Name Similarity Encourages Generosity: A Field Experiment in Email Personalization

References

• Alter AL (2009) Scrutinize thy neighbor: Ingroup polarization inresponse to confirmed and violated interpersonal expectations. Dissertation, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ. Google Scholar
• Anand BN, Shachar R (2009) Targeted advertising as a signal. Quant. Marketing Econom. 7(3):237–266.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anderson BA, Laurent PA, Yantis S (2011) Value-driven attentional capture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108(25):10367–10371.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anderson ET, Simester DI (2004) Long-run effects of promotion depth on new vs. established customers: Three field studies. Marketing Sci. 23(1):4–20.Link, Google Scholar
• Anderson SP, Ciliberto F, Liaukonyte J, Renault R (2016) Push-me pull-you: Comparative advertising in the OTC analgesics industry. RAND J. Econom. 47(4):1029–1056.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ansari A, Mela CF (2003) E-customization. J. Marketing Res. 40(2):131–145.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anseel F, Duyck W (2008) Unconscious applicants: A systematic test of the name-letter effect. Psych. Sci. 19(10):1059–1061.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arora N, Dreze X, Ghose A, Hess JD, Iyengar R, Jing B, Joshi Y, et al.. (2008) Putting one-to-one marketing to work: Personalization, customization, and choice. Marketing Lett. 19(3–4):305–321.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Awad NF, Krishnan MS (2006) The personalization privacy paradox: An empirical evaluation of information transparency. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 30(1):13–28.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bargh JA (1982) Attention and automaticity in the processing of self-relevant information. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 43(3):425–436.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bertrand M, Karlan D, Mullainathan S, Shafir E, Zinman J (2010) What’s advertising content worth? Evidence from a consumer credit marketing field experiment. Quart. J. Econom. 125(1):263–305.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bleier A, Eisenbeiss M (2015) Personalized online advertising effectiveness: The interplay of what, when, and where. Marketing Sci. 34(5):669–688.Link, Google Scholar
• Braun M, Bonfrer A (2011) Scalable inference of customer similarities from interactions data using Dirichlet processes. Marketing Sci. 30(3):513–531.Link, Google Scholar
• Brendl CM, Chattopadhyay A, Pelham BW, Carvallo M (2005) Name letter branding: Valence transfers when product specific needs are active. J. Consumer Res. 32(3):405–415.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burger JM, Messian N, Patel S, del Prado A, Anderson C (2004) What a coincidence! The effects of incidental similarity on compliance. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 30(1):35–43.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Byrne DE (1971) The Attraction Paradigm (Academic Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Campbell MC, Kirmani A (2000) Consumers’ use of persuasion knowledge: The effects of accessibility and cognitive capacity on perceptions of an influence agent. J. Consumer Res. 27(1):69–83.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chandler J, Griffin TM, Sorensen N (2008) In the “I” of the storm: Shared initials increase disaster donations. Judgment Decision Making 3(5):404–410.Google Scholar
• Cherry EC (1953) Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one and with two ears. J. Acoustical Soc. Amer. 25(5):975–979.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cox DR, Snell EJ (1989) The Analysis of Binary Data, 2nd ed. (Chapman and Hall, London).Google Scholar
• DellaVigna S, List JA, Malmendier U (2012) Testing for altruism and social pressure in charitable giving. Quart. J. Econom. 127(1):1–56.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eastlack JOJ, Rao AG (1989) Advertising experiments at the Campbell Soup Company. Marketing Sci. 8(1):57–71.Link, Google Scholar
• Esterl M (2014) “Share a Coke” credited with a pop in sales: Marketing campaign that put first names on bottles reversed downward slide. Wall Street Journal (September 25), https://www.wsj.com/articles/share-a-coke-credited-with-a-pop-in-sales-1411661519.Google Scholar
