The Influence of Consumer Self-Disclosure on Web Sites on ...

THE INFLUENCE OF CONSUMER SELF-DISCLOSURE ON WEB SITES ON ADVERTISING RESPONSE Seunghee Im, Doo-Hee Lee, Charles R. Taylor, Catherine D'Orazio ABSTRACT: This article assesses the consequences of consumer self-disclosure by examining the disclosure-liking effect in the context of advertising. Of particular interest is whether self-disclosure by visitors to a Web site leads to more positive reactions to subsequent advertising for the products/services offered on that site. Brand relationship theory and social response theory provide the theoretical basis for predictions about the potential influence of the disclosure-liking effect in the non-interpersonal context of the World Wide Web. Specifically, this research posits a transference effect of self-disclosure in three hypotheses, tested with two experiments that identify some moderating and mediating variables. The results demonstrate that the positive attitude that self-disclosure can elicit favorably influences subsequent attitudes toward ads and behavior toward the target of the disclosure. Keywords: Transference effect, online self-disclosure, Internet advertising.

In conjunction with the advent of a paradigm emphasizing relationship marketing, a recent line of marketing research applies self-disclosure theories (Andrade, Kaltcheva, and Weitz 2002; Jacobs, Hyman, and McQuitty 2001; Moon 2000, 2003; White 2004), with the basic assumption that consumers are reluctant to disclose personal information about themselves because of privacy issues. Thus, examinations of the antecedents of self-disclosure have been the primary focus of these studies, with a particular emphasis on how to elicit self-disclosure from consumers. What happens after consumers reveal their personal information is a question that has been less frequently investigated. In the context of marketing, it is important to address whether self-disclosure results in transference effects in subsequent interactions, yet relatively few studies have done so. The disclosure-liking effect proposes an explanation of the relationship between self-disclosure and liking, examined in several disciplines including psychology, communication, and sociology (Archer 1980; Taylor et al. 1981). In particular, the disclosure-liking effect suggests that disclosure can enhance liking by both the party disclosing and the party that receives the disclosure. This study investigates the consequences of consumer selfdisclosure by examining the disclosure-liking effect in the context of advertising. Specifically, we examine how a positive attitude that self-disclosure may elicit might favorably influence subsequent behavior toward the target of the disclosure. Furthermore, we identify and test several moderating and mediating variables.

LITERATURE REVIEW Disclosure-Liking Effect Self-disclosure can be defined conceptually as any personal information that a person communicates to another (Derlega et al. 1993). Previous research shows that self-disclosure affects psychological, social, and behavioral aspects of the discloser (Derlega et al. 1993; Ensari and Miller 2002; Kelly and McKillop 1996; Nyman and Daugherty 2001). With respect to the consequences of disclosure, the disclosure-liking (DL) effect is as robust as any found in psychological literature (Archer and Burleson 1980; Cozby 1973; Vittengal and Holt 2000). The DL effect depends on the source of disclosure, the source of liking, and the causal direction assumed to underlie the association of disclosure and liking. The following questions appear in previous DL effect research: (1) Do people like others who disclose to them more than others who do not? (2) Do people disclose more to others whom they initially like? (3) Do people like others as a result of having disclosed to them? (Collins and Miller 1994). Among these relations, (2) represents an interpersonal link, whereas (1) and (3) are links of an intrapersonal nature. Although the first link has drawn the most interest in previous research, examining disclosers' liking toward recipients has the potential to yield meaningful insights for consumer-company relationships regarding consumer attitudes after disclosure. Studies examining self-disclosure as a social exchange within the context of progressing relationships have been fruitful, dating back to Altman and Taylor (1973), who proposed that relationships develop as a function of gradual increases in the depth and breadth of self-disclosures. The degree of selfJournal of Interactive Advertising, Vol 9 No 1 (Fall 2008), pp. 37‐48. © 2010 American Academy of Advertising, All rights reserved ISSN 1525‐2019

38

Journal of Interactive Advertising

Fall 2008

disclosure exchanged between partners can provide a barometer of developing closeness (Taylor 1979). Here, disclosure represents a rewarding outcome for the recipient, because it indicates the discloser's liking and desire to initiate a more intimate relationship. Accordingly, according to theories of social exchange, we expect a higher level of attraction to those who provide "rewarding outcomes" in the form of disclosure (Worthy et al. 1969). Regarding the discloser's positive feelings toward the recipient after disclosing, two theories present mechanisms to explain the DL effect: similarity theory (Byrne 1961) and selfperception theory (Bem 1972). Similarity theory helps investigate the relationship between self-disclosure and attraction enhancement (Bundza and Simonson 1973; Murphy and Strong 1972) with its assertion that attraction depends on perceived similarity between two people. In other words, when a discloser reveals personal information, the similarity between the discloser and the recipient increases. Such enhanced similarity boosts the discloser's attraction to the recipient. Similarity theory also suggests some intrapersonal elements of the disclosure-liking dynamic by establishing a correlation between extent to which the recipient is liked by the discloser and subsequent degree of disclosure to this recipient (Collins and Miller 1994). A theoretical perspective from information processing models of attraction suggests that the degree to which the recipient views the discloser positively depends on the degree of disclosure, which supplements similarity theory. "Liking" results as a function of positive beliefs about the discloser, which occur because of disclosure. For example, people who disclose more intimately may be considered more trusting and friendly. Moreover, some experimental evidence supports the idea that people form more positive impressions about those who are willing to share personal information, compared with others who are less open (e.g., Davis and Sloan 1974; Jones and Archer 1976; Kleinke and Kahn 1980). Although several situational and conditional variables mediate the DL effect, studies reveal that disclosure often results in positive impressions of the discloser, and acts of disclosure can be rewarding for the recipient. Self-perception theory incorporates an interpersonal element into the DL effect. It provides an explanation for positive postdisclosure feelings toward a recipient, suggesting that people may infer attitudes from behaviors exhibited by otherswhether the actual action to disclose is taken or not. This inference appears especially likely in first encounters, during

