Marketing through social media
influencers: Explaining the effects of
influencer self-presentation styles on
source credibility and brand responses
Master thesis
Graduate School of Amsterdam
Research Master’s Program Communication Science
June, 2020
Name student:
Marieke Walet
Student number: 10745408
Abstract
Self-presentation is an important aspect in the context of influencer marketing, as affordances of the Internet (e.g. asynchronous communication) give social media influencers (SMIs) more control to selectively disclose personal information compared to face-to-face interactions. The aim of this study was to unravel the mechanisms (i.e. trustworthiness, expertise, physical attraction and social attraction) that explain the different effects on receivers’ brand responses (i.e. brand attitude, product attitude and purchase intention) between SMI self-presentation styles (i.e. laypeople vs. opinion leadership vs. micro-celebrity). It was expected that each self-presentation style would enhance one specific component of source credibility (i.e. trustworthiness, expertise, social attraction or physical attraction), which would result in more positive brand responses. An online experiment among female participants (N = 229) demonstrated that 1) that a layperson self-presentation style results in more positive brand responses trough perceived trust than a micro-celebrity style, and 2) an opinion leadership self-presentation style results in more positive brand responses trough perceived expertise than a layperson style. However, against expectation, no difference was found on brand responses between the opinion leadership and micro-celebrity strategy trough perceived trust and expertise. Also, there was no difference on brand
responses between the layperson, opinion leader and micro-celebrity strategy trough social attractiveness. Finally, there was no difference on brand responses between the
micro-celebrity, opinion leader and layperson strategy trough physical attractiveness. These findings indicate the mechanisms that explain (or not explain) the different effects on brand responses between the self-presentation strategies. From a practical point of view, marketers should take into account that the credibility components are important predictors for persuasion, which could be influenced by the self-presentation style of the SMI.
Introduction
Over the past few years, the increasing trend in daily social media use has opened a pathway for the rise of ‘social media influencers’ (SMIs), such as fitness gurus, fashionistas, food- and beauty bloggers (Konstantopoulou, Rizomyliotis, Konstantoulaki, & Badahdah, 2019). SMIs are defined as “ordinary internet users who accumulate a relatively large
following on blogs and social media through the textual and visual narration of their personal lives and lifestyles” (Abidin, 2017, p. 159). With this increase in daily social media use, the popularity of influencer marketing has been growing exponentially (Audrezet, De Kerviler, & Moulard, 2018). Influencer marketing refers to “the establishment of partnerships between brands and SMIs” (Aguiar & Van Reijmersdal, 2018, p. 18), and is currently considered to be one of the most effective promotional strategies for brands compared to other media, such as magazine advertising and celebrity endorsements (Audrezet et al., 2018; Linqia, 2020) .
The effectiveness of influencer marketing on consumers’ attitudes and purchase intentions is determined, to some degree, by the online image of SMIs (Rifon, Jiang, & Kim, 2016). It is argued that SMIs are more effective if they have an authentic image, that is when they share original thoughts and opinions (Aguiar & Van Reijmersdal, 2018). This authentic image enables SMIs to create meaningful connections with their followers. As SMIs are well aware that their online image is a vital part of their success in influencer marketing, they create strategic posts in which they carefully control or shape how the audience views them (McCay-Peet & Quan-Haase, 2016). This process is also called presentation of the self.
Gudmundsdottir & Chia (2019) distinguished three self-presentation strategies that SMIs use to shape their image in social media posts. These are strategies of (1) laypeople: creating impressions of similarity between their followers and themselves; (2) opinion leaders: creating impressions of competence and professionality; and (3) micro-celebrities: creating impressions of traditional celebrities. The laypeople and micro-celebrity strategy are diametrically opposed to each other. While laypeople show that they are imperfect people with ups and downs in their lives, micro-celebrities mainly present an idealized version of themselves. The opinion leader strategy is more isolated. Opinion leaders portray themselves as knowledgeable, experienced, and up-to-date on the latest developments in their industry.
Prior research already showed that self-presentation decisions result in various emotional responses among the audience (e.g. Chester & Bretherton, 2012; Gudmundsdottir & Chia, 2019; Papacharissi, 2002). A few studies examined effects of the presence (vs. absence) of specific self-presentation elements (i.e. elements people use to present oneself online, such as character traits, values and beliefs or physical appearance) on consumers’
purchase intentions (e.g. Audrezet et al., 2018; Stallen et al., 2010; Wei & Meng, 2016). However, little is known about the differences in effects on brand responses (i.e. brand attitude, product attitude and purchase intention) between self-presentation strategies, in the context of influencer marketing.
This study aims to fill this gap in the literature, by comparing the effects of SMI self-presentation styles on brand responses in an experimental design. In doing so, this paper provides insights into the importance of differentiating between self-presentation styles for persuasion outcomes of influencer marketing posts. These insights are specifically relevant for marketers. As marketers are increasingly investing in influencer marketing, they have a growing need for practical information on aspects that contribute to successful campaigns (Linqia, 2020). If marketers understand which self-presentation styles of SMIs are more persuasive, they can use this information to coordinate their choice for a SMI.
