proof,
reciprocity and sympathy.
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
15
The third dimension is Extraversion, which includes the facets expressiveness, social
boldness, sociability, and liveliness. High scores on this dimension refer to a high dramatic
level in a person's interpersonal style and a person's comfort in a variety of social situations,
enjoyment in conversations and a high level of enthusiasm and energy (Lee & Ashton, 2004).
Extraversion is found to be positively related to achievement, stimulation and hedonism and
the corresponding behavior can be considered as assertive, active and sociable (Roccas, Sagiv,
Schwartz & Knafo, 2002). Because of the sociable and enthusiastic nature of people who
score high on Extraversion, it is expected that this dimension is positively related to the
strategies of social proof and sympathy.
The fourth dimension Agreeableness subsumes the facets forgiveness, flexibility,
patience and gentleness. High scores on this dimension implies that a person is more willing
to put trust in a person that has done them harm, the tendency to be lenient and mild in social
interactions, to be calm and patient and willing to compromise. The strategy of commitment
and consistency is expected to match with a high level of Agreeableness, since high scores on
Agreeableness indicate an avoidance of conflict (Lee & Ashton, 2004). This could result in
attempting to stay consistent with previously made statements. Also reciprocity is expected to
match with high scores on Agreeableness, as the gentle and mild nature of these people might
indicate the willingness to return the favor. A high level of Agreeableness reflects values of
social equality and humanism (Lee, Ashton, Pozzebon, Visser, Bourdage & Ogunfowora,
2009) which could suggest that people high in Agreeableness are more sensitive to
expressions of sympathy. Moreover, they easily put trust in others (Lee & Ashton, 2004),
which might reinforce the effect of the sympathy strategy. Agreeableness is thus expected to
relate positively to commitment & consistency, reciprocity and sympathy.
The fifth dimension is Conscientiousness, which is described with the facets
organization, diligence, perfectionism, and prudence. High scores account for people
preferring order in one's surroundings, carefully evaluating options and being concerned with
detail (Lee & Ashton, 2004). Based on these facets, it is expected that people high in
Conscientiousness are more negatively related to the persuasive strategies. They are expected
to be less sensitive to persuasion through e.g. social norms, because they are more likely to
carefully and objectively evaluate the different options. The strategy that will most likely gain
the most results for people with high scores is expected to be reciprocity. Reciprocity leads to
the most 'profitable' outcome from an economical perspective because the value of the loan
increases. However the general expectation is that Consciousness will be related more
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
16
negatively to the persuasive principles than the other dimensions, the strategy of reciprocity
might in contrast be positively related.
Finally, the dimension Openness to Experience refers to a person's intellect in terms
of intellectual curiosity, or inquisitiveness and suggests specific behavior rather than cognitive
ability. This dimension subsumes the facets aesthetic appreciation, inquisitiveness,
unconventionality and creativity. People, who score high on this dimension enjoy nature's
beauty, have a wide interest, are innovative and have a tendency to accept the unusual (Lee &
Ashton, 2004). In contrast, people scoring low are supportive of the existing social order and
have potentially inflexible morals and rules about how the world should operate. They are
more likely to adhere to conventional stereotypes and are more open to information that is
inconsistent with social norms (Flynn, 2005). In the light of this study, these findings imply
that when a person scores high on Openness, the best matching strategy might be sympathy.
As they are less sensitive to conventional social norms these people might be guided more by
the feeling they get from the individual who requests a loan.
These expected relationships between personality traits and persuasive strategies have
led to the following set of hypotheses:
Hypothesis 3a: The personality trait Honesty-Humility is positively related to the persuasive
communication strategies of social proof and sympathy.
Hypothesis 3b: The personality trait Emotionality is positively related to the persuasive
communication strategies social proof, reciprocity and sympathy.
Hypothesis 3c: The personality trait Extraversion is positively related to the persuasive
communication strategies social proof and sympathy.
Hypothesis 3d: The personality trait Agreeableness is positively related to the persuasive
communication strategies commitment & consistency, reciprocity and sympathy.
Hypothesis 3e: The personality trait Conscientiousness is positively related to the persuasive
communication strategy reciprocity.
Hypothesis 3f: The personality trait Openness to Experience is positively related to the
persuasive communication strategy sympathy.
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
17
Besides personality traits, it was discussed earlier that past experience with micro
funding is expected to lead to differences in the most effective strategy as well. As both of
these factors are expected to have an impact on the effectiveness of strategies, there might be
a relationship between them. A study about online purchasing behavior showed that
consumer's characteristics such as previous web experiences and his or her personality both
impacted the decision making process (O'Cass & Fenech, 2003). In another field of research,
previous experience and individual differences such as a person’s personality were taken into
consideration, with regard to risk perceptions. It showed that past experience should be
considered an individual difference and is related to certain personality profiles in explaining
differences in risk perception (Barnett & Breakwell, 2001). Even though the constructs in
these previous studies are not exactly equal to the constructs in this research, it does provide
an indication that a relationship exists between past experience of consumers and their
personality.
It is therefore expected that past experience as an individual difference interacts with a
person's personality traits in affecting which strategy has the most influence. For example, a
person that has experience with making a loan might still be affected more by the knowledge
that he or she has about making loans than by the possible interaction between persuasive
strategies and his or her personality traits. Or perhaps, the effect of one of the strategies is
strengthened by certain personality traits. Either way, the expected differences in interactions
between personality traits, previous behavior and effective strategies have led to the following
and final hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4: The expected interactions between persuasive communication strategies and
personality traits are different between individuals who have contributed to micro funding
projects in the past, compared to individuals who have not contributed to micro funding
projects in the past.
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
18
3. Method
3.1 Design
The design of the experiment was a 5 x 5 within-subject design with 5 persuasive
principles (reciprocity, social proof, commitment & consistency, sympathy and neutral) and 5
project descriptions as within-subject factors.
The effectiveness of the advertisements was in the first place determined by the
behavior of the participants, and secondly by their attitudes towards the advertised project. To
be able to measure the effect of attitude and behavior, five groups were created. Participants
were presented with five identical project descriptions, but the implemented strategies in the
project descriptions rotated among the groups. This way the design controlled for preferences
for a project description. The design also controlled for country, by combining the project
description in every condition with a different country, thus a total of 25 countries was used.
This meant that every combination between country, project description and strategy was
unique. Table 1. illustrates the design.
Table 1: Design of the experiment.
Project 1 Project 2 Project 3 Project 4 Project 5
Reciprocity A B C D E
Social proof E A B C D
Com & Con D E A B C
Sympathy C D E A B
Neutral B C D E A
The independent variables in this experiment were the project description and
persuasive strategy. The dependent variables were the participant's behavior and attitude. The
study included two random variables, which were not factors in the design. These variables
were the previous behavior with regard to contributing to micro funding projects or
organizations and personality traits. The random variables were measured to explain the
results of this study in more depth. Previous behavior and personality traits were treated as
random variables to prevent a highly complicated design of the experiment.
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
19
3.2 Data collection
The data was collected by conducting an online questionnaire. There were five
conditions with five advertisements. Each of the conditions included a set of five unique
combinations of a project description and a persuasive principle. Every condition included the
four persuasive strategies and one neutral advertisement. The data that was collected by
means of the online questionnaire was analyzed statistically with several statistical tests.
3.3 Sample
A total of 347 participants, of whom 223 men and 124 women participated in the
experiment. The mean age of men was 39 (SD = 12) and the mean age of women was 33 (SD
= 12). The mean age of the total sample was 37 (SD = 13) and varied between 19 and 73. The
education levels varied between primary education and a Master's Degree. The majority
(82%) of the participants had finished either a Bachelor's or a Master's degree at a university.
Almost all of the participants (97%) held the Dutch nationality. Of the total number of
participants, 171 had not contributed to a micro funding project before, of whom 92 men and
79 women, and 176 had contributed to a micro funding project before, of whom 131 men and
45 women.
The participants were randomly assigned to one of the five groups. There were 73
participants in group A, 72 participants in group B, 66 participants in group C, 73 participants
in group D and 63 participants in group E.
3.4 Procedure
The questionnaire was spread through e-mail and social media platforms such as
Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. Participants who were found on social media platforms were
found in different types of groups and approached via a direct personal message. It was
attempted to find participants in many different types of groups, to maintain a natural variety
in the sample. At the same time, as previous behavior was treated as a random variable, it was
attempted to both reach groups of participants that most likely had experience with
contributions (such as in groups about micro funding and non-profit marketing) and neutral
groups for participants without experience (such as in groups about geographical areas and
educational institutes). Besides the personal approach with direct personal messages, also
general messages were posted on several platforms and in groups. Participants were asked to
fill out the questionnaire, which took approximately 10-20 minutes.
