Article Review

jULK.: \It

Promotion Mana ement

Journal of Promotion Management

ISSN: 1049-6491 (Print) 1540-7594 (Online)Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjpm20

Personality-Based Engagement: An Examination of Personality and Message Factors on Consumer Responses to Social Media Advertisements

Naa Amponsah Dodoo & Cynthia Morton Padovano

To cite this article: Naa Amponsah Dodoo & Cynthia Morton Padovano (2020) Personality-Based Engagement: An Examination of Personality and Message Factors on Consumer Responses to Social Media Advertisements, Journal of Promotion Management, 26:4, 481-503, DOI: 10.1080/10496491.2020.1719954

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2020.1719954

a Published online: 30 Jan 2020 .

�� Submit your article to this journal 8"

W!l_ Article views: 11 89

t;J View related articles 8"

View Crossmark data 8" CrossM.irk

eeJ Citing articles: 4 View citing articles 8"

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journallnformation?journa1Code= wjpm20

JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 2020, VOL 26, NO. 4, 481-503 https//doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2020.1719954

Check for updates

Personality-Based Engagement: An Examination of Personality and Message Factors on Consumer

Responses to Social Media Advertisements

Naa Amponsah Dodooa and Cynthia Morton Padovanob

aEmerson College, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; bUniversity of Florida College of Journalism and Communication, Gainesville, Florida, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS

Social media advertising has seen a growth in media mes­ Consumer responses; personality traits; sages customized to appeal to highly specific characteristics of persua si on; product appeal; an identified target. However, the psychological determinants regulatory focus ; socialof consumer responses to such media content remain under­ media advertisements;

researched. An experiment was conducted to investigate the effect that consumer personality traits, regulatory focus, and product appeal have on consumers' response to social media advertising messages. Alternate versions of the advertising stimulus were created to manipulate regulatory focus cues (promotion vs. prevention) and product appeal (hedonic vs. utilitarian). Four of the Big Five personality traits-extraver­ sion, conscientiousness, openness, and neuroticism-were examined to detect differences in consumer responses. Significant main effects exist for all personality traits and inter­ acti on effects were found between a subset of the personality traits analyzed with regulatory focus and product appeal, thus lending evidenc e for the robustness of the Big-Five as a useful framework for assessing individual differences in an audience's response to social media advertising and message persuasion.

The global interest in developing personalized advertising communications speaks to the intricacies of social media (Yu & Cude, 2009). An increasing shift toward personalized media that are crafted to deliver advertising mes­ sages based on recipient-unique preferences (Pappas, Kourouthanassis, Giannakos, & Chrissikopoulos, 2017) has contributed to the increasing

doubt about the power of general, mass-reach media traditionally used to market products (Yu & Cude, 2009). In particular, social media has grown exponentially as a platform where such personalized media can be dissemi­ nated (Arl i, 2017). Yet, the intersection of social media's explosion as an advertising platform and the effects of social media messages on audiences is only a starting point toward fully realizing the potential return of the for­

mat. When done right, personalized advertising, rather than general

CONTACT Naa Amponsah Dodoo e) naa_dodoo@emerson.edu � Emerson College, Boston, MA, 02116-4624, USA 0 2020 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

482 @ N. A. DODOO AND C. M. PADOVANO

advertising is what consumers prefer (Duran, 2018). Personalized content is vital in drawing consumers' attention to content they would otherwise ignore (Morrison, 2016). An upshot of personalization is consumers' engagement with the content, which promotes other consumer behaviors, such as the search for more brand information and improved brand recall (Morrison, 2016). Research evidence also supports the fact that personaliza­ tion could increase businesses' profits by up to 15% (Duran, 2018).

Prior academic work on personality traits and consumer responses to advertisements has investigated responses to appeals in advertising (e.g., Black, Organ, & Morton, 2010; Cheung, Chan, Han, Sze, & Fan, 2013; Mowen, Harris, & Bone, 2004). Yet, it is reasonable to believe that motiva­ tions underlying an individual's personality could play a role in their responses to advertisers' marketing communication messages. In fact, research supports the idea that solid relationships exist between personality traits and consumers' cognitive and emotional responses to persuasive com­ munications (e.g., Hirsh, Kang, & Bodenhausen, 2012). Strategic strides are being made in the industry to provide consumers with personalized con­ tent. Major brands such as Amazon, Spotify and Google offer its advertisers different ways of providing insights that can help these advertisers show­ case an understanding of their specific target audience with personalized content. For example, Amazon permits advertisers' access to its own data­ base service, Neptune, which is devised to manage vast relationships and queries in an effort to understand consumer behavior (Duran, 2018).

By and large, personality traits, advertisement specific features and context­ related aspects appear to govern consumer responses to personalized advertis­ ing (Stiglbauer & Kovacs, 2019). Yet, despite what is understood about the relationship between individual personality traits and motivations, empirical research is limited. Specific personality traits have received very little atten­ tion in marketing even in light of the apparent shift toward personalized media messages delivered through social media platforms ( Oark & <;all1, 2014; Myers, Sen, & Alexandrov, 2010). If advertisers are to realize the best value for employing social media platforms, they also must pay attention to audience attributes, including how consumers respond to advertising mes­ sages encountered on social media. Though there has been a revitalization of research on consumer personality concomitant with the growth of personality psychology (Luchs & Mooradian, 2012; Matzler, Bidmon, & Grabner­ Kriiuter, 2006), there is still the need for research into consumer personality traits and its role in consumer behavior in the context of social media.

This investigation addresses the topics of individual differences, motiv­ ational systems and product category as variables that have not been previ­ ously explored together in the effort to glean conclusions about social media messages. The study draws on the Big-Five framework as an

JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT @ 483

opportunity for understanding how personality can influence consumers' response to social media advertisements and isolates extraversion, conscien­ tiousness, openness to experience and neuroticism as the focus of this investigation. The goal of the study is to examine the relationship between consumers' personality traits and responses to social media advertisements. Personality researchers generally accept the Big-Five personality framework as a means through which personality can be measured and defined (Anaza, 2014). Its application to the understanding of the psychological processes that shape consumer responses to social media advertisements are expected to advance the understanding of the effects of personality traits on social media advertising. Regulatory Focus Theory (RFT) provides the lens through which specific personality traits can be interpreted (Kao, 2012). RFT bases its assumptions on the idea that individuals have different motivational systems that oversee their determination to obtain their desired goals. This research merges established theoretical frameworks to drive the development of theory-driven explanations for the effects of per­ sonalized advertising by presenting the implications of RFT and exploring the nexus between RFT, personality characteristics and product dimensions to gather insights about consumer responses. With this in mind, the pre­ sent research not only seeks to expand the theoretical inquiry of determi­ nants of social media advertising effectiveness, but also intends to recommend opportunities for advertisers to develop effective delivery strat­ egies customized for social media advertising.

Literature review

The big-five personality traits and facebook use

The Big Five personality framework consists of traits believed to encapsulate the full makeup of an individual's personality (Tan & Yang, 2014). The trait of extraversion is linked with being sociable, assertive, ambitious and domin­ ant (Mehmetoglu, 2012). Conscientiousness is defined in terms of an individ­ ual's dependability, organization, self-discipline and persistence (Balaji & Raghavan, 2011). Agreeableness as a trait refers to characteristics of likeabil­ ity, trustworthiness, and cooperation. Neuroticism is the trait associated with personal insecurity, anxiousness, depression, and proclivity to stress. Openness as a personality trait references one's tendency to be unconven­ tional, curious, imaginative and intelligent (Balaji & Raghavan, 2011).