which ambiguity often makes it difficult for people to determine why others act as they do (Archer 1980). Therefore, people who disclose personal information to a relative stranger may infer that disclosure is a result of some sort of affinity for the recipient (Chaikin and Derlega 1974). The DL effect also suggests that simply disclosing to another can increase liking. Disclosure may inversely translate into enhanced liking by providing more opportunities for disclosure. As applied to intergroup relations, disclosure may be a valid technique used to foster liking among group members (Brewer and Miller 1984). Once groups come together and disclosure initiates, other DL effects can increase positive feelings as well. Not only will people tend to like those to whom they disclose, but they also may grow to develop a higher level of acceptance and liking toward those who have disclosed to them (Collins and Miller 1994). Applying the Disclosure-Liking Effect to a Marketing Context Research has examined the DL effect thoroughly in the context of interpersonal relationships. However, is it also possible to examine whether this effect applies to relationships that are not of an interpersonal nature? To answer this question, we must assume that people think of a non-personal relationship partner in a way that is at least somewhat similar to how they think of a personal relationship partner. If this assumption is satisfied, people tend to behave in a similar way with nonpersonal relationship partners as they would with personal relationship partners, which raises the possibility of the DL effect occurring in a marketing context. Brand relationship theory and social response theory offer useful frameworks for examining how consumers view their relationships with marketers. Brand relationship theory suggests that a brand legitimately can be regarded a relationship partner of the consumer, because consumers consistently assign personality qualities to inanimate brand objects (Fournier 1998). Consumers often assume the perspective of the brand to articulate their own relationship view. In other words, the brand can be humanized or somehow personalized by consumers. Fournier (1998) asserts that a consumer and brand engage in a dyadic relationship, similar to the relationship between two people. Thus, this theory implies that relationship building is possible in a non-interpersonal relationship, in the same way that it occurs in the interpersonal relationship context.

39


Fall 2008

Social response theory also offers theoretical support for the pursuit of this line of thought; it asserts that people respond to humans and computers in identical ways when presented with a technology that possesses a set of characteristics normally associated with human behavior (Morkes, Kernal, and Nass 1999; Nass et al. 1997). Specifically, the theory postulates that social responses are a result of neither user ignorance about computers nor psychological or social dysfunctions. Rather, computers appear as social actors, even though users know that the machines do not possess feelings, intentions, "selves," or human motivation (Moon 2003). Furthermore, social responses to computers occur subconsciously and automatically, regardless of the individual characteristics of the user (Nass and Moon 2000). On the basis of this theory, some research shows that people behave similarly in computer-human interactions as they would in several interpersonal contexts, and the two types of interactions employ similar dimensions, including norms of politeness, attribution responsibility, and perceptions of sociability (Moon and Nass 1998; Nass, Moon, and Carney 1999; Wang et al. 2007). The most likely theoretical explanation underlying social response theory and its findings about human interactions with computers is that people are lazy information processors. This explanation converges with substantial psychological evidence that people use a variety of mental heuristics to avoid extensive information processing (Eagly and Chaiken 1993). Therefore, when confronted with a technology that exhibits certain behaviors ordinarily associated with human behavior, people reflexively respond in a social manner (Moon 2003). HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT: SELF-DISCLOSURE AND ADVERTISING RESPONSE Self-Disclosure and Response to Advertising To develop the hypotheses, we apply the DL effect to the context of advertising and draw on theoretical perspectives from brand relationship theory and social response theory to argue that the DL effect can occur in the context of advertising on the Web. A few prior studies support the suggestion that the theory of self-disclosure applies to the context of noninterpersonal relationship marketing dynamics between consumer and company (Andrade, Kaltcheva, and Weitz 2002; White 2004). In relation to the context of this study, some recent noteworthy findings suggest that disclosure can enhance the discloser's liking of the recipient, such as a computer (Moon 2000) or a company (Im and Lee 2006). Moon (2000, 2003) provides evidence that intimate

information exchanges significantly affect subsequent behavior in terms of future interactions with the target of the disclosure. For example, consumers' self-disclosure generates feelings of attraction toward the computer; this attraction, in turn, moderates self-serving attributional tendencies. A halo effect also might explain why a positive effect fostered by self-disclosure can influence future behavior. According to the halo effect, the first impression we recognize in another object influences our interpretation and perception of latter ones (Balzer and Sulsky 1992; Lance, LaPointe, and Stewart 1994). Thus, the evaluation of a specific object can reflect the evaluator's initial general impression. If the impression is good, a halo effect may cause the evaluator to assign all good ratings across different characteristics, even if the performance of the object truthfully differs in performance across characteristics and does not warrant all good ratings. Following this logic, when a consumer discloses personal information on a Web site, his or her attitude toward the site should be enhanced, according to the DL effect, and the consumer should evaluate other features of the Web site positively, according to the halo effect. Therefore, on the basis of this theoretical background (i.e., disclosure-liking supplemented by brand relationship and social response perspectives), we predict that consumers' selfdisclosure triggers a positive attitude toward the recipient, and this positive effect will transfer to the evaluation of subsequent behaviors of the recipient. We term it the transference effect, which we assess in a context in which a person self-discloses on a Web site and views an ad for that same site. H1: Consumers' previous self-disclosure on a Web site leads to positive responses to advertising on that Web site. Impact of Level of Consumer Knowledge We also need to identify variables that may moderate and mediate the transference effect. Therefore, we extend the scope of our research by investigating the effect of consumer knowledge on the link between self-disclosure and advertising response. Several studies suggest that the halo effect is stronger when the evaluator's knowledge about the evaluation object is low (Cooper 1981; Jacobs and Kozlowski 1985; Kozlowski, Kirch, and Chao 1986). Thus, we expect that consumers with a low level of knowledge about an advertised product may base their response to the advertising on their previous attitudes and evaluations of other known attributes of the object. However, consumers with a high level of product knowledge