The questionnaire started with an introduction, in which participants were welcomed
to the questionnaire and given a short overview of how the questionnaire was built up. After
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
20
the introduction, the first block of questions followed. These questions regarded the
participant's previous contributing behavior to non-profit organizations or other good causes.
If participants indicated never to have contributed in the past, they were asked if they were
willing to do so in the future.
The second block included the advertisements of the projects. Participants were first
asked to read a short text, which presented them with the scenario that they were registered on
Kiva.org with an account and were looking around for at least two projects to contribute a
total amount of 100 dollars to. They were requested to pay attention to all the content of the
advertisements. They were also made aware that they would be asked several evaluative
questions about each advertisement and that they would be asked to divide the 100 dollars
after evaluating all five advertisements. After this text the five advertisements combined with
the attitude scales followed. For each advertisements, the participants were also asked how
detailed they evaluated the advertisement.
In the third block, participants were shown an overview with miniature images of the
projects that they had just been presented and were asked to divide the 100 dollars among at
least two of the projects. It was possible to divide the 100 dollars among more than two
projects. In order to proceed the questionnaire, the total amount of contributions needed to
equal 100.
Finally, in the last block participants were requested to answer questions about their
personality, by means of 24 statements. They were asked to indicate the extent in which they
agreed to the statement, when reviewing how they generally are. It was stressed that the
answers were processed anonymously and only for the purpose of this study. The
questionnaire ended with questions regarding the participant's demographic information, after
which they were thanked for their participation. The complete questionnaire can be found in
Appendix A.
3.5 Stimuli
The online advertisements were made to resemble the online projects descriptions on
the Kiva Micro-funding website. The project descriptions used in this study were fictional.
The advertisements were manipulated to embed one of the five persuasive principles,
combined with one of the five different project descriptions. Each of the five persuasive
principles was implemented the same way across the different conditions.
The first principle of reciprocity could be embedded in two ways, which would
probably both gain positive results. The first option was to offer participants a gift card to
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
21
spend on another project. The second option was to double the amount of their loan. The
second option was chosen, because it was expected that participants would value doubling the
amount of the project they already selected more, as the perceived economic value is probably
higher. The second principle, social proof, was implemented by including positive evaluations
by others by means of positive comments and high ratings. The third principle, commitment
and consistency was implemented by implying that the participants had liked the project in
the past, which should simulate consistent behavior. The fourth principle sympathy was
created by adding a personal message of the recipient of the loan. This message was personal,
positive, showed interest in the reader and implied the reader's capacity for understanding the
recipients need. All together this should lead to a higher liking of the person requesting the
loan. Finally, the last advertisement was neutral and had no persuasive strategy implemented.
Unnecessary details were left out of the advertisements. The details of the project on
the advertisements (e.g. height of requested loan, the already contributed amount, number of
loans in a country, annual income of a country) were manipulated to prevent these factors
from influencing. They were manipulated to represent amounts around similar levels.
The advertisements of group A can be found in Appendix B. The other groups were
presented with the same advertisements, only the combinations between the project
description and the persuasive strategy were rotated according to Table 1.
3.6 Measurements
The participant's attitude toward each of the project descriptions was measured on
seven 7-point semantic scales (α = .89) from the study by Smith, Terry, Manstead, Louis,
Kotterman & Wolfs (2008). The seven scales were: (1) unpleasant–pleasant, (2) bad–good,
(3) negative–positive, (4) unfavorable–favorable, (5) foolish -wise, (6) unenjoyable–
enjoyable, and (7) unsatisfying–satisfying. Respondents were asked to answer the question
'For me, contributing to this specific project would be ...'. High scores indicated a positive
attitude and low scores indicated a negative attitude.
Attitudes towards the presentation of the advertisements were measured with three 5-
point scales. Participants were asked if they liked the way the advertisement was presented to
them, if they thought the project was described convincingly and if they thought that the
advertisement was written in an appropriate tone. High scores indicated a positive attitude and
low scores indicated a negative attitude. In the same block, participants were asked how they
evaluated the advertisement (reading and paying attention to all the content or a global
overview) on the same 5-point scale.
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
22
Behavior was measured by creating a scenario for the participants, in which they got
the fictional amount of 100 dollar to spend on at least two projects. They were free to decide
how they divided the money among at least two of the projects that were shown to them. The
total amount of contributions needed to be 100 dollars.
Participants' personality was measured by means of the HEXACO model of
personality. The HEXACO model consists of six dimensions: Honesty-Humility,
Emotionality, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience.
The six HEXACO dimensions were measured using the Brief HEXACO Inventory (BHI) (De
Vries, 2013), with 4 items per personality trait. Even though it measures each personality trait
on only 4 items, this measurement has shown high levels of convergent correlations validity
and only modest loss of validity (De Vries, 2013). This 24-item scale was more suitable for
the purpose of this study, compared to its 60-, 100- or 200-item versions, mainly because of
time constrains. The questionnaire needed to be constrained with regard to length, to prevent
participants from not finishing the questionnaire.
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
23
4. Results
Before the statistical analysis of the data was conducted, a factor analysis was
performed on the data for attitude to confirm that the several measurements of attitude
together indeed measured the same attitude. The method described the measurement for
attitude in two blocks and the factor analysis extracted two factors, which was in line with the
method. Factor 1 (α = .92) was constructed with the seven variables of the first block and
explained 58.9% of the variance and factor 2 (α = .79) explained an additional 11.4% and was
constructed with the first three variables of the second block. The last question in the second
block (regarding how detailed the participants evaluated the advertisement) was not included
in the attitude measurements, as it was not meant to serve as attitude measurement, but was
merely intended as an extra variable for information regarding evaluation style.
The factor analysis was followed by several analyses to investigate the hypotheses. An
alpha-level of .05 was used for all statistical results.
4.1 Hypothesis 1
The first hypothesis proposed that advertisements with an embedded persuasive
strategy would be more effective compared to neutral advertisements. To investigate this
hypothesis, two repeated measure one-way ANOVA's were conducted. The first ANOVA was
run with behavior per strategy (in terms of amount of contributions in dollars) as within-
subject factor and the second with attitude per strategy as within-subject factor. Table 2 shows
the descriptives from both attitude and behavior.
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics of Attitude and Behavior per Strategy.
Attitude Behavior
Mean SD N Mean SD N
Reciprocity 4.92 1.03 347 20.95 19.54 347
Social proof 5.03 0.99 347 21.95 20.26 347
Commitment & consistency 4.85 1.01 347 17.38 19.09 347
Sympathy 4.80 1.06 347 20.43 20.24 347
Neutral 4.88 1.02 347 19.29 17.36 347
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
24
The one-way ANOVA's revealed only a main effect of strategy on attitude; F (3.93,
0.57) = 5.04, p < .001, r = .12. Mauchly's test indicated that the assumption sphericity was
violated for the main effect of attitude, χ² (9) = 21.01, p = .013. The degrees of freedom were
therefore corrected with the Huynh-Feldt estimates for sphericity (ɛ =.98). Contrasts revealed
that overall, advertisements with the strategy of social proof were evaluated significantly
more positive than advertisements containing reciprocity; F(1, 346) = 3.92, p = .048, r = .10,
commitment & consistency; F(1, 346) = 11.34, p < .001, r = .18, sympathy; F(1, 346) =
15.80, p < .001, r = .21, and the neutral strategy; F(1, 346) = 7.54, p = .006, r = .14.
There was no main effect of strategy on behavior, but as Table 1 shows, the standard
deviations of behavior per strategy were high and those substantial differences within the
strategies might be caused by the different project descriptions that were used. To investigate
that possibility, an additional mixed two-way ANOVA was conducted. The version of the
questionnaire was the between-subject factor and the behavior per strategy was the within-
subject factor. The ANOVA confirmed this possibility by revealing an interaction effect
between the version of the questionnaire that participants had filled out and the behavior per
strategy; F(16, 1352) = 3.40, p < .001, r = .20.
