When Personalization Feels Like Surveillance: A Marketing Framework for Artificial Intelligence-Personalized Advertising

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31181/sa42202679

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI)-personalized advertising can increase message relevance, consumer engagement, and persuasive effectiveness, yet the same targeting practices can expose the extent of consumer tracking and trigger concerns about surveillance, manipulation, and loss of autonomy. Existing research documents both the benefits and the risks of personalization, but it does not fully explain how personalization intensity, data-use transparency, and meaningful consumer control jointly shape advertising evaluations and brand-level outcomes. Through an integrative synthesis of personalized advertising, privacy-calculus theory, psychological reactance, procedural fairness, and brand-trust research, this conceptual article develops a dual-pathway framework. The value-creation pathway predicts that high-quality personalization strengthens perceived relevance and advertising value, which subsequently enhance purchase intention, brand trust, and continued engagement. The surveillance-threat pathway predicts that unexpected data use, sensitive inferences, excessive specificity, and opaque targeting practices increase perceived surveillance and intrusiveness, thereby stimulating reactance, advertising avoidance, and trust erosion. The framework distinguishes transparency from control and argues that these mechanisms become most effective when combined: transparency clarifies how and why personal data are used, whereas control allows consumers to modify, limit, or refuse personalization. Their joint presence creates procedural legitimacy and can preserve the benefits of personalization while reducing perceived vulnerability. Twelve propositions specify the principal mediating mechanisms, boundary conditions, and an inverted-U relationship between personalization intensity and net marketing response. The article also proposes a three-study empirical validation agenda and practical design principles for developing personalized advertising systems that improve relevance and effectiveness without undermining consumer autonomy, privacy expectations, or long-term brand trust.

References

Davenport, T., Guha, A., Grewal, D., & Bressgott, T. (2020). How artificial intelligence will change the future of marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48, 24–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-019-00696-0

Huang, M.-H., & Rust, R. T. (2021). A strategic framework for artificial intelligence in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 49, 30–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-020-00749-9

Puntoni, S., Reczek, R. W., Giesler, M., & Botti, S. (2021). Consumers and artificial intelligence: An experiential perspective. Journal of Marketing, 85(1), 131–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242920953847

De Bruyn, A., Viswanathan, V., Beh, Y. S., Brock, J. K.-U., & von Wangenheim, F. (2020). Artificial intelligence and marketing: Pitfalls and opportunities. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 51, 91–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2020.04.007

Boerman, S. C., Kruikemeier, S., & Zuiderveen Borgesius, F. J. (2017). Online behavioral advertising: A literature review and research agenda. Journal of Advertising, 46(3), 363–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2017.1339368

Bleier, A., & Eisenbeiss, M. (2015). Personalized online advertising effectiveness: The interplay of what, when, and where. Marketing Science, 34(5), 669–688. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2015.0930

Aguirre, E., Mahr, D., Grewal, D., de Ruyter, K., & Wetzels, M. (2015). Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust-building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness. Journal of Retailing, 91(1), 34–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2014.09.005

Tucker, C. E. (2014). Social networks, personalized advertising, and privacy controls. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(5), 546–562. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.10.0355

Goldfarb, A., & Tucker, C. (2011). Online display advertising: Targeting and obtrusiveness. Marketing Science, 30(3), 389–404. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1100.0583

de Groot, J. I. M. (2022). The personalization paradox in Facebook advertising: The mediating effect of relevance on the personalization–brand attitude relationship and the moderating effect of intrusiveness. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 22(1), 57–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2022.2032492

De Keyzer, F., Dens, N., & De Pelsmacker, P. (2022). How and when personalized advertising leads to brand attitude, click, and word-of-mouth intention. Journal of Advertising, 51(1), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2021.1888339

Lee, J., Kim, C., & Lee, K. C. (2022). Exploring the personalization–intrusiveness–intention framework to evaluate the effects of personalization in social media. International Journal of Information Management, 67, 102532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2022.102532

White, T. B., Zahay, D. L., Thorbjørnsen, H., & Shavitt, S. (2008). Getting too personal: Reactance to highly personalized email solicitations. Marketing Letters, 19(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-007-9027-9

Baek, T. H., & Morimoto, M. (2012). Stay away from me: Examining the determinants of consumer avoidance of personalized advertising. Journal of Advertising, 41(1), 59–76. https://doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367410105

Ducoffe, R. H. (1996). Advertising value and advertising on the web. Journal of Advertising Research, 36(5), 21–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00218499.1996.12466626