Although there has been a revitalization of research on consumer person­ ality concomitant with the growth of personality psychology (Matzler et al., 2006), there is still the need for research into consumer personality traits and its role in consumer behavior. For instance, Clark and <;all1's (2014) research examined whether the Big-Five personality framework can be used

484 @ N. A. DODOO AND C. M. PADOVANO

to predict consumers' responses to social media advertisements. Their results suggest that consumer responses may vary based on the consumers' personality type. Moreover, their study is among a few others (e.g., Hirsh et al. , 2012) that offer important insights about the role of personality traits in consumer responses to advertisements.

Facebook serves as the context for examination in this research. In over a decade since its creation in 2004, Facebook has materialized as a powerful social marketing and advertising platform (Blachnio, Przepi6rka, & Rudnicka, 2013; Lipsman, Mudd, Rich, & Bruich, 2012) and is widely con­ sidered to be quintessential as one of the most popular social networking sites (Alhabash, Almutairi, Lou, & Kim, 2019). This is further evident in reports that credit Facebook is with constituting 56.5% of all social media site visits in the United States (De Keyzer, Dens, & De Pelsmacker, 2015). In December 2018 Facebook had Daily active users (DAUs) totaling 1.52 billion people on average, along with 2.32 billion Monthly active users (MAUs) (Facebook NewsRoom, 2019). Blachnio et al. (2013) contend that, based on the diversity of its applications, Facebook plays a multiplicity of roles. It is a method of communication, an entertainment platform and a popular tool in the promotions and marketing field. Facebook's digital architecture presents users with varied alternatives that enhance their online self-presentation strategies. In other words, the digital architecture of Facebook permits individuals to craft narratives that depict their person­ alities. Facebook's functionality is premised on personal self-presentation compared to other social media platforms such as Linkedln, which is geared toward a portrayal of one's professional self (Van Dijck, 2013) or Instagram which primarily employed for demonstrating affection, following fashion and displaying sociability (Phua, Jin, & Kim, 2017). In addition, a bulk of research examining personality traits has established a relationship between the Big Five Traits and Facebook use (e.g., Marshall, Lefringhausen, & Ferenczi, 2015; Ryan & Xenos, 2011; Seidman, 2013).

Overall, social media advertising leverages the new communication para­ digm where consumers consume and interact more actively with branded content in the online realm. Furthermore, social media consumers are more likely to spurn conventional sources of advertising (e.g. , TV, maga­ zines, newspapers etc.) and tend to rely more heavily on different forms of social media in their information search and decision-making (Mangold & Faulds, 2009). This shift from more conventional forms of advertising is evident in industry forecasts that estimate digital advertising spend will sur­ pass that spent on traditional advertising for the first time ever, marking the growth of digital media platforms as avenues through which consumers can be sought and engaged (Shaban, 2019). Therefore, it is imperative that scholars explore the different considerations which may determine

JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT @ 485

consumer responses to advertisements on digital platforms such as Facebook. Such data establish a foundation for closer examination of which specific personality applies to message delivery and audience segmentation strategies in social media. The following sections provide a discussion of the Big Five personality traits and its potential influence on consumer responses to social media advertisements.

Extroversion

Extraversion as a trait can play a role in predicting users' behavior on social media (Winter et al., 2014). Extraverts are more likely to be frequent users of social media and display higher engagement with Facebook (Correa, Hinsley, & De Zuniga, 2010). Additionally, Facebook users are more likely to be extraverts compared to nonusers (Ryan & Xenos, 2011). More importantly, extraversion appears to predict advertisement evoked feels and subsequent attitudes (Mooradian, 1996). Research also shows that extraversion moderates the relationship between consumers' general atti­ tude toward advertising on their attitude toward online advertising (Souiden, Chtourou, & Korai, 2017). With this in mind, there is evidence to suggest that extraversion is positively associated with consumer attitudes. Thus, this research predicts:

H I: Higher levels (vs. lower levels) of extraversion will have a positive influence on a) advertisement attitude, b) brand attitude, c) purchase intention, and d) eWOM of social media advertisements.

Conscientiousness

Conscientious consumers are motivated to make functional consumption choices based on rational comparisons between brands on objective mar­ keting criteria (e.g., bargain shopping, product research) (Guido, 2006 ; Mooradian & Olver, 1997). Though conscientiousness has not been found to be positively related to social media use (Ryan & Xenos, 2011 ), other research shows equivocal evidence (e.g., Wang, Jackson, Zhang, & Su, 2012). Conscientious people who do spend time on social media may respond positively to advertisements that showcase functional choices in line with their personality trait. Formally:

H2: Higher levels (vs. lower levels) of conscientiousness will have a positive influence on a) advertisement attitude, b) brand attitude and c) purchase intention and d) eWOM of social media advertisements.

Openness to experience

Openness to experience has been found to be associated with socia l net­ working site (SNS) use (Muscanell & Guadagno, 2012) as it entices people

486 @ N. A. DODOO AND C. M. PADOVANO

who are open to experiences (Correa et al., 2010). Empirical evidence sug­ gests that openness to experience directly influences brand affect, which consequently impacts loyalty attitude and purchase intention (Matzler et al., 2006). Additionally, openness to experience affects advertisement atti­ tudes (Black et al., 2010), online purchase willingness (Bosnjak, Galesic, & Tuten, 2007) and consumer engagement (ill Islam, Rahman, & Hollebeek, 2017). Open individuals are more inclined to entertain new ideas and sensi­ tive to esthetics (Matzler et al., 2006) (i.e., in the form of targeted social media advertisements and visuals), so they may be more likely to find these advertisements as persuasive compared to closed individuals who are not as receptive to unconventional ideas. Therefore, it is expected that:

H3: Higher levels (vs. lower levels) of openness to experience will have a positive influence on a) advertisement attitude, b) brand attitude, c) purchase intention, and d) eWOM of social media advertisements.

Neuroticism

It has been suggested that neurotics find the Internet to be a place they can situate their real self (Amichai-Hamburger, Wainapel, & Fox, 2002). N euroticism is central to and a predictor of SNS use and engagement (Blackwell, Leaman, Tramposch, Osborne, & Liss, 2017 ; Ross et al., 2009 ; Ul Islam et al., 2017). Additionally, empirical evidence indicates that neur­ oticism does influence consumer responses to advertisements (Mooradian, 1996; Mowen et al., 2004; Orth, Malkewitz, & Bee, 2010). For instance, Orth e t al. (2010) discovered that neuroticism was a positive predictor of fear response to advertisements that focused on inattentive driving. For advertisements that are targeted toward neurotic individuals to appeal to facets of their personality (e.g., messages designed to lessen anxiety or inse­ curity), these individuals may be more responsive to such advertisements on social media. Formally:

H4: Higher (vs. lower levels) of neuroticism will have a positive influence on a)

advertisement attitude, b) brand attitude and c) purchase intention and d) eWOM of social media ads.

Regulatory focus theory and personality-based consumerism

Regulatory Focus Theory (RFT) (Higgins, 1997) posits that individuals' choices may be based on two discrete modes/goals that exist and arise out of diverse motivations or needs (Park & Morton, 2015). Individuals can either direct their attention toward the attainment of ideals (promotion

focus) and gains or the averting of losses (prevention focus) (Werth & Foerster, 2007 ). Regulatory focus does affect consumer behavior in a num­ ber of ways (e.g.,Dodoo & Wu, 2019 ; Kim, 2020). For instance, consumers'

JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT @ 487

regulatory goals influence their evaluation of products and their brand choices (Wang & Lee, 2006). Additionally, the effectiveness of an appeal that highlights the achievement of prevention or promotion goals differs based on the approach (Lee & Aaker, 2004). Herzenstein, Posavac and Brak.us' (2007 ) study which explored consumers' self-regulation and its role in their purchase likelihood of new products found that consumers who are more promotion-oriented have a higher probability of adopting new products than prevention-oriented consumers. Based on prior research, it is reasonable to believe that motivations underlying an individual's personal­ ity may produce different responses to messages that highlight promotion or prevention focus orientations which likewise espouse varying motiv­ ational goals.