Because of these results, it was investigated further whether or not behavior differed
per project description by running a repeated measures one-way ANOVA for behavior per
project description. A main effect was found; F(3.9, 1199.8) = 10.72, p < .001, r = .18, which
indicated that there were differences in behavior between the project descriptions. Mauchly's
test indicated that the assumption sphericity was violated, χ² (9) = 31.91, p < .001. The
degrees of freedom were therefore corrected with the Huynh-Feldt estimates for sphericity (ɛ
=.98). Contrasts revealed that the amount of money contributed to project 1 (M = 14.19, SE =
0.92) differed significantly from the amount of money contributed to project 2 (M = 19.31, SE
= 1.05) F(1, 307) = 14.46, p < .001, r = .21, from the amount of money contributed to project
3 (M = 21.14, SE = 1.00), F(1, 307) = 24.66, p < .001, r = .27, from the amount of money
contributed to project 4 (M = 23.67, SE =1.22) F(1, 307) = 39.57, p < .001, r = .34 and from
the amount of money contributed to project 5 (M =21.47, SE = 1.21). F(1, 307) = 23.62, p <
.001, r = .27. Project 1 got the lowest contributions in general.
According to these results, the first hypothesis was not supported. The neutral
advertisement did not receive significantly less contributions or evaluations than the other
advertisements.
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
25
4.2 Hypothesis 2
The second hypothesis proposed that when past experience was taken into
consideration, the effectiveness of the persuasive principles would not be the same between
participants with experience and participants without experience in making loans to micro
funding project. This was investigated using two two-way mixed ANOVA. The first with
behavior per strategy as within-subject factor and previous behavior as between-subject
factor, and the second with attitude per strategy as within-subject factor and previous behavior
as between-subject factor . Only the first ANOVA revealed an interaction effect; F(4, 1364)=
3.36, p = .010, r = .10. This interaction indicated that when participants had not contributed to
micro funding projects before, advertisements with the strategy sympathy gained the highest
amounts of money. This was supported by contrasts, which showed that sympathy differed
significantly from reciprocity; F(1, 341) = 6.72, p = .010, r = .14, from social proof; F(1, 341)
= 10.22, p = .002, r = .17 and from the neutral strategy; F(1, 341) = 5.12, p = .024, r = .12.
For the group of participants that had contributed to micro funding projects before, the
strategies reciprocity and social proof got the highest contributions, which as mentioned
differed significantly from sympathy. Additionally, contrasts showed a difference between
social proof and commitment & consistency; F(1, 341) = 4.04, p = .045, r = .11. Commitment
& consistency received the lowest contributions in the experienced group. Table 3 shows the
descriptives and Figure 1 illustrates the interaction effects.
Table 3: Descriptive Statistics of Behavior per Strategy x Previous Behavior.
Not Contributed before Contributed before
Mean SD N Mean SD N
Reciprocity 19.78 19.89 169 22.08 19.19 174
Social proof 19.49 18.76 169 24.33 21.40 174
Commitment & consistency 18.28 19.53 169 16.51 18.67 174
Sympathy 23.63 22.67 169 17.31 17.04 174
Neutral 18.81 18.37 169 19.76 16.36 174
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
26
Figure 1: Interaction Effects between Previous Behavior and Strategies.
According to these results, the second hypothesis was supported. For participants with
experience in making a loan to a micro funding project, the strategies reciprocity and social
proof got the highest contributions. Participants who had not made a loan before contributed
most to the sympathy strategy.
4.3 Hypotheses 3a-3f
The set of hypotheses 3a through 3f proposed positive relationships between one of
the personality traits and one or more of the persuasive strategies. To be able to investigate
this set of hypotheses, the scores on the personality trait scales were re-coded into categorical
variables. Depending on the spread of the participants over the personality scores, the 20-30%
of participants with the lowest scores represented the group that scored low on that dimension
and 20-30% of the participants with the highest scores represented the group with high scores
on that dimension. The middle group was not taken into consideration.
For each personality trait, two mixed two-way ANOVA's were conducted. The first
ANOVA combined attitude per strategy as within-subject factor and one of the personality
traits as between-subject factor. The second ANOVA combined behavior per strategy as
within-subject factor and one of the personality traits as between-subject factor.
For the first personality trait Honesty-Humility, the ANOVA's revealed only a main
effect for attitude per strategy; F(3.9, 883.1) = 2.46, p = .046, r = .10. Mauchly's test indicated
that the assumption sphericity was violated, χ² (9) = 24.56, p = .004 and the degrees of
freedom were corrected with the Huynh-Feldt estimates for sphericity (ɛ =.97). This main
Not Contributed before
Contributed before
Amount of contributions in dollars
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
27
effect indicated overall, the projects were evaluated more positive by participants high in
Honesty-Humility compared to participants low in Honesty-Humility.
For the personality trait Emotionality, an interaction effect was found between
contributions per strategy and Emotionality; F(3.9, 735.5) = 2.95, p = .020, r = .13. The
assumption of sphericity was violated, χ² (9) = 17.72, p = .039. The degrees of freedom were
corrected with the Huynh-Feldt estimates (ɛ =.98) for sphericity. This interaction effect
indicated that there were significant differences between the height of contributions of
participants that scored low and participants that scored high on Emotionality. The strategy of
reciprocity gained high contributions from participants high in Emotionality, in contrast to
participants low in Emotionality. The strategy commitment & consistency on the other hand
worked better for participants with low than with high scores on Emotionality. This finding
was supported by the contrasts, which revealed that reciprocity and commitment &
consistency differed significantly from each other; F(1, 187) = 10.81, p < .001, r = .23.
Furthermore, as Figure 2 shows, there seemed to be a trend for social proof as the most
effective strategy overall. Social proof scores the highest in both conditions, but this was not
confirmed by contrasts. Descriptives of the interaction effect can be found in Table 4 and
Figure 2 illustrates the interaction effect.
Table 4: Descriptive Statistics of Behavior per Strategy x Emotionality.
Low in Emotionality High in Emotionality
Mean SD N Mean SD N
Reciprocity 15.48 14.27 64 23.37 21.16 125
Social Proof 25.31 24.72 64 23.46 20.27 125
Commitment & consistency 21.67 21.80 64 14.91 16.27 125
Sympathy 17.55 20.53 64 21.15 21.00 125
Neutral 19.98 19.12 64 17.10 15.94 125
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
28
Figure 2: Interaction Effects between Behavior per Strategy and Emotionality.
With regard to attitude per strategy and Emotionality scores, only a main effect was
found; F(3.7, 706.3) = 4.60, p = .002, r = .15. Again, the degrees of freedom were adjusted
with the Huynh-Feldt estimates for sphericity (ɛ =.93), as the assumption of sphericity was
violated χ² (9) = 39.08, p < .001. The main effect showed that regardless of strategy, all
projects were evaluated more positively by participants high in Emotionality compared to
participants low in Emotionality.
For the personality trait Extraversion, the ANOVA's revealed only a main effect for
attitude; F(3.9, 887.3) = 3.63, p = .006, r = .13. The main effect indicated that regardless of
strategy, the projects were overall evaluated more positively by participants who scored high
on Extraversion, compared to participants who scored low.
The third personality trait is Agreeableness. The ANOVA's for this personality trait
revealed two main effects. The first main effect was found for attitude per strategy. The
assumption of sphericity was violated (χ² (9) = 17.15, p = .046) and the degrees of freedom
were adjusted with the Huynh-Feldt estimates for sphericity (ɛ =.98). The main effect of
attitude for Agreeableness indicated that regardless of the strategy, the evaluation of the
projects was more positive for participants who scored high on Agreeableness compared to
participants who scored low.
The second main effect of the Agreeableness scores was found for behavior; F(3.9,
623.3) = 3.00, p = .019, r = .14, which also revealed that there were differences in the amount
of the contributions between the participants low in Agreeableness and high in Agreeableness.
For participants low in Agreeableness, the differences between the contributions per strategy
High in Emotionality
Low in Emotionality
Amount of contributions in dollars
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
29
were larger than for participants high in Agreeableness. For them, the amount of contributions
did not differ much between the strategies. Again, the degrees of freedom were adjusted with
the Huynh-Feldt estimates for sphericity (ɛ =.97), χ² (9) = 17.83, p = .037.