Another aim in this study is to unravel the processes through which self-presentation styles potentially affect brand responses. One often applied model that could explain why some self-presentation styles exert more influence on consumers’ brand responses than others, is the Source Credibility Theory (Hovland, Janis, & Kelley, 1953; Ohanian, 1990). Source credibility refers to characteristics that makes one a believable source of information in the eyes of information receivers (Cheung & Thadani, 2012), and is commonly classified into three key dimensions: trustworthiness, expertise, and attractiveness. These three dimensions are all found to play key roles in influencing attitudes and behaviors (Chu & Kamal, 2008).
Given the importance of credibility for persuasion, it is plausible that SMIs try to influence credibility perceptions through self-presentation strategies. Consequently, each unique presentation style might trigger different responses. For this purpose, this study tries to answer the following research question: In which manner do self-presentation styles of SMIs affect followers’ perceptions of source credibility, and to what extend does this affect brand attitudes, product attitudes and purchase intentions? In doing so, this paper offers a
substantive contribution to the literature. Prior research mainly focused on the effect of presentation elements or source credibility on brand responses (e.g. Eisend, 2006; Martensen, Brockenhuus-Schack, & Zahid, 2018; Pornpitakpan, 2004). However, it is often overlooked what role source credibility could play as mediating factor in the effects of self-presentation on brand responses. By empirically examining the underlying process of the effects of self-presentation styles, this study provides new insights on how self-self-presentation effects can be explained. Subsequently, current findings may add meaningful insights to understanding the broader magnitude of self-presentation studies in the context of influencer marketing.
Theoretical Framework Self-presentation Theory
The role of self-presentation styles of SMIs in influencer marketing can be explained by the self-presentation theory (Goffman, 1956). Within this theory, self-presentation refers to one’s attempt to control or shape how the audience views him/her, with the aim to create a desired impression. Self-presentation is part of a broader set of behaviors called ‘impression management’: i.e. making conscious decisions to reveal certain aspects of the self and to conceal others. Impression management is an important aspect in the context of SMIs, because affordances of the Internet (e.g. asynchronous communication) give SMIs more control to selectively disclose personal information and hence carefully craft their impressions compared to face-to-face interactions, where people are not fully able to control their
appearances (Krämer & Winter, 2008).
Gudmundsdottir and Chia (2019) proposed three self-presentation strategies in which SMIs can engage: opinion leadership, micro-celebrities and laypeople. These strategies are derived from existing qualitative studies, including interviews with influencers about their impression management strategies (De Beer, 2017), a content-analysis on influencer’s posts (De Bruijn, 2016), and ethnographic fieldwork (Abidin, 2014, 2016, 2017; Marwick, 2013, 2015, 2016). In the next section, the three self-presentation strategies will be discussed in further detail.
Self-presentation Strategies
Laypeople. In the context of the laypeople strategy, a SMI could be best described as “the girl/guy next door”. SMIs who present themselves as laypeople highlight the ‘normal’ side of life, rather than what is appears to be (Gudmundsdottir & Chia, 2019). They also show the “imperfect aspects” of their lives. For example, by sharing everyday struggles or the mistakes they make. Furthermore, laypeople reveal intimate, personal information to others, such as personal thoughts, intimate feelings, values and beliefs (Bazarova, Taft, Choi, & Cosley, 2013; Gudmundsdottir & Chia, 2019).
Opinion leadership. Opinion leaders are generally defined as people who are more experienced, passionate and up-to-date on the latest trends in their industry than general consumers (Shoham & Ruvio, 2008). SMIs who present themselves as opinion leader make claims about their qualifications (e.g. education degree or certifications), experiences and expertise within a specific branch (Colucci & Cho, 2014; Jones, 1990). For instance, by mentioning they are being recognized by outside sources (e.g. other influencers or traditional
media). In addition, opinion leaders highlight the scope of their network (i.e. number of followers) or emphasize the number of questions or responses they receive from followers.
Micro-celebrity. In the micro-celebrity strategy, SMIs incorporate celebrity elements (i.e. aspects normally confined to celebrities) in their posts, such as a status of wealth and fame. SMIs do so, because they want to be perceived equivalent to traditional celebrities (Marwick, 2016). SMIs who present themselves as micro-celebrity, do this in three ways (Gudmundsdottir & Chia, 2019). First, SMIs pursue an extravagant lifestyle similar to traditional celebrities, including luxury and glamour (Marwick, 2016). Second, SMIs
showcase social connections to well-known people such as other influencers, industry leaders and celebrities (Abidin, 2014). Third, SMIs attempt to maximize the aesthetics of their photos to resemble photography found in advertisements and magazines (Colucci & Cho, 2014). They carefully stage their photos, hire professional photographers, or make use filters. Source Credibility Theory
The reason why some self-presentation styles exert more influence than others can be explained by the Source Credibility Theory. This theory proposes that a credible source is more persuasive than a less credible source, even when the content of the message is objectively the same (Hovland et al., 1953; Ohanian, 1990). Hovland (1953) originally
proposed two dimensions of source credibility: trustworthiness and expertise. Trustworthiness refers to the degree of the confidence in, and the level of acceptance of, the endorser and the message (Ohanian, 1990). Expertise is defined as “the extent to which a source is qualified to provide valid and accurate information or discuss a particular subject” (Hovland et al., 1953). Ohanian (1990) added source attractiveness as a third dimension of source credibility, which can be split into two distinct components: physical attraction and social attraction. Physical attraction reflects receivers’ affection for the source related to physical cues, such as beauty, sexiness and elegance (Antil, Burton, & Robinson, 2012). Social attraction refers to the perceived similarity between the sender and receiver (McCroskey & McCain, 1974). The source credibility theory states that a message is more persuasive if a source is perceived as (1) trustworthy, (2) an expert, (3) socially attractive, and (4) physically attractive.
