Received: 29 July 2022 Revised: 22 May 2023 Accepted: 2 June 2023

DOI: 10.1002/cb.2199

SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE

Gen Z's personalization paradoxes: A privacy calculus

examination of digital personalization and brand behaviors

Kathleen M. McKee 1 | Andrew J. Dahl 2 | James W. Peltier 2

1
University of Wisconsin-Parkside, Kenosha,
Wisconsin, USA Abstract
2
College of Business & Economics, University Employing privacy calculus theory, we examine why Gen Z consumers increasingly
of Wisconsin-Whitewater, Whitewater,
Wisconsin, USA adopt ad blockers, use private browsers, or take other measures to limit data tracking.
Specifically, we evaluate consumer behaviors related to personalized and non-
Correspondence
Andrew J. Dahl, College of Business &
personalized digital marketing in light of two personalization paradoxes: privacy–ben-
Economics, University of Wisconsin- efits and avoidance–annoyance. Using structural equation modeling on a sample of
Whitewater, 800 W Main St, Whitewater,
WI 53190, USA.
414 Gen Z consumers, our findings show that both the privacy–benefits paradox and
Email: dahlaj18@uww.edu avoidance–annoyance paradox strongly influence consumers' intentions to avoid
brands that fail to personalize marketing efforts. We also explore the interaction
effects of the two digital personalization tensions, showing that tradeoffs exist
between the utilization of these two paradoxes. Our findings underscore key implica-
tions for marketers investing in personalized marketing efforts to enhance
consumer–brand relationships.

1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N received relatively less research attention compared to other genera-

Marketing scholars have long shown interest in better understanding
different generational cohorts' needs, preferences, attitudes, and
behaviors (Johnson & Chattaraman, 2019; Johnstone & Lindh, 2018).
Generational cohorts represent distinct groups of individuals born
during a specific timeframe with similar life journeys shaped by histor-
ical events and other phenomena experienced while coming of age
(Debevec et al., 2013; Goldring & Azab, 2021). Marketers need a new
set of personalized marketing strategies and tactics that align with
how various generational cohorts prefer to interact with marketers
seeking to capture their loyalty (Eastman et al., 2021). Preceded by
the Millennial generation, Generation Z (Gen Z) is the latest genera-
tional cohort receiving increased conceptual and empirical research
attention. Gen Z, which includes individuals born between 1997 and
2012 (Dimock, 2019), is the first generational cohort to have all its
members raised in an era in which digital technologies are readily
available and extensively utilized during the cohort's upbringing
(Childers & Boatwright, 2021). Despite this difference, Gen Z as has
tional cohorts (Jahari et al., 2022).
A growing stream of early-stage research indicates the digital-
savvy Gen Z cohort differs from other generations in multiple ways
(Chang, 2022; Lyngdoh et al., 2022). Most salient to our study is the
importance Gen Z places on digital personalization and its impact on
creating brand acceptance and loyalty (Forbes, 2022; Martínez-Gon-
zález & Álvarez-Albelo, 2021; Smartbrief, 2022; Smith, 2019). Digital
personalization uses personal consumer data to create highly relevant
and targeted marketing communications across various digital touch-
points, including email, websites, social media, mobile devices, and
other digital channels (Chandra et al., 2022; Guttmann, 2021). Digital
personalization efforts that generate relevant content aligned with
consumers' interests, behaviors, and other characteristics offer conve-
nience and enhance consumer decision-making by reducing cognitive
load, increasing purchase likelihood and brand loyalty (Bang &
Wojdynski, 2016; Chen et al., 2022; Hayes et al., 2021). Although dig-
ital personalization has been shown to positively influence consumers'
attitudes, intentions, and brand usage (Jain et al., 2021; Smink

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2023 The Authors. Journal of Consumer Behaviour published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

J Consumer Behav. 2023;1–18. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/cb 1


2 MCKEE ET AL.
FIGURE 1 Personalized marketing and consumer behavior tradeoff framework.
et al., 2020; Tran et al., 2020), little is understood of how these effects
transfer to Gen Z (Schmidt & Maier, 2022). A key aim of our study is
thus to gain insights into Gen Z's decision-making practices concern-
ing marketing personalization.
Although Gen Z values marketing communications that target
specific needs, many brands fail to deliver the desired personalization
level, leading to consumer frustration (Abraham et al., 2019; Ahora
et al., 2021; Chandra et al., 2022; Li & Liu, 2017). Some of this frustra-
tion is due to Gen Z consumers' lifelong exposure to digital communi-
cations. As a result, Gen Z can identify blatant brand messages that
fail to recognize consumers' unique needs and experiences, increasing
the likelihood that consumers avoid or disregard marketing efforts
(Djafarova & Bowes, 2021; Schmidt & Maier, 2022). While Gen Z may
be willing to trade personal data for personalization (Forbes, 2022),
they are also more likely to use a variety of marketing avoidance tac-
tics. Research shows Gen Z increasingly uses digital blocking software,
private browsers, and disables geolocation tracking, among other
avoidance tactics, particularly when they feel a brand's personalization
efforts fail to align well with preferences (Brinson et al., 2018; Latvala
et al., 2022). For example, Wielki (2020) found that ad blocking, a
common Gen Z avoidance tactic, increases when brand messaging
does not align with their perceptions, feelings, and lifestyles. To date,
research investigating Gen Z's decision-making process is scant with
regard to the interrelationships between personal information sharing,
digital personalization, and digital ad avoidance (Hayes et al., 2021).
The conflicting evidence on personalization effectiveness is con-
sistent with the personalization–privacy calculus through which con-
sumers cognitively evaluate the perceived privacy risks versus
benefits ( privacy–benefits paradox) associated with personalized mar-
keting (Chen et al., 2022; Cloarec et al., 2022; Hayes et al., 2021;
Jahari et al., 2022). Consumers have growing privacy concerns and
14791838, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cb.2199 by Tunisia Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [01/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
suspicion regarding digital tracking technologies (Gironda &
Korgaonkar, 2018; Li & Liu, 2017), taking steps to restrict tracking,
hindering a brand's personalization efforts (Cloarec et al., 2022;
Latvala et al., 2022). When consumers are unwilling to share personal
data and take preemptive actions to limit data tracking, marketers
have less information for creating personalized marketing efforts
(Ackermann et al., 2022; Wanjugu et al., 2022). Incomplete data
access increases the likelihood that consumers will experience even
more non-personalized digital communications, contributing to grow-
ing consumer frustration and consumer–brand disidentification
(Anaza et al., 2021). We conceptualize this second tension as the
avoidance–annoyance paradox, which examines the tradeoff between
reducing tracking and frustration with non-personalized marketing.
Because of the importance of marketers' data access (Alimamy &
Gnoth, 2022; Chandra et al., 2022), our research is designed to better
understand these paradoxical tradeoffs Gen Z consumers experience
when evaluating digital personalization efforts.
Given these research gaps, we empirically test a personalized
marketing and consumer behavior tradeoff framework using structural
equation modeling (see Figure 1). Our framework investigates the pri-
vacy–benefits paradox and the avoidance–annoyance paradox on non-
personal brand avoidance and personalized brand loyalty intentions.
We have three broad research questions:
RQ1. How does the privacy–benefit paradox impact
Gen Z's personalized marketing behaviors, including
(a) non-personalized brand avoidance and
(b) personalized brand loyalty?
RQ2. How does the avoidance–annoyance paradox
impact Gen Z's personalized marketing behaviors,

MCKEE ET AL.
including (a) non-personalized brand avoidance and
(b) personalized brand loyalty?
RQ3. What are the interaction effects of personaliza-
tion benefits and brand-created annoyance on Gen Z's
personalized marketing behaviors, including (a) non-
personalized brand avoidance and (b) personalized
brand loyalty?
2 | T H E O R E T I C A L BA C K G R O U N D A N D
HYPOTHESES
2.1 | Privacy calculus theory
Privacy concerns can affect consumer behavior associated with infor-
mation disclosure and other behavioral intentions in digital environ-
ments (Jahari et al., 2022; Wanjugu et al., 2022). Research commonly
examines consumers' attitudes and behaviors associated with privacy
from the privacy calculus theoretical perspective, which entails con-
sumers assessing the tradeoffs between benefits and risks (Chandra
et al., 2022). A core premise of privacy calculus theory is that con-
sumers undertake a rational cognitive evaluation when considering
privacy-related tradeoffs (Vimalkumar et al., 2021), weighing the
advantages and disadvantages of personalization (Dinev & violations (Chen et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2019). Consequently, as digital
Hart, 2006). Researchers have used privacy calculus theory to exam-
ine consumer behavior across a variety of digital contexts, including
mobile applications (Jahari et al., 2022), social media (Hayes
et al., 2021), and other digital technologies (Scarpi et al., 2022). At its
core, evaluating privacy-related issues from the privacy calculus per-
spective overlaps with principles of social exchange theory (Cloarec
et al., 2022) and requires consumers to assess the tension between
personalization benefits and privacy concerns (Lee & Rha, 2016). Con-
sumers exhibit a greater willingness to share personal information
with marketers when they anticipate the perceived benefits of per-
sonalization outweigh the perceived costs associated with privacy
risks (Ackermann et al., 2022; Wanjugu et al., 2022).
As digital natives, Gen Z consumers express favorable attitudes
toward brands they perceive offer personalized content (Tran
et al., 2020). However, these consumers hesitate to disclose personal
information if they do not receive anything in return (Jahari
et al., 2022). Gen Z consumers are also more likely to express frustra-
tion when they view the experienced personalization as less relevant
or created using only basic information such as the consumer's name
(Ahora et al., 2021). Therefore, brands must be mindful of Gen Z con-
sumers' elevated expectations and tensions regarding personalized
digital content. Although researchers have studied privacy calculus
theory in many contexts, most studies focus only on the privacy–bene-
fits paradox. The extant literature lacks studies addressing other para-
doxical tensions within the consumer–brand dynamic that may impact
the effectiveness of digital marketing personalization (Chandra
et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2022; Hayes et al., 2021; Jain et al., 2021). In
14791838, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cb.2199 by Tunisia Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [01/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
3
addition to exploring the commonly investigated privacy–benefits par-
adox, the current study proposes and explores the avoidance–
annoyance paradox as another relevant personalization paradox.
2.2 | Privacy calculus and personalized digital
marketing
Although a growing stream of academic research on personalized mar-
keting exists, results provide conflicting evidence on personalization's
effectiveness, which is likely a consequence of various consumer–
marketer tensions (Aksoy et al., 2021; Chandra et al., 2022). Mar-
keters apply personalization to digital marketing communications by
using collected consumer information (i.e., demographics, preferences,
interests, behaviors, geolocation data) to target consumers with rele-
vant and customized content via their preferred media
(Montgomery & Smith, 2009). Marketers can therefore integrate per-
sonalization across both the methods or modes of communication, as
well as the specific information presented (Aksoy et al., 2021), to
increase consumer–brand engagement and revenue (Chen
et al., 2022; Jain et al., 2021; Smink et al., 2020; Tran et al., 2020).
Marketing personalization efforts increasingly leverage artificial intelli-
gence, marketing automation, and other smart technologies, often
without full transparency (Peltier et al., 2023; Scarpi et al., 2022). The
lack of transparency contributes to feelings of intrusion and privacy
marketing becomes more personalized, consumers may view it as
more intrusive (Smink et al., 2020), intensifying the first tension
between privacy concerns and perceived benefits (the privacy–
benefits paradox).
Consistent with privacy calculus, consumers' attitudes toward
personalized marketing focus on a contextual evaluation of the per-
ceived privacy risks versus benefits (Cloarec et al., 2022). Consumers
benefit from personalized digital marketing through time, effort, and
financial savings when marketers present the most relevant products,
information, and offers via consumers' preferred communication
channels (Aksoy et al., 2021; Montgomery & Smith, 2009;
Tran, 2017). Conversely, digital personalization may also increase irri-
tation and intrusiveness, resulting in more substantial privacy con-
cerns, motivating consumers to avoid using digital technologies
altogether or restrict specific technologies that enable marketers to
present personalized content (Baek & Morimoto, 2012; Brinson
et al., 2018; Gironda & Korgaonkar, 2018; Redondo & Aznar, 2018;
Shin & Lin, 2016; Strycharz et al., 2019).
While consumers' privacy–benefits tradeoff evaluation may influ-
ence continued acceptance of personalized marketing, willingness to
share personal information, and brand relationship intentions (Chen
et al., 2019, 2022), it may also relate to a second personalization ten-
sion. Consumers who proactively prevent digital tracking or employ
ad-blocking technologies to restrict marketers' personalization efforts
are likely to start seeing less relevant digital content from brands
(Brinson et al., 2018; Gironda & Korgaonkar, 2018; Redondo &
Aznar, 2018). Although less explored than the privacy–benefits