ANOVA’s on the scores on the fifth personality trait Conscientiousness found an
interaction effect between contributions per strategy and Conscientiousness; F(4, 884) = 2,56,
p = .039, r = .10. Contrast revealed that advertisements with reciprocity got the highest
contributions from participants low in Conscientiousness and the lowest contributions from
participants high in Conscientiousness. In contrast, advertisements with the strategy of
commitment & consistency received the lowest contributions from participants with low
scores and higher contributions from participants with high scores. The contributions for the
strategy of reciprocity differed significantly from commitment & consistency; F(1, 221) =
7.18, p = .008, r = .18 and from sympathy; F(1, 221) = 4.70, p = .031, r = .14. Sympathy also
got higher contributions from participants with high scores compared to participants with low
scores, though the difference was less big, compared to the difference between commitment &
consistency and reciprocity. The descriptives of the interaction effect can be found in Table 4
and Figure 3 illustrates the interaction.
Table 5: Descriptive Statistics of Behavior per Strategy x Conscientiousness.
Low in Conscientiousness High in Conscientiousness
Mean SD N Mean SD N
Reciprocity 24.36 23.46 86 18.26 15.92 137
Social Proof 20.87 18.54 86 21.95 19.24 137
Commitment & consistency 14.83 18.48 86 20.22 19.80 137
Sympathy 18.31 20.98 86 21.26 19.52 137
Neutral 21.63 19.61 86 18.32 15.62 137
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
30
Figure 3: Interaction Effects between Behavior per Strategy and Conscientiousness.
Besides the interaction effect, the ANOVA’s also revealed a main effect for attitude
per strategy; F(3.9, 875.6) = 3.59, p = .007, r = .13. Again, the assumption sphericity was
violated, χ² (9) = 20.97, p = .013 and the degrees of freedom were corrected with the Huynh-
Feldt estimates for sphericity (ɛ =.97). This main effect revealed that regardless of strategy,
the projects were evaluated more positively by participants high in Conscientiousness
compared to participants low in Conscientiousness.
No overall interaction effect was found between Conscientiousness and attitude,
however contrasts did reveal some significant interactions between several strategies.
Reciprocity differed significantly from both social proof; F(1, 225) = 3.91, p = .049, r = .13
and commitment & consistency; F(1, 225) = 6.27, p = .013, r = .16. Whereas advertisements
with the strategy reciprocity were judged most positively by participants with low
Conscientiousness scores, they were judged less positive by participants with high scores.
Advertisements with the strategies social proof and commitment & consistency on the other
hand were evaluated most positive by participants with high scores and less positive by
participants with low scores, though the differences were small. The descriptives can be found
in Table 6 and Figure 4 illustrates the interaction.
High in Conscientiousness
Low in Conscientiousness
Amount of contributions in dollars
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
31
Table 6: Descriptive Statistics of Attitude per Strategy x Conscientiousness.
Low in Conscientiousness High in Conscientiousness
Mean SD N Mean SD N
Reciprocity 5.04 1.02 88 4.91 1.02 139
Social Proof 4.97 1.03 88 5.13 0.93 139
Commitment & consistency 4.78 1.00 88 4.98 0.97 139
Sympathy 4.73 1.11 88 4.85 1.01 139
Neutral 4.97 1.05 88 4.92 0.99 139
Figure 4: Interaction Effects between Attitude per Strategy and Conscientiousness.
The ANOVA’s with the scores on Openness to Experience did not reveal any effects.
Besides these interaction effects, the results showed that social proof was consistently
among the most effective strategies. Also reciprocity seemed to be among the most effective
strategies in many cases, though less obvious as social proof. Even though these observations
were not all confirmed by the contrasts, it did seem to indicate a trend.
None of the (sub)hypotheses 3a-3f were entirely supported by the findings. Only
hypothesis 3b was partly supported, as reciprocity was positively related to Emotionality with
regard to behavior. There were some additional interaction effects, but they did not support
the hypotheses. For the group low in Conscientious, the reciprocity strategy resulted in the
High in Conscientiousness
Low in Conscientiousness
Attitude scores
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
32
highest contributions and a more positive evaluation. Social proof and commitment &
consistency on the other hand led to more positive evaluations by participants high in
Conscientiousness.
4.4 Hypothesis 4
The fourth hypothesis took past experience of participants into account and proposed
that the relationships between personality traits and persuasive strategies would be different
between people with or without experience in contributing to micro funding projects. To
investigate this hypothesis, every personality trait was tested by using two mixed three-way
ANOVA’s. The first ANOVA analyzed the relationship between the within-subject factor
attitude per strategy and the between-subject factors personality trait and previous behavior.
The second ANOVA was the same, except that it replaced the within-subject factor attitude
per strategy with behavior per strategy.
Between the persuasive strategies and the personality traits Honesty-Humility,
Openness to Experience, no additional effects were found for a three-way interaction
including previous behavior. For Extraversion, Emotionality, Agreeableness and
Conscientiousness additional results were found.
With regard to high and low scores on Extraversion, only a trend was found; F(4, 880)
= 2.11, p = .078, r = .10, but contrasts revealed a stronger three-way interaction effect
between the strategies commitment & consistency and neutral; F(1, 220) = 8.28, p = .004, r =
.19). These contrasts revealed that for participants that were low in Extraversion, the strategy
commitment & consistency lead to more contributions when they had contributed before
compared to those who had not. For participants high in Extraversion the opposite was found.
The neutral strategy got high contributions when participants were low in Extraversion and
had not contributed before, but when they were high in Extraversion and had not contributed
it led to much lower contributions. However, when people were high in Extraversion, the
opposite applied. The descriptives can be found in Table 7. Figure 5 and Figure 6 illustrate the
three way interaction.
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
33
Table 7: Descriptive Statistics of Behavior per Strategy x Extraversion x Previous Behavior.
Contributed Strategy Low in Extraversion High in Extraversion
before? Mean SD N Mean SD N
Yes Reciprocity 18.73 18.29 60 20.82 15.65 51
Social Proof 22.92 23.76 60 23.84 17.79 51
Comm & Cons 20.80 21.77 60 13.16 16.88 51
Sympathy 17.12 19.35 60 18.12 16.29 51
Neutral 20.43 16.46 60 24.06 16.16 51
No Reciprocity 18.50 17.78 46 20.90 20.61 67
Social Proof 19.57 19.40 46 22.54 20.12 67
Comm & Cons 16.47 20.74 46 20.97 18.63 67
Sympathy 22.44 24.52 46 19.78 19.02 67
Neutral 23.02 21.86 46 15.82 14.91 67
Figure 5: Interaction Effects between Behavior Figure 6: Interaction Effects between per
Strategy and Extraversion for Participants who Behavior per strategy and Extraversion for
Contributed Before. Participants who had not Contributed
Before.
For the Emotionality scores an additional two-way interaction was found between the
amount of contributions per strategy and previous behavior; F(4.0, 736.2) = 2.63, p = .033, r
Low in Extraversion
Low in Extraversion
High in Extraversion
High in Extraversion
Amount of contributions in dollars
Amount of contributions in dollars
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
34
= .12. The assumption of sphericity was violated; χ ² (9) = 17.06, p = .048, and the degrees of
freedom were adjusted with Huynh-Feldt estimates for sphericity (ɛ =.995). This interaction
indicated that contributions per strategy between participants who had contributed before and
those who had not contributed before differed, when only participants with the lowest and
highest scores on Emotionality were taken into account. Contrasts showed that especially
reciprocity differed from neutral; F(1, 185) = 5.8, p = .017, r = .17. Sympathy differed from
reciprocity; F(1, 185) = 6.9, p = .009, r = .19, social proof; F (1, 185) = 7.1, p = .008, r = .19,
and the neutral advertisement; F(1, 185) = 4.0, p = .048, r = .14. This showed that reciprocity,
social proof and neutral worked better for participants that had contributed before and
sympathy worked better for people that had not contributed before. Table 8 summarizes the
descriptives for the interaction effect.
Table 8: Descriptive Statistics of Behavior per Strategy x Previous Behavior for Emotionality.
Not Contributed before Contributed before
Mean SD N Mean SD N
Reciprocity 18.03 20.18 91 23.17 18.57 98
Social Proof 21.10 19.94 91 26.87 23.21 98
Commitment & consistency 18.55 18.87 91 15.95 18.26 98
Sympathy 24.47 23.22 91 15.71 17.48 98
Neutral 17.85 17.82 91 18.30 16.49 98
For the Agreeableness scores, an additional trend was found for a two-way interaction
between behavior per strategy and previous behavior; F(3.9, 622.1) = 2.27, p = .062, r = .12.