40


Fall 2008

likely avoid a halo effect, because they are able to evaluate advertising on the basis of their extensive knowledge of the object. Thus: H2: The transference effect of self-disclosure on the advertising response is greater when the consumer's knowledge about the object under evaluation is low rather than high. Impact of Prior Attitude Toward the Web Site We predict that consumer self-disclosure triggers a positive attitude toward the recipient (Web site) and that this positive effect transfers to the evaluation of subsequent behaviors (advertising response) by the recipient. When a consumer engages in self-disclosure on a Web site, he or she tends subsequently to have a greater affinity for that site. In a consumer Web site context, the causal relationship between self-disclosure and response to advertising thus should be mediated by attitude toward the Web site. We posit: H3: The transference effect of self-disclosure on the advertising response is mediated by attitude toward the Web site. EXPERIMENT 1 Overview With Experiment 1, we attempt to identify the transference effect of self-disclosure, with a focus on whether those who have disclosed on a Web site are more prone to respond favorably to an ad for the brand associated with the Web site. Therefore, we test H1 in this first experiment. Prior to conducting the experiment, we conducted pretests to construct the Web site name, develop questions pertaining to disclosure, and create the advertising stimuli. Twenty students at a university in Korea participated in the pretests. One pretest provided the imaginary Web site name. If we had used a real Web site name, consumer knowledge, prior experience, relationship depth, and preformed attitudes about the site could have affected self-disclosure behavior. The use of an imaginary Web site name serves to control for these confounding variables. We select the Web site context of an Internet shopping mall, because subjects had experience and familiarity with navigating and using these kinds of sites. Participants indicated that they did not recognize the eight potential imaginary Web site names we provided, then revealed their attitude towards the Web site names. To exclude the effects an extreme Web site attitude might impose, we chose the name that elicited a median attitude level. Therefore,

the first pretest leads to the choice of shoppingplus (www.shoppingplus.com) as the fictional Web site name. To develop interview questions pertaining to self-disclosure, we address three factors. First, we include questions on topics used in previous self-disclosure studies, though because most prior studies involve the realm of interpersonal relationships, we find relatively little to draw on in the non-interpersonal context. A notable exception is research by Andrade, Kaltcheva, and Weitz (2002), from which we adopt several questions (e.g., name, social security number, telephone number, email address, medical information, product preferences, and interests and hobbies). Second, we incorporate questions intended to elicit useful information about the marketing strategy. Third, we compare the questions with those currently asked to consumers who shop on the Internet to affirm the external validity of our study. Considering these factors, we developed 14 questions pertaining to items that consumers could disclose to the marketer. We then arranged them according to the level of perceived risk that subjects indicated that they associated with disclosing each piece of information, on a seven-point Likert scale (Hoffman and Novak 1997). Well-established social norms, such as the sequence norm, appear in order to encourage escalated disclosure. For example, it is most effective to place higher-risk questions toward the end, after building rapport and trust with the initial, low-risk questions. Thus, the 14 questions appear in the following sequence: name, birthday, marital status, occupation, e-mail address, satisfaction with the Internet shopping mall, leisure activities, monthly income, cellular phone number, telephone number, university address, home address, social security number, and credit card number. Experimental Design We used a 3 (self-disclosure: high, low, none) × 2 (advertising brand congruency: congruent Web site presents its own brand advertising, incongruent Web site presents brand advertising for another company) × 2 (product type: MP3 player, clothes) mixed-factor design, in which self-disclosure varies between subjects and the advertising brand congruency and product type are manipulated within subjects. We manipulate brand congruency to provide a more rigorous test of the transference effect. That is, the transference effect should be more likely in the congruent condition than in the incongruent condition, because the Web site and advertising brand are more similar in the congruent condition. If the

41


Fall 2008

transference effect emerges in the incongruent condition, it will provide strong evidence. We also counterbalance order of the product type presentation to eliminate possible order effects. Stimuli The four ads used as stimuli appear in the form of Internet pop-ups ads. They include four components: product type and brand name (IZIO for MP3 player, NEX for clothes) at the top of the ad, attribute information on the left-hand side, a graphic design on the right, and a message describing the relationship between the advertiser and Web site, which varies in its congruency level. Subjects and Procedure One hundred seventy-four college students who attended the same university in Korea participated in this experiment. They were assigned to the experimental conditions randomly. As an incentive to participate, we offered a gift certificate worth $5. These subjects are different from those who participated in the pretests. Subjects were told they would be completing three unrelated tasks. In task 1 offered a description of a hypothetical relationship with shoppingplus, and all subjects completed a customer profile on the site. To encourage subjects to engage in self-disclosure, we used the interviewing technique employed by Moon (2000, 2003) and White (2004) and asked subjects to disclose various types of information from perceived low-risk to high-risk in order. For task 2, all subjects completed a word puzzle as a distraction task. This task gives the impression that all three tasks in this experiment are unrelated. Finally, depending on the condition, subjects viewed the different stimulus advertisements for the internet shopping mall in task 3, then could provide the same self-disclosure as requested in task 1. After the advertising exposure, subjects received a paper-and-pencil questionnaire that included the questions designed to test the hypotheses. Measurement of Level of Exposure Typical measures of self-disclosure consider two dimensions: depth and breadth (Altman and Taylor 1973; Collins and Miller 1994). Depth refers to the quality of the information disclosed; two independent judges, unaware of the experimental hypotheses, measure the depth of disclosure according to quality and intimacy, which we then summed to