Li, H., Edwards, S. M., & Lee, J.-H. (2002). Measuring the intrusiveness of advertisements: Scale development and validation. Journal of Advertising, 31(2), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2002.10673665

Edwards, S. M., Li, H., & Lee, J.-H. (2002). Forced exposure and psychological reactance: Antecedents and consequences of the perceived intrusiveness of pop-up ads. Journal of Advertising, 31(3), 83–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2002.10673678

Clee, M. A., & Wicklund, R. A. (1980). Consumer behavior and psychological reactance. Journal of Consumer Research, 6(4), 389–405. https://doi.org/10.1086/208782

Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1086/209380

Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., & Agarwal, J. (2004). Internet users’ information privacy concerns: The construct, the scale, and a causal model. Information Systems Research, 15(4), 336–355. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1040.0032

Phelps, J., Nowak, G., & Ferrell, E. (2000). Privacy concerns and consumer willingness to provide personal information. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 19(1), 27–41. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.19.1.27.16941

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

Awad, N. F., & Krishnan, M. S. (2006). The personalization privacy paradox: An empirical evaluation of information transparency and the willingness to be profiled online for personalization. MIS Quarterly, 30(1), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148715

Smith, H. J., Dinev, T., & Xu, H. (2011). Information privacy research: An interdisciplinary review. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 989–1015. https://doi.org/10.2307/41409970

Acquisti, A., Brandimarte, L., & Loewenstein, G. (2015). Privacy and human behavior in the age of information. Science, 347(6221), 509–514. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1465

Nissenbaum, H. (2004). Privacy as contextual integrity. Washington Law Review, 79(1), 119–157.

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

Sutanto, J., Palme, E., Tan, C.-H., & Phang, C. W. (2013). Addressing the personalization–privacy paradox: An empirical assessment from a field experiment on smartphone users. MIS Quarterly, 37(4), 1141–1164. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.4.07

Martin, K. D., & Murphy, P. E. (2017). The role of data privacy in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(2), 135–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-016-0495-4

Martin, K. D., Borah, A., & Palmatier, R. W. (2017). Data privacy: Effects on customer and firm performance. Journal of Marketing, 81(1), 36–58. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.15.0497

Jaakkola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: Four approaches. AMS Review, 10, 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0

MacInnis, D. J. (2011). A framework for conceptual contributions in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 136–154. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.75.4.136

Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039

Bleier, A., & Eisenbeiss, M. (2015). The importance of trust for personalized online advertising. Journal of Retailing, 91(3), 390–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2015.04.001

Castelo, N., Bos, M. W., & Lehmann, D. R. (2019). Task-dependent algorithm aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 56(5), 809–825. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022243719851788

Logg, J. M., Minson, J. A., & Moore, D. A. (2019). Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 151, 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.12.005

Luo, X., Tong, S., Fang, Z., & Qu, Z. (2019). Frontiers: Machines vs. humans: The impact of artificial intelligence chatbot disclosure on customer purchases. Marketing Science, 38(6), 937–947. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2019.1192

Lee, S., Moon, W.-K., & Song, Y. G. (2025). Is it transparent or surveillant? The effects of personalized advertising and privacy policy on advertising effectiveness. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 25(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2024.2417422

Toti, J.-F., & Steils, N. (2024). Showing or hiding? The impact of visibility of general conditions of use on retargeted ad intrusiveness and perceived ethicality of mobile apps. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 59(3), 251–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/10949968231221472

Dietvorst, B. J., Simmons, J. P., & Massey, C. (2018). Overcoming algorithm aversion: People will use imperfect algorithms if they can (even slightly) modify them. Management Science, 64(3), 1155–1170. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2643

Shaddy, F., Friedman, E. M. S., & Toubia, O. (2026). Fairness perceptions in demographic targeting. Journal of Consumer Research, 53(1), 22–47. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucaf048

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, C.-J., & Cheng, J. M.-S. (2026). When help feels creepy: A motivation–opportunity–ability model of artificial intelligence smart-retail adoption via perceived intrusiveness and the moderating role of trust in artificial intelligence. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 90, 104699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2025.104699

Tangari, A. H. (2026). Artificial intelligence-driven personalization in social media advertising: How tracking awareness and electronic word-of-mouth homophily shape trust and consumer responses. Psychology & Marketing. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.70166

Published

2026-06-15

How to Cite

Nafei, A. . (2026). When Personalization Feels Like Surveillance: A Marketing Framework for Artificial Intelligence-Personalized Advertising. Systemic Analytics, 4(2), 102-117. https://doi.org/10.31181/sa42202679