4 MCKEE ET AL.
paradox, research suggests another attitude–behavior gap may exist
between consumers' attitudes toward online personalized advertise-
ments and their acceptance or avoidance behaviors (Baek &
Morimoto, 2012; Gironda & Korgaonkar, 2018; Shin & Lin, 2016). We
characterize this second tension as the avoidance–annoyance paradox.
Consumers who exhibit heightened privacy concerns by limiting track-
ing may exacerbate this second tension, which in turn may contribute
to brand annoyance. This avoidance–annoyance paradox may thus lead
to value destruction for brands regardless of the actual personaliza-
tion efforts, as consumers will increasingly perceive personalization
attempts as less effective since the marketer has less access to rele-
vant data for personalization (Aksoy et al., 2021).
Figure 1 shows our personalized marketing and consumer behav-
ior tradeoff framework. We investigate two different personalization–
privacy paradoxes that result from the consumer–marketer tensions:
the privacy–benefits paradox (privacy concerns vs. personalization ben-
efits) and the avoidance–annoyance paradox (proactive avoidance
vs. brand-created annoyance). Consistent with the core tenet of pri-
vacy calculus theory, the privacy–benefits tension signifies a cognitive
(attitudinal) evaluation through which consumers weigh the antici-
pated value of personalized marketing (Vimalkumar et al., 2021). We
conceptualize privacy concerns as consumers' perceived privacy risks
related to personalized digital marketing (Chen et al., 2022; Sheng
et al., 2008). In contrast, personalization benefits reflect consumers'
perceived value of personalized digital marketing (Bleier
Eisenbeiss, 2015; Tam & Ho, 2006). Following privacy calculus theory
and its social exchange roots, the avoidance–annoyance tension sig-
nifies a cognitive (behavioral–attitudinal) evaluation through which
consumers compare the value of actions to limit tracking versus the
less personalized brand content they are likely to experience. Proac-
tive avoidance thus reflects the extent to which Gen Z consumers
take preemptive steps to prevent digital marketers' personalization
attempts by installing ad blockers, deleting cookies, and turning off
location-based tracking, among other actions. In contrast, brand-
created annoyance measures consumers' irritation when they see
brand-created content that is not personally relevant. We explore the
differential effects of these variables on two personalized marketing
intentions important to brands; avoidance of brands using non-
personalized marketing and loyalty or commitment to brands using
personalized marketing.
2.3 | Personalized marketing intentions: Brand
avoidance versus brand loyalty
Researchers have increasingly viewed consumer–brand relationships
and consumer engagement behaviors as critical elements within a dig-
ital marketing environment (Hayes et al., 2021; Roy et al., 2022; Van-
der Schee et al., 2020). Brand relationships are critical to consumers'
decision-making and influence consumer behavior, including repurch-
ase and word-of-mouth (Anaza et al., 2021). When consumers feel a
strong brand connection, research indicates positive associations from
the consumer–brand relationship may increase brand loyalty (Rather
14791838, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cb.2199 by Tunisia Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [01/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
et al., 2022). Conversely, negative experiences may be detrimental to
the consumer–brand relationship (Knittel et al., 2016; Lee
et al., 2009), resulting in consumers seeking to distance themselves
from a brand and avoid the brand's marketing (Anaza et al., 2021;
Odoom et al., 2019). When effectively executed, marketing personali-
zation may help a consumer feel like the brand understands the con-
sumer as an individual, leading to stronger commitment to the
consumer–brand relationship (Rather et al., 2022). We propose that
non-personalized marketing may have the opposite effect, with con-
sumers sensing that the brand does not value the consumer–brand
relationship, contributing to consumers' brand disassociation (Anaza
et al., 2021). The current study investigates two key consumer–brand
relationship behavioral intentions related to personalized marketing
efforts: brand avoidance and brand loyalty.
Lee et al. (2009, p. 170) define brand avoidance as “incidents in
which consumers deliberately choose to reject a brand.” Researchers
and marketing practitioners have expressed increasing interest in
understanding this value destruction phenomenon, given its potential
to impact consumer behavior, brand equity, and ultimately firm profit-
ability (Kuanr et al., 2022; Odoom et al., 2019). Brand avoidance may
involve negative attitudes toward a brand (Lee et al., 2009), more
active attempts to disassociate from a brand (Anaza et al., 2021), and
the brand's marketing efforts (Odoom et al., 2019). Given pending
changes to third-party cookies that may further limit marketers' ability
& to behaviorally target consumers and personalize ads (Latvala
et al., 2022), and consumer adoption of ad-blocking technologies
(Redondo & Aznar, 2018), we examine consumers' intentions to avoid
brands that do not personalize digital marketing efforts.
Contrary to the negative brand phenomenon of brand avoidance,
brand loyalty involves a positive response via consumers' emotional
attachment and ongoing commitment to a brand (Lin et al., 2019).
Research suggests digital personalization may enhance consumers' brand
perceptions if they feel a brand understands them (Shanahan
et al., 2019), demonstrating the importance of solid consumer–brand
relationships (Hayes et al., 2021). Brand loyalty leads to positive con-
sumer behaviors, including increasing repurchase intentions and positive
word-of-mouth (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001). In the context of person-
alized digital marketing, we investigate consumers' brand loyalty as their
intentions to maintain the consumer–brand relationship with a brand
using personalized marketing. Our study offers insight into why and how
multiple privacy-related paradoxes may contribute to attitude–behavior
gaps regarding privacy and personalization. Our study highlights that
marketers need to explore the interactive nature of these paradoxes to
identify the tipping point at which consumers may undermine the brand's
personalization efforts versus contributing to brand value creation via
brand loyalty (Anaza et al., 2021; Kuanr et al., 2022; Odoom et al., 2019).
2.4 | Privacy–benefits paradox and personalized
marketing intentions
Privacy calculus theory suggests that consumers' evaluation of privacy
risks and benefits is a key determinant of the consumers' brand