Gudmundsdottir and Chia (2019) argued that if SMIs highlight specific qualities about themselves using a certain self-presentation style, it attracts followers’ attention to these qualities. Subsequently, followers may form a corresponding impression of the SMI. Therefore, it is argued that each self-presentation style could enhance specific aspects of source credibility, that are not enhanced by the other self-presentation styles. In turn, each
self-presentation style could differently affect brand responses. This assumption will be discussed in further detail per dimension of source credibility.
Trustworthiness. There are two self-presentation strategies focusing on increasing perceived trust: laypeople and opinion leadership. Laypeople try to increase perceived trust by showing imperfect aspects of their life. By doing so, SMIs show they dare to be open and transparent. Transparency is a useful truth-telling technique (Karlsson, 2010), which is argued to be crucial to gain consumers’ trust (Martensen et al., 2018). Opinion leaders try to increase perceived trust by emphasizing their knowledge and experience. By making claims about their expertise, SMIs become trusted sources of information within their field of expertise (Wei & Meng, 2016). It should be noted that both the opinion leadership and layperson strategy stand in contrast with the micro-celebrity strategy when it comes to perceived trust. Micro-celebrities only highlight the positive aspects of their life, making them less open and transparent. Moreover, they are used to edit their pictures. Research showed that edited pictures are often perceived as less realistic (Djafarova & Trofimenko, 2019). Consequently, the audience might question whether micro-celebrities make valid assertions. Gudmundsdottir and Chia (2019) even demonstrated that the micro-celebrity strategy correlated negatively with perceived trust. This study therefore assumes that both laypeople and opinion leaders will result in higher levels of perceived trust than micro-celebrities.
In turn, the source credibility theory states that higher levels of perceived trust increase message persuasiveness (Hovland & Weiss, 1951; Ohanian, 1990). Specifically in the context of online marketing (Hong & Cho, 2011; Li, Jiang, & Wu, 2014). As consumers cannot physically examine the endorsed product, they perceive more risk in the purchase of the product (Li et al., 2014). A trustful SMI can be the risk-reducing factor: if consumers trust the SMI, they will be more likely to accept the provided product and brand information as the truth (Hong & Cho, 2011; Li et al., 2014). Subsequently, consumers feel less need to search for additional product information themselves. Therefore, consumers are expected to be persuaded more easily by trustworthy (vs. untrustworthy) SMIs. Drawing on this, the following assumption is made:
H1: SMIs using a layperson or opinion leader self-presentation style score higher on perceived trustworthiness than SMIs using a micro-celebrity self-presentation style, which subsequently results in more positive (a) brand attitudes, (b) product attitudes and (c) higher purchase intentions.
Expertise. The main self-presentation strategy focusing on enhancing perceived expertise is the opinion leadership strategy. By emphasizing their expertise and qualifications in a certain field, SMIs try to create the impression that they are providing relevant and valuable information that non-experts would not be able to provide. Subsequently, SMIs are more likely to be perceived as an expert when presenting themselves as opinion leader than as a layperson or micro-celebrity. In the context of internet opinion leaders, Lyons and
Henderson (2005) already showed that opinion leaders (vs. non-leaders) are perceived to have higher levels of computer skills and to be more knowledgeable about ICT.
According to the source credibility theory, higher levels of perceived expertise
increase message persuasiveness (Hovland et al., 1953; Ohanian, 1990). Several studies found support for this assumption and showed that a source high (vs. low) in expertise, positively affects attitudes toward the advertisement (e.g. Braunsberger, 1996; Ohanian, 1990; Xiao, Wang, & Chan-Olmsted, 2018), and increases purchase intentions (Pornpitakpan, 2004). According to the attribution theory (Kelley, 1967), expert sources have influence because people attribute a particular power and knowledge to them. People believe that expert sources provide more accurate and valid information than non-expert sources (e.g. Clark, Wegener, Habashi, & Evans, 2012). Subsequently, information from expert sources is perceived as more credible (Hovland et al., 1953). As such, people are more likely to be persuaded by a SMI whom they perceive as “expert”. This study assumes that only the opinion leader strategy reinforces perceived expertise and in turn positively affects brand responses. H2: SMIs using an opinion leader self-presentation style score higher on perceived
expertise than SMIs using a layperson or micro-celebrity self-presentation style, which subsequently results in more positive (a) brand attitudes, (b) product attitudes and (c) higher purchase intentions.
Physical attractiveness. The main self-presentation strategy focusing on enhancing perceived physical attraction is the micro-celebrity strategy. In order to do so, SMIs maximize the aesthetics of their photos and showcase the beautiful aspects of their life. Contrary to micro-celebrities, laypeople and opinion leaders do not specifically focus on enhancing perceptions of physical attraction. Laypeople portray the normal aspects of life and are therefore less likely to share perfect pictures. Opinion leaders are merely focused on making claims about their competence and maximizing the aesthetics of photos does not necessarily reinforce these claims. Therefore, it is assumed that only the micro-celebrity strategy
reinforces perceptions of physical attractiveness. Gudmundsdottir and Chia (2019) already showed that the micro-celebrity strategy can be linked to perceptions of physical attraction.