The assumption of sphericity was violated; χ ² (9) = 18.23, p = .033, and the degrees of
freedom were adjusted with Huynh-Feldt estimates for sphericity (ɛ =.98). Contrasts revealed
that sympathy led to higher contributions from participants who had not contributed before
and differed significantly from reciprocity; F(1, 158) = 4.46, p = .036, r = .16. Contrasts also
showed trends for differences between sympathy and social proof; F(1, 158) = 3.57, p = .061,
r = .15 and sympathy and neutral; F(1, 158) = 3.00, p = .085, r = .14. Social proof, reciprocity
and the neutral strategy worked better for participants that had contributed before.
Commitment & consistency performed badly for both groups (and between them it scored
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
35
worst for the participants that had contributed before) and differed significantly from social
proof; F(1, 158) = 4.17, p = .043, r = .16, and reciprocity; F(1, 158) = 4.17, p = .043, r = .16.
The descriptives can be found in Table 9.
Table 9: Descriptive Statistics of Behavior per Strategy x Previous Behavior for
Agreeableness .
Not contributed before Contributed before
Mean SD N Mean SD N
Reciprocity 18.19 19.97 86 22.90 18.99 76
Social Proof 20.28 20.47 86 25.77 20.90 76
Commitment & consistency 18.89 20.20 86 13.53 16.51 76
Sympathy 26.04 25.62 86 19.13 18.44 76
Neutral 16.60 18.97 86 18.67 15.92 76
The additional result for high and low scores on Conscientiousness only revealed an
additional interaction effect between contributions per strategy and previous behavior; F(4,
876) = 3.64, p = .006, r = .13. The two-way interaction between contributions per strategy and
previous behavior indicated that the group of participants with the highest and lowest scores
on Conscientiousness combined, there were differences between the amounts of contributions
per strategy, depending on whether someone had contributed to such a project in the past.
Contrast revealed that sympathy was most effective when participants had not contributed
before, compared to reciprocity; F(1, 219) = 7.3, p = .007, r = .18, social proof; F(1, 219) =
5.3, p = .022, r = .15, and the neutral strategy; F(1, 219) = 6.2, p = .013, r = .17. Furthermore,
contrast revealed that commitment & consistency differed significantly from the neutral
strategy; F(1, 219) = 5.3, p = .021, r = .15. The descriptives of the contributions per strategy
can be found in Table 10.
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
36
Table 10: Descriptive Statistics of Behavior per Strategy x Previous Behavior for
Conscientiousness.
Not contributed before Contributed before
Mean SD N Mean SD N
Reciprocity 18.99 20.11 99 21.90 18.72 124
Social Proof 18.41 18.46 99 24.02 19.02 124
Commitment & consistency 21.06 21.96 99 15.81 16.89 124
Sympathy 23.39 23.95 99 17.52 16.04 124
Neutral 18.16 18.15 99 20.74 16.57 124
Summarizing, besides one trend between previous behavior, attitude or contributions
per strategy and personality traits, no three-way interactions were found. Hypothesis 4 was
not supported.
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
37
5. Discussion & Conclusion
5.1 Discussion
This research investigates the effectiveness of four persuasive strategies (reciprocity,
social proof, commitment & consistency and sympathy) and the influence of previous
behavior and personality traits on their effectiveness. As a case study for Kiva Microfunds,
this is investigated in the context of personalized advertisements for micro funding projects.
The effectiveness is determined by the (fictional) amount of contributions that each of the
advertized micro funding projects received and the attitude towards the advertisements.
When no other factors are taken into consideration, the four persuasive strategies do
not interact with the amount of received contributions or with attitudes towards the projects.
But with regard to attitudes, the advertisements with social proof are overall evaluated the
most positive compared to the other strategies. And even though there is no interaction
between contributions and persuasive strategies, throughout the study it is noticeable that
social proof and reciprocity are often among the strategies which lead to the highest
contributions, and that commitment & consistency is often among the strategies which lead to
the lowest contributions.
The interaction between having previously contributed to a micro funding project and
the effectiveness of persuasive strategies is confirmed. The strategies social proof and
reciprocity are the most effective strategies when a person has experience in contributing to a
micro funding project. The strategy sympathy on the other hand is most effective for people
who have never contributed to micro funding projects before.
An interaction between personality traits and persuasive strategies is also confirmed
for some personality traits, even though the interactions are different than expected. Whether
people are high or low in Emotionality and Conscientiousness affects the effectiveness of the
persuasive strategies. The strategy reciprocity leads to high contributions when people are
high in Emotionality, but to the lowest contributions when people are low in Emotionality. In
contrast, when people are low in Conscientiousness, reciprocity leads to high contributions.
With regard to Conscientiousness the strategy commitment & consistency varies much
between people with high and low scores. It leads by far to the lowest contributions when
people are low in Conscientiousness and to average results when people are high in
Conscientiousness.
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
38
Furthermore, there is an indication that a three-way interaction between personality
traits, previous behavior and persuasive strategies exists. With regard to Extraversion, the
strategy commitment & consistency leads to higher contributions when people are low in
Extraversion and have contributed before, compared to people with low scores who have not
contributed before. The opposite applies for people high in Extraversion. The neutral strategy
leads to high contributions when people are low in Extraversion and have not contributed
before, compared to people with low scores who have contributed before. Again, the opposite
applies for people high in Extraversion.
These findings do not all confirm the expectations. The first expectation was that the
persuasive strategies would have an effect in general, when no other factors were taken into
account. This is not confirmed. However there seems to be a trend for some strategies to work
better than others, which might be explained by the sample size. A larger the sample could
improve the significance of the results.
Even though not being able to confirm the first expectation might sound negative, it in
fact only reinforces the second (and confirmed) expectation that having past experience with
contributing to micro funding projects affects which strategy leads to the highest
contributions. Evidently, this plays an even more important role than was expected.
These findings provide important new insights into consumer behavior and
advertising, and strongly suggest the importance of taking previous behavior into
consideration for personalized advertising in the non-profit sector. Besides new insights, they
also support previous studies. The influence of previous behavior reinforces the findings of
Park and Stoe (2005), who found that past experience affects behavioral intentions, and of
Dai, Forsythe and Kwon (2014), who found that people with experience have developed a
knowledge about, among other things, which elements are important for them to pay attention
to. This could explain the difference in the effectiveness of strategies between the group with
experience and the group without experience. Observations of the qualitative data of the
study, in which participants explained their motivations for the distribution of the money,
indicate that participants with experience indeed developed a knowledge. In many cases, they
pointed out which elements of the project or advertisements they normally pay attention to,
such as the nature of the project or the comments of other contributors. In other words, in
many cases participants who contributed before have established certain considerations
concerning the evaluation of the advertisements, which influences the effectiveness of the
strategies. Implementing certain strategies which match with the behavior of experienced
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
39
contributors, can thus enable a greater e-commerce performance. This is in line with the study
of Lee (2006). And matching persuasive strategies seems to help consumers in making
decisions, in this case about the question to which project to contribute to, which is in line
with the study of Tam and Ho (2005).
The reason that specifically the strategies social proof and reciprocity work best for
people with experience and that sympathy works best for people without experience might lie
in the nature of the strategy. Experienced people might value it more that reciprocity increases
the economic value of the loan and that social proof increases the trustworthiness of the
project. Sympathy on the other hand, might work best for people without experience by
making them feel positive about the person that requests a loan. They might feel that this
person deserves the loan, and pay less attention to incentives such as increased value or
trustworthiness.
The expectations regarding personality traits are not all in line with the results, but
nevertheless personality traits do play a role in the effectiveness of the personalized
persuasive strategies. This is in line with the study of Hirsh, Kang & Bodenhausen (2012),
who found that matching strategies to personality traits correlates with effectiveness. The new
findings extend their findings, by providing new insight into how matching strategies can
actually affect consumer behavior by influencing the amount of contributions that a person
makes. It is expected that more interaction with personality traits can be found, because the
scores of personality traits of participants in this study were not spread wide enough around
the mean to produce two distinct groups with high and low scores per personality trait. This
probably explains why not every personality trait interacts with one or more strategies.
As not all the expected two-way interactions are confirmed, it is not surprising that the
three-way interactions are not all confirmed either. However there is an indication that three-
way interactions exist. Similar to the two-way interactions, the explanation for the lack of
results most likely has to do with the spread of high and low scores of the personality traits as
well.