MCKEE ET AL.
attitudes and behaviors (Cloarec et al., 2022). Research shows privacy
concerns may affect attitudes toward continued use of social net-
working sites, intentions to use location-tracking apps, and other
brand-related behaviors (Jahari et al., 2022; Lee & Rha, 2016; Oghazi
et al., 2020; Wiese et al., 2020). Following the privacy calculus theory,
privacy-conscious consumers may be more cautious regarding how
brands track and utilize data to personalize marketing efforts (Jahari
et al., 2022). Heightened privacy concerns may magnify how con-
sumers evaluate the intrusiveness of personalized marketing that fol-
lows them as they navigate the digital environment (Wottrich
et al., 2018), making them less receptive to brands' personalized mar-
keting efforts and reducing brand loyalty. Privacy-conscious con-
sumers may be more willing to accept non-personalized marketing
efforts as a tradeoff for their privacy (Vimalkumar et al., 2021). Thus,
following the privacy calculus theory, Gen Z consumers with amplified
privacy concerns may be less likely to avoid brands that utilize non-
personalized marketing while also expressing less loyalty to brands'
personalized marketing efforts (Vimalkumar et al., 2021).
Conversely, perceived marketing relevance may reduce con-
sumers' avoidance behaviors (Jung, 2017) and increase brand
engagement and attachment (Shanahan et al., 2019). Privacy calcu-
lus theory suggests digital natives may emphasize personalization
benefits and avoid non-personalized marketing while simulta-
neously creating a stronger affinity toward brands that effectively
use personalization (Barth & de Jong, 2017; Lee & Rha, 2016).
Consumers' reactance via avoidance or loyalty intentions are thus
likely to result from consumers' comparative evaluation of privacy
concerns versus perceived personalization benefits (Chen
et al., 2019, 2022). The expected negative association between pri-
vacy concerns and non-personalized brand avoidance implies that
consumers with higher (lower) privacy concerns will have lower
(higher) intentions to avoid brands that utilize non-personalized
marketing. However, this does not necessarily mean the privacy-
conscious consumer will have a more positive affinity to brands
using non-personalized marketing.
H1. Privacy concerns is negatively associated with
(a) non-personalized brand avoidance and
(b) personalized brand loyalty.
H2. Personalization benefits is positively associated
with (a) non-personalized brand avoidance and
(b) personalized brand loyalty.
2.5 | Avoidance–annoyance paradox and
personalization marketing intentions
Using ad blockers, deleting cookies, and similar preemptive efforts
minimize the effectiveness of data trackers that allow brands to per-
sonalize marketing experiences. Consumers who opt out or attempt
to restrict digital tracking efforts are thus likely to see less personal-
ized digital content from brands (Aksoy et al., 2021). Following privacy
14791838, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cb.2199 by Tunisia Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [01/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
5
calculus theory, consumers who proactively engage in these data-
tracking avoidance behaviors are likely to place more value on the pri-
vacy protection benefits of these preemptive actions (Barth & de
Jong, 2017). Consumers who proactively take steps to avoid tracking
may view personalized marketing content as more intrusive, leading
them to be less loyal to brands that continue to personalize marketing
efforts (Chen et al., 2019; Strycharz et al., 2019; Tran et al., 2020;
Vander Schee et al., 2020). At the same time, privacy calculus suggests
these consumers may be less upset when faced with non-personalized
marketing from brands (Vimalkumar et al., 2021). Hence, consumers
who proactively avoid data tracking may initially be more open to see-
ing non-personalized marketing, lowering their intentions to avoid
brands utilizing less personalized marketing. Of note, we postulate
that this does not necessarily mean these consumers will be more
loyal to non-personalized brands but merely less apt to take further
steps to disassociate from the brands.
Based on privacy calculus theory, high personalization expecta-
tions may manifest as brand-created annoyance when brand-
created digital content is irrelevant (Zhu & Chang, 2016). When
marketing is irritating, consumers will exhibit a stronger inclination
to change behaviors (Barth & de Jong, 2017). Studies show that
even privacy-conscious consumers value brands that deliver rele-
vant content and digital experiences (Baek & Morimoto, 2012;
Gironda & Korgaonkar, 2018; Shin & Lin, 2016). Consumers who
opt out or attempt to restrict digital tracking efforts via proactive
avoidance will likely see less personalized brand-created content
over time, eventually creating a more negative brand perception
(Aksoy et al., 2021). The ongoing internal conflict of the
avoidance–annoyance paradox reflects the irrational nature of the
privacy calculus (Barth & de Jong, 2017). Studies suggest con-
sumers with high personalization expectations may respond to
irrelevant content and experiences with more brand-created
annoyance, increasing intentions to disassociate from brands using
non-personalized marketing, while increasing loyalty to brands that
offer personalized experiences (Anaza et al., 2021; Gironda &
Korgaonkar, 2018; Hayes et al., 2021; Kuanr et al., 2022). For
example, Ozcelik and Varnali (2018) suggest that behaviorally tar-
geted ads may strengthen brand attitudes and positively affect
consumers' behavioral response to a brand. Similar to H1, the
hypothesized negative association between proactive avoidance
and non-personalized brand avoidance merely implies that con-
sumers with higher levels of proactive avoidance will have lower
intentions to avoid brands that utilize non-personalized marketing.
However, this does not suggest the consumer will have a more
positive affinity to brands using non-personalized marketing.
H3. Proactive avoidance is negatively associated with
(a) non-personalized brand avoidance and
(b) personalized brand loyalty.
H4. Brand-created annoyance is positively associated
with (a) non-personalized brand avoidance and
(b) personalized brand loyalty.

6 MCKEE ET AL.
2.6 | Moderating effects on the paradoxes
A core premise of privacy calculus theory is consumers will only value
personalization efforts when the perceived benefits outweigh the per-
ceived costs (Jozani et al., 2020). Research suggests digital natives
may emphasize personalization benefits more while devaluing privacy
concerns (Barth & de Jong, 2017). Consistent with privacy calculus,
we contend that perceived personalization benefits are critical in con-
sumers' cognitive evaluation of a brand's personalization efforts in the
privacy–benefits paradox (Vimalkumar et al., 2021). Research also
implies that enhancing consumers' assessments of personalization in
an online travel context can cause even privacy-conscious consumers
to find personalization valuable (Lee & Cranage, 2011). Hence, we
postulate that the level of personalization benefits will moderate the
relationships between privacy concerns and the two dependent
variables.
H5. Personalization benefits will moderate the relation-
ship between privacy concerns and (a) non-personalized
brand avoidance and (b) personalized brand loyalty.
Proactively avoiding digital tracking may allow privacy-conscious
consumers to decrease the intrusiveness of brands' marketing efforts
(Vimalkumar et al., 2021). However, these digital data tracking avoid-
ance behaviors are more likely to come at the cost of decreasing mar-
keting relevance. In the current study, brand-created annoyance
reflects a proxy measure for the extent to which consumers may pre-
fer seeing personalized marketing. Heightened annoyance may there-
fore reflect a consumer that cognitively weighs the advantages of
personalization over the disadvantages (Jozani et al., 2020; Wottrich
et al., 2018). Consistent with privacy calculus, consumers are more
likely to shift digital behaviors when marketing causes irritation
(Barth & de Jong, 2017). Research implies that consumers often simul-
taneously consider brand avoidance and loyalty as they cognitively
evaluate privacy-related paradoxes (Lee & Rha, 2016). In the
avoidance–annoyance tension, consumers may devalue the privacy
protection achieved via proactively avoiding digital tracking as it
increases exposure to irrelevant marketing content. We thus postulate
that brand-created annoyance will moderate the relationships
between proactive avoidance and the two dependent variables.
H6. Brand-created annoyance will moderate the rela-
tionship between proactive avoidance and (a) non-
personalized brand avoidance and (b) personalized
brand loyalty.
3 | METHODS
3.1 | Data collection and instrumentation
We conducted an online survey with undergraduate students at two
universities in the Midwestern United States to collect data to test
14791838, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cb.2199 by Tunisia Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [01/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
our hypotheses. Gen Z consumers reflect an important and relevant
audience to explore the two paradoxes for a number of reasons. Gen
Z currently accounts for approximately one-third of the world's popu-
lation and possesses substantial buying power (Hessekiel, 2022). As
digital natives, Gen Z consumers are tech-savvy and well-versed in
using digital devices where personalized and non-personalized adver-
tising may appear (Jahari et al., 2022). However, Gen Z consumers are
also more likely to utilize ad-blocking software, open private browsers,
turn off location sharing, and employ other workarounds to limit mar-
keters' tracking and personalization efforts (Latvala et al., 2022).
Although Gen Z consumers have favorable attitudes toward brands
offering personalized content (Tran et al., 2020), Gen Z is also hesitant
to disclose personal information (Jahari et al., 2022) and frequently
express frustration when it comes to experienced personalization
(Ahora et al., 2021). Recent research highlights critical brand affinity
and behavioral paradoxes, emphasizing the importance of how brands
relate to the consumer's identities and values (Ellison, 2022). For
example, Gen Z will go the extra mile to promote a brand that aligns
with Gen Z's values while abandoning and even creating negative sen-
timent via social media for brands that fail to align with these values.
Given the influential role of digital touchpoints on Gen Z's buying
behavior (Dolliver, 2019), it is imperative that marketers better under-
stand what motivates consumers' attitudes and behaviors relevant to
brands' personalized and non-personalized marketing efforts.
We programmed the survey questions into Qualtrics with a pilot
study conducted to narrow down the scale items. Participants were
recruited via a convenience sample of undergraduate business courses
at the two universities in exchange for extra credit. Students received
an invitation to complete the online survey via email and a verbal
reminder at the start of a class period. Since research suggests con-
sumers are not good judges of personalization (Li, 2016), we used a
scenario-based vignette to frame responses without requiring respon-
dents to recall a specific brand or instance they experienced personal-
ized or non-personalized marketing (Gironda & Korgaonkar, 2018).
Survey instructions included a short definition of personalized adver-
tising and a scenario highlighting how digital personalization may work
in an online travel shopping scenario to familiarize respondents with
the premise of personalized marketing (see Appendix for the defini-
tion and vignette).
3.2 | Data screening
We received 461 responses via the Qualtrics survey before conduct-
ing data screening. After excluding 25 responses with missing and
incomplete data, we used multiple methods to evaluate data quality
further. First, we examined the average response time to flag any
responses faster than 2 s per item (Meade & Craig, 2012). Second, we
flagged longstring responses that included a consecutive invariant
response on more than 10 items (DeSimone & Harms, 2018). Third,
we checked for outliers by examining Cook's D. While the maximum
Cook's D for both models fell below the .5 cutoff (non-personalized
brand avoidance = .128; Personalized brand loyalty = .048), we
 14791838, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cb.2199 by Tunisia Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [01/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
MCKEE ET AL. 7

T A B L E 1 Sample respondent
University 1 (n = 296) University 2 (n = 118) Total (n = 414)
characteristics.
Gender
Male 43.2% 43.2% 43.2%
Female 56.8% 56.8% 56.8%
Daily time spent online
<4 h 27.7% 26.3% 27.3%
4–6 h 49.3% 59.3% 52.2%
7–9 h 16.9% 11.0% 15.2%
10+ h 6.1% 3.4% 5.3%
a
# of social networking site profiles
≤2 8.4% 4.2% 7.2%
3 15.5% 6.8% 13.0%
4 23.3% 9.3% 19.3%
5+ 52.7% 79.7% 60.4%
a
Significant difference across universities at p < .001.

further examined responses where the Cook's D value was >4/N constructs of interest. No significant differences existed, suggesting
(4/436 = .009). Combined, the data screening flagged an additional nonresponse bias is not a concern.
22 responses with potential data quality issues, which we removed
from the sample, leaving 414 usable responses for hypothesis testing.
See Table 1 for a profile of respondents. 4 | RE SU LT S