Generally, extraversion is ascribed to the regulatory function that allows actions or behaviors that are reward- and approach-oriented (Bogg & Vo, 2014). In comparison, conscientious individuals who have a tendency toward prudence (Mondak & Halperin, 2008) are more avoidance-oriented, which aligns with the RTF prevention-focus orientation. Previous research suggests that when a persuasive message is aligned with consumption goals, individuals will assign more effort to processing the message than when it is not (Nan, 2008).

Because openness to experience suggests that individuals are open to new opportunities, the trait of openness may be ascribed to the regulatory function that allows actions or behaviors that are reward- and approach­ oriented (Bogg & Vo, 2014). In comparison, neurotic individuals who have a tendency toward insecurity may be more avoidance-oriented, which aligns with the RTF prevention focus orientation. Neurotics may be more inclined toward safety and security which may appease their anxiety or insecurity especially when it comes to goals or products. In summary, each personality trait outlined earlier may elicit different responses that are an upshot of the type of regulatory focus highlighted in a social media ad.

An important aspect of the conversation on consumer responses to social media messages is the degree of influence that consumers' needs play in their consumption of the products and media messages (Batra & Ahtola, 1991; Crowley, Spangenberg, & Hughes, 1992; Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982). There is a general acceptance that products satisfy both hedonic needs-or those purchases made for "the sensation derived from the experience of using the products"-and utilitarian needs-purchases made because of "the functions performed by the product" (Voss, Spangenberg, & Grohmann, 2003, p. 310). Researchers suggest that indi­ viduals may have a transformational reason (i.e. , promotion focus) for using the product under conditions of hedonic product consumption (e.g., the pursuit of enjoyment or pleasure). Alternatively, utilitarian

488 @ N. A. DODOO AND C. M. PADOVANO

product consumption occurs as a result of an informational motive, with the goal of evading a specific problem (i.e., prevention focus) (Micu & Chowdhury, 2010).

Conceivably, consumers who fall on the higher end of the spectrum for specific personality traits may be more inclined toward hedonic products and eschew more utilitarian products. Matzler et al. 's study (2006) which looked at the relationship between personality traits and hedonic value found that the personality traits of extraversion and openness to experience were positively related to hedonic product value. Individuals who are on the high end of openness and lower ends of neuroticism may prefer mes­ sages that emphasize the hedonic advantages of a product or action (Chen & Lee, 2008). In contrast, highly neurotic individuals may be more inclined toward messages that stress the utilitarian advantages of a product since it may allay any anxiety and/or uncertainty about a product or action. In a similar vein, highly neurotic individuals may be more persuaded by mes­ sages that emphasize the avoidance of negative outcomes (prevention­ focus), which may tap into their need for security. Taken together, this research expects that :

HS: Consumers who score high (vs. low) on extraversion are more likely to have

more positive responses to a hedonic product appeal rather than a utilitarian product

appeal advertisement when the message is promotion- focused.

H6: Consumers who score high (vs . low) on conscientiousness are more likely to have significantly more positive responses and behavioral intentions towards a

utilitarian product rather than a hedonic product appeal advertisement when the

message is prevention-focused

H7: Consumers who score high (vs. low) on openness are more likely to have more positive responses to hedonic product appeal advertisement rather than a utilitarian

product appeal when the message is promotion-focused

HS: Consumers who score high (vs . low) on neuroticism are more likely to have significantly more positive responses and behavioral intentions towards a utilitarian

product appeal advertisement rather than a hedonic product appeal when the

message is prevention-focused

Method

Study design and sample

This research applies a 2 (regulatory focus: promotion or prevention) x 2 (product appeal: hedonic value or utilitarian value) x 2 (extraversion, con­ scientiousness, openness to experience and neuroticism: high or low) between-subjects design. The four personality traits examined were meas­ ured and treated as independent variables. Participants (U.S. based, social

JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT @ 489

media users) were recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), an avenue considered to be a valuable, commendable as well as more diverse method of data collection (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011) and paid for their participation.

Procedure

Participants were randomly assigned to one of four experimental message conditions according to a between-subject design. In each condition, per­ sonality traits were first assessed and then participants were presented with the advertisement stimuli designed to reflect a typical representation of a Facebook newsfeed ad. Then, participants provided responses to measures meant to capture their answers to the variables of interest and demographic information.

Stimuli

Participants in the promotion-focused, hedonic product appeal condition viewed an advertisement that read as «Greeyo greek yogurt is a simple low fat way to help promote digestion and strong bones. Achieve a strong immune system and attain a healthy weight." The hedonic appeal headline read as «Happiness in every serving ! " Participants in the promotion-focus, utilitarian product appeal condition saw a headline that read as «Thousands of probiotics in every serving" to reflect a utilitarian value. Participants in the prevention focus conditions viewed an advertisement that read as «Greeyo greek yogurt is a simple low fat way to help prevent indigestion and weak bones. A void a weak immune system and prevent weight gain." Participants in these conditions similarly saw an ad, which emphasizes the hedonic value of using the product «Happiness in every serving !" or the utilitarian value of using the product «Thousands of probi­ otics in every serving."

Measurement constructs

Participants' personality traits were measured using ten items ( Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003). Items include «I see myself as extraverted , enthusiastic,, and «I see myself as reserved, quiet." The personality traits were split at the median to create two subgroups (high and low) to allow for ease of interpretation of interactions (Iacobucci, Posavac, Kardes, Schneider, & Popovich, 2015).

Advertisement attitude was measured using items from (Kalyanaraman & Ivory, 2009). Examples of items anchors are unappealing/appealing, unin­ formative/informative and persuasive/unpersuasive (Cronbach's a = 95).

490 @ N. A. DODOO AND C. M. PADOVANO

Brand attitude was assessed using seven items (Li & Kalyanaraman, 2012). Item anchors include «appealing/unappealing and unat tractive/attractive (Cronbach's a = 96) . Purchase intentions were measured using four items (Sundar & Kalyanaraman, 2004). Items include «I am likely to try the prod­ uct featured in the ad," and «I am likely to buy the product featured in the ad" (Cronbach's a = 92). eWOM was measured using five items which included «I would like to post about this ad on Facebook" and «This ad is worth sharing with others on Facebook" (Kim, Jang, & Adler, 2015) ( Cronbach' s a = 97).

Po tential confounding variables such as product involvement and chronic regulatory focus were measured. Product involvement was measured using a ten-item seven-point semantic differential items (Zaichkowsky, 1994). Anchors for the items include «Matters to me/Doesn't matter" (Cronbach's a = 91). Participants' chronic regulatory focus was also measured (Higgins et al., 2001).

Results

Participants

A total of 700 participants were recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk and compensated for their participation in the study. Fifty-five participants who either failed to complete the questionnaire or failed the attention check were excluded from the analysis. In total, 645 responses were used for data analysis. Participants' ages ranged from 18 years to 65 years with 25-34 year olds accounting for 44.5% of the entire sample. Gender distribu­ tion was 55.3% females and 44.5% males. Racial/Ethnic distribution was 53.2% White, 19.2% American Indian or Alaska Native, 11.2% Asian, 7.4% Hispanic or Latino, 6.2% Black or African American and 2.6% Two or More Races. In terms of education, 41.9% were college graduates, 27.3% had some college/vocational/technical education, 15.7% had a graduate degree, 10 .4% were high school graduates and 4.2% had completed some graduate school.