constitute the overall score. The judges use a five-point rating scale. Breadth refers to the quantity of the information exchanged, measured as a word count. We sum the depth and breadth ratings for self-disclosure to obtain an overall measure of the degree of self-disclosure, because these two factors are highly correlated. Higher scores indicate greater overall self-disclosure. The coefficient alpha for the combined measures is .65, and a factor analysis of the scores yields only one factor with an eigenvalue greater than 1. All scores loaded highly on this factor. We define high and low self-disclosure groups according to a median split of the combined measure of self-disclosure and find a significant difference between the two groups (t(120) = 16.09, p < .0001). A control group that does not self-disclose could provide a baseline. However, because self-disclosure could affect the moods of the subjects (Moon 2003), we suffer the risk of a confounding effect if some subjects engage in self-disclosure while others do not. Consequently, we ask all subjects to disclose and define the experimental participants as those exposed to shoppingplus in both tasks 1 and 3, whereas the control group views a different imaginary Web site in task 1 and shoppingplus in task 3. Dependent Variables The dependent variables are the measures of advertising response. Consistent with previous studies, we measure advertising response according to advertising attitude (Aad), brand attitude (Ab), and purchase intention (PI) (Mackenzie, Lutz, and Belch 1986). Both Aad and Ab use three seven-point semantic-differential scales: "bad-good," "dislike-like," and "unfavorable-favorable" (MP3 player Aad: α = .89, Ab: α = .89; clothes Aad: α = .85, Ab: α = .90). We also use three sevenpoint semantic differential scales, anchored at "absolutely notabsolutely," "uncertain-certain," and "probably not-probably" (MP3 player α = .92; clothes α = .94) to measure PI. RESULTS We predict that consumer self-disclosure should lead to positive responses to advertising. Tables 1 and 2 provide the mean results, broken down by product category. In the case of the MP3 player, we find a significant main effect for Aad (F(2,172) = 3.80, p < .05), indicating that self-disclosure leads to a positive response attitude toward the ad. Planned comparisons do not show a significant difference at the .05 level between the SDYES condition ( = 3.28) and SDNo condition ( = 2.98) or between the SDH condition ( = 3.47) and SDL condition ( = 3.09) (t(172) = 1.66, p < .1;

42


Fall 2008

t(120) = 1.90, p < .1, respectively). However, Aad is more favorable in the SDYES condition than in the SDNO condition (t(110) = 2.45, p < .05). With respect to brand congruency, we find a significant Aad difference according to the degree of self-disclosure in the CON condition (F(2,76) = 3.18, p < .05) but no significant difference in the INCON condition ((F(2,92) = 1.15, p > .1). A significant main effect suggests that self-disclosure enhances brand attitude (F(2,172) = 6.67, p < .05). Planned comparisons reveal significant differences between the SDYES condition ( = 3.61) and SDNo condition ( = 3.22), between the SDH condition ( =3.81) and SDL condition ( =3.42), and between the SDH condition ( =3.81) and SDNO condition ( =3.22) (t(172) = 2.53, p < .05; t(120) = 2.32, p < .05; t(110) = 3.40, p < .05, respectively). With respect to advertising brand congruency, a significant Ab difference emerges according to the degree of self-disclosure in the CON condition (F(2,76) = 4.88, p < .05) but not in the INCON condition (F(2,92) = 2.34, p > .1). Table 1. Means of Advertising Response for Experiment 1: MP3 player Degree of Self-Disclosure High

Low

Control

Con (n=32 )

Incon (n=28 )

Con (n=23 )

Incon (n=39 )

Con (n=24 )

Incon (n=28 )

Aa d

3.45

3.50

2.83

3.24

2.89

3.06

Ab

3.74

3.89

3.19

3.55

3.08

3.35

PI

2.84

2.82

2.17

2.28

2.15

2.2

For purchase intention, the main effect is significant (F(2,172) = 5.98, p < .05). The difference between the SDYES condition ( = 2.53) and SDNo condition ( = 2.19) is not significant at .05 (t(172) = 1.81, p < .1), but we find significant differences between the SDH condition ( =2.83) and SDL condition ( =2.24) and between the SDH condition ( =2.83) and SDNO condition ( =2.19) (t(120) = 2.78, p < .05; t(110) = 2.95, p < .05, respectively). On the whole, these findings provide evidence that self-disclosure influences PI positively. With respect to congruency, we find a significant PI difference by the degree of self-disclosure in the CON condition (F(2,76) = 3.23, p < .05) and a positive but nonsignificant difference in the INCON condition (F(2,92) = 2.70, p < .1).