According to Ohanian (1990), physical attraction of a source positively affects message persuasiveness. Several studies found support for this statement (Horai, Naccari, & Fatoullah, 1974; Joseph, 1982; Khamis, Ang, & Welling, 2017). Joseph (1982) showed that physically attractive sources result in more positive product responses than less physically attractive sources. This is because the perceived physical attractiveness of the source can spill over upon evaluations of the endorsed product (Trampe, Stapel, Siero, & Mulder, 2010). It should be noted this is only the case for product categories meant to enhance attractiveness, such as cosmetics, fashion and interior1 (Khamis et al., 2017; Trampe et al., 2010). For these product categories, physically attractive SMIs are more likely to enhance product evaluations than unattractive SMIs. Drawing on these findings, the following assumption is made:
H3: SMIs using a micro-celebrity self-presentation style score higher on physical attractiveness than SMIs using a layperson or opinion leader self-presentation style, which subsequently results in more positive (a) brand attitudes, (b) product attitudes and (c) higher purchase intentions.
Social attractiveness. The main self-presentation strategy focusing on enhancing social attractiveness is the layperson strategy. That is because laypeople try to increase perceived similarity between their followers and themselves (Gudmundsdottir & Chia, 2019). They do this by disclosing intimate and personal information, such as deep personal feelings or daily problems (Bazarova & Choi, 2014). It is presumed that the people can easily relate to these mundane aspects of life, which increases the chance they form affective ties with the SMI (Marwick, 2013; Zhou, Chen, & Su, 2019). In contrast to laypeople, opinion leaders and micro-celebrities share little personal information (Vernette, 2004). One could even argue that micro-celebrities and opinion leaders distance themselves from their followers.
Micro-celebrities create social distance by portraying a luxurious and extravagant lifestyle (Abidin, 2015; Senft, 2008). Opinion leaders try to distinguish themselves from their followers by enhancing their professional status (Casalo et al, 2018). As followers are less likely to relate to the extravagant lifestyles of micro-celebrities or the professional status of opinion leaders,
1 As the product category in this study concerns sports fashion, the perceived physical attractiveness of the
they might lose an intimate feel with the SMI (Marwick, 2016). Therefore, it is assumed that only the layperson strategy enhances perceptions of social attractiveness.
Gudmundsdottir and Chia (2019) already showed that the laypeople strategy can be linked to social attraction. According to the source credibility theory, perceived social
attraction positively affects message persuasiveness (Ohanian, 1990). Several studies showed that high (vs. low) levels of perceived social attraction positively affect attitudes and purchase intentions (e.g. Liu, Luo, & Cao, 2018; Lou & Yuan, 2019; Schouten, Janssen, & Verspaget, 2020). This is because followers identify with the SMI. Followers develop a sense of oneness between their own self-image and the image of the SMIs (Martensen et al., 2018). Generally, people think that others with similar characteristics also possess similar opinions (Kelley, 2013). Therefore, statements of similar others will be perceived as more meaningful than statements from socially distant people. Subsequently, messages from socially attractive SMIs will result in more congruent brand and product images (Park, Macinnis, Priester, Eisingerich, & Iacobucci, 2010). This study assumes that the layperson strategy will result in higher levels of perceived social attractiveness than the micro-celebrity and opinion leadership strategy, which in turn will positively affect brand responses.
H4: SMIs using a layperson self-presentation style score higher on social attractiveness than SMIs using a micro-celebrity or opinion leader self-presentation style, which subsequently results in more positive (a) brand attitudes, (b) product attitudes and (c) higher purchase intentions.
Method Design
This study employed a single-factor (self-presentation style: layperson vs. opinion leader vs. micro-celebrity) between-subjects design. Participants were exposed to a blog, in which the writer (i.e. female SMI) presented herself, using a specific self-presentation style. This study used a female SMI within the stimulus material, because female SMIs seem to dominate influencer marketing (Guttmann, 2020; Hennesy, 2018). Specifically, in 2019, 84 percent of influencers worldwide who created sponsored posts on Instagram were women (Guttmann, 2020). In order to avoid any confounds related to gender identification, it was decided to focus on a female target group as well.
Pretest
A pretest was conducted to examine which blog introduction paragraphs and pictures best capture the self-presentation styles. This pretest employed a 3 (self-presentation style: layperson vs. opinion leader vs. micro-celebrity) by 2 (blog topic/picture: ‘Sports motivation’ vs. ‘Daily routine’) within subjects design. As this study was conducted during the COVID-19 outbreak (spring 2020), the blog topics were adjusted to the home quarantine situation, in order to increase perceived relevance. During home quarantine, frequently asked questions were: “How to get through the day?” and “How to stay mentally and physically fit?” (Landman, 2020). Therefore, two blog topics were tested: (1) maintaining a daily routine (‘Daily routine’), and (2) staying motivated to work out frequently (‘Sports motivation’). A total of 31 female participants (aged 19-30, 56.3% student), who did not take part in the main study, were asked to fill out questions related to each blog post (see Appendix A, Table A1 and Table A2 for measurement items), and to rate six pictures (see Table A3 for measurement items). Repeated measures ANOVAs were performed to analyze the results.