5.2 Limitations
The main limitation of this study was the choice for a within-subject design with both
persuasive strategies and project descriptions as within-subject factors. Even though this did
pose a substantial limitation, the choice was made deliberately. To gain results about the
effectiveness of the different strategies, participants needed to evaluate every strategy. In a
between-subject design in which every participants evaluated only one project description, the
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
40
ecological validation of the study would be lowered severely. It is not a realistic scenario that
participants review only one project description when they want to make a loan to a micro
funding project. And moreover, in the case that every participant was presented with just one
project description, not all strategies could be studied. That would require many conditions
and consequently require much more participants. When only one or several strategies should
be selected, it would have been necessary to have an indication which strategies appear to be
most effective. These reasons together led to the choice to design this study as an explorative
study, which could from the starting point for future research. Nevertheless, the limitation of
the within-subject factors was considered in the design, by trying to control for the influence
of project description as much as possible. But even by rotating the strategies over the project
description, some influence of project description has affected the results.
Another limitation is lack of a detailed comparison of the advertisements. Even though
participants were asked to pay attention to all the advertisements, it might have affected the
results that there was no opportunity for a detailed comparison of all the advertisements after
the first exposure. Participants were only provided with miniature images of all the
advertisements when they were asked to divide the money, for the main reason that viewing
all the advertisements together increased the chance of identifying the manipulations easily.
This might also be the reason that project 1 got the lowest results in general.
The persuasive strategies were implemented the same way across the five groups. This
can have accounted for the lack of interactions between (most of) the personality traits and
behavior per strategy. It could be the case that certain personality traits respond better to a
specific implementation of a strategy, compared to another implementation of the same
strategy. Also, in hindsight the ecological validity of the implementation of commitment &
consistency was perhaps too low. The commitment that the participants made was not made
by themselves, but only suggested by the advertisement. This would also explain the bad
overall results for commitment & consistency.
Finally, as mentioned earlier the scores on personality traits were not spread in a way
to create large enough groups of participants with clearly distinguished high and low scores.
For that to occur, a flat distribution was needed, but the distribution was very much centered
around the mean. This was possible due to the fact that personality traits were treated as a
random factor. If not, the design would have become too complicated. But unfortunately, as a
result the distribution was not flat enough for more significant results.
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
41
Besides these limitations, the study also has its strengths. The design succeeded in
resembling a realistic scenario by evaluating different project descriptions and the materials
also resembled the real advertisements of Kiva Microfunds. This realistic setting strengthens
the external validity of the study, which in turn positively influences the generalizability. The
content of the advertisements was evaluated, to prevent other factors than the strategies to
influence the results. The measurement for attitude was very reliable and behavior was
measured in a realistic scenario. All these aspects positively influence the internal validity.
Besides that, the participants represented a good sample of the population. And finally, as an
explorative study, the results do not only provide many starting points for future research,
they also account for some initial new insight regarding consumer behavior and personalized
advertising.
5.3 Future research
As an explorative study, this study provides many angles for follow-up studies. One
possibility is substantially increasing the scale of this study, to find out if the trends that were
seen for several strategies yield significant results when data of a larger sample is available.
Also, future studies can investigate the effects of one or two persuasive strategies in more
depth. They can eliminate the limitation of the within-subject design by using a between-
subject design. This way participants review only one strategy and there is no influence of
project descriptions.
Other suggestions for future research are related to the implementations of the
strategies. The underlying reasons for the effectiveness of the strategies can be studied in
more depth by creating several implementations. Besides differences in effectiveness, future
studies can investigate the role of personality traits in the effectiveness of several
implementations. Perhaps it is not per se the strategy itself that interacts with a personality
trait, but a specific implementation.
Considering personality traits, future studies can replicate this study, but should make
some adjustments in the sample. The lack of two- and three-way interactions between the
personality traits, previous behavior and persuasive strategies might be caused by the
distribution of the participants' personality traits scores, which was not flat enough. As a
result, the groups representing high and low scores needed broadening, which most likely
reduced the effects. Future studies can either increase the sample or create another design, in
which high and low scores on certain personality traits are treated as independent variables
instead of random factors.
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
42
Finally, future studies can aim at replicating the results of this study for other forms of
contributing to social causes, other types of non-profit organizations or even profit
organizations. This would provide insight in the generalizability of the results. Future studies
can also focus on cultural differences in effectiveness and interactions with the strategies. Lee
(2006) proposed that enabling a greater e-commerce performance through reinforcing web
experience works quite the same across different nations, cultures and ethnic groups. If this is
true, that would mean that the results of this study would be generalizable across cultures,
nations and ethnic groups. However there are also cultural and religious values to consider
and they might account for differences. That is another interesting path to explore in follow-
up studies.
5.4 Conclusion and implications
The results of this study have led to new insight into the field of consumer behavior
and personalized advertising. Especially the findings about the role of past experience in the
effectiveness of certain personalized strategies in online advertisements contributes to the
existing body of research. The study also contributes to the knowledge about the role that
personality traits play in personalized advertising. Finally, the results provide an initial insight
in the effectiveness of personalization in the non-profit sector, about which not much was
known yet.
From a practical perspective, the findings provide several factors to keep in mind
when designing personalized advertisements in the non-profit sector of micro funding projects
and includes insight in which strategies match with those factors. In the end, tailoring the
advertisements to the characteristics of the target group can lead to an increased effectiveness
of marketing communication messages for non-profit organizations.
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
43
References
Adolphs, C., & Winkelman, A. (2010). Personalized Research in E-Commerce: A State of the
Art Review (2000-2008). Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 11(4), 326-
341.
Antón, C., Camarero, C., & Gil, F. (2013). The culture of gift giving: What do consumers
expect from commercial and personal contexts? Journal of Consumer Behaviour,
13(1), 31-41.
Ashton, M.C., & Lee, K. (2005). Honesty-Humility, the Big Five, and the Five-Factor Model.
Journal of Personality, 73(5), 1321-1354.
Ashton, M.C., & Lee, K. (2007). Empirical, Theoretical, and Practical Advantages of the
HEXACO Model of Personality Structure. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 11(2), 150-166.
Azjen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1975). A Bayesian analysis of attribution processes. Psychological
Bulletin, 82(2), 261-277.
Barnett, J., Breakwell, G.M. (2001). Risk Perception and Experience: Hazard Personality
Profiles and Individual Differences. Risk Analysis, 21(1), 171-177.
Breckler, S.J. (1984). Empirical validation of affect, behavior, and cognition as distinct
components of attitude. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(6), 1191-
1205.
Chavosh, A., Halimi, A.B., & Namdar, J. (2011). The contribution of Product and Consumer
characteristics to Consumer's Impulse purchasing Behaviour in Singapore.
International Conference on Social Science and Humanity, 5, 248-252.
Chellappa, R.K., & Sin, R.G. (2005). Personalization versus Privacy: An Empirical
Examination of the Online Consumer’s Dilemma. Information Technology and
Management, 6, 181–202.
Chen, P.T., & Hsieh, H.P. (2012). Personalized mobile advertising: Its key attributes, trends,
and social impact. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(3), 543-557.
Cialdini, R.B. (2001). The Science of Persuasion. Scientific America, 284(2), 76-81.
Cialdini, R.B., Wosinka, W., Barrett, D.W., Butner, J., & Gornik-Durose, M. (1999).
Compliance with a Request in Two Cultures: The Differential Influence of Social
Proof and Commitment/Consistency on Collectivists and Individualists. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(10), 1242-1253.
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
44
Dai, B., Forsythe, S., Kwon, W. (2014). The Impacht of Online Shopping Experience on Risk
Perception and Online Purchase Intentions: Does Product Category Matter? Journal
of Electronic Commerce Research, 15(1), 13-24.
DellaVigna, S., & Gentzkow, M. (2009). Persuasion: empirical evidence (NBER Working
Paper No. 15298). Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w15298
De Vries, R.E. (2013). The 24-item Brief HEXACO Inventory (BHI). Journal of Research in
Personality, 47(6), 871-880.
Dolnicar, S., & Lazarevski, K. (2009). Marketing in non-profit organizations: An international
perspective. International Marketing Review, 26(3), 275-291.
Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2007). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation
and the dimensions of generalized prejudice. European Journal of Personality, 21(2),
113–130.
Escalas, J.E., & Stern, B.B. (2003). Sympathy and Empathy: Emotional Responses to
Advertising Dramas. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(4), 566-578.