The results for the clothing category also provide evidence in support of the transference effect of self-disclosure in the context of advertising. For Aad, the main effect is significant (F(2,172) = 4.93, p < .05), and planned comparisons show that the differences between the SDYES condition ( = 3.00) and SDNo condition ( = 2.65), between the SDH condition ( =3.19) and SDL condition ( =2.81), and between the SDH condition ( =3.19) and SDNo condition ( =2.65) are significant (t(172) = 2.21, p < .05; t(120) = 2.11, p < .05; t(110) = 2.99, p < .05, respectively). A significant Aad difference appears in the degree of self-disclosure in the CON condition (F(2,92) = 3.37, p < .05) but not in the INCON condition (F(2,76) = 1.15, p > .1). We also find a significant main effect for Ab (F(2,172) = 2.79, p < .05). According to the planned comparisons, the differences between the SDYES condition ( = 3.22) and SDNo condition ( = 2.88) and between the SDH condition ( =3.31) and SDNo condition ( =2.88) are significant (t(172) = 2,07, p < .05; t(110) = 2.45, p < .05, respectively). However, for both the CON and INCON conditions, no significant effect emerges. The main effect is also significant for PI (F(2,172) = 4.45, p < .05). Planned comparisons show that the differences between the SDYES condition ( = 2.13) and SDNo condition ( = 1.70) and between the SDH condition ( =2.30) and SDNo condition ( =1.70) are significant (t(172) = 2.77, p .1), though a marginal difference exists in the INCON condition (F(2,92) = 1.47, p < .1). These results generally support Hypothesis 1 and provide strong support for the notion that recent self-disclosure has a positive impact on reactions toward advertising. Table 2. Means of Advertising Response for Experiment 1: Clothes Degree of Self-Disclosure High

Low

Control

Con (n=28)

Incon (n=32)

Con (n=39)

Incon (n=23)

Con (n=28)

Incon (n=24)

Aad

3.23

3.16

2.87

2.71

2.62

2.68

Ab

3.43

3.21

3.32

3.00

2.99

2.76

43


Fall 2008

PI

2.32

2.28

2.09

1.74

1.73

1.67

EXPERIMENT 2 Overview The results of Experiment 1 provide evidence of the transference effect, showing that consumers respond more positively to advertising on a Web site after they reveal personal information on that site. In Experiment 2, we test the transference effect in a different setting to provide further validation. Furthermore, Experiment 2 examines moderators and mediators that might influence the transference effect and thereby tests Hypotheses 2 and 3. Experimental Design We use a 3 (self-disclosure: high, low, no) × 2 (product knowledge: high, low) between-subjects, full-factorial design. Stimuli In this experiment, the stimulus ad is a print advertisement that features only the MP3 player. Differences in product knowledge that can be ascertained readily for an electronic item would be largely indistinguishable in the clothing category, and we required varying levels of consumer product knowledge to test the moderating role of product knowledge. According to a pretest, the top four product attributes in terms of importance are memory (512MB), continuous playback (more than 28 hours), sound quality (BBE, Mach3BASE, MP Enhance), and extra features such as direct encoding, voice recording, or a portable disk function. We select attribute levels at the average level in the market, and an expert group confirmed that the selected combination of product attribute levels was reasonable as an average level for MP3 player. The ad layout consisted of three parts: the Web site logo and name at the top of the ad, the graphic design of the product in the middle, and the attribute information at the bottom. Subjects and Procedure One hundred seventy-four additional college students, recruited from a college in Seoul, were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions. As an incentive to participate in the study, they received a gift certificate worth $5. The procedure was identical to that of the first experiment except for a few notable points. First, the context of the advertisement presentation was offline in the second experiment, in the form of print ads. Second, the latter

experiment included only the congruent condition, in which shoppingplus presented its own brand advertisements. Third, we added a few measurement constructs to test for moderating and mediating influences. Independent and Dependent Variables The measures of the independent and dependent variables are identical to those in the first experiment. In terms of the independent variable, self-disclosure, we find no differences between the experimental and control groups in terms of the degree of self-disclosure (t(172) = .90, p > .1). In the experimental group, we perform median split on the combined measure of the degree of self-disclosure. The coefficient alpha for the combined measures is .82, and a factor analysis of the depth and breadth scores yields only one factor with an eigenvalue greater than 1, on which all the scores load highly. The difference between the two groups is significant. Attitude toward the ad (α = .87), attitude toward the brand (α = .93), and purchase intention (α = .93) represent the dependent variables. Moderating and Mediating Variables Previous research measures product knowledge as either objective or subjective. Attribute knowledge and brand recall often represent objective knowledge (Mitchell and Dacin 1996), whereas subjective knowledge consists of self-reporting (Bettman and Park 1980; Johnson and Edward 1984), familiarity (Park and Lessing 1981), and product experience (Punj and Staelin 1983). However, Cowley and Mitchell (2003) show that combined measure is more robust, so we combine both objective and subjective measures. We measure self-reported product knowledge, familiarity, and product experience using seven-point scales (α = .88). The objective knowledge measures include questions about MP3 player terminology, attribute knowledge, and brand recall, developed from information gathered from Consumer Reports and expert interviews. The coefficient alpha for the combined knowledge measures is .71. We median split the high and low product knowledge groups and find a significant difference (p < .0001). Finally, we measure attitude toward the Web site according to likeability, kindness, and helpfulness (α = .82).