First, all blogs scored in line with the expectations: layperson blogs scored highest on layperson elements, opinion leader blogs scored highest on opinion leader elements, and micro-celebrity blogs scored highest on micro-celebrity elements (see Table A4 for
descriptive statistics). Next, participants’ perception of the self-presentation style in the blogs was examined (see Table A5 for descriptive statistics). Both layperson blogs scored higher on perceived ‘layperson style’ than the opinion leader and micro-celebrity blogs, F(3.17, 95.00) = 12.34, p < .001.2 Additionally, the micro-celebrity blogs scored evenly high on perceived ‘micro-celebrity style’ (F(5, 150) = 16.77, p < .001).3 Finally, the opinion leadership sports motivation blog scored higher on perceived ‘opinion leader style’ than the micro-celebrity and laypeople blogs. However, the opinion leadership daily routine blog only scored higher on perceived ‘opinion leader style’ than the layperson blog; F(5, 150) = 19.69, p < .001. Accordingly, the sports motivation blogs scored more in line with the intended self-presentation styles and were therefore chosen as stimulus material.
Next, the pictures were analyzed (P1-2 = layperson; P3-4 = opinion leader; P5-6 = micro-celebrity), using repeated measures ANOVAs (see Table A6 for descriptive statistics). The results showed that both P5 and P6 scored higher on presence of micro-celebrity
2 Using a Greenhouse-Geisser correction for sphericity on p.
3 An important note should be made considering the micro celebrity blogs. The pretest showed that the
micro-celebrity blogs scored higher on ‘perceived micro-micro-celebrity style’, relative to the layperson blogs, but did not differ from the opinion leader blogs. This finding was taken into account while interpreting the results of the main study and will be discussed in further detail in the discussion section.
presentation elements relative to the other pictures; F(5, 150) = 21.57, p < .001). Further, results showed that P3 scored significantly higher on perceived expertise than P4; F(5, 145) = 19.22, p < .001. Therefore, P3 was chosen for opinion leadership. As P1 and P5 also scored high on perceived expertise (similar to P3), those pictures were excluded as options for the layperson and celebrity styles respectively. Subsequently, P6 was chosen for the micro-celebrity strategy and P2 was chosen for the layperson strategy.
Stimulus material
Based on the pretest, three different blogs were created as stimulus material for the main study (see Appendix B). Hanne Claes was chosen as SMI, who is a Belgian athlete. Each blog contained three parts. The first part briefly presented the author (i.e. name, background, profession). In the second part, Hanne presented herself and told about her life during home quarantine. In each condition, Hanne presented herself differently (i.e. as a layperson, opinion leader or micro-celebrity). In the layperson blog, Hanne wrote about her struggles staying motivated to work out frequently, showed imperfect aspects of her life and encouraged readers to provide feedback. In the opinion leader blog, Hanne emphasized her expertise in the sports branch and mentioned she often received questions how to stay motivated to work out frequently. In the micro-celebrity blog, Hanne presented her perfect and luxurious life (e.g. having a home gym, no struggles, etc.) and social connections to well-known people. Additionally, each blog included a different picture of Hanne, related to her self-presentation style.4 For instance, the micro-celebrity picture included filters, while the layperson picture was amateurish. The third part of the blog included a recommendation to wear sportswear of the brand 42|54. In this part, Hanne argued why it is helpful to wear this sportswear and referred to her favorite sports brand. The brand 42|54 was chosen, as it creates high fashion sportswear for women and is therefore considered a relevant brand for the female target group. Additionally, the "match-up hypothesis" (Till & Busler, 2000) suggests that endorsers are more effective when there is a "fit" between the endorser and the endorsed product and brand. As Hanne Claes has an existing partnership with the 42|54 brand for her athletic sportswear, it is presumed there is a good "fit". In this way, this study tried to avoid any confounds related to a misfit between the SMI and the endorsed product and brand. In the end, the blogs were identical, except for the self-presentation paragraphs and included picture.
4The pictures of the SMI were excluded from Appendix B, in accordance with the Dutch General Data
Sample & Procedure
Participants were recruited through a student pool of the University of Amsterdam and asked to participate in an online experiment in exchange for research credits. In total, 229 female students between the ages of 18 and 30 (M = 21.67, SD = 2.31) participated (64% Dutch). Participants were first asked to fill in the informed consent and some demographics, after which they got randomly assigned to one of the three experimental conditions. After a short introduction of the study, participants read a blog related to the assigned condition (i.e. layperson, opinion leadership or micro-celebrity). Next, they were asked to answer questions related to Hanne’s credibility, followed by questions about attitudes towards the brand and product, and purchase intentions. Moreover, questions related to the control variables were posed, such as weekly sports activities and product category involvement. Finally,
participants were debriefed and thanked for their participation. Measures
Source credibility. The first three components of source credibility (i.e. perceived trustworthiness, expertise and physical attractiveness), were measured using 7-point semantic differential scales (Ohanian, 1990). First, trustworthiness of the SMI was measured with “I think Hanne is: (1) unreliable/reliable; (2) undependable/dependable; (3) dishonest/honest; (4) insincere/sincere; (5) untrustworthy/trustworthy” (EV = 2.73, α = 0.84, M = 4.38, SD = 1.00). Second, expertise of the SMI was measured with “I think Hanne is: (1) not an expert/expert; (2) inexperienced/experienced; (3) unknowledgeable/knowledgeable; (4) unqualified/ qualified; (5) unskilled/skilled” (EV = 3.33, α = 0.91, M = 4.78, SD = 1.06). Third, physical attractiveness of the SMI was measured with “I think Hanne is: (1) unattractive/attractive; (2) not classy/classy; (3) ugly/beautiful; (4) plain/elegant; (5) not sexy/sexy” (EV = 2.11,
α = 0.78, M = 4.83, SD = 0.80). Finally, in order to measure social attraction of the SMI, the five-item scale developed by Gudmundsdottir and Chia (2019) was employed. These items were measured using 7-point Likert scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree): “I feel like I know Hanne”, “I think Hanne has a lot of things in common with me”, “Hanne feels familiar to me”, “Hanne feels close to me” and “I feel emotionally attached to Hanne” (EV = 3.09, α = 0.86, M = 3.13, SD = 1.07). To check whether the measures for the mediators were discriminant, a factor analysis was conducted with Varimax rotation (see Appendix C, Table C1). As expected, the items for the four mediators load on four different components. Accordingly, mean scores were calculated to create single measures of
Brand attitude. Brand attitude was measured with a four-item, 7-point semantic differential scale (c.f. Chang & Thorson, 2004; Van Noort & Van Reijmersdal, 2019).