4.1 | Measurement analysis

3.3 | Measures
We adapted scale items from established scales, with all measure-
ments using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly
agree). Privacy concerns was measured via a four-item scale reflecting
perceived risks associated with how brands use consumers' personal
information from digital interactions (Chen et al., 2022; Sheng
et al., 2008). Personalization benefits was measured using a five-item
scale reflecting the perceived usefulness and value of personalized
marketing (Bleier & Eisenbeiss, 2015; Tam & Ho, 2006). Proactive
advertising avoidance was measured with a six-item scale reflecting a
consumer's preemptive actions to prevent digital data tracking (Cho &
Cheon, 2004; Odoom et al., 2019). Brand-created annoyance was
measured using an original six-item scale reflecting perceived irritation
when a brand uses non-personalized marketing efforts. Brand avoid-
ance was measured using a seven-item scale reflecting avoidance and
disidentification behavioral intentions toward a brand employing non-
personalized marketing efforts (Anaza et al., 2021; Kuanr et al., 2022;
Lee et al., 2009). Finally, personalized brand loyalty was measured
using a five-item scale reflecting loyalty behavioral intentions toward
a brand employing personalized marketing efforts (Shanahan
et al., 2019).
We also collected gender, time spent online, and social media
usage, given the potential for these variables to impact digital atti-
tudes and behaviors (Qin et al., 2011; Taylor et al., 2011). We checked
for nonresponse bias by comparing gender to class enrollment and
also by comparing early respondents to later respondents on the
The use of Likert-like scales are appropriate for data analyses uti-
lizing exploratory factor and structural equation modeling (Hair
et al., 2016; Hinkin, 1998). Examining the skewness and kurtosis
values indicated normality was not an issue, and an exploratory
factor analysis was followed by a confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) to assess the measurement model. Measurement items
representing the six theoretical constructs were subjected to the
exploratory principal components factor analysis to ensure the
quality of the items. Items with factor loadings less than .60 or
that loaded on multiple factors were dropped from the assessment.
Items of each construct were carefully examined to ensure all
items loaded based on theory. The cumulative variance explained
by the exploratory factor analyses was 70.1%, with items loading
as expected.
We then used AMOS 28 to conduct a CFA and validate the mea-
surement model, resulting in the retention of 33 items. Although the
minimum discrepancy divided by degrees of freedom (CMIN/df ) was
less than the suggested value of 3.0, the overall chi-square statistic of
the measurement model was significant (χ2 = 591.52, 441 df, CMIN/
df = 1.34, p < .05). The significant p value may be a result of the large
sample size. The other model fit statistics suggested an acceptable
model fit, including the goodness of fit index (GFI = .92), adjusted
goodness of fit index (AGFI = .90), comparative fit index (CFI = .98),
normed fit index (NFI = .94), and root mean square error of approxi-
mation (RMSEA = .030 [.023–.036]; Hu & Bentler, 1999). Table 2 pre-
sents the final measurement items, with standardized factor loadings
 14791838, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cb.2199 by Tunisia Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [01/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
8 MCKEE ET AL.

TABLE 2 Measurement items.

Construct and measurement item Standardized loading

Privacy concerns
1. It bothers me that brands are able to track information about me .870
2. I am concerned that brands have too much information about me .875
3. It bothers me that brands are able to access information about me .903
4. I am concerned that my information could be used in ways I could not foresee .862
Personalization benefits
1. Personalized internet ads enable me to find products/services I need easier on the Internet .819
2. Using personalized ads improves my online shopping performance .859
3. Personalized internet ads make my online shopping searches more effective .863
4. Continuing to use personalized internet ads would be useful when shopping online .869
5. Using personalized ads is useful for the products/services I am researching online .847
Brand-created annoyance―I get annoyed when I am online and see BRAND-CREATED…
1. Videos that are not relevant to me .831
2. Photos that are not relevant to me .852
3. Ads for products/services that are not relevant to me .860
4. Social media posts that are not relevant to me .827
5. Blog posts that are not relevant to me .800
6. Overall, I get annoyed when I see any content from brands that are not relevant to me .851
Proactive advertising avoidance
1. I frequently delete cookies on my browser .654
2. I limit the use of tracking data by advertisers on mobile device .749
3. I frequently use a do not track setting on my browser .811
4. I opt out of targeted advertising whenever given the choice .673
5. I frequently turn off location service settings (GPS) on my mobile device .697
6. I frequently use a private or incognito browser .672
Non-personalized marketing brand avoidance―If a brand DOES NOT PERSONALIZE MARKETING TO ME, I would…
1. Attempt to stay away from that brand's marketing .815
2. Unfollow that brand on social media .816
3. Ignore all marketing efforts from brands that do not personalize marketing efforts .830
4. Avoid purchasing that brand .768
5. Attempt to avoid all of that brand's marketing .769
6. Unsubscribe from that brands' emails .756
7. Find it easy to avoid brands that do not personalize marketing efforts .711
Personalized marketing brand loyalty
1. I would be willing to pay a higher price for a brand that uses personalized marketing .726
2. I would prefer to buy a brand using personalized marketing the next time I make a purchase .838
3. I would keep purchasing a brand that uses personalized marketing .825
4. I would be more loyal to a brand that uses personalized marketing .826
5. My first choice would be a brand that uses personalized marketing .807

Note: All loadings significant at p < .001. Scales: 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree for each construct.

exceeding .65 and significant (p < .001) and 29 of the 33 items above
the .7 guideline. Cronbach's alpha exceeded .82 (α = .82 to .93), indi-
cating internal consistency, and the average variance extracted value
(AVE) exceeded Fornell and Larcker's (1981) .5 convergent validity cri-
terion (AVE = .57 to .75). We assessed discriminant validity by
verifying that the AVE values for each construct were greater than
the square of the correlations. The CFA confirmed brand avoidance
and brand loyalty capture different variation in consumers' behavioral
intentions related to personalized and non-personalized marketing
efforts.
 14791838, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cb.2199 by Tunisia Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [01/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
MCKEE ET AL. 9

T A B L E 3 Descriptive statistics,
Construct PC PB PA BCA BA BL
correlations, and measurement fit
statistics. Privacy concerns (PC) .866
Personalization benefits (PB) .172 .847
Proactive avoidance (PA) .353 .275 .759
Brand-created annoyance (BCA) .080 .061 .036 .818
Brand avoidance (BA) .005 .114 .094 .400 .756
Brand loyalty (BL) .202 .493 .151 .126 .304 .794
Mean 4.00 3.51 2.98 3.83 3.04 3.26
SD .95 .87 .99 .90 .93 .85
Cronbach's α .92 .93 .82 .93 .91 .89
CR .92 .93 .89 .92 .90 .90
AVE .75 .72 .58 .67 .57 .63
MSV .13 .24 .13 .16 .16 .24

Note: χ2/df = 1.34; goodness of fit index = .92; comparative fit index = .98; normed fit index = .94; root
mean square error of approximation = .029 [.023–.035]. Factor correlations below the diagonal; square
root of AVE on diagonal (in bold).
Abbreviations: AVE, average variance extracted; CR, composite reliability; df, degrees of freedom; MSV,
maximum shared variance; SD, standard deviation.

Following Podsakoff et al.'s (2003) recommendations, we exam-
ined the results of Harman's single factor and a common latent factor
(CLF) added to the CFA to check for common method bias. First, we
calculated Harman's single-factor method in an exploratory factor
analysis. The single factor explained only 21.9% of the variance, sug-
gesting common method variance was not an issue. Next, we created
a CLF in the CFA. Each individual item was allowed to load on its
latent construct and the CLF. We calculated the deltas of the stan-
dardized regression weights by comparing the model's results with
and without the CLF. All deltas were smaller than the suggested .2
cutoff (absolute values for all deltas ranged from .00 to .06). The
results suggested common method bias was not a concern, thus the
hypothesis testing did not control for common method bias. Table 3
provides descriptive statistics, correlations, and measurement fit
statistics.
4.2 | Structural model estimation and main effect
results
We tested the hypotheses by examining the standardized path
estimates of the structural model using AMOS 28.0. Structural
equation modeling is preferable for latent constructs as it
accounts for measurement error within the structural model
(McCoach et al., 2007). The variance inflation factor was less
than 1.3 for all variables in the model, indicating multicollinearity
was not a problem. The indices for goodness of fit revealed
acceptable fit for the structural model: χ2/df = 1.57, GFI = .92,
CFI = .97, NFI = .93, RMSEA = .037 (.032–.042; Hu & personalization intentions (β4a = .411, p < .001; β4b = .132, p < .01),
Bentler, 1999). An examination of the standardized path esti-
mates in Table 4 reveals the two paradoxes contribute differ-
ently to the explanation of the two dependent measures, with
the total variance explained (R2) for both endogenous variables
greater than .26.
Relating to RQ1 and RQ2, our results show all four exogenous
variables (privacy concerns, personalization benefits, proactive avoid-
ance, and brand-created annoyance) impact non-personalized brand
avoidance intentions, and three of the four influence personalized
brand loyalty intentions (all except proactive avoidance). Concerning
RQ1, we examined how the privacy–benefits paradox impacts non-
personalized brand avoidance and personalized brand loyalty. The
results show both aspects of the privacy–benefits paradox have signifi-
cant effects as hypothesized with both dependent measures, reinfor-
cing this commonly investigated privacy calculus serves as a
foundation for how Gen Z consumers evaluate digital marketing per-
sonalization expectations (Barth & de Jong, 2017). Specifically, privacy
concerns has a negative association with both dependent measures
(β1a = .108, p < .05; β1b = .161, p < .001) while personalization
benefits has a positive association with both dependent measures
(β2a = .121, p < .01; β2b = .452, p < .001), supporting H1a, H1b,
H2a, and H2b.
Second, our results shed new light on a second tension unex-
plored in the extant privacy calculus literature (RQ2). The results point
to unexpected findings related to the avoidance–annoyance paradox
and both types of personalization intentions. Surprisingly, proactive
avoidance has a significant positive effect instead of the hypothesized
negative relationship with non-personalized brand avoidance
(β3a = .259, p < .01; H3a reversed), but no significant relationship to
personalized brand loyalty (β3b = .088, p > .05; H3b not supported).
Finally, brand-created annoyance has a positive association with both
supporting H4a and H4b. Combined, the results suggest that the pri-
vacy–benefits paradox has a relatively stronger influence on personal-
ized brand loyalty. However, this commonly investigated tradeoff
 14791838, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cb.2199 by Tunisia Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [01/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
10 MCKEE ET AL.

TABLE 4 Structural equation model results.