• Evergage (2018) 2018 trends in personalization. Accessed May 9, 2018, https://www.evergage.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Evergage-2018-Trends-in-Personalization-Survey.pdf.Google Scholar
• Friestad M, Wright P (1994) The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. J. Consumer Res. 21(1):1–31.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Galak J, Small D, Stephen AT (2011) Microfinance decision making: A field study of prosocial lending. J. Marketing Res. 48:S130–S137.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gneezy U, Keenan EA, Gneezy A (2014) Avoiding overhead aversion in charity. Science 346(6209):632–635.Google Scholar
• Goel S, Goldstein D (2013) Predicting individual behavior with social networks. Marketing Sci. 33(1):1–157.Google Scholar
• Goldfarb A, Tucker C (2011) Online display advertising: Targeting and obtrusiveness. Marketing Sci. 30(3):389–404.Link, Google Scholar
• Guéguen N, Pichot N, Le Dreff G (2005) Similarity and helping behavior on the web: The impact of the convergence of surnames between a solicitor and a subject in a request made by email. J. Appl. Soc. Psych. 35:423–429.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hauser JR, Urban GL, Liberali G, Braun M (2009) Website morphing. Marketing Sci. 28(2):202–223.Link, Google Scholar
• Jones JT, Pelham BW, Carvallo M, Mirenberg MC (2004) How do I love thee? Let me count the Js: Implicit egotism and interpersonal attraction. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 87(5):665–683.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jones JT, Pelham BW, Mirenberg MC, Hetts JJ (2002) Name letter preferences are not merely mere exposure: Implicit egotism as self-regulation. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 38(2):170–177.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Khan R, Lewis M, Singh V (2009) Dynamic customer management and the value of one-to-one marketing. Marketing Sci. 28(6):1063–1079.Link, Google Scholar
• Kim T, Barasz K, John LK (2019) Why am I seeing this ad? The effect of ad transparency on ad effectiveness. J. Consumer Res. 45(5):906–932.Crossref, Google Scholar
• King J (2018) Consumers don’t want personalization to get too personal. eMarketer (April 26), https://www.emarketer.com/content/consumers-don-t-want-personalization-to-get-too-personal.Google Scholar
• Kramer T, Spolter-Weisfeld S, Thakkar M (2007) The effect of cultural orientation on consumer responses to personalization. Marketing Sci. 26(2):246–258.Link, Google Scholar
• Lambrecht A, Tucker C (2013) When does retargeting work? Information specificity in online advertising. J. Marketing Res. 50(5):561–576.Crossref, Google Scholar
• List JA (2011) The market for charitable giving. J. Econom. Perspect. 25(2):157–180.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Loewenstein G, Small DA (2007) The scarecrow and the tin man: The vicissitudes of human sympathy and caring. Rev. General Psych. 11(2):112–126.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Maner JK, Gailliot MT, DeWall CN (2007) Adaptive attentional attunement: Evidence for mating-related perceptual bias. Evolution Human Behav. 28(1):28–36.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Motoki K, Saito T, Nouchi R, Kawashima R, Sugiura M (2018) Tastiness but not healthfulness captures automatic visual attention: Preliminary evidence from an eye-tracking study. Food Quality Preference 64:148–153.Google Scholar
• Murthi BPS, Sarkar S (2003) The role of the management sciences in research on personalization. Management Sci. 49(10):1344–1362.Link, Google Scholar
• Nelson P (1974) Advertising as information. J. Political Econom. 82(4):729–754.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Newman RS (2005) The cocktail party effect in infants revisited: Listening to one’s name in noise. Developmental Psych. 41(2):352–362.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nuttin JM (1985) Narcissism beyond Gestalt and awareness: The name letter effect. Eur. J. Soc. Psych. 15(3):353–361.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Oates K, Wilson M (2002) Nominal kinship cues facilitate altruism. Proc. Biol. Sci. 269(1487):105–109.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pay K (2017) Email marketing & beyond: Global industry benchmarks. Accessed July 7, 2017, https://www.getresponse.com/resources/reports/email-marketing-and-beyond-global-industry-benchmarks-2017.Google Scholar