Participants indicated to what extent they considered the brand 42|54, mentioned by Hanne, as being “not very likeable/very likeable,” “not interesting/interesting,” “bad/good,” and “not appealing/appealing”. Mean scores were calculated to create a single measure of brand attitude (α = 0.88, M = 4.25, SD = 1.03).
Product attitude. Product attitude was measured with the same four-item 7-point semantic differential scale as brand attitude. Participants indicated to what extent they
considered the sportswear recommended by Hanne as being “not very likeable/very likeable,” “not interesting/interesting,” “bad/good,” and “not appealing/appealing”. Mean scores were calculated to create a single measure of product attitude (α = 0.90, M = 4.37, SD = 1.07).
Purchase intention. Purchase intention was assessed with three items on a 7-point semantic differential scale previously used by Smink et al. (2019). These items asked participants to indicate the chance that they would buy sportswear from the brand 42|54 as being “improbable/probable”, “unlikely/likely”, “small/ big”. Mean scores were calculated to create a single measure of purchase intention (α = 0.97, M = 2.67, SD = 1.48).
Control variables. Control variables were age, country of origin, weekly hours of sports activities (M = 3.72, SD = 2.17), experience with reading blogs about sports, product category involvement, and recognition of the blog as being advertisement. Product category involvement was measured using a five-item 7-point semantic differential scale (items taken from Zaichkowsky, 1994). Participants indicated to what extent they found the product category of sportswear “unimportant/important”, “irrelevant/relevant”, “not beneficial/ beneficial”, “non-essential/essential”, and “worthless/valuable”. Mean scores were calculated to create a single measure of product category involvement (α = 0.89, M = 5.62, SD = 0.96). Additionally, participants were asked whether they knew Hanne Claes (0%) and the brand 42|54 (1%). If participants knew the brand, they were asked whether they already had products from this brand 42|54 (0%). Further they were asked whether they thought the blog was advertisement (96%).
Manipulation check. A manipulation check was conducted to test whether the self-presentation styles in the blogs were perceived as intended. The blogs were rated on nine items on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The first three items indicated the presence of layperson elements: “Hanne struggles with her life”, “Hanne
encourages feedback”, “Hanne shows imperfectness” (α = 0.69, M = 3.70, SD = 1.22). The next three items indicated the presence of opinion leader elements: “Hanne is known by
traditional media”, “Hanne often receives questions/messages”, “Hanne has expertise in the sports branch” (α = 0.56, M = 4.37, SD = 0.97). The final three items indicate the presence of micro-celebrity elements: “Hanne lives a luxurious life”, “Hanne has social connections to well-known people”, “Hanne uses filters in her picture” (α = 0.62, M = 4.44, SD = 1.13). Additionally, participants indicated to what extent they considered Hanne as (1) a layperson (M = 3.73, SD = 1.11); (2) an opinion leader (M = 4.01, SD = 1.40); (3) a micro-celebrity (M = 4.20, SD = 1.44). These questions were measured on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Results Manipulation Check
A MANOVA5 was conducted with the presentation styles as a factor and the measures for presence of (1) layperson elements, (2) micro-celebrity elements, and (3) opinion leader elements as dependent variables. Results showed that the layperson blog scored significantly higher on layperson elements (M = 4.73; SD = 0.98) than the opinion leader (M = 3.39; SD = 0.92) and micro-celebrity blog (M = 2.93; SD = 0.96; F(2, 226) = 75.84, p < 0.001).
Additionally, the micro-celebrity blog scored significantly higher on micro-celebrity elements (M = 5.13; SD = 0.96) than the layperson (M = 4.04; SD = 0.96) and opinion leader blog (M = 4.16; SD = 1.14), F(2, 226) = 26.13, p < .001. However, the opinion leadership blog did not score significantly higher on opinion leadership elements (M = 4.58; SD = 0.99) than the layperson (M = 4.29; SD = 0.99) and micro-celebrity blog (M = 4.27; SD = 0.93; F(2, 226) = 2.39, p = .094). Another MANOVA was conducted with the self-presentation styles as factor and the measures for the perceived self-presentation style in the blog as dependent variables. The perceived self-presentation style in the blogs did not significantly vary between
conditions: participants did not perceive the blogs to contain distinct presentation styles (all Fs < 2). Thus, the manipulation was only partially successful.
