When Personalization Backfires: Investigating the Limits and Unexpected Effects of Hyper-Personalized Advertising

While studies like Zhang et al. (2024) and Brinson & Eastin (2016) highlight the benefits of behavioral and psychographic personalization, they often assume a linear positive effect. This research would turn that assumption on its head, systematically investigating when and why hyper-personalization leads to negative outcomes—such as increased ad skepticism, privacy concerns, or perceptions of manipulation (see Shin et al., 2024; Krenz et al., 2025). By designing experiments to manipulate the granularity and context of personalization, we can identify thresholds where personalization ceases to be persuasive and instead triggers resistance or backlash. This project is innovative because it operationalizes the concept of a “personalization backlash curve” and examines how impression motivation and privacy knowledge moderate these effects. The findings could fundamentally reshape best practices in digital persuasion and ad targeting, warning brands about the hidden costs of “too much” personalization.

References:

1. Comparing Personalization Strategies in Social Network Advertising: The Role of Impression Motivation in Persuasion Outcomes. Weilu Zhang, Ting-Hao Tsou, Shelly Rodgers, J. F. Willett (2024). Journal of Interactive Advertising.
2. Juxtaposing the persuasion knowledge model and privacy paradox: An experimental look at advertising personalization, public policy and public understanding. Nancy H. Brinson, M. Eastin (2016).
3. The Effects of Ad Skepticism, Privacy Concerns on the Persuasion Processes of Personalized Advertising. Hana Shin, Mi-kyong Lee, Se-Hoon Jeong (2024). Journal of Cybercommunication Academic Society.
4. I Do Not Buy Your Story! Understanding the Limits of Storytelling in Corporate Social Responsibility Communication. Lukas Krenz, L. Edinger‐Schons, Sabrina Scheidler, Sankar Sen, J. Wieseke (2025). Psychology & Marketing.