Manipulation checks

Participants in the promotion focus condition rated the advertisement as more promotion focus (M = 5.34, SD = 1.04) than prevention focus (M = 4.99, SDo= 1.44), t (642) = 3.52), p =.000. Participants in ·the preven­ tion condition rated the advertisement as more prevention focus (M = 5.08, SD = 1.46) than promotion focus (M = 3.58, SDo= 1.48), t (642) = 12.91), p

=.000. Likewise, participants in utilitarian condition rated the advertise­ ment with a utilitarian product appeal as more utilitarian (M = 5.50,

JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT @ 491

Table 1 . Means and standard deviations (extraversi on ).

Dependent variable H igh extraversion Low extraversion

Advertisement attitude* 5 .29( 1 .2 1 ) 5 .03( 1 . 1 2) Brand attitude* 5 .54( 1 . 1 9) 5 .27( 1 . 1 3) Purchase intention* 4.97( 1 .35) 4.64( 1 .38) eWOM* 3 .47( 1 .76) 2.98( 1 . 55 )

Note: *p <.05.

SD = 1. 18) than hedonic (M = 5 .14, SD = 1.25), t (643) = 3. 70), p =.000. Participants rated the hedonic condition (M = 5.01) as more hedonic than

utilitarian (M = 4.83, SD = l .27), t (643) = 1.83),ap =.06.

Hypothesis tests

In support of Hypo·thesis 1, higher l evels (vs. lower l evels) of extraversion

had a positive influence on advertisement attitude, F (1, 643) = 7 .84, p <

.05, brand attitude, F( l , 643) = 8.30, p < .05, purchase intention F( l , 643)

= 8.42, p < .05 and eWOM F( l , 643) = 13.39, p < .001 (See Tabl e 1). In support of Hypothesis 2, higher l evels (vs. lower l evels) of conscien­

tiousness had a positive influence on advertisement attitude, F (1, 643) =

51.28, p < .000, brand attitude, F (1, 643) = 40, p < .000, and purchase

intention F ( 1, 643) = 27. 12, p < .000 (See Tabl e 2). In partial support of hypothesis 3, higher levels (vs. l ower l evels) of

openness to experience positively influenced advertisement attitude, F (1,

643) = 4.37, p < .04, brand attitude, F( l , 643) = 5.06, p < .03, purchase intention F( l , 643) = 4.00, p < .05. The exception was eWOM F( l, 643) =

0.18, ns which was insignificant (See Tabl e 3).

In support of hypothesis 4, higher l evels (vs. lower l evels) of neuroticism did have a positive influence on advertisement attitude, F (1, 643) = 18.48,

p < .000, brand attitude, F( l , 643) = 14.66, p < .000, purchase intention

F( l , 643) = 4.78, p < .05 and eWOM F( l , 643) = 5.42, p <.02 (See

Tablae 4). For hypothesis 5, a 2 x 2 x 2 factorial ANOVA revealed a 3-way inter­

action effect between extraversion, regulatory focus, and product appeal on

eWOM (F (1, 643) = 4. 11, p < 0.5). Interestingly, the results of a simple

main effects demonstrated that those who scored high in extraversion were

significantly more l ikely to engage in eWOM when exposed to a prevention

focused message with a utilitarian product appeal (Mutilitarian M = 3.98, SD

= 1.65) than a hedonic product appeal (Mhedonic =3.23, SD = 1.77). A 2 x

2 x 2 factorial ANCOVA reveal ed a significant 3-way interaction effect on

purchase intention (F (1, 643) = 4.40, p< .05). For purchase intention, the

results showed a similar pattern where those who scored high in extraver­

sion had significantly more purchase intention when exposed to a

492 @ N. A. DODOO AND C. M. PADOVANO

Table 2. Means and standard deviations (conscient iousness) .

Dependent variable H igh conscient iousness Low conscientiousness

Advertisement attitude* 5.45(1 . 1 1 ) 4.82( 1 . 1 2) Brand attitude* 5 .66(1 . 1 1 ) 5 . 1 0( 1 . 1 4) Purchase intention* 5.05(1 .39) 4.50( 1 .32) eWOM* 3 .32( 1 .77) 3 .00( 1 .5 1 )

Note: *p <.05.

Table 3. Means and standard deviati on s (openness to experience) .

Dependent variable High Openness Low Openness

Advertisement attitude* 5 .22(1 .26) 5.03( 1 . 06) Brand attitude* 5 .47( 1 .20) 5.27(1 . 1 1 ) Purchase intention* 4.87 ( 1 .43) 4.65( 1 . 3 1 ) eWOM 3. 1 6(1 .75) 3. 1 5 ( 1 .53)

Note: *p <.05.

Table 4. Means and standard deviation s (neuroticism).

Dependent variable High Neuroticism Low Neuroticism

Advertisement attitude* 5 .32( 1 . 1 9) 4.94( 1 .09) Brand attitude* 5 .55( 1 .20) 5 .20( 1 . 1 0) Purchase intention* 4.89(1 .40) 4.65( 1 .34) eWOM* 3 .3 1 ( 1 .73) 3 .0 1 ( 1 .55)

Note: *p <.05.

prevention focused message with a utilitarian product appeal (Mutilitarian

=5.33, SD = 1.07) than a hedonic product appeal (Mhedonic=4. 79, SD = 1.52). Thus, 5 was not supported as results showed the opposite of the pat­

tern predicted (see Figures 1 and 2). For hypothesis 6, a MANCOVA demonstrated that there were no signifi­

cant interaction effects between conscientiousness, regulatory focus and product appeal on attitudes toward the advertisement, F (1, 643) = .02, p >. l, brand attitude, F ( 1, 643) = .00, p >. l , purchase intention, F (1, 643) = .30, p >.1 and eWOM, F (1, 643)= .94, p >. l . Thus, H6 was

not supported. For hypothesis 7, a three-way MANCOVA reveal ed no significant

results for advertisement attitude F (1, 643) = .68, ns, brand attitude, F( l , 643) = 2.35, ns, and purchase intention F( l , 643) = 1.79, ns. There was a three way interaction on eWOM F( l , 643) = 3. 96, p <.05. A simpl e effects test demonstrated that those who scored high in openness were sig­

nificantly more l ikely to engage in eWOM when exposed to a promotion­ focused message when the product appeal was hedonic (Mhedonic =3.29, SD = 1.74) than util itarian ( (Mutilitarian M = 2.95, SD = 1.68). On the other hand, participants were more l ikely to engage in eWOM when exposed to a prevention-focused with a utilitarian product appeal (Mutilitarian M = 3.50, SD = 1.73) rather than a hedonic product appeal (Mhedonic M = 2.89, SD =

1.73) (see Figure 3). Therefore, H7 was partially supported.

JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT @ 493

High Extraversion

-Promotion� 3.6 ------�------- Focus

Focus

3

-Prevention� 3 .4

Hedonic ppeal Util itarian Appeal Figure 1 . Three-way interacti on effect between extraversion, regulatory focus and product

appea l on eWOM.

High Extraversion

5 .o1 =

·.:: 5 =

--Promotion

Focus

,,., e,:

--Preven t ion � 4.9 +----___::::,.....=---------

____.__________ _ Focus � 4.8

Hedonic Appeal t i l i tarian ppeal Figure 2. Three-way interacti on effect between extraversion, regulatory focus and product

appea l on purchase i ntention.

For hypothesis 8, a three-way MANCOVA revealed no significant results for advertisement attitude F (1, 643) = 1.76, ns, brand attitude, F( l , 643) = 1.15, ns, and purchase intention F( l , 643) = .06, ns. There was a three-way interaction on eWOM, F (1, 643) = 5. 3 3, p < .05. Participants who scored high in neuroticism were more likely to engage in eWOM when exposed to a prevention-focused message with a utilitar­ ian product appeal (Mutilitarian M = 3 .76, SD = 1.74) rather than a hedonic product appeal (Mhedonic M = 3 .18, SD = 1.67) (see Figure 4). Therefore, H8 was partially supported.

