Abstract
AbstractDespite disliking behavior tracking for marketing, consumers actively adopt technological behavior tracking products. Our research examines the psychological factors driving this adoption and the conditions under which it occurs. We theorize that consumers prefer technological (versus human-based) tracking, because human-free tracking reduces concerns about negative judgment. However, we propose that this preference is weakened, and even reversed, when immediate judgment concerns are less salient than the need for feedback from relevant humans such as when consumers pursue performance (versus personal) goals. Across four preregistered studies (n = 2,601), we found that consumers generally prefer technological (versus human) tracking due to lower negative judgment concerns (Studies 1 and 2A). Consumers’ gender, goal satisfaction, and self-efficacy influenced this effect (Study 2B). However, preference for technological tracking was reversed when consumers pursued performance goals (e.g., training for a public dance competition) versus personal goals (e.g., training to lose weight) (Study 3).
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference31 articles.
1. Achauer, H. (2023). Your next fitness coach could be a robot. The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/26/well/move/ai-fitness-trainer-coach.html
2. Acquisti, A., Brandimarte, L., & Loewenstein, G. (2020). Secrets and likes: the drive for privacy and the difficulty of achieving it in the digital age. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 30(4), 736–758.
3. Acquisti, A., John, L. K., & Loewenstein, G. (2012). The impact of relative standards on the propensity to disclose. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(2), 160–174.
4. Alreck, P. L., & Settle, R. B. (2007). Consumer reactions to online behavioural tracking and targeting. Journal of Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management, 15, 11–23.
5. Argo, J. J., Dahl, D. W., & Manchanda, R. V. (2005). The influence of a mere social presence in a retail context. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(2), 207–212.