The effects of personalized product recommendations on advertisement response rates: The "Try this. It works!" technique

Journal of Consumer Psychology

Volumn 14, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 271-279

  Howard, Daniel J ^a,b   Kerin, Roger A ^a  

^a SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 3042579460     PISSN: 10577408     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15327663jcp1403_8     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal and curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill.
2. Burnkrant, R. E., & Unnava, R. (1989). Self-referencing: A strategy for increasing processing of message content. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 1218-1230.
3. Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic.
4. Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752-766.
5. Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. Zanna, J. Olson, & C. Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario Symposium (pp. 3-39). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
6. Chaiken, S., Lieberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp.212-252). NewYork: Guilford.
7. Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 460-474.
8. Debono, K. G., & Harnish, R. J. (1988). Source expertise, source attractiveness, and the processing of persuasive information: A functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 541-546.
9. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
10. Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Chaiken, S. (1978). Causal inferences about communicators and their effect on opinion change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 424-435.
11. Harkins, S. G., & Petty, R. E. (1987). Information utility and the multiple source effect.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 260-268.
12. Heesacker, M., Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1983). Field dependence and attitude change: Source credibility can alter persuasion by affecting message relevant thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 653-666.
13. Kiesler, C. A., & Kiesler, S. B. (1969). Conformity. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
14. Kotler, P. (2000). Marketing management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
15. Miniard, P., Bhatla, S., Lord, K. R., Dickson, P. R., & Unnava, H. R. (1991). Picture based persuasion processes and the moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 92-107.
16. Nash, E. (2000). Direct marketing. New York: McGraw-Hill.
17. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
18. Petty, R. E., Wells, G. L., Heesacker, M., Brock, T. C., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1983). The effects of recipient posture in persuasion: A cognitive response analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 209-222.
19. Puckett, J. M., Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T. & Fisher, D. L. (1983). The relative impact of age and attractiveness stereotypes on persuasion. Journal of Gerontology, 38, 340-343.
20. Rateshwar, S., & Chaiken, S. (1991). Comprehension's role in persuasion: The case of its moderating effect on the persuasive impact of source cues. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 52-62.
21. Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R., & Fazio, R. H. (1992). The accessibility of source likeability as a determinant of persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 19-25.
22. Worth, L. T., & Mackie, D. M. (1987). Cognitive mediation of positive affect in persuasion. Social Cognition, 5, 76-94.