494 @ N. A. DODOO AND C. M. PADOVANO

High Openness to experience

3 .5 �---------.......----

3.4 -+---------------

3.3 3 .2 -+----------------

� 3 . 1

� 3 2.9 -+----�--------- 2.8 -+--------------

2.7 --+--------------

2.6 -+-------�-----�

-- Promotion Focus

-- Prevention Focus

Hedonic Appeal Uti l itarian Appeal Figure 3. Three-way i nteraction between openness to experience , regulatory focus and product

appeal on eWOM.

3 . 5 High Neuroticism

3 .4

3 . 3 -- Promotion

� 3 . 2 Focus

-- Preventi on 3 . I Focus

3

2 . 9

+--------------

Hedonic Appeal Utilitarian Appeal Figure 4. Three-way interaction between neurotici sm, regulatory focus an d product appeal

on eWOM.

Discussion

The objective of this study was to investigate the interaction between con­ sumers' personali ty traits and two distinctive message frames of regulatory

focus (i. e., promotion and prevention focus) and product appeal (hedonic and utilitarian). The resul ts support the prediction that high levels of extra­ version, conscientiousness, openness to experience and neuroticism would positively affect advertisement and brand a tti tude, purchase intention and eWOM. However, contrary to the expected proposition, consumers who

scored high in extraversion showed more favorable responses to a

JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT @ 495

prevention-focused message when the product appeal was utilitarian versus when exposed to a promotion-focused message. As expected, highly neur­ otic (open) individuals had more positive responses when exposed to a pre­ vention-focused (promotion-focused) message paired with a utilitarian (hedonic) appeal. The results offer interesting theoretical and practical perspectives.

Theoretical implications

The findings validate and echo previous explorations on the relevance of personality traits in determining consumers' responses to advertising mes­ sages to some extent (e.g., Clark & c;alb, 2014; Hirsh et al., 2012; Luchs & Mooradian, 2012, Dodoo & Wen, 2019 ). Furthermore, the research con­ firms the robustness of the use of the Big-Five as a useful framework for assessing how individual differences may influence how people process and respond to social media advertising. Much of the personality literature on consumer behavior is limited when it comes to its role in engendering con­ sumer responses to advertising and media content especially on social media Therefore, a modest contribution is made by this research in adding to current knowledge concerning the role of personality traits in consumer behavior. Specifically, it expands the use of the Big-Five personality frame­ work to include the differential effects personality traits may produce in the context of consumer attitudes and behavioral intentions toward social media advertising. Furthermore, this research contributes to the theoretical integration of personality research with RFT (see Lanaj, Chang, & Johnson, 2012) by showcasing how personality traits can be associated with different regulatory orientations.

Theoretically, the replication of the results of regulatory fit effects in this study is especially important when it comes to eWOM. Regulatory fit is the idea that compatibility between an individual's regulatory focus and the strategy for the pursuit of goals produces more favorable consumer responses (Lee & Aaker, 2004; Motyka et al., 2014). Within literature is evi­ dence that regulatory fit does unmistakably influence consumers' evalua­ tions as well as their behavioral intentions (see Motyka et al., 2014). Even more pertinent, regulatory fit has been confirmed to enhance the gener­ ation of eWOM ( Shin, Song, & Biswas, 2014). This study provides sub­ stantiation for the idea that highly open people and neurotics are more likely to engage in eWOM if the message strategy matches their regulatory tendency (i.e., promotion/hedonic vs. prevention/utilitarian respectively), thereby showcasing the importance of corresponding media messages to specific personality traits. The shift toward dialogic communication from 'the previously asymmetrical one, aided by the advent of social media,

496 @ N. A. DODOO AND C. M. PADOVANO

provides a good illustration of the importance of considering consumers' propensity to engage in eWOM. In general, consumers prefer eWOM and tend to find it more persuasive than brand-generated information (Lee, Rodgers, & Kim, 2009). Among the contributions of this research is the expansion of the utility of the RFT framework by accounting for personal­ ity traits and product appeals as valuable considerations in the effectiveness of messages framed to highlight specific regulatory focus goals. The study accomplishes this outcome via findings that support and expand the litera­ ture on the impact of regulatory fit on consumer behavior (Micu & Chowdhury, 2010; Werth & Foerster, 2007).

A noteworthy finding from the investigation is in the projections in con­ sumer behavior that can be gleaned based on the interaction between per­ sonality trait and regulatory focus. This research found that consumers who scored high in extraversion had more positive responses when the advertisement consisted of a prevention-focused message with a utilitarian product appeal. An alternative explanation for this result can be found in the concept of schematic advertisement incongruity. Schemata-the cogni­ tive structures that represent particular information about different stim­ uli-lead to the creation of expectations as individuals tend to be more attuned to information related to their schematic knowledge (Dimofte, Forehand, & Deshpande, 2003). Schema incongruity has been linked to engendering surprise (Meyer, Niepel, Rudolph, & Schiitzwohl, 1991) and influencing overall attention (see Dimofte et al., 2003). Drawing heavily on the underlying premise of schematic advertisement incongruity, it is plaus­ ible that information that is incongruent with personality traits (i.e., per­ sonality-message incongruency) may lead to the perception of novelty, which subsequently leads to the intention to engage in eWOM. Prior research suggests that information processing style varies based on person­ ality traits (Pacini & Epstein, 1999; Sojka & Giese, 2001). Because extraverts may be inclined to process information that is consistent with their schema (Rusting, 1998), the incongruency with the advertisement information may have elicited more focus thereby influencing eWOM. Certainly, these results demand further empirical investigation to assess underlying mecha­ nisms which may influence consumer responses to social media ads. Other theoretical frameworks (e.g., Elaboration Likelihood Model, Information Processing Styles) may be useful to consider when expanding the import of personality traits in consumer responses to social media ads.

Managerial implications

For practitioners, the results signal the importance of devoting attention to 'the role of personality traits in consumer responses to advertising messages

JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT @ 497

particularly when it comes to personalized messages on social media. Ample empirical evidence indicates that advertising effectiveness is enhanced when consumers are exposed to personalized advertising (e.g., Morrison, 2016; Tucker, 2014). With the growing emphasis on the use of personalization particularly in social media and the potential benefits of online personalization (Pappas et al. , 2017), the results suggest that person­ ality traits should be an important consideration when accounting for fac­ tors that could influence consumer responses to social media.

Social network advertising is a viable but less expensive option to trad­ itional media avenues (Jung, Shim, Jin, & Khang, 2016). Consumers also tend to believe recommendations from family and friends of earned media via social networks (Jung et al., 2016) further cementing the appeal of social networks. Furthermore, advertisers are able to better target their audience based on user data that social networks and consumers (sometimes willingly) provide. For instance, recent research suggests that just one "like" can be attributed to a Facebook user's personality and mass persuasion can occur with the use of psychological appeals (Matz, Kosinski, Nave, & Stillwell, 2017). However, Facebook's recent user data controversy has arguably brought the concern of misuse of user data to the forefront of the minds of many users. Facebook rolled out steps in the aftermath of the scandal aimed at protecting its users (Sherr, 2018). Advertisers must consider current con­ cerns about consumer privacy and data in their continued use of targeted advertising on social media in both message creation and delivery.