Variables Non-personalized brand avoidance Personalized brand loyalty Hypotheses supported

Privacy concerns (PC) .108* .106* .161*** .160 *** H1a, H1b
Personalization benefits (PB) .121** .111** .452*** .457*** H2a, H2b
Proactive avoidance (PA) .259** .251** .088 .088 H3a Reversed
Brand-created annoyance (BCA) .411*** .432*** .132** .117** H4a, H4b
Gender .078 .084 .106* .101*
Time spent online .080 .077 .001 .011
# of social networking sites .016 .008 .068 .064
PB  PC .134** .004 H5a
BCA  PA .059 .112** H6b
R2 .26 .30 .29 .31

Note: χ2/df = 1.51; goodness of fit index = .91; comparative fit index = .97; normed fit index = .92; root mean square error of approximation = .035
[.030–.040]. Gender: male = 0, female = 1.
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

tends to have less influence on non-personalized brand avoidance
intentions relative to the avoidance–annoyance paradox. In this non-
personalization context, focusing on the privacy–benefits tradeoff
appears less critical relative to finding ways to minimize brand-created
annoyance (β4a = .411).
Finally, we controlled for gender, time spent online, and the num-
ber of social networking sites used, with only one significant effect.
Gender (0 = male, 1 = female) had a significant positive effect, but
only on personalized brand loyalty. The results indicate females are
more likely to indicate higher loyalty intentions for brands using per-
sonalized marketing. This is despite t tests of the means also showing
females indicate higher privacy concerns (4.10 vs. 3.83, p < .01). Of
note, our findings also suggest females are less likely to engage in pro-
active avoidance behaviors (2.91 vs. 3.07, p < .05), consistent with
industry data indicating ad blocking software is more popular among
males aged 18–29 (eMarketer, 2022).
4.3 | Moderation results
After completing the base model evaluation outlined previously, we
added interaction effects for each paradox to address RQ3. We first
mean-centered privacy concerns (PC) and personalization benefits
(PB) and then created the interaction term (PC  PB) for the privacy–
benefits paradox by multiplying the mean-centered items (Osei-
Frimpong et al., 2020). Similarly, we calculated the mean-centered
product of proactive avoidance (PA) and brand-created annoyance
(BCA) to create the avoidance–annoyance paradox interaction term
(PA  BCA). We retained all original hypothesized pathways and
examined the significance of each pathway and the two interaction
terms in the moderated structural equation model that included both
dependent variables.
The moderation results (see Table 4) indicate that while signifi-
cant interaction effects exist for both paradoxes, each is only signifi-
cant in explaining one of the two endogenous variables. First, the
PC  PB interaction (β = .134, p < .01) was only significant in the
non-personalized brand avoidance model (H5a supported), weakening
the influence of privacy concerns on non-personalized brand avoid-
ance. Second, the PA  BCA interaction (β = .112, p < .01) was only
significant in the personalized brand loyalty model (H6b supported).
5 | DI SCU SSION
5.1 | Privacy–benefits paradox
Addressing RQ1, the significance of H1a, H1b, H2a, and H2b rein-
force that Gen Z still weighs the commonly investigated privacy–
benefits paradox when responding to brands' non-personalized and
personalized marketing efforts. We thus confirm the tradeoff remains
critical for marketers to understand when targeting Gen Z consumers
across various digital marketing communication contexts (Barth & de
Jong, 2017; Jahari et al., 2022). Consistent with prior research, this
study's findings on the privacy–benefits paradox suggest enhancing
perceived personalization benefits are particularly influential to
increasing Gen Z's personalized brand loyalty intentions (Shanahan
et al., 2019; Vimalkumar et al., 2021). Meanwhile, privacy concerns
decrease both personalization behavioral intentions (H1a, H1b). Nota-
bly, the negative relationship with non-personalized brand avoidance
(H1a) implies that some consumers may be more willing to accept
non-personalized marketing in exchange for greater privacy protec-
tion. In other words, privacy-conscious consumers may not actively
attempt to avoid the non-personalized marketing from brands; how-
ever, this does not imply these privacy-conscious consumers will have
a positive affinity or loyalty to these brands.
5.2 | Avoidance–annoyance paradox
Second, addressing RQ2, the reversed significant positive finding of
H3a in combination with significance of H4a and H4b demonstrate an
additional privacy calculus tradeoff impacts Gen Z's personalization

MCKEE ET AL.
behaviors. We thus contribute to the privacy calculus literature on
personalization (Chandra et al., 2022) by introducing a second, unex-
plored tension, that we label as the avoidance–annoyance paradox. In
empirically investigating this second paradox, we address calls for
research to understand how consumers may co-destruct the value of
personalization and related brand behaviors (Kuanr et al., 2022;
Odoom et al., 2019). The unexpected findings in H3a indicate that
Gen Z consumers who proactively limit data tracking, thereby restrict-
ing marketers' personalization efforts, may experience more dissatis-
faction with the increasingly non-personalized marketing efforts the
consumers see. Our findings suggest that when this occurs, Gen Z
may attempt to avoid the brand's marketing and stop purchasing from
it altogether (Anaza et al., 2021). Given our results indicate proactive
avoidance is only relevant to non-personalized brand avoidance (H3a,
but not H3b), perhaps this reflects that consumers proactively limiting
digital tracking are attempting to avoid all digital marketing efforts.
Meanwhile, our results show that brand-created annoyance is rel-
evant to both non-personalized (H4a) and personalized (H4b) brand
behaviors. Combined, the findings imply that as consumers experience
more frustration with irrelevant brand-created content, they are more
likely to avoid brands using non-personalized marketing (H4a). At the
same time, these frustrated consumers also exhibit increased loyalty
to brands effectively using personalized marketing (H4b). While rele-
vant to both personalization behaviors, brand-created annoyance has
a particularly strong effect on non-personalized brand avoidance
(H4a). Together, these findings reinforce why marketers need to
understand and meet consumers' personalization preferences
(Brinson et al., 2018; Chandra et al., 2022).
5.3 | Interaction effects
Finally, in accordance with RQ3, we investigate the interaction effects
of the two privacy calculus tradeoffs. Accordingly, we advance our
understanding on the complex nature of consumer decision-making
and behaviors in a personalization context (Chandra et al., 2022). First,
consistent with privacy calculus theory (Barth & de Jong, 2017), the
PC  PB interaction effect findings (H5a supported) highlight that
even when privacy concerns are high, Gen Z consumers expecting
more utilitarian benefits from personalization may become upset with
brands that fail to personalize marketing efforts and seek ways to
avoid those brands. Only when personalization benefits are low will
privacy concerns have a stronger relative influence on non-
personalized brand avoidance (see Figure 2). Second, the BCA  PA
interaction effect is only significant in explaining personalized brand
loyalty (H6b supported). H6b's results reflect the tension within the
annoyance–avoidance paradox, elevating attachment to brands sharing
personalized marketing even as the Gen Z consumer engages in more
proactive attempts to limit data tracking and frustration with non-
personalized content rises (see Figure 3).
Combined, the interaction results demonstrate the complex, sub-
conscious calculus consumers experience when assessing satisfaction
with marketing personalization (Chandra et al., 2022). Brands must
14791838, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cb.2199 by Tunisia Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [01/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
11
first balance the privacy–benefits paradox to ensure consumers antici-
pate excess value from personalization while simultaneously recogniz-
ing consumers are more preemptively taking actions that deter
tracking (Latvala et al., 2022; Scarpi et al., 2022). We further contrib-
ute to the literature by showing these attempts to protect privacy and
hinder data tracking do not necessarily mean consumers have lower
personalization expectations. Our findings suggest that brands that
fail to meet personalization expectations adequately risk not only low-
ering brand loyalty, but may face active efforts by Gen Z to further
avoid the brands' marketing. Marketers may find the avoidance–
annoyance paradox particularly concerning given technological
changes, shifting consumer privacy concerns, and emerging data pri-
vacy regulations that may further restrict marketers' abilities to per-
sonalize marketing efforts, leading to more consumer annoyance
(Scarpi et al., 2022). Creating strong data practices to responsibly cap-
ture and then leverage first-party data for personalization appears
even more critical in light of these interaction effects (Latvala
et al., 2022), and hints at the importance of raising consumers' percep-
tions of personalization benefits to help mitigate proactive avoidance
efforts (Jahari et al., 2022).
6 | THEORETIC A L I M P LI CAT I ONS
In addressing the study's three outlined research questions, the results
contribute to the consumer behavior and privacy calculus literature in
multiple ways. First, we respond to calls for research investigating
Gen Z's decision-making in consumer behavior contexts
(Yazdanparast & Gala, 2022). Second, the extant literature on digital
personalization is underdeveloped (Chandra et al., 2022), especially
concerning Gen Z's behavioral intentions in the context of personal-
ized and non-personalized digital marketing (Goldring & Azab, 2021;
Martínez-González & Álvarez-Albelo, 2021). We extend the literature
by applying privacy calculus theory to analyze consumer behaviors
related to the personalized digital content consumers interact with via
mobile and social media channels (Hayes et al., 2021; Jahari
et al., 2022; Oghazi et al., 2020; Shanahan et al., 2019). We identify
two personalization-privacy paradoxes and examine how consumers
evaluate personalized marketing related to cognitive ( privacy–benefits)
and behavioral–attitudinal (avoidance–annoyance) tradeoffs (Chandra
et al., 2022; Cloarec et al., 2022), demonstrating that differences exist
in how the privacy–benefits and avoidance–annoyance tensions affect
the investigated personalization behaviors. Third, to the best of our
knowledge, this is the first study that investigates both paradoxes and
digital personalization in the context of Gen Z consumers. We also
reveal how consumers' behavioral attempts to avoid tracking exhibits
unexpected results, with consumers experiencing increased non-
personalized brand avoidance when the consumer has proactively
taken steps that are likely to limit marketing personalization efforts.
As a result, we show that actions consumers take to proactively avoid
tracking and data sharing is likely to also contribute to consumers
avoidance of the increasingly non-personalized marketing efforts.
Finally, we discuss implications for marketing practitioners and future