Confound Check
In order to check whether the three experimental conditions differed on any of the control variables, a MANOVA was performed with the self-presentation styles as factor and control variables as dependent variables. Results showed that age (F(2, 226) = 0.11, p = .894),
5 As the Cronbach's Alpha's for the measures of the manipulation check were only moderately high, additional
MANOVA’s were performed, with all separate items as dependent variables. The aim was to test the robustness of the results of the manipulation check. These results were consistent with the results reported here.
country of origin (χ2 (2) = 0.44, p = .802), weekly hours of sports activities (F(2, 226) = 1.54,
p = .217), product involvement (F(2, 226) = 0.13, p = .881), prior brand knowledge (F(2, 226) = 0.53, p = .591), experience reading blogs (χ2 (6) = 4.99, p = .545), and recognition of the
blog as being advertisement (F(2, 226) = 0.32, p = .723), did not differ between the conditions. Therefore, these variables were not included as covariates in further analyses. Hypotheses Testing
Bootstrapping procedures (Hayes, 2017; model 4; 5,000 samples) were used to test the mediation hypotheses (H1-H4). For each dependent variable (i.e. brand attitude, product attitude and purchase intention), a separate analysis was conducted with the three self-presentation styles as the independent variable and trustworthiness, expertise, physical attraction or social attraction as mediating variable, depending on the hypothesis.
With respect to H1, a significant indirect effect of a layperson self-presentation style (vs. micro-celebrity) on brand responses through perceived trust was found (see Table 1). As predicted, the layperson strategy resulted in higher levels of perceived trust than the micro-celebrity strategy (b = .32, SE = .16, t = 2.00, p = .046), which in turn resulted in more
positive brand attitudes (b = .52, SE = .06, t = 8.63, p < .001), product attitudes (b = .55, SE = .06, t = 8.86, p < .001), and higher purchase intentions (b = .57, SE = .09, t = 6.22, p < .001). However, as can be seen in Table 1, results showed no significant indirect effect of an opinion leadership self-presentation style (vs. micro-celebrity) on brand responses through perceived trust. Against expectation, the opinion leader strategy did not result in significantly higher levels of perceived trust than the micro-celebrity strategy (b = .09, SE = .16, t = .56, p = .579). Therefore, H1 was only partially accepted.
Results for H2 showed a significant indirect effect of an opinion leadership vs. layperson self-presentation style on brand responses, through perceived expertise (see Table 1). As predicted, the opinion leader strategy scored higher on perceived expertise than the layperson strategy (b = .65, SE = .17, t = 3.92, p < .001), which in turn resulted in more positive brand attitudes (b = .46, SE = .06, t = 7.75, p < .001), product attitudes (b = .46, SE = .06, t = 7.25, p < .001), and higher purchase intentions (b = .47, SE = .09, t = 5.26, p < .001). However, the results showed no significant indirect effect of an opinion leader vs. micro-celebrity self-presentation style on brand responses, through perceived expertise (see Table 1). The opinion leader strategy did not score significantly higher on levels of perceived expertise than the micro-celebrity strategy (b = .31, SE = .17, t = 1.83, p = .068). Thus, H2 was partially accepted.
Table 1. Indirect effects of self-presentation styles on brand responses
BC 95% CI
B SE Lower Upper
H1: Layperson (1) vs. micro-celebrity (0) → Trustworthiness → Dependent variable:
H1a – Brand attitude 0.16 0.08 0.01 0.32
H1b – Product attitude 0.16 0.08 0.01 0.33
H1c – Purchase intention 0.12 0.06 0.01 0.25
H1: Opinion leader (1) vs. micro-celebrity (0) → Trustworthiness → Dependent variable: H1a – Brand attitude 0.05 0.09 -0.12 0.22 H1b – Product attitude 0.05 0.09 -0.13 0.22 H1c – Purchase intention 0.04 0.07 -0.09 0.16 H2: Opinion leader (1) vs. layperson (0) → Expertise → Dependent variables:
H2a – Brand attitude 0.29 0.09 0.14 0.48
H2b – Product attitude 0.28 0.08 0.13 0.45
H2c – Purchase intention 0.21 0.07 0.10 0.35
H2: Opinion leader (1) vs. micro-celebrity (0) → Expertise → Dependent variable:
H2a – Brand attitude 0.14 0.08 -0.01 0.29 H2b – Product attitude 0.13 0.07 -0.01 0.28 H2c – Purchase intention 0.10 0.05 -0.01 0.21 H3: Micro-celebrity (1) vs. layperson (0) → Physical attractiveness → Dependent variable: H3a – Brand attitude 0.02 0.07 -0.11 0.15 H3b – Product attitude 0.02 0.07 -0.11 0.17 H3c – Purchase intention 0.02 0.04 -0.07 0.11 H3: Micro-celebrity (1) vs. opinion leader (0) → Physical attractiveness → Dependent variable: H3a – Brand attitude -0.08 0.07 -0.23 0.05 H3b – Product attitude -0.09 0.07 -0.24 0.06 H3c – Purchase intention -0.05 0.05 -0.15 0.04 H4: Layperson (1) vs. micro-celebrity (0) → Social attractiveness → Dependent variable: H4a – Brand attitude 0.15 0.08 -0.01 0.31 H4b – Product attitude 0.15 0.08 -0.01 0.32 H4c – Purchase intention 0.15 0.08 -0.01 0.32 H4: Layperson (1) vs. opinion leader (0) → Social attractiveness → Dependent variable: H4a – Brand attitude 0.09 0.09 -0.08 0.26 H4b – Product attitude 0.09 0.09 -0.08 0.27 H4c – Purchase intention 0.09 0.09 -0.08 0.27
Note. Unstandardized b-coefficients; BC 95% CI=95% Bias corrected bootstrap confidence interval using 5,000
As can be seen in Table 1, results for H3 showed no significant indirect effect of a micro-celebrity self-presentation style (vs. layperson and opinion leadership) on brand
responses through perceived physical attraction. The micro-celebrity strategy did not result in significantly higher levels of perceived physical attraction than the layperson strategy (b = .05, SE = .13, t = .35, p = .726) or the opinion leader strategy (b = -.16, SE = .13, t = -1.24, p = .217). Further, results showed that higher levels of perceived physical attraction positively affected brand attitudes (b = .51, SE = .08, t = 6.51, p < .001), product attitudes (b = .58, SE = .08, t = 7.19, p < .001), and purchase intentions (b = .48, SE = .12, t = 4.06, p < .001).