44


Fall 2008

RESULTS In Table 3, we provide the mean results, according to the experimental conditions. The two-way ANOVA results for Experiment 2 also show that consumers' self-disclosure leads to positive responses to advertising. Table 3. Means of Advertising Response for Experiment 2 Degree of Self-Disclosure knowledge

High

Low

Control

High (n=28)

Low High (n=29) (n=27)

Low (n=31)

High (n=33)

Low (n=26)

Aad

3.68

4.16

3.49

3.45

3.38

3.29

Ab

3.38

4.11

3.20

3.24

3.26

3.29

PI

2.33

2.82

1.92

2.10

2.29

2.45

We find that self-disclosure influences Aad positively (SDH = 3.92, SDL = 3.47, SDYES = 3.70, SDNO = 3.34; F (2,171) = 5.66, p < .05). Planned comparisons show significant differences between the SDYES condition and SDNO, SDH and SDNO, and SDH and SDL (t(172) = 2.23, p < .05; t(114) = 3.15, p < .05; t(113) = 2.50, p < .05, respectively). Attitude toward the brand also is more favorable with greater self-disclosure (SDH = 3.75, SDL = 3.21, SDYES = 3.48, SDNO = 3.28; F (2,171) = 4.25, p < .05). The planned comparisons reveal significant differences between the SDH and SDNO conditions (t(113) = 2.26, p < .05) and between the SDH and SDL conditions (t(114) = 2,61, p < .05). With respect to purchase intention, we find a significant main effect (SDH = 2.57, SDL = 2.01, SDYES = 2.30, SDNO = 2.32; F (2,171) = 3.61, p < .05). Planned comparisons indicate a significant PI difference depending on the degree of selfdisclosure (t(113) = 2.76, p < .05). These results provide validating evidence of the transference effect. To test Hypothesis 2, we use a two-way ANOVA that examines subjects' engagement in self-disclosure. With respect to Ab, the interaction effect of self-disclosure and product knowledge is not significant at .05 (F(1,114) = 2.98, p < .1). We also find no significant interaction effect for Aad and PI. A significant difference exists between the SDH condition and SDL condition for Ab when product knowledge is low (MSDH = 4.11, MSDL = 3.24; t(58) = 2.85, p < .05) but not when product knowledge is high. These results only partially support Hypothesis 2.

To test Hypothesis 3, we follow a three-step procedure suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986). In the first step, we determine whether the independent variable is correlated with the dependent variable; in the second step, we address whether the independent variable is correlated with the mediator. Finally, by using independent and mediating variables as predictors in a regression equation, we ascertain in the third step whether the mediator affects the dependent variable. The degree of self-disclosure is not significant for Aad (β = 8.867E-02; t = 1.75, p < .1), whereas attitude toward the Web sit has a significant effect on Aad (β = .10; t = 2.27, p < .05). When the degree of self-disclosure and Web site attitude appear as predictors of Aad, the effect of the degree of selfdisclosure becomes insignificant (β = 6.602E-02, t = 1.30, p > .1), and Web site attitude continues to have a significant effect (β = .23, t = 2.13, p < .05). Thus, these results show a full mediation effect for Aad. The degree of self-disclosure has a significant effect on both Ab (β = .12; t = 2.18, p < .05) and Web site attitude (β = .10; t = 2.27, p < .05). However, the effect of the degree of selfdisclosure decreases (β = .10; t = 1.77, p < .1) when we include the degree of self-disclosure and Web site attitude as predictors together. These mediation analyses reveal that Web site attitude partially mediates the relationship between the degree of self-disclosure and brand attitude. Moreover, degree of self-disclosure has a significant effect on both purchase intention (β = .13; t = 2.27, p < .05) and Web site attitude (β = .10; t = 2.27, p < .05). Finally, the effect of the degree of self-disclosure decreases (β = .10; t = 1.78, p < .1) when we include as predictors purchase intention and Web site attitude. These results show a partial mediation effect for PI. The mediation analyses thus show overall that Web site attitude fully mediates Aad and partially mediates Ab and PI. These results generally support Hypothesis 3. DISCUSSION This study examines the transference effect of self-disclosure, as suggested by the disclosure-liking effect, within an advertising context. Consumers respond more positively to advertising on a Web site when they have revealed their personal information on that Web site. We also find support for the transference effect and its moderation by product knowledge and mediation by Web site attitude. Most research dealing with the marketing-related consequences of self-disclosure has focused on individualization and relationship building through

45


Fall 2008

information acquisition. Such research assumes that successfully eliciting consumer self-disclosure can help companies target valuable customers more efficiently and yield more tailored offerings and greater customer retention. However, our results verify the importance of consumer selfdisclosure for its role in enhancing consumer attitudes. Our findings are consistent with those of Moon (2000) but also extends her research to the context of advertising by examining the relationship between self-disclosure and advertising response and including the impact of moderating and mediating variables. In this regard, our study contributes to theory development. Furthermore, we suggest some practical implications for the strategic application of self-disclosure. Firms have been increasing their efforts directed at collecting consumer data, and data collection pertaining to consumers' self-disclosure is spreading rapidly. Yet the strategic application of selfdisclosure has been limited mainly to individualization. Theories presented herein suggest the potential of applying self-disclosure findings beyond the realm individualization, particularly to the context of advertising. Despite these theoretical and practical contributions, this study has some limitations and areas that provide opportunities for further research. First, our focus is on identifying the DL effect, and we do not explore evidence that might guarantee other consequences examined in previous psychological research also are applicable to the marketing and advertising context. Therefore, investigations aimed at understanding the consequences of disclosure beyond the disclosure-liking effect could provide additional insight. Second, this research does not address the question of what motivates self-disclosure, because we focus instead on the consequences. Various factors might prompt self-disclosure, such as rewards (Andrade, Kaltcheva, and Weitz 20002), relationship depth (Knapp 1984; Norberg, Horne, and Horne 2007; White 1999), reputation (Andrade, Kaltcheva, and Weitz 2002), and perceived risk (White 1999), which may be more (or less) effective. If certain factors do not compel consumers to divulge personal information, there may be no guarantees of a DL effect. Thus, further research addressing how the DL effect varies with the initiator of self-disclosure could be fruitful. Third, as does most experimental research, this study must accept external validity trade-offs to ensure internal validity. For example, we ask subjects to self-disclose on an imaginary Web site in a hypothetical context. To mitigate this limitation