Because extraversion, conscientiousness, openness to experience and neuroticism have been linked to social media use (Correa et al., 2010 ; Ryan & Xenos, 2011), the results of this study's investigations suggest that there is value in accounting for personality traits in the creation of advertising messages on social media. This study substantiates the well accepted idea that consumer preferences should be regarded when creating products and that personality traits could influence receptivity toward media messages ( Moss 2017). The insights offered by this finding can grant advertisers knowledge to produce messages that deliberately activate this inconsistency between trait and message in an effort to influence consumer behavior both online and offline. For instance, for extraverts, advertisers should con­ sider employing message strategies that elicit elements of unexpectedness or surprise when encountered. Because personality traits can influence information processing, advertisers should endeavor to attract consumers' a ttention using such message elements (i.e., novelty) which may subse­ quently influence their engagement with the branded social media content. With the influx of advertising messages on social media, consumers' will­ ingness to engage in eWOM is an important factor that brands can and should encourage given the nature of social media to serve as an amplifier

498 @ N. A. DODOO AND C. M. PADOVANO

of consumer opinions. Social media provides not only a «viralit y" bu t also permanence with regards to consumer communication about brands ( Daugherty and Hoffman, 2014).

Limitation s a nd future research

This study acknowledges some limitations, which may serve as recommen­ dations for future research avenues. Specifically, as with many experimental studies, the use of an online experimental design constituted an artificial environment, which could not be controlled by the researcher. Another limitation was the use of the visual stimuli created to mimic a Facebook newsfeed ad. Contrary to how these stimuli were presented to participants, typical Facebook newsfeed advertisements do not appear in a vacuum. Thus, the artificial nature of the advertisement may limit the generaliza­ tions of the findings of this study. Future studies should explore the effect­ iveness of actual embedded advertisements on consumers' Facebook newsfeeds. This will inherently present a more natural environment through which findings can be more generalizable. Whereas this study focused on the Big -Five personality framework as an important determin­ ant of consumer responses to social media ads, there are other personality traits (e.g., need for cognition) which may present differential effects on consumer responses to social media advertisements. Future research can explore these other personality traits to broaden current knowledge on con­ sumer responses to social media advertising. Furthermore, the examination of more than one product to determine whether the results found in this study holds across different product categories is an avenue for future research.

References

Alhabash, S., Almutairi, N., Lou, C., & Kim, W. (201 9) . Pathways to virality:

Psychophysiological responses preceding likes, shares, comments, and status updates on

Facebook. Media Psychology, 22(2) , 196-21 6. doi: 10. 1 080/ 1521 3269.201 7. 14 16296 Amichai-Hamburger, Y. , Wainapel, G., & Fox, S. (2002). On the Internet no one knows

I'm an introvert": Extroversion, neuroticism, and Internet interaction. Cyberpsychology &

Behavior, 5(2) , 125- 1 28. doi: 1 0. 1089/1 094931 02753770507 Anaza, . A. (20 14) . Personality antecedents of customer citizenship behaviors in online

shopping situations. Psychology & Marketing, 31 (4), 25 1 -263. doi: 10 .1 002/mar.20692 Adi, D. (2017) . Does social media matter? Investigating the effect of social media features

on consumer attitudes. Journal of Promotion Managemen t, 23(4) , 52 1-539. doi : 1 0. 1080/

10496491 .201 7. 1297974

Balaji, M. S., & Raghavan, S. (201 1) . Communicating brand personality: The moderating

role of human personality. Grea t Lakes Herald, 5(2), 24-36.

JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT @ 499

Batra, R. , & Ahtola, 0. T. ( 1991 ). Meas uring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of con­

sumer attitudes. Marketing Letters, 2(2) , 159- 170. doi: 1 0. 1007/BF00436035 Black, I. R., Organ, G. C., & Morton, P. {20 10) . The effect of personality on response to

sexual appeals. European Journal of Marketing, 44(9/10), 1453-1 477. doi: 1 0. 1 1 08/

03090561 01.1062925 Blackwell, D., Leaman, C., Tramposch, R., Osborne, C., & Liss, M. (20 17) . Extraversion,

neuroticism, attachment s tyle and fear of missing out as predictors of social media use

and addiction. Personality and Individual Differences, 1 1 6, 69-72. doi: 10 .1 01 6/j .paid.20 17.

04.039 Blachnio, A., Przepiorka, A. , & Rudnicka, P. {20 13). Psychological determinants of using

Facebook: A research review. International Journal of Human-Computer In teraction,

29( 1 1 ), 775-787. doi :1 0. 1080/1 044731 8.20 13.780868 Bogg, T., & Vo, P. T. (20 14). Openness , neuroticism, conscientiousness, and family health

and aging concerns interact in the prediction of health-related Internet searches in a rep­

resentative US sample. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 370. 1-10. doi :1 0.3389/fpsyg.20 14 .

00370 Bosnjak, M., Galesic, M., & Tuten, T. (2007). Personality determinants of online shopping:

Explaining online purchase intentions using a hierarchical approach. Journal of B usiness

Research, 60(6), 597-605. doi: 10. 1 01 6/j .jbusres.2006.06.008 Buhrmester, M. D., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (201 1) . Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new

source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6( 1 ) ,

3-5. doi: 10 .1 177/ 174569 16 10393980 Chen, S . H., & Lee, K. P. (2008). The role of personality traits and perceived values in per­

suasion: An elaboration likelihood model perspective on online shopping. Social

Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 36( 1 0), 1 379-1 399. doi: 10 .2224/sbp.

2008.36. 10.1 379 Cheung, M. C., Chan, A. S., Han, Y. M., Sze, S. L., & Fan, N. H. (20 13) . Differential effects

of Chinese women's sexual self-schema on responses to sex appeal in advertising. Journal

of Promotion Management, 1 9(3), 373-391 . doi :1 0. 1080/1 049649 1 .20 13.787382 Clark, L, & C,:alh, L. (201 4) . Personality types and Facebook advertising: An exploratory

study. Jo urnal of Direct, Data and Digi tal Marketing Practice, 15(4), 327-336. doi: 10 .

1057 /dddmp.20 14.25 Correa, T., Hinsley, A. W., & De Zuniga, H. G. (20 10) . Who interacts on the Web?: The

intersection of users' personality and social media use. Computers in Human Behavior,

26(2), 247-253. doi: 10. 1 01 6/j .chb.2009.09.003 Crowley, A. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Hughes, K R. ( 1992). Measuring the hedonic and

utilitarian dimensions of atti tudes toward product categories. Marketing Letters, 3(3) ,

239-249. doi: 10 .1 007/BF009941 32 Daugherty, T., & Hoffman, E. (20 14). eWOM and the importance of capturing consumer

attention within social media. Journal of Marketing Comm unications, 20( 1-2), 82-102.

doi : l 0. 1080/1 3527266.20 13.797764 De Keyzer, F., Dens, N., & De Pelsmacker, P. (20 15). Is this for me? How consumers

respond to personalized advertising on social network sites. Journal of Interactive

Advertising, 15(2), 124- 134. doi:1 0. 1080/ 152520 19 .201 5. 1082450 Dimofte, C. V., Forehand, M. R., & Deshpande, R. (2003) . Ad schema incongruity as

elicitor of ethnic self-awareness and differential advertising response. Jo urnal of

Advertising, 32(4), 7- 17. doi :1 0. 1080/009 13367.2003. 1 0639 142

500 @ N. A. DODOO AND C. M. PADOVANO

Dodoo, N. A. , & Wu, L (20 19) . Regulatory focus and choice: The impact of control per­

ceptions on advertising effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Comm unications, 1 -24. doi : 10. 1 080/ 13527266.201 9. 1671 477.

Dodoo, N. A., & Wen, J. (20 19) . A Path to Mitigating SNS Ad Avoidance: Tailoring

Messages to Individual Personality Traits. Jo urnal of Interactive Advertising, 1 9(2) , 1 1 6- 132 4. doi: 10 .1 080/ 152520 19.201 9. 1573 159

Duran, H.B. (201 8) . February 22). Consumers find personalized ads 'creepy,' but still want

meaningful interactions. Retrieved from http://www.alistdaily.com/technology/personal­ ized-advertising-creepy/.