• Pelham BW, Carvallo M (2015) When Tex and Tess carpenter build houses in Texas: Moderators of implicit egotism. Self Identity 14(6):692–723.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pelham BW, Carvallo M, Jones JT (2005) Implicit egotism. Current Directions Psych. Sci. 14(2):106–110.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pelham BW, Mirenberg MC, Jones JT (2002) Why Susie sells seashells by the seashore: Implicit egotism and major life decisions. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 82(4):469–487.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Penny J (2017) Personal communication, July 26.Google Scholar
• Ratcliff C (2015) How digital transformation improved Marie Curie’s marketing strategy. Econsultancy (January 27), https://econsultancy.com/blog/66018-how-digital-transformation-improved-marie-curie-s-marketing-strategy/.Google Scholar
• Rossi PE, McCulloch RE, Allenby GM (1996) The value of purchase history data in target marketing. Marketing Sci. 15(4):321–340.Link, Google Scholar
• Sahni NS (2015) Effect of temporal spacing between advertising exposures: Evidence from online field experiments. Quant. Marketing Econom. 13(3):203–247.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sahni NS, Wheeler SC, Chintagunta P (2018) Personalization in email marketing: The role of noninformative advertising content. Marketing Sci. 37(2):236–258.Link, Google Scholar
• Sahni NS, Zou D, Chintagunta PK (2017) Do targeted discount offers serve as advertising? Evidence from 70 field experiments. Management Sci. 63(8):2688–2705.Link, Google Scholar
• Simmons JP, Nelson LD, Simonsohn U (2012) A 21 word solution. Dialogue: Official Newslett. Soc. Personality Soc. Psych. 26(2):4–7.Google Scholar
• Simonsohn U (2011a) Spurious? Name similarity effects (implicit egotism) in marriage, job, and moving decisions. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 101(1):1–24.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simonsohn U (2011b) Spurious also?: Name-similarity effects (implicit egotism) in employment decisions. Psych. Sci. 22(8):1087–1089.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Small DA, Simonsohn U (2008) Friends of victims: Personal experience and prosocial behavior. J. Consumer Res. 35(3):532–542.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Song JH, Kim HY, Kim S, Lee SW, Lee JH (2016) Effects of personalized email messages on privacy risk: Moderating roles of control and intimacy. Marketing Lett. 27(1):89–101.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sudhir K, Roy S, Cherian M (2016) Do sympathy biases induce charitable giving? The effects of advertising content. Marketing Sci. 35(6):849–869.Link, Google Scholar
• Summers CA, Smith RW, Reczek RW (2016) An audience of one: Behaviorally targeted ads as implied social labels. J. Consumer Res. 43(1):156–178.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tajfel H, Turner J (1979) An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. Austin WG, Worchel S, eds. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (Brooks/Cole, Monterey, CA), 33–37.Google Scholar
• Tucker CE (2014) Social networks, personalized advertising, and privacy controls. J. Marketing Res. 51(5):546–562.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Urban GL, Liberali GG, MacDonald E, Bordley R, Hauser JR (2014) Morphing banner advertising. Marketing Sci. 33(1):27–46.Link, Google Scholar
• Wattal S, Telang R, Mukhopadhyay T, Boatwright P (2012) What’s in a “name”? Impact of use of customer information in email advertisements. Inform. Systems Res. 23(3-part-1):679–697.Google Scholar
• White TB, Zahay DL, Thorbjørnsen H, Shavitt S (2008) Getting too personal: Reactance to highly personalized email solicitations. Marketing Lett. 19(1):39–50.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhang J (2011) The perils of behavior-based personalization. Marketing Sci. 30(1):170–186.Link, Google Scholar
• Zhang J, Krishnamurthi L (2004) Customizing promotions in online stores. Marketing Sci. 23(4):561–578.Link, Google Scholar