12
research suggestions related to the personalization tensions as the
industry faces pending changes associated with the deprecation of
third-party cookies that may drastically alter personalization efforts
and impact brand avoidance and loyalty behaviors.
A key aim of the current study involves exploring the combined
effects of two privacy calculus paradoxes on Gen Z's behaviors
relevant to marketing personalization. Privacy calculus theory is well-
established as a critical theory for explaining how consumers cogni-
tively evaluate a growing list of digital marketing technologies to
shape their reactionary behaviors (Chandra et al., 2022; Jahari
et al., 2022). Our study highlights the privacy calculus paradox under-
lying personalized marketing behaviors are not always a straightfor-
ward, rational evaluation, as multiple tensions exist. We contribute to
the consumer behavior literature by showing that multiple paradoxes
14791838, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cb.2199 by Tunisia Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [01/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
MCKEE ET AL.
F I G U R E 2 Privacy–benefits
interaction effect.
F I G U R E 3 Avoidance–
annoyance interaction effect.
influence how Gen Z consumers behave in response to digital market-
ing personalization (Aksoy et al., 2021; Chandra et al., 2022). Specifi-
cally, we investigate the relative influence of two consumer–marketer
tensions ( privacy–benefits and avoidance–annoyance) and their interac-
tion effects when considering personalized marketing across social
media, mobile, and other digital touchpoints (Alimamy & Gnoth, 2022;
Hayes et al., 2021). We provide insights on how consumers may react
to these paradoxical tensions when consumers perceive brand-
created content as impersonal and irrelevant (non-personalized) com-
pared to personally relevant (personalized) marketing. We also con-
tribute to the growing literature on value co-creation and destruction
related to consumer–brand engagement (Anaza et al., 2021; Vander
Schee et al., 2020). The current study also adds to marketers' under-
standing of brand attitudes associated with avoidance versus loyalty

MCKEE ET AL.
that ultimately may explain continued (un)willingness to disclose per-
sonal data for personalization purposes (Ackermann et al., 2022).
Our results reveal that the avoidance–annoyance tension is a criti-
cal privacy-calculus paradox marketers must consider that is unex-
plored in the extant literature on personalization (Chandra
et al., 2022). Both elements of this tension are likely to increase con-
sumers' intentions of disengaging from brands' non-personalized mar-
keting efforts (Anaza et al., 2021). Consumers who proactively
attempt to avoid digital tracking efforts may at least partially be acting
on their privacy concerns surrounding digital personalization's intru-
siveness (Smink et al., 2020; Strycharz et al., 2019). Notably, the posi-
tive influence of proactive avoidance on non-personalized brand
avoidance and the significant avoidance–annoyance interaction effect
on personalized brand loyalty is opposite of what the privacy calculus
theory suggests (Barth & de Jong, 2017). While research is necessary
to explore this tension further, perhaps our surprising finding reflects
that even privacy-conscious consumers appreciate when a brand
demonstrates a strong understanding of the consumer. Even as con-
sumers make personalization more difficult for marketers, brands may
strengthen the consumer–brand relationship when personalized mar-
keting efforts stand out from other brands' less targeted marketing
communications (Hayes et al., 2021). When consumers are less willing
to share personal data by deleting cookies, turning off location identi-
fiers, or similar actions, they unwittingly increase their chances of
receiving more impersonal and irrelevant digital content. As a result,
consumers tracking avoidance behaviors may potentially increase
their annoyance with brands. Although this tension may be amplified
because of the consumers' own actions, our findings suggest con-
sumers may emphasize the brand's role when faced with non-
personalized digital content (brand-created annoyance). Marketers
may need to increase transparency to meet consumers'
personalization–privacy expectations to avoid annoying consumers
with non-personalized digital content and continue reaping personali-
zation's benefits (Ahora et al., 2021). Consumers undoubtedly play a
role here, and future research with comprehensive frameworks
exploring the antecedents and consequences of the annoyance–
avoidance paradox is warranted given this tension has been relatively
unexplored in the extant consumer behavior literature.
7 | PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
Digital personalization entails diverse communication methods and
messaging (Aksoy et al., 2021). Marketers continue to seek ways to
enhance consumer–brand relationships (Vander Schee et al., 2020),
and remain committed to optimizing marketing personalization efforts
to meet consumers' evolving digital preferences (Ahora et al., 2021).
Concurrently, marketers encounter an array of consumers' proactive
avoidance actions and industry changes that make digital personaliza-
tion efforts progressively challenging (Latvala et al., 2022). Our results
provide insights into an additional tension that marketers must con-
sider beyond the privacy–benefits paradox. Monitoring consumers' pri-
vacy concerns and increasing personalization benefits remains
14791838, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cb.2199 by Tunisia Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [01/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
13
essential (Chandra et al., 2022; Cloarec et al., 2022), particularly for
brands hoping to augment loyalty. However, the results related to the
avoidance–annoyance paradox suggest that marketers need to realize
that Gen Z's expectations for personally relevant digital experiences
do not necessarily decrease even as Gen Z proactively takes actions
to restrict data tracking. Nor does it lessen the annoyance consumers
experience when faced with non-personalized content. Although what
mitigation efforts may help address these issues are untested in our
study, marketers may benefit from increased transparency to highlight
the value of data sharing. The tension also suggests marketers may
need to consider various contextual factors and rewards to increase
consumers' willingness to share personal data (Ackermann
et al., 2022). However, the deprecation of third-party cookies and
other industry changes require marketers to develop and accentuate
first-party data strategies to deliver on consumers' personalization
expectations (Ahora et al., 2021; Latvala et al., 2022). Marketers
should also consider how consumers' paradoxes evolve as marketers
employ artificial intelligence and other technologies to collect data
and personalize marketing efforts (Peltier et al., 2023). Finally, mar-
keters should consider other tensions and closely monitor the tipping
point for these personalization paradoxes that may impact consumer
behavior and brand outcomes. While our study reveals consumers
may weigh multiple privacy-related paradoxes related to digital per-
sonalization, research is necessary to understand the nuances of
brand-specific tipping points and identify the optimal data tracking–
personalization mix.
8 | CONC LU SION
Marketing personalization in the digital environment has long been
viewed as beneficial to both consumers and marketers
(Montgomery & Smith, 2009) and continues to see increased market-
ing investment (Ahora et al., 2021; Guttmann, 2021). The current
study addresses recent calls to examine the paradoxes of digital mar-
keting personalization (Aksoy et al., 2021; Chandra et al., 2022), and
particularly Gen Z's decision-making (Yazdanparast & Gala, 2022). The
study thus extends marketers' understanding of consumers'
personalization-related behavioral intentions by exploring how Gen Z
consumers cognitively evaluate two different privacy-related para-
doxes. In particular, we contribute to the literature by highlighting the
internal cognitive tensions influencing consumers' attitudes and
behavioral intentions related to brands and their marketing efforts
(Barth & de Jong, 2017; Lee & Rha, 2016). Our study suggests the
personalization–privacy calculus involves multiple paradoxes and goes
beyond the core tradeoff of privacy concerns and personalization
benefits (Jahari et al., 2022). The results underscore the complex cog-
nitive evaluation process through which consumers anticipate and
assess digital personalization's value, providing new insights for
research that reveals personalization's mixed results (Chandra
et al., 2022). Beyond the core privacy–benefits paradox, we conceptu-
alize and empirically examine how Gen Z consumers juxtapose proac-
tive attempts to limit data tracking with the potential exposure to

14
increasingly less relevant marketing that may annoy consumers
(labeled the avoidance–annoyance paradox). We thus demonstrate
how the combined paradoxes may ultimately harm consumer–brand
relationships via brand avoidance behavior intentions (Anaza
et al., 2021) or create stronger brand loyalty intentions (Alimamy &
Gnoth, 2022; Chandra et al., 2022).
9 | L I M I T A TI O NS A ND F U T U R E R E S E A R CH
The current study is not without limitations. Despite Gen Z's impor-
tance as a generational cohort given efforts to limit data tracking
(Jahari et al., 2022; Latvala et al., 2022), a critical limitation of the cur-
rent study is the use of a cross-sectional research design with a Gen Z
student sample from only two universities. Future research studying
the paradoxes across generational cohorts and other demographic
characteristics (i.e., gender, cultural differences), as well as across dif-
ferent digital marketing touchpoints and personalization typologies, is
warranted (Aksoy et al., 2021; Chandra et al., 2022; Cloarec
et al., 2022; Hayes et al., 2021). Second, although the study contrib-
utes to understanding the personalization–privacy paradox, many
questions remain unanswered (Chandra et al., 2022; Cloarec
et al., 2022). The results provide initial insights into brand avoidance
of non-personalized marketing and loyalty to brands using personal-
ized marketing, but does not address how brands can best mitigate
and respond to these brand disidentification behaviors, nor does it
explore how existing consumer-brand relationships and engagement
behaviors may play a role (Vander Schee et al., 2020). The growing
interest in brand avoidance suggests future research examining the
connection between personalization efforts and engagement in other
brand disidentification behaviors is of value (Anaza et al., 2021). The
complexity of the two personalization tensions also suggests more
comprehensive models that jointly examine the direct and indirect
effects of related constructs on consumer behavior are warranted.
Additional consumer–marketer tensions also may emerge as technol-
ogy (i.e., artificial intelligence) and data tracking evolve that influence
consumer behavior (Scarpi et al., 2022). Future research should
explore the antecedents and consequences of these emerging
personalization–privacy tensions to help shape marketing practices.
Finally, research could expand our framework to explore how these
brand behavioral intentions impact other relevant behaviors, including
actual purchases. Since we measure self-reported behavioral inten-
tions, future studies may offer insights into how emerging privacy reg-
ulations, industry responses, and other events shape consumers'
evolving privacy calculus, purchase intentions, and actual purchase or
other brand behaviors.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank the editors and reviewers for the con-
structive comments throughout the review process.
CONF LICT OF IN TE RE ST ST AT E MENT
None.
14791838, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cb.2199 by Tunisia Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [01/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
MCKEE ET AL.
DATA AVAILABILITY STAT EMEN T
The data that support the findings of this study are available on
request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly
available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.
OR CID
Kathleen M. McKee https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9272-0579
Andrew J. Dahl https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0202-6955
James W. Peltier https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3614-7138
RE FE RE NCE S
Abraham, M., Archacki, R., González, J. E., & Fanfarillo, S. (2019). The next
level of personalization in retail. Boston Consulting Group https://www.
bcg.com/publications/2019/next-level-personalization-retail
Ackermann, K. A., Burkhalter, L., Mildenberger, T., Frey, M., & Bearth, A.
(2022). Willingness to share data: Contextual determinants of con-
sumers’ decisions to share private data with companies. Journal of
Consumer Behaviour, 21(2), 375–386. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.
2012
Ahora, N., Liu, W. W., Robinson, K., Stein, E., Ensslen, D., Fiedler, L., &
Schüler, G. (2021). The value of getting personalization right—Or wrong—
Is multiplying. McKinsey & Company https://www.mckinsey.com/
business-functions/growth-marketing-and-sales/our-insights/the-value-
of-getting-personalization-right-or-wrong-is-multiplying
Aksoy, N. C., Kabadayi, E. T., Yilmaz, C., & Alan, A. K. (2021). A typology of
personalisation practices in marketing in the digital age. Journal of Mar-
keting Management, 37(11–12), 1091–1122. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0267257X.2020.1866647
Alimamy, S., & Gnoth, J. (2022). I want it my way! The effect of percep-
tions of personalization through augmented reality and online shop-
ping on customer intentions to co-create value. Computers in Human
Behavior, 128, 107105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.107105
Anaza, N. A., Saavedra, J. L., Hair, J. F., Jr., Bagherzadeh, R., Rawal, M., &
Osakwe, C. N. (2021). Customer-brand disidentification: Conceptuali-
zation, scale development and validation. Journal of Business Research,
133, 116–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.03.064
Baek, T. H., & Morimoto, M. (2012). Stay away from me examining the
determinants of consumer avoidance of personalized advertising. Jour-
nal of Advertising, 41(1), 59–76. https://doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-
3367410105
Bang, H., & Wojdynski, B. W. (2016). Tracking users' visual attention and
responses to personalized advertising based on task cognitive demand.
Computers in Human Behavior, 55(Pt. B), 867–876. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.chb.2015.10.025
Barth, S., & de Jong, M. D. T. (2017). The privacy paradox―Investigating
discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online
behavior―A systematic literature review. Telematics and Informatics,
34(7), 1038–1058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.04.013
Bleier, A., & Eisenbeiss, M. (2015). The importance of trust for personal-
ized online advertising. Journal of Retailing, 91(3), 390–409. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2015.04.001
Brinson, N. H., Eastin, M. S., & Cicchirillo, V. J. (2018). Reactance to per-
sonalization: Understanding the drivers behind the growth of ad block-
ing. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 18(2), 136–147. https://doi.org/
10.1080/15252019.2018.1491350
Chandra, S., Verma, S., Lim, W. M., Kumar, S., & Donthu, N. (2022). Person-
alization in personalized marketing: Trends and ways forward. Psychol-
ogy & Marketing, 39(8), 1529–1562. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.
21670
Chang, C. (2022). How short film ads improve brand attitudes: The
roles of viewing experiences and consumption visions. Journal of
Consumer Behaviour, 21(6), 1440–1453. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.
2094