Facebook NewsRoom (201 9) . Company information. Retrieved from http://newsroom.fu.

com/company-info/. Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big­

Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(6), 504-528. doi : 1 0. 10 16/

S0092-6566(03)00046- l Guido, G. (2006). Shopping motives, big five factors, and the hedonic/utilitarian shopping

value: An integration and factorial study. Innovative Marketing, 2(2) , 57-67. Herzenstein, M., Posavac, S . S ., & Brakus, J. J. (2007). Adoption of new and really new

products: The effects of self-regulation systems and risk salience. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(2), 251 -260. doi: 10. 1 509/jmkr.44.2.251

Higgins, E. T. ( 1 997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52( 1 2) , 1 280- 1300.

doi : 1 0. 1037 /0003-066X.52. 12 .1 280 Higgins, E.. T., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Idson, L. C., Ayduk, 0. N., & Taylor, A. (2001) .

Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus pre­

vention pride. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(1 ) , 3-23. doi:10. 1002/ejsp.27 Hirsh, J. B., Kang, S. K., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (20 12) . Personalized persuasion tailoring

persuas ive appeals to recipients' personality traits. Psychological Science, 23(6), 578-581 .

doi : 1 0. 1 1 77 /095679761 1436349 Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. ( 1 982). Hedonic consumption: Emerging concepts ,

methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46(3), 92-10 1 . doi: 1 0.2307/1 25 1707 Iacobucci, D., Posavac, S. S., Kardes, F. R., Schneider, M. J ., & Popovich, D. L. (20 15) .

Toward a more nuanced understanding of the statistical properties of a median split. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25( 4), 652-665. doi: 1 0. 10 16/j .jcps.201 4. 12 .002

Jung, J., Shim, S. W., Jin, H. S., & Khang, H. (20 16). Factors affecting attitudes and behav­

ioral intention towards social networking advertising: A case of Facebook users in South

Korea. International Journal of Advertising, 35(2), 248-265. doi :1 0. 1080/02650487.20 15. 1 0 14777

Kalyanaraman, S. , & Ivory, J . D. (2009). Enhanced information scent, selective discounting, or consummate breakdown: The psychological effects of web-based search results. Media

Psychology, 12(3), 295-31 9. doi: 10 .1 080/ 1521 3260903052232 Kim, D., Jang, S., & Adler, H. (20 15) . What drives cafe customers to spread eWOM?

Examining self-relevant value, quality value, and opinion leadership. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27(2), 261 -282. doi: 10 .1 108/IJCHM-

06-20 13-0269 Kao, D. T. (20 12). Exploring the effect of regulatory focus on ad attitudes: The moderating

roles of message sidedness and argument quality. In ternational Journal of Psychology, 47(2), 1 42-153. doi: 10. 1 080/00207594.201 l .628672

Kim, M. (2020). Determinants of Young Consumers' Attitude toward Mobile Advertising: The Role of Regulatory Focus. Journal of Promotion Managemen t, 26(2), 1 86-206. doi :

10. 1 080/ 10496491 .201 9. 1699623.

JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT @ 501

Lanaj , K., Chang, C. H., & Johnson, R. E. (20 12 ). Regulatory focus and work-re lated out­ comes: A review and meta-analysis. Psycho logical Bu lletin, 138(5), 998-1 034. doi : 1 0. 1037/ a0027723

Lee, A Y. , & Aaker, J. L (2004) . Bringing the frame into focus: The influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion. Jo urna l of Personality and Socia l Psychology, 86(2), 205-218. doi: 10. 1 037/0022-35 14.86.2.205

Lee, M., Rodgers, S., & Kim, M. (2009). Effects of valence and extremity of eWOM on atti­ tude toward the brand and website . Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 31 (2), 1 - 1 1 . doi : 1 0. 1080/1 0641 734.2009.1 0505262

Li, C., & Kalyanaraman, S. (20 12) . What if Web site editorial content and ads are in two different languages? A study of bilingual consumers' online information processing. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 1 1 (3), 1 98-206. doi: 10.1 002/cb. 1371

Lipsman, A., Mudd, D. , Rich, M., & Bruich, S . (201 2). The power of "like": How brands reach ( and influence) fans through social media marketing. Journal of Advertising Research, 52 ( 1 ), 40-52. doi: 10 .250 l /JAR-52- 1 -040-052

Luchs, M. G., & Mooradian, T. A. (20 12 ). Sex, personality, and sustainable consumer behavior: Elucidating the gender effect. Journal of Consumer Policy, 35( 1) , 1 27-144. doi : 10. 1 007/sl 0603-01 .1 -9 179-0

Mango ld, W. G., & Faulds, D. J. (2009). Social media: The new hybrid element of the pro­ motion mix. Business Horizons, 52(4) , 357-365. doi: 10 . 10 1 6/j .bushor.2009.03.002

Marshall, T . C . , Lefringhausen, K., & Ferenczi, . (20 15). The Big Five , self-esteem, and narcissism as predictors of the topics people write about in Facebook status updates . Persona lity and Individual Differences, 85, 35-40. doi : 1 0. 10 16/j .paid.201 5.04.039

Matz, S. C., Kosinski, M., Nave, G., & Stillwell, D. J. (20 17) . Psychological targeting as an effective approach to digital mass persuasion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1 1 4(48) , 1271 4- 12719. doi: 10 .1 073/pnas.1 71 0966 1 1 4

Matzler, K., Bidmon, S., & Grabner-Krauter, S. (2006). Individual determinants of brand affect: The role of the personality trai ts of extraversion and openness to experience . Journal of Product & Brand Management, 1 5(7) , 427-434. doi : 10. 1 108/106104206107 12801

Mehmetoglu, M. (20 12) . Personality effects on experiential consumption. Personality and Individual Differences, 52( 1 ) , 94-99. doi: 1 0. 1 0 16/j .paid.201 1 .09.008

Micu, C. C., & Chowdhury, T. G. (2010) . The effect of message's regulatory focus and product type on persuasion . Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 1 8(2), 1 81 -1 90. doi :10.2753/MTP1 069-66791 80206

Mondak, J. J., & Halperin, K. D. (2008) . A framework for the study of personality and pol­ itical behavior. British Jo urnal of Political Science, 38(2), 335-362.

Mooradian, T. A. ( 1996). Personality and ad-evoked feelings: The case for extraversion and neuroticism. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24(2), 99-109. doi :1 0. 1 1 77/ 0092070396242001

Mooradian, T. A., & Olver, J. M. ( 1997). I can't get no satisfaction:" The impact of person­ ality and emotion on postp urchase processes. Psychology and Marketing, 1 4(4), 379-393. doi : 1 0. 1002/(SICI ) l520-6793( 199707) 14:4 <379: :AID- MARS >3.0.CO;2-6

Morrison, K. (201 6, May 18) . Internet users want a more personalized ad experience (report) . Retrieved from h ttp://www.adweek.com/digital/in ternet-users-want-a-more-per­ sonalized-ad-experience-report/ .

Moss, G. (Ed.). (201 7) . Persona lity, design and marketing: matching design to customer per­ sonal preferences. New York, NY: Routledge.

Motyka, S., Grewal, D., Puccinelli , N. M., Roggeveen, A L, Avnet, T., Daryanto, A., . . .