and achieve greater ecological validity, further research should examine situations and employ methods that request consumer disclosure in real-world contexts. REFERENCES Altman, Irwin and Dalmus A. Taylor (1973), Social Penetration: The Development of Interpersonal Relationships, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Andrade, Eduardo B., Velitchka Kaltcheva, and Barton Weitz (2002), "Self-Disclosure on the Web: The Impact of Privacy Policy, Reward, and Company Reputation," Advances in Consumer Research, 29, 350-353. Archer, R. L. (1980), "Self-Disclosure," in The Self in Social Psychology, New York: Oxford University Press. Archer, Richard L. and Joseph A. Burleson (1980), "The Effects of Timing of Self-Disclosure on Attraction and Reciprocity," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(1), 120-130. Balzer, William K. and Lorne M. Sulsky (1991), "Halo and Performance Appraisal Research: A Critical Examination," Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(6), 975-9853. Baron, Reuben M. and David A. Kenny (1986), "The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182. Bem, Daryl. J. (1972), "Self-Perception Theory," Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 6, 1-62. Bettman, James R. and C. Whan Park (1980), "Effects of Prior Knowledge and Experience and the Phase of the Choice Process on Consumer Decision Processes," Journal of Consumer Research, 7(December), 234-248. Brewer, M. B., & N. Miller (1984), "Beyond the Contact Hypothesis: Theoretical Perspectives on Desegregation," In N. Miller & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Group in Contact: The Psychology of Desegregation (pp. 281-302). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Bryne, Donn (1961), "Interpersonal Attraction and Attitude Similarity," Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 62, 713715. Bundza, Kenneth A. and Norman R. Simonson (1973), "Therapist Self-disclosure: Its Effect on Impression of Therapist and Willingness of Disclosee," Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 10, 215-217.

46


Fall 2008

Chaikin, A. L., and V. J. Derlega (1974), "Variables Affecting the Appropriateness of Self-Disclosure," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 588-593.

Johnson, Eric J. and Russo J. Edward (1984), "Product Familiarity and Learning New Information," Journal of Consumer Research, 11(June), 542-550.

Collins, Nancy L. and Lynn Caril Miller (1994), "SelfDisclosure and Liking: A Meta-Analytic Review," Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 457-474.

Jones, Edward E. and Richard L. Archer (1976), "Are There Special Effects of Personalistic Self-Disclosure?"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12 (2), 180-193.

Cooper, W. H. (1981), "Ubiquitous Halo," Psychological Bulletin, 90(2), 218-244.

Kelly, Anita E. and Kevin J. McKillop (1996), "Consequences of Revealing Personal Secrets," Psychological Bulletin, 120(3), 450-465.

Cowley, Elizabeth and Andrew A. Mitchell (2003), "The Moderating Effect of Product Knowledge on the Learning and Organization of Product Information," Journal of Consumer Research, 30(December), 443-454.

Kleinke, Chris L. and Margi L. Kahn (1980), "Perceptions of Self-Disclosers: Effects of Sex and Physical Attractiveness," Journal of Personality, 48 (2), 190-205.

Cozby, Paul C. (1973), "Self-Disclosure: A Literature Review," Psychological Bulletin, 79, 73-91.

Knapp, Mark (1984), International Communication in Human Relationships, Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Davis, John D. and Margaret L. Sloan (1974), "The Basis of Interviewee Matching of Interviewer Self-Disclosure," British Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 13 (4), 359-67.

Kozlowski, Steve W., Michael P. Krisch, and Georgia T. Chao (1986), "Job Knowledge, Rater Familiarity, Conceptual Similarity, and Halo Error: An Exploration," Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(1), 45-49.

Derlega, Valerian J., Sandra Metts, Sandra Petronio, and Stephen T. Margulus (1993), Self-Disclosure, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Eagly, Alice H. and Shelly Chaiken (1993), The Psychology of Attitudes, Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Ensari, Nurcan and Norman Miller (2002), "The Out-Group Must Not Be So Bad After All: The Effects of Disclosure, Typicality, and Salience on Intergroup Bias," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(2), 313-329. Fournier, Susan (1998), "Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research," Journal of Consumer Research, 24(March), 343-373. Hoffman, Donna and Thomas P. Novak (1997), "A New Marketing Paradigm for Electronic Commerce," Information Society, 13(1), 43-54. Im, Seunghee and Doo-Hee Lee (2006), "Disclosure-liking Effect by Consumer's Self-disclosure toward the Web Site," Korean Marketing Review, 20(4), 91-114. Jacobs, Richard S, Michael R. Hyman, and Shaun McQuitty (2001), "Exchange-Specific Self-Disclosure, Social SelfDisclosure, and Personal Selling," Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 9(1), 48-62. Jacobs, Richard S. and Scott W. Kozlowski (1985), "A Closer Look at Halo Error in Performance Ratings," Academy of Management Journal, 28(1), 201-212.