Flynn, F. J. (2005). Having an open mind: The impact of openness to experience on interracial
attitudes and impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
88(5), 816–826.
Fogg, B.J., (2002). Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and
Do. San Francisco, California: Morgan Kaufmann.
Fogg, B. J. and Eckles, D. (2007). Mobile Persuasion: 20 Perspectives on the Future of
Behavior Change. In B.J Fogg, & D. Eckles (eds.), Mobile Persuasion (pp. 1-166).
Standford, California: Stanford Captology Media.
Goldstein, N.J., & Griskevicius, V., & Cialdini, R.B. (2007). Invoking Social Norms: A
Social Psychology Perspective on Improving Hotels' Linen-Reuse Programs. Cornell
Hospitality Quarterly, 48(2), 145-150.
Gopinath, M., & Nyer, P.U. (2009). The effect of public commitment on resistance to
persuasion: The influence of attitude certainty, issue importance, susceptibility to
normative influence, preference for consistency and source proximity. International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 26(1), 60-69.
Goy, A., Ardissono L., & Petrone, P. (2007). Personalization in E-commerce applications. In
P. Brusilovsky, A. Kobsa, & W. Nejdl (eds.), The Adaptive Web: Methods and
Strategies of Web Personalization (pp. 485-520). Berlin, Germany: Springer Berlin
Heidelberg.
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
45
Hensley, R.A., Cashen, V.M., & Lewis M.L. 1985. The Effect of Previous Experience on
Preference of Approach for Effective Counseling. The Journal of Psychology:
Interdisciplinary and Applied, 199(4), 293-296.
Hirsh, J.B., Kang, S.K., Bodenhausen, G. V. (2012). Personalized Persuasion: Tailoring
Persuasive Appeals to Recipients' Personality Traits. Psychological Science, 23(6),
578-581.
Kaptein, M.C. (2012). Personalized persuasion in ambient intelligence (Doctorial
dissertation, University of Technology Eindhoven, The Netherlands). Retrieved from
http://alexandria.tue.nl/extra2/729200.pdf
Komiak, S.Y.X., & Benbasat, I. (2006). The Effects of Personalization and Familiarity on
Trust and Adoption of Recommendation Agents. MIS Quarterly, 30(4), 941-960.
Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., Pozzebon, J. A., Visser, J. S., Bourdage, J. S., & Ogunfowora, B.
(2009). Similarity and assumed similarity in personality reports of well-acquainted
persons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(2), 460-472.
Lee, E.J., & Park, J.K. (2009). Online service personalization for apparel shopping. Journal of
Retailing and Customer Services, 16(2), 83-91.
Lee, K., & Ashton, M.C. (2004) Psychometric Properties of the HEXACO Personality
Inventory, Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(2), 329-358.
Lee, J. (2006). A Motivation-Experience-Performance Model to Understand Global
Consumer Behavior on the Internet. Journal of Transnational Management, 11(3),
81-98.
Millard, N.J. (2003). A million segments of one - how personal should customer relationship
management get? BT Technology Journal, 21(1), 114-120.
Miller, K.L. (2012). 2012 Nonprofit Communications Trends Report. Retrieved from
Nonprofit Marketing Guide.com website: http://nonprofitmarketingguide.com/
freemembers/2012NonprofitCommunicationsTrendsReport.pdf
O´Cass, A., & Fenech, T. (2003). Web retailing adoption: exploring the nature of internet
users Web retailing behaviour. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 10(2),
81-94.
Ouellette, J.A., & Wood W. (1998). Habit and intention in everyday life: The multiple
processes by which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychological Bulletin,
124(1), 54-74.
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
46
Pappas, I.O., Giannakos, M.N., Kourouthanassis, P.E., & Chrissikopoulos, V. (2013).
Assessing Emotions Related to Privacy and Trust in Personalized Services. In C.
Douligeris, N. Polemi, A. Karantjis, & W. Lamersdorf (eds.), Collaborative, Trusted
and Privacy-Aware e/m-Services (pp. 38-49). Berlin, Germany: Springer Berlin
Heidelberg.
Park, T., Shenoy, R., & Salvendy, G. (2008). Effective advertising on mobile phones: a
literature review and presentation of results from 53 case studies. Behaviour &
Information Technology, 27(5), 355-373.
Park, J., Stoe, L. (2005). Effect of brand familiarity, experience and information on online
apparel purchase. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 33(2),
148-160.
Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S.H., & Knafo, A. (2002). The Big Five Personality Factors
and Personal Values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(6), 789-801.
Sarker, S., Bose, T.K., Palit, M., & Haque, E. (2013). Influence of personality in buying
consumer goods-a comparative study between neo-Freudian theories and trait theory
based on Khulna region. International Journal of Business and Economics Research,
2(3), 41-58.
Schubert, P., & Ginsburg, M. (2000). Virtual Communities of Transaction: The Role of
Personalization in Electronic Commerce. Electronic Markets, 10(1), 45-55.
Sciulli, L.M., & Bebko, C., (2005). Social Cause versus Profit Oriented Advertisements: An
Analysis of Information Content and Emotional Appeals. Journal of Promotion
Management, 11(2-3), 17-36.
Solomon, M.R., Marshall, G.W., & Stuart, E.W. (2008). Marketing, een reallife-perspectief
(5th ed.). Amsterdam: Pearson Education Benelux.
Suh, E.M. (2002). Culture, identify, consistency and subjective well-being. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1378-1391.
Swan, W. J., Stein-Seroussi, A., & Gielser, R. B. (1992). Why people self-verify? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 62(3), 392-401.
Tam, K.Y., & Ho, S.Y. (2005). Web personalization as a persuasion strategy: an elaboration
likelihood model perspective. Information Systems Research,16(3), 271-291.
Verplanken, B., & Herabadi, A. (2001). Individual differences in impulse buying tendency:
Feeling and no thinking. European Journal of Personality, 15(1), 71-83.
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
47
Weller, J.A., & Thulin, E.W. (2012). Do honest people take fewer risks? Personality
correlates of risk-taking to achieve gains and avoid losses in HEXACO space.
Personality and Individual Differences, 53(7), 923-236.
Wright, P.L. (1973). The Cognitive Processes Mediating Acceptance of Advertising. Journal
of Marketing Research, 10, 53–62.
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
48
Appendix A: Questionnaire
Introduction
Dear participant,
Welcome to this questionnaire.
For my master thesis, I am doing research about online advertisements for micro funding
projects. Micro funding is the act of lending a small amount of money to a person living in
poverty, to enable them to realize a specific project. Mostly they are small entrepreneurs in
need of financial means to make their business profitable. The financial transaction is dealt
with by a reputed organization and after a certain amount of time, your loan is paid back to
you. This study uses Kiva Microfunds as an example case.
This questionnaire consists of four blocks. After some introduction questions, you will be
asked to rate several statements regarding your opinion about different micro funding
projects. Secondly you are requested to distribute a (fictional, not real) amount of 100 dollars
over at least two of the projects. The third block includes questions about your personality.
Finally, in the last block you are asked for your demographic information.
The questionnaire will take about 10-20 minutes of your time. Your answers are processed
anonymously and are only used for the purpose of this study.
Thank you in advance for participating! If you have any questions, feel free to contact me via
Kind regards,
Merel Sonnemans
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
49
Block 1
Have you ever contributed or donated to a non-profit organization or good cause?
o Yes
o No
[If the answer is 'yes' participants will see the next two questions]
You have indicated to have donated, contributed or micro funded a loan to a non-profit
organization. Please specify how you contributed (more than one answer possible):
I contributed to a charity organization
I contributed to a micro funding project
I contributed to another good cause, namely: ____________________
How was your experience with the donating, contributing or micro funding a loan to a non-
profit organization?
o Very Bad
o Bad
o Neither Good nor Bad
o Good
o Very Good
[If the answer is 'no' participants will see the next question]
Are you willing to contribute or donate to a non-profit organization or good cause in the
future?
o Yes
o No
[If the answer is 'yes' participants will see the next question. If the answer is 'no' they proceed to
Block 2]
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
50
You have indicated to be willing to donate or contribute to a non-profit organization or good
cause in the future. Please specify what type of contribution or donation you are willing to
make (more than one answer possible):
Contributing to a charity organization
Contributing to a micro funding project
Contributing in another way, namely: ____________________
Block 2
Please imagine that you have registered on Kiva.org with an account, and you are
now looking around for at least 2 projects to which you want to contribute a total of 100
dollars. After viewing five advertisement you are asked to which projects you want to
contribute to. You have to select at least 2 projects, but you can also choose to contribute to
more than 2 projects.