Wetzels, M . (20 14) . Regulatory fit: A meta-analytic synthesis. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(3) , 394-410. doi: 10.1 01 6/j .jcps.20 13 .l 1 .004

502 @ N. A. DODOO AND C. M. PADOVANO

Mowen, J. C., Harris, E. G., & Bone, S. A. (2004). Personality traits and fear response to

print advertisements: Theory and an empirical study. Psycholo and Marketing, 21( 1 1 ) , gy

927-943. doi: 10 .1 002/mar.20040 Muscanell, N. L., & Guadag no, R. E. (2012) . Make new friends or keep the old: Gender

and personality differences in social networking use. Comp uters in Human Behavior,

28( 1) , 1 07-1 1 2. Meyer, W. U., Niepel, M., Rudolph, U., & Schiitzwohl, A. ( 1991 ) . An experimental analys is

of surprise. Cognition & Emotion, 5( 4), 295-31 1 . doi: 10. 1 080/02699939 1084 1 1 042 Myers, S. D. , Sen, S., & Alexandrov, A. (20 10) . The moderating effect of personality traits

on attitudes toward advertisements: A contingency framework. Managemen t &

Marketing, 5(3), 3-20. Nan, X. (2008). The pursuit of self-regulatory goals: How counterfactual thinking influences

advertising persuas iveness. Journal of Advertising, 37( 1 ) , 1 7-27. doi : 1 0.2753/JOA009 1-

3367370102 Orth, U. R., Malkewitz, K., & Bee, C. (20 10) . Gender and personality drivers of consumer

mixed emotional response to advertising. Jo urnal of Current Issues & Research in

Advertising, 32( 1 ) , 69-80. doi: 1 0. 1080/ 1064 1734.20 10. 10505276 Pacini, R., & Epstein , S . ( 1 999). The relation of rational and experiential information proc­

essing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon. Jo urnal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 76( 6), 972-987. doi :l 0. 1037 /0022-351 4.76.6.972 Pappas, I. 0., Kourouthanassis, P. E., Giannakos, M. ., & Chrissikopoulos, V. (20 17) .

Sense and sensibility in personalized e-commerce: How emotions rebalance the purchase

intentions of persuaded customers . Psychology & Marketing, 34(1 0), 972-986. doi: 10 .

1002/mar.2 1036 Park, S. Y. , & Morton, C. R. (20 15) . The role of regulatory focus, social distance, and

involvement in anti-high-risk drinking advertising: A construal- level theory perspective.

Journal of Advertising, 44(4), 338-348. doi: 10 .1 080/0091 3367.20 14. 1 00 1503 Phua, J., J in , S . V., & Kim, J. J. (20 17) . Gratifications of using Facebook, Twitter ,

lnstagram, or Snapchat to follow brands: The moderating effect of social comparison,

trust, tie strength, and network homophily on brand identification, brand engagement,

brand commitment, and membership intention. Telematics and Informatics, 34( 1 ) ,

41 2-424. doi: 10 .1 01 6/j .tele.20 16 .06.004 Ross, C., Orr, E. S., Sisic, M., Arseneault, J. M., Simmering, M. G., & Orr, R. R. (2009).

Personality and motivations associated wi th Facebook use. Computers in Human

Behavior, 25(2), 578-586. doi: 10 .1 0 16/j .chb.2008. 12.024 Rusting, C. L. ( 1998). Personality, mood, and cognitive processing of emotional informa­

tion: Three conceptual frameworks. Psychological B ulletin, 124(2), 165- 196. doi: 1 0. 1037 /

0033-2909.1 24.2.1 65 Ryan, T., & Xenos, S. (20 1 1 ) . Who uses Facebook? An investigation into the relationship

between the Big Five, shyness, narcissism, loneliness, and Facebook usage. Compu ters in

Human Behavior, 27(5) , 1658-1 664. doi: 10 .1 0 1 6/j .chb.20 1 1 .02.004 Seidman, G. (20 13) . Self-presentat ion and belonging on Facebook: How personality influen­

ces social media use and motivations. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(3),

402-407. doi: 10 .1 0l 6/j .paid20 12. 1 0.009 Shaban, H. (201 9, February 20). Digital advertising to surpass print and TV for the first

time, report says. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/201 9/02/

20/digi tal-advertising- surpass-print-tv-first-time-repo rt-says/?utm_term,,,_ 1331 67 4ab62a.

JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT @ 503

Sherr, I . (20 18, March 28). Facebook, Cambridge Analytica and data mining: What you need to know. Retrieved from https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-cambridge-analytica­ data-mining-and-trump-what-you-need-to-know/.

Shin, D., Song, J. H., & Biswas, A. (20 14). Electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) generation in new media platforms: The role of regulatory focus and collective dissonance. Marketing Letters, 25(2), 153-165. doi: 10 . 1 007/sl l002-0 13-9248-z

Soj ka, J. Z., & Giese, J. L (2001) . The influence of personality traits on the processing of visual and verbal information. Marketing Letters, 12( 1) , 9 1- 106.

Souiden, N ., Chtourou, S., & Korai, B. (201 7). Consumer attitudes toward online advertis­ ing: The moderating role of personality. Journal of Promotion Management, 23(2) , 207-227. doi: 10 .1 080/ 10496491 .201 6. 1267676

Stiglbauer, B., & Kovacs, C. (20 19) . Need for un iqueness determines reactions to web-based per­ sonalized advertising. Psychological Reports, 122( 1), 246-267. doi:1 0. 1 1 77/00332941 1 8756353

Sundar, S. S., & Kalyanaraman, S. (2004). Arousal, memory, and impression-formation effects of animation speed in web advertising. Journal ofAdvertising, 33( 1) , 7- 17. doi: 10 . 1080/009 13367.2004.l 0639 152

Tan, W. K. , & Yang, C. Y. (20 14) . Internet applications use and personality. Telematics and Informatics, 31 ( 1) , 27-38. doi: 10 . 101 6/j . tele.20 13.02.006

Tucker, C. E. (201 4) . Social Networks, Personalized Advertising, and Privacy Controls. Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (5), 546-562. doi: 10. 1 509/jmr. 10.0355

Ul Islam, J., Rahman, Z., & Hollebeek, L. D. (20 17) . Personality factors as predictors of online consumer engagement: An emp irical investigation . Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 35(4), 5 10-528. doi: 10 .1 108/MIP- 1 0-201 6- 01 93

Van Dijck, J . (20 13). You have one identity': Performing the self on Facebook and Linkedln. Media, Cu lture & Society, 35(2), 1 99-2 15. doi :1 0. 1 1 77/0 16344371 2468605

Voss, K. E., Spangenberg, E. R, & Grohmann, B. (2003). Measuring the hedonic and utili­ tarian dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(3), 3 10-320. doi :1 0. 1509/jmkr.40.3.31 0. 19238

Wang, J., & Lee, A. Y. (2006). The Role of Regulatory Focus in Preference Construction. Journal of Marketing Research, 43( 1) , 28-38. doi: 10 .1 509/jmkr.43. l .28

Wang, J . L, Jackson, L A, Zhang, D. J . , & Su, Z. Q. (20 12). The relationsh ips among the Big Five Personality factors , self-esteem, narcissism, and sensation- seeking to Chinese University students' uses of social networking sites (SNSs). Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 231 3-2319. doi: 10. 1 01 6/j .chb.201 2.07.001

Werth, L, & Foerster, J . (2007). How regulatory focus influences consumer behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37( 1 ), 33-51 . doi: 1 0. 1002/ejsp.343

Winter, S., Neubaum, G., Eimler, S. C., Gordon, V., Theil, J., Herrmann, J., . . . Kramer, N. C. (20 14). Another brick in the Facebook wall-How personality traits relate to the content of status updates. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 1 94-202. doi :1 0. 10 16/j.chb. 20 14.0 1 .048

Yu, J. H., & Cude, B. (2009). Hello, Mrs. Sarah Jones ! We recommend this product! 'Consumers' perceptions about personalized advertising: Comparisons across advertise­ ments delivered via three different types of media. In ternational Jo urnal of Consumer Studies, 33( 4), 503-51 4. doi: 10 .l l l l/j.l 470-643 1.2009.00784.x

Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1 994). The personal involvement inventory: Reduction, revision, and application to advertising. Journal of Advertising, 23(4), 59-70. doi: 10 .1 080/00913367. 1943.1 0673459