Lance, Charles E., Julie A. LaPointe, and Amy M. Stewart (1994), "A Test of the Context Dependency of Three Causal Models of Halo Rater Error," Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 332-340. Mackenzie, Scott R., Richard J. Lutz, and George Belch (1986), "The Role of Attitude toward the Ad as a Mediator of Advertising Effectiveness: A test of Competing Explanations," Journal of Marketing Research, May, 130-143. Mitchell, Andrew A. and Peter F. Dacin (1996), "The Assessment of Alternative Measures of Consumer Expertise," Journal of Consumer Research, 23(December), 219-240. Moon, Young Me (2000), "Intimate Exchange: Using Computers to Elicit Self Disclosure from Consumers," Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 323-339. --- (2003), "Don't Blame the Computer: When Self-Disclosure Moderates the Self-Serving Bias," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(1&2), 125-137. --- and Clifford Nass (1998), "Are Computers Scapegoats: Attributions of Responsibility in Human-Computer Interaction," International Journal of Human-computer Interaction, 49(1), 79-94. Morkes, John, Hadyn K. Kernal, and Clifford Nass (1999), "Effects of Humor in Task-Oriented Human-Computer Interaction and Computer-Mediated Communication: A

47


Fall 2008

Direct Test of SRCT Theory," Computer Interaction, 14(4), 395-435. Murphy, Kevin C., and Stanley R. Strong (1972), "Some Effects of Similarity Self-disclosure," Journal of Counseling Psychology, 19, 121-124. Nass, Clifford I. and Youngme Moon (2000), "Machines and Mindlessness: Social Responses to Computers," Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81-103. ---, --- and Paul Carney (1999), "Are People Polite to Computers? Responses to Computer-Based Interviewing Systems," Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(5), 10931110. ---, ---, John Markets, Eun-Young Kim, and B. J. Fogg (1997), "Computers Are Social Actors: A Review of Current Research," in Human Values and the Design of Computer Technology, Batry Friedman, ed. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 137-163. Norberg, Patricia A., Daniel R. Horne, and David A. Horne (2007), "The Privacy Paradox: Personal Information Disclosure Intentions versus Behaviors," Journal of Consumer Affairs, 41(1), 100-126. Nyman, Scott J and Timothy K. Daugherty (2001), "Congruence of Counselor Self-Disclosure and Perceived Effectiveness," The Journal of Psychology, 135(5), 269-276. Park, C. Whan and V. Parker Lessig (1981), "Familiarity and Its Impact on Consumer Decision Biases and Heuristics," Journal of Consumer Research, 8(September), 223-231. Punj, Girish N. and Richard Staelin (1983), "A Model of Consumer Information Search Behavior for New Automobiles," Journal of Consumer Research, 9(March), 366380. Taylor, Dalmas A. (1979), "Motivational Bases," In G. J. Chelune (Ed.), Self-disclosure, San Francisco: Josey Bass Publishers, 1979. Taylor, Dalmas A., Robert J. Gould, and Paul J. Brounstein (1981), "Effects of Personalistic Self-Disclosure," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7 (3), 487-492. Vittengal, Jeffrey R. and Craig S. Holt (2000), "Getting Acquainted: The Relationship of Self-Disclosure and Social Attraction to Positive Affect," Journal of Social and Personal Relationship, 17(1), 53-66.

Wang, Liz C., Julie Baker, Judy A. Wagner, and Kirk Wakefield (2007), "Can a Retail Web Site Be Social," Journal of Marketing, 71(July), 143-157. White, Tiffany Barnett (2004), "Consumer Disclosure Avoidance: A Motivational Framework," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1&2), 41-51. White, Tiffany B. (1999), "Deciding to Reveal: Consumer Disclosure Management in Consumer/Seller Relationship," Dissertation, Duke University.

Unpublished

Doctoral

Worthy, M., A.L. Gary and G.M. Kahn (1969), "Self-Disclosure as an Exchange Process," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 59-64. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Seunghee Im (Ph. D., Korea University) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Business Administration at Jeonju University. Her research interests lie in the areas of interactive advertising, online consumer behavior, gender issues in consumer behavior, and cross-cultural study. Email: [email protected] Doo-Hee Lee is Professor of Marketing and Dean of the Institute of International Education, Korea University. He is the current Chairman and a founding member of the foundation of the Asia-Pacific Association for International Education (APAIE). His academic research interests include Internet marketing and advertising and consumer behavior theory. He has published more than 50 articles/cases and 11 books in outlets such as Journal of Advertising, Psychology and Marketing, and Advances in International Marketing, among others. Professor Lee has served as president, chief editor, and executive director of many academic associations, including President of the Korea Advertising Society. E-mail: [email protected] Charles R. Taylor is the John A. Murphy Professor of Marketing at Villanova University and Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Marketing and Policy Research. He is a Past President of the American Academy of Advertising. His primary research interests are in the areas of international advertising, advertising strategy, and marketing and public policy. Prof. Taylor has published numerous books, journals, and conference papers, as well as academic articles in outlets such as Journal of Advertising, Journal of Advertising Research, Journal of International Marketing, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Journal of Current Research and Issues in

48


Advertising, Journal of Business Research, and Journal of Consumer Affairs. Email: [email protected] Catherine M. D'Orazio is an MBA Fellow and graduate research assistant in the Professional Masters of Business Administration program, Villanova University School of Business. She is pursuing her MBA with a concentration in Marketing, and her research interests lie in marketing communications, specifically consumer attitudes toward various advertising media and the effects on subsequent purchase behavior decisions.

Fall 2008