MCKEE ET AL.
Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand
trust and brand affect to brand performance: The role of brand loyalty.
Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.65.2.
81.18255
Chen, Q., Feng, Y., Liu, L., & Tian, Z. (2019). Understanding consumers'
reactance of personalized advertising: A new scheme of rational
choice from a perspective of negative effects. International Journal of
Information Management, 44, 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijinfomgt.2018.09.001
Chen, X., Sun, J., & Liu, H. (2022). Balancing web personalization and con-
sumer privacy concerns: Mechanisms of consumer trust and reactance.
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 21(3), 572–582. https://doi.org/10.
1002/cb.1947
Childers, C., & Boatwright, B. (2021). Do digital natives recognize digital
influence? Generational differences and understanding of social media
influencers. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 42(4),
425–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2020.1830893
Cho, C.-H., & Cheon, H. J. (2004). Why do people avoid advertising on the
internet? Journal of Advertising, 33(4), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.
1080/00913367.2004.10639175
Cloarec, J., Meyer-Waarden, L., & Munzel, A. (2022). The personalization-
privacy paradox at the nexus of social exchange and construal level
theories. Psychology & Marketing, 39(3), 647–661. https://doi.org/10.
1002/mar.21587
Debevec, K., Schewe, C. D., Madden, T. J., & Diamond, W. D. (2013). Are
today's millennials splintering into a new generational cohort? Journal
of Consumer Behaviour, 12(1), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.
1400
Dolliver, M. (2019). At the core of Gen Z: Gauging how digital usage fits
into teens' lives and buying habits. eMarketer Insider Intelligence
https://www.insiderintelligence.com/content/at-the-core-of-gen-z
DeSimone, J. A., & Harms, P. D. (2018). Dirty data: The effects of screen-
ing respondents who provide low-quality data in survey research. Jour-
nal of Business Psychology, 33, 559–577. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10869-017-9514-9
Dimock, M. (2019). Defining generations: Where Millennials end and Gen-
eration Z begins. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/
17/where-millennials-endand-generation-z-begins/
Dinev, T., & Hart, P. (2006). An extended privacy calculus model for
e-commerce transactions. Information Systems Research, 17(1), 61–80.
https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1060.0080
Djafarova, E., & Bowes, T. (2021). ‘Instagram made Me buy it’: Generation
Z impulse purchases in fashion industry. Journal of Retailing and Con-
sumer Services, 59(102), 345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.
2020.102345
Eastman, J. K., Iyer, R., Eastman, K. L., Gordon-Wilson, S., & Modi, P.
(2021). Reaching the price conscious consumer: The impact of person-
ality, generational cohort and social media use. Journal of Consumer
Behaviour, 20(4), 898–912. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1906
Ellison, D. (2022). The Gen Z paradox: Conscience vs. commerce. VMLY&R
Commerce https://www.genzparadox.com/
eMarketer. (2022). Consumer attitudes towards digital advertising and ad
blocking usage. https://www.insiderintelligence.com/insights/ad-
blocking/
Forbes. (2022). Selling to Gen-Z: This is what they want. https://www.
forbes.com/sites/shephyken/2022/06/12/selling-to-gen-z-this-is-what-
they-want
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models
with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Mar-
keting Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/
002224378101800104
Gironda, J. T., & Korgaonkar, P. K. (2018). iSpy? Tailored versus invasive
ads and consumers' perceptions of personalized advertising. Electronic
Commerce Research and Applications, 29, 64–77. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.elerap.2018.03.007
14791838, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cb.2199 by Tunisia Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [01/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
15
Goldring, D., & Azab, C. (2021). New rules of social media shopping: Per-
sonality differences of US Gen Z versus Gen X market mavens. Journal
of Consumer Behaviour, 20(4), 884–897. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.
1893
Guttmann, A. (2021). Marketing personalization―Statistics & facts. Sta-
tista https://www.statista.com/topics/4481/personalized-marketing/
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on
partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage
Publications.
Hayes, J. L., Brinson, N. H., Bott, G. J., & Moeller, C. M. (2021). The influ-
ence of consumer–brand relationship on the personalized advertising
privacy calculus in social media. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 55(1),
16–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2021.01.001
Hessekiel, D. (2022). Values & value: The Gen Z paradox. Forbes https://
www.forbes.com/sites/davidhessekiel/2022/10/24/values--value-the-
gen-z-paradox/
Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for
use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1),
104–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819800100106
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance
structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struc-
tural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Jahari, S. A., Hass, A., Hass, D., & Joseph, M. (2022). Navigating privacy
concerns through societal benefits: A case of digital contact tracing
applications. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 21(3), 625–638. https://
doi.org/10.1002/cb.2029
Jain, G., Paul, J., & Shrivastava, A. (2021). Hyper-personalization, co-
creation, digital clienteling and transformation. Journal of Business
Research, 124, 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.
11.034
Johnson, O., & Chattaraman, V. (2019). Conceptualization and measure-
ment of millennial's social signaling and self-signaling for socially
responsible consumption. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 18(1), 32–42.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1742
Johnstone, L., & Lindh, C. (2018). The sustainability-age dilemma: A theory
of (un) planned behaviour via influencers. Journal of Consumer Behav-
iour, 17(1), e127–e139. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1693
Jozani, M., Ayaburi, E., Ko, M., & Choo, K. K. R. (2020). Privacy concerns
and benefits of engagement with social media-enabled apps: A privacy
calculus perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 107, 106260.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106260
Jung, A.-R. (2017). The influence of perceived ad relevance on social media
advertising: An empirical examination of a mediating role of privacy
concern. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 303–309. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.008
Kim, T., Barasz, K., & John, L. K. (2019). Why am I seeing this ad? The
effect of ad transparency on ad effectiveness. Journal of Consumer
Research, 45(5), 906–932. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucy039
Knittel, Z., Beurer, K., & Berndt, A. (2016). Brand avoidance among Gener-
ation Y consumers. Qualitative Market Research, 19(1), 27–43. https://
doi.org/10.1108/QMR-03-2015-0019
Kuanr, A., Pradhan, D., Lyngdoh, T., & Lee, M. S. W. (2022). Why do con-
sumers subvert brands? Investigating the influence of subjective well-
being on brand avoidance. Psychology & Marketing, 39(3), 612–633.
https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21606
Latvala, L., Horn, J., & Bruno, B. (2022). Thriving in the age of privacy regu-
lation: A first-party data strategy. Applied Marketing Analytics, 7(3),
211–220.
Lee, C. H., & Cranage, D. A. (2011). Personalisation–privacy paradox: The
effects of personalisation and privacy assurance on customer
responses to travel Web sites. Tourism Management, 32(5), 987–994.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2010.08.011
Lee, J. M., & Rha, J. Y. (2016). Personalization–privacy paradox and con-
sumer conflict with the use of location-based mobile commerce.