Remember to pay careful attention to the advertisements on the following pages,
which contain information about each individual micro funding project. Please pay careful
attention to all contents of the advertisement.
At the bottom of each advertisement, you are asked to evaluate each project on several
statements. You can spend as much time as you like to evaluate each project, before clicking
onto the next page. You cannot go back once you have clicked 'next'.
After evaluating all five advertisements, you are asked how you would like to distribute the
100 dollars.
Please click on ´next´ to start the evaluation of the advertisements.
(next page)
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
51
[Advertisement of one of project 1]
Look at the advertisement and indicate for each of the seven words below the extent to which
you agree with the statement when it is completed with the word on the left or the word on the
right, by choosing one of the seven scale points.
For me, contributing to this specific project would be ...
(1) unpleasant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 pleasant
(2) bad 1 2 3 4 4 6 7 good
(3) negative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 positive
(4) favorable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 unfavorable
(5) wise 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 foolish
(6) unenjoyable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 enjoyable
(7) satisfying 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 unsatisfying
Please indicate the extent in which you agree with the following statements:
(with 1 begin strongly disagree and 5 being strongly agree)
(1) I like the way this project is presented to me 1 2 3 4 5
(2) This project is described convincingly 1 2 3 4 5
(3) The project description is written in an 1 2 3 4 5
appropriate tone
(4) I have read all the text in the advertisement, 1 2 3 4 5
looked at all the available information and numbers,
and considered the arguments.
(next page)
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
52
[Advertisement of one of project 2]
Look at the advertisement and indicate for each of the seven words below the extent to which
you agree with the statement when it is completed with the word on the left or the word on the
right, by choosing one of the seven scale points.
For me, contributing to this specific project would be ...
(1) unpleasant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 pleasant
(2) bad 1 2 3 4 4 6 7 good
(3) negative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 positive
(4) favorable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 unfavorable
(5) wise 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 foolish
(6) unenjoyable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 enjoyable
(7) satisfying 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 unsatisfying
Please indicate the extent in which you agree with the following statements:
(with 1 begin strongly disagree and 5 being strongly agree)
(1) I like the way this project is presented to me 1 2 3 4 5
(2) This project is described convincingly 1 2 3 4 5
(3) The project description is written in an 1 2 3 4 5
appropriate tone
(4) I have read all the text in the advertisement, 1 2 3 4 5
looked at all the available information and numbers,
and considered the arguments.
(next page)
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
53
[Advertisement of one of project 3]
Look at the advertisement and indicate for each of the seven words below the extent to which
you agree with the statement when it is completed with the word on the left or the word on the
right, by choosing one of the seven scale points.
For me, contributing to this specific project would be ...
(1) unpleasant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 pleasant
(2) bad 1 2 3 4 4 6 7 good
(3) negative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 positive
(4) favorable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 unfavorable
(5) wise 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 foolish
(6) unenjoyable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 enjoyable
(7) satisfying 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 unsatisfying
Please indicate the extent in which you agree with the following statements:
(with 1 begin strongly disagree and 5 being strongly agree)
(1) I like the way this project is presented to me 1 2 3 4 5
(2) This project is described convincingly 1 2 3 4 5
(3) The project description is written in an 1 2 3 4 5
appropriate tone
(4) I have read all the text in the advertisement, 1 2 3 4 5
looked at all the available information and numbers,
and considered the arguments.
(next page)
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
54
[Advertisement of one of project 4]
Look at the advertisement and indicate for each of the seven words below the extent to which
you agree with the statement when it is completed with the word on the left or the word on the
right, by choosing one of the seven scale points.
For me, contributing to this specific project would be ...
(1) unpleasant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 pleasant
(2) bad 1 2 3 4 4 6 7 good
(3) negative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 positive
(4) favorable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 unfavorable
(5) wise 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 foolish
(6) unenjoyable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 enjoyable
(7) satisfying 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 unsatisfying
Please indicate the extent in which you agree with the following statements:
(with 1 begin strongly disagree and 5 being strongly agree)
(1) I like the way this project is presented to me 1 2 3 4 5
(2) This project is described convincingly 1 2 3 4 5
(3) The project description is written in an 1 2 3 4 5
appropriate tone
(4) I have read all the text in the advertisement, 1 2 3 4 5
looked at all the available information and numbers,
and considered the arguments.
(next page)
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
55
[Advertisement of one of project 5]
Look at the advertisement and indicate for each of the seven words below the extent to which
you agree with the statement when it is completed with the word on the left or the word on the
right, by choosing one of the seven scale points.
For me, contributing to this specific project would be ...
(1) unpleasant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 pleasant
(2) bad 1 2 3 4 4 6 7 good
(3) negative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 positive
(4) favorable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 unfavorable
(5) wise 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 foolish
(6) unenjoyable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 enjoyable
(7) satisfying 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 unsatisfying
Please indicate the extent in which you agree with the following statements:
(with 1 begin strongly disagree and 5 being strongly agree)
(1) I like the way this project is presented to me 1 2 3 4 5
(2) This project is described convincingly 1 2 3 4 5
(3) The project description is written in an 1 2 3 4 5
appropriate tone
(4) I have read all the text in the advertisement, 1 2 3 4 5
looked at all the available information and numbers,
and considered the arguments.
Block 3
[Miniature images of all five advertisements at the top of the page]
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
56
If you had 100 dollar to spend for micro funding projects, to which micro funding projects
that you have just seen and been reading information about, would you contribute? Please
indicate how much you would like to contribute to each project. You need to distribute the
money among at least 2 projects. Contributing to more than 2 is also possible.
$______ Project 1 (Franck Elvis)
$______ Project 2 (Oranci)
$______ Project 3 (Miriyam)
$______ Project 4 (Luz)
$______ Project 5 (Patrick)
[total amount must be 100 dollars to proceed]
Please indicate your motivation for this distribution: __________________
Block 4
The following section includes questions about how you see yourself. Please indicate to what
extent you agree with the following statements, using the following answering categories:
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral (neither agree, nor disagree), 4 = agree, and
5 = strongly agree. Please choose the rating which most accurately describes you as you
generally are. All the answers are processed in complete confidence.
1. I can look at a painting for a long time
1 2 3 4 5
2. I make sure that things are in the right spot
1 2 3 4 5
3. I remain unfriendly to someone who was mean to me.
1 2 3 4 5
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
57
4. Nobody likes talking with me.
1 2 3 4 5
5. I am afraid of feeling pain.
1 2 3 4 5
6. I find it difficult to lie.
1 2 3 4 5
7. I think science is boring.
1 2 3 4 5
8. I postpone complicated tasks as long as possible.
1 2 3 4 5
9. I often express criticism.
1 2 3 4 5
10. I easily approach strangers.
1 2 3 4 5
11. I worry less than others.
1 2 3 4 5
12. I would like to know how to make lots of money in a dishonest manner.
1 2 3 4 5
13. I have a lot of imagination.
1 2 3 4 5
14. I work very precisely.
1 2 3 4 5
15. I tend to quickly agree with others.
1 2 3 4 5
16. I like to talk with others.
1 2 3 4 5
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
58
17. I can easily overcome difficulties on my own.
1 2 3 4 5
18. I want to be famous.
1 2 3 4 5
19. I like people with strange ideas.
1 2 3 4 5
20. I often do things without really thinking.
1 2 3 4 5
21. Even when I’m treated badly, I remain calm.
1 2 3 4 5
22. I am seldom cheerful.
1 2 3 4 5
23. I have to cry during sad or romantic movies.
1 2 3 4 5
24. I am entitled to special treatment.
1 2 3 4 5
Demographics
What is your gender?
o Male
o Female
What is your age? _________________
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
59
What is your highest completed education?
o Primary education
o Secondary education
o College
o University (Bachelor's degree)
o University (Master's degree)
What is your nationality? _________________
We thank you for your time spent taking this survey.
Your response has been recorded.
(end of survey)
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
60
Appendix B: Advertisements
Project 1 combined with reciprocity.
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
61
Project 2 combined with social proof.
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
62
Project 3 combined with commitment & consistency.
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
63
Project 4 combined with sympathy.
PERSONALIZED PERSUASION IN NON-PROFIT ADVERTISING
64
Project 5, neutral