16
Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 453–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.chb.2016.05.056
Lee, M. S. W., Motion, J., & Conroy, D. (2009). Anti-consumption and
brand avoidance. Journal of Business Research, 62(2), 169–180. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.024
Li, C. (2016). When does web-based personalization really work? The dis-
tinction between actual personalization and perceived personalization.
Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 25–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2015.07.049
Li, C., & Liu, J. (2017). A name alone is not enough: A reexamination of
web-based personalization effect. Computers in Human Behavior, 72,
132–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.039
Lin, C.-W., Wang, K.-Y., Chang, S.-H., & Lin, J.-A. (2019). Investigating the
development of brand loyalty in brand communities from a positive
psychology perspective. Journal of Business Research, 99, 446–455.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.08.033
Lyngdoh, T., El-Manstrly, D., & Jeesha, K. (2022). Social isolation and social
anxiety as drivers of generation Z's willingness to share personal infor-
mation on social media. Psychology & Marketing, 1–22, 5–26. https://
doi.org/10.1002/mar.21744
Martínez-González, J. A., & Álvarez-Albelo, C. D. (2021). Influence of site
personalization and first impression on young consumers' loyalty to
tourism websites. Sustainability, 13(3), 1425. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su13031425
McCoach, D. B., Black, A. C., & O'Connell, A. A. (2007). Errors of inference
in structural equation modelling. Psychology in the Schools, 44(5), 461–
470. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20238
Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. B. (2012). Identifying careless responses in sur-
vey data. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 437–455. https://doi.org/10.
1037/a0028085
Montgomery, A. L., & Smith, M. D. (2009). Prospects for personalization
on the internet. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23(2), 130–137.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2009.02.001
Odoom, R., Kosiba, J. P., Djamgbah, C. T., & Narh, L. (2019). Brand avoid-
ance: Underlying protocols and a practical scale. Journal of Product &
Brand Management, 28(5), 586–597. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-
03-2018-1777
Oghazi, P., Schultheiss, R., Chirumalla, K., Kalmer, N. P., & Rad, F. F. (2020).
User self-disclosure on social network sites: A cross-cultural study on
Facebook's privacy concepts. Journal of Business Research, 112, 531–
540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.12.006
Osei-Frimpong, K., McLean, G., Wilson, A., & Lemke, F. (2020). Customer
coproduction in healthcare service delivery: Examining the influencing
effects of the social context. Journal of Business Research, 12, 82–93.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.07.037
Ozcelik, A. B., & Varnali, K. (2018). Effectiveness of online behavioral tar-
geting: A psychological perspective. Electronic Commerce Research and
Applications, 33, 100819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2018.
11.006
Peltier, J. W., Dahl, A. J., & Schibrowsky, J. (2023). Artificial intelligence in
interactive marketing: A conceptual framework and research agenda.
Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, forthcoming.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003).
Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the
literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Qin, L., Kim, Y., Hsu, J., & Tan, X. (2011). The effects of social influence on
user acceptance of online social networks. International Journal of
Human-Computer Interaction, 27(9), 885–899. https://doi.org/10.
1080/10447318.2011.555311
Rather, R. A., Hollebeek, L. D., Vo-Thanh, T., Ramkissoon, H.,
Leppiman, A., & Smith, D. (2022). Shaping customer brand loyalty dur-
ing the pandemic: The role of brand credibility, value congruence,
experience, identification, and engagement. Journal of Consumer
Behaviour, 21(5), 1175–1189. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.2070
14791838, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cb.2199 by Tunisia Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [01/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
MCKEE ET AL.
Redondo, I., & Aznar, G. (2018). To use or not to use ad blockers? The roles
of knowledge of ad blockers and attitude toward online advertising.
Telematics and Informatics, 35(6), 1607–1616. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.tele.2018.04.008
Roy, S. K., Sharma, A., Bose, S., & Singh, G. (2022). Consumer-brand rela-
tionship: A brand hate perspective. Journal of Business Research, 144,
1293–1304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.02.065
Scarpi, D., Pizzi, G., & Matta, S. (2022). Digital technologies and privacy:
State of the art and research directions. Psychology & Marketing, 39(9),
1687–1697. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21692
Schmidt, L. L., & Maier, E. (2022). Interactive ad avoidance on mobile
phones. Journal of Advertising, 51(4), 440–449. https://doi.org/10.
1080/00913367.2022.2077266
Shanahan, T., Tran, T. P., & Taylor, E. C. (2019). Getting to know you:
Social media personalization as a means of enhancing brand loyalty
and perceived quality. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 47,
57–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.10.007
Sheng, H., Nah, F. F. H., & Siau, K. (2008). An experimental study on ubiq-
uitous commerce adoption: Impact of personalization and privacy con-
cerns. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 9(6), 344–376.
https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00161
Shin, W., & Lin, T. T.-C. (2016). Who avoids location-based advertising and
why? Investigating the relationship between user perceptions and
advertising avoidance. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 444–452.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.036
Smartbrief. (2022). Advertising to Gen Z? Personalize it. https://corp.
smartbrief.com/original/2022/05/advertising-to-gen-z-personalize-it
Smink, A. R., van Reijmersdal, E. A., van Noort, G., & Neijens, P. C. (2020).
Shopping in augmented reality: The effects of spatial presence, per-
sonalization and intrusiveness on app and brand responses. Journal of
Business Research, 118, 474–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.
2020.07.018
Smith, K. T. (2019). Mobile advertising to digital natives: Preferences on
content, style, personalization, and functionality. Journal of Strategic
Marketing, 27(1), 67–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2017.
1384043
Strycharz, J., van Noort, G., Smit, E., & Helberger, N. (2019). Protec-
tive behavior against personalized ads: Motivation to turn person-
alization off. Cyberpsychology, 13(2), 1. https://doi.org/10.5817/
CP2019-2-1
Tam, K. Y., & Ho, S. Y. (2006). Understanding the impact of web personali-
zation on user information processing and decision outcomes. MIS
Quarterly, 30(4), 865–890. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148757
Taylor, D. G., Lewin, J. E., & Strutton, D. (2011). Friends, fans, and fol-
lowers: Do ads work on social networks? Journal of Advertising
Research, 51(1), 258–275. https://doi.org/10.2501/JAR-51-1-
258-275
Tran, T. P. (2017). Personalized ads on Facebook: An effective marketing
tool for online marketers. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
39, 230–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.06.010
Tran, T. P., Lin, C. W., Baalbaki, S., & Guzmán, F. (2020). How personalized
advertising affects equity of brands advertised on Facebook? A media-
tion mechanism. Journal of Business Research, 120, 1–15. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.06.027
Vander Schee, B. A., Peltier, J., & Dahl, A. J. (2020). Antecedent consumer
factors, consequential branding outcomes and measures of online con-
sumer engagement: Current research and future directions. Journal of
Research in Interactive Marketing, 14(2), 239–268. https://doi.org/10.
1108/JRIM-01-2020-0010
Vimalkumar, M., Sharma, S. K., Singh, J. B., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2021). ‘Okay
google, what about my privacy?’: User's privacy perceptions and
acceptance of voice based digital assistants. Computers in Human
Behavior, 120, 106763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106763
Wanjugu, S., Moulard, J. G., & Sinha, M. (2022). The paradoxical role of
relationship quality on consumer privacy: Its effects on relinquishing

MCKEE ET AL.
and safeguarding information. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 21(5),
1203–1218. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.2072
Wielki, J. (2020). Analysis of the role of digital influencers and their impact
on the functioning of the contemporary on-line promotional system
and its sustainable development. Sustainability, 12(17), 7138. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su12177138
Wiese, M., Martínez-Climent, C., & Botella-Carrubi, D. (2020). A frame-
work for Facebook advertising effectiveness: A behavioral perspective.
Journal of Business Research, 109, 76–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2019.11.041
Wottrich, V. M., van Reijmersdal, E. A., & Smit, E. G. (2018). The privacy
tradeoff for mobile app downloads: The roles of app value, intrusive-
ness, and privacy concerns. Decision Support Systems, 106, 44–52.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2017.12.003
Yazdanparast, A., & Gala, P. (2022). Special issue―Call for papers:
Future trends in consumer behaviour. Journal of Consumer Behaviour.
Zhu, Y.-Q., & Chang, J.-H. (2016). The key role of relevance in personalized
advertisement: Examining its impact on perceptions of privacy inva-
sion, self-awareness, and continuous use intentions. Computers in
Human Behavior, 65, 442–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.
08.048
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHI ES
Kathleen M. McKee is an assistant professor of Marketing at the
University of Wisconsin-Parkside. Prior to academia, McKee spent
her career working in sales and marketing, including in digital
advertising. McKee's research focuses on digital marketing, social
influence, privacy, advertising avoidance, and digital consumer
behaviors.
Andrew J. Dahl is an associate professor of Marketing with a
focus on artificial intelligence and digital marketing at the
14791838, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cb.2199 by Tunisia Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [01/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
17
University of Wisconsin-Whitewater. Dr Dahl serves on the Goo-
gle Academic Panel and previously served as an executive mem-
ber of the American Marketing Association Collegiate Council
Advisory Board. Dahl's research focuses on artificial intelligence,
digital transformation, digital marketing, digital consumer behav-
ior, value co-creation, services marketing, and marketing pedagog-
ical issues.
James W. Peltier is the Arno Kleimenhagen Professor of Sales
and Marketing, Director of the Institute for Sales Excellence, and
Department of Marketing Chair at the University of Wisconsin-
Whitewater. Peltier has received multiple lifetime recognition
awards for his contributions to marketing including Robert
C. Clarke Lifetime Educator Award, AMA Collegiate Faculty Advi-
sor Lifetime Achievement Award, and Social Entrepreneur of the
Year. Peltier has over 120 journal articles in areas of digital mar-
keting, healthcare marketing, services marketing, co-creation,
advertising, database marketing, information privacy, sales, among
others; and has won over 10 best paper awards. Peltier has edited
or co-edited six different journals.
How to cite this article: McKee, K. M., Dahl, A. J., & Peltier,
J. W. (2023). Gen Z's personalization paradoxes: A privacy
calculus examination of digital personalization and brand
behaviors. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 1–18. https://doi.
org/10.1002/cb.2199

18
APPENDIX
PERSONALIZED ADVERTISING DEFINITION AND VIGNETTE
SCENARIO
Personalized advertising defined
Personalized advertising is a way brands may show personally rele-
vant advertisements to online consumers. Personalized ads are cre-
ated based on individual consumer searches, demographics from
social media profiles, postings, “likes,” or other information. As a con-
sumer, you might see these ads on the websites you visit, social net-
working sites, email services, and search engines.
Example of personalized advertisement
The following is an example of how a personalized advertisement
might work if you were browsing for a hotel for an upcoming trip.
14791838, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cb.2199 by Tunisia Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [01/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
MCKEE ET AL.
Please consider this scenario as you answer the questions in this sur-
vey.
Trip to Miami: You are planning to take a trip this year to Miami,
Florida. Although you know your destination city, you do not know
which hotel you should stay at during your trip. You have searched
for hotels on booking sites and search engines to compare prices,
features, and pictures. From your search, you have found the hotel
chain named “Blue Ocean Hotel.” After reviewing prices, features,
and pictures, you believe this hotel will meet your needs for your
vacation. However, you closed your browser before making a res-
ervation. The next time you are online, you see an online ad for
the exact same “Blue Ocean Hotel” on another website or while
reviewing your social media feed. Clicking on the hotel advertise-
ment brings you to a page to complete the reservation you wanted
to make.