However, in conclusion, H3 was rejected.
With respect to H4, results showed no significant indirect effect of a layperson self-presentation style (vs. micro-celebrity and opinion leadership) on brand responses through social attractiveness (see Table 1). The layperson strategy did result in higher levels of perceived social attractiveness than the micro-celebrity strategy (b = .30, SE = .18, t = 1.78, p = .076) and the opinion leader strategy (b = .19, SE = .17, t = 1.09, p = .277). While higher levels of perceived social attractiveness did result in more positive brand attitudes (b = .50, SE = .06, t = 8.99, p < .001), product attitudes (b = .52, SE = .06, t = 9.03, p < .001), and higher purchase intentions (b = .71, SE = .08, t = 9.01, p < .001), H4 was rejected.
Conclusion & Discussion Conclusion
The current study contributes to existing research on SMI self-presentation styles in the context of influencer marketing by unraveling the processes through which a layperson, opinion leadership and micro-celebrity self-presentation style affect brand attitudes, product attitudes and purchase intentions of their audience. It was expected that each self-presentation style would enhance one specific component of source credibility, which would result in more positive brand responses. The hypotheses were tested in an experimental design. Five main conclusions regarding the effects of self-presentation strategies can be drawn.
First, there is a difference on brand responses between the layperson and micro-celebrity self-presentation style through perceived trust. When a blogger presents herself as a layperson instead of as a micro celebrity, she is perceived as more trustworthy which leads to more positive attitudes toward the endorsed brand and product, and to higher purchase intentions. These findings add to the study of Gudmundsdottir and Chia (2019), who already showed that SMIs are better trusted when presenting themselves as laypeople rather than as more socially distant micro-celebrities. Additionally, this finding supports the assumption of
the source credibility theory that higher levels of perceived trust positively enhance attitudes and purchase intentions (Hovland et al., 1953; Ohanian, 1990).
Second, there is a difference on brand responses between the opinion leader and layperson self-presentation style through perceived expertise. When a blogger presents herself as an opinion leader instead of as a layperson, she scores higher on perceived expertise which enhances attitudes toward the endorsed brand and product, and increases purchase intentions. These findings are in line with conclusions of Lyons and Henderson (2005): people who present themselves as opinion leader (vs. non-leader) are perceived to be more skilled and knowledgeable. Moreover, findings support the assumption of the source credibility theory that higher levels of perceived expertise positively affect message persuasiveness (Hovland et al., 1953; Ohanian, 1990).
Third, there is no difference on brand responses between the opinion leadership and micro-celebrity strategy. The opinion leadership strategy does not result in higher levels of perceived trust and expertise. These unexpected findings can be explained by the
manipulation of the self-presentation styles, as the manipulation was only partially successful. The pretest and manipulation check demonstrated that participants recognized different presentation elements (e.g. edited pictures, elements of a luxurious lifestyle, etc.) in the micro-celebrity and opinion leader blogs. However, when participants were asked to indicate the self-presentation style of the SMI in the blog (e.g. opinion leader or micro-celebrity), participants did not perceive the two blogs to contain distinct self-presentation styles. This might be caused by the wide range of definitions used to describe micro-celebrities and opinion leaders. For instance, Wei and Meng (2016) define opinion leaders as people who have high fame (i.e. micro-celebrity), and have a professional degree in their field and often provide product information and opinions (i.e. opinion leadership). This definition is a combination of the self-presentation styles as defined by Gudmundsdottir and Chia (2019). Thus, when respondents were asked to report the self-presentation style used in the blog, they might have wielded different or broader definitions. Consequently, the boundaries of the self-presentation strategies, as defined in this study, might have become obscured.
Fourth, there is no difference on brand responses between the layperson, opinion leader and micro-celebrity strategy trough social attractiveness. The layperson strategy does not result in higher levels of social attraction than the other two strategies. This expectation was based on findings of Gudmundsdottir and Chia (2019), who showed that the laypeople strategy correlated significantly and positively with social attractiveness. However, the current study found no support for causal relationships. Possibly, Gudmundsdottir and Chia
(2019) found a positive correlation, because participants were first asked to choose a SMI that came to their mind. Next, they were asked to rate source credibility dimensions. As
participants indicated they often view content from their chosen SMI, it might be that they already formed affective ties with the SMI. This built relationship would automatically enhance perceptions of social attraction (Ballantine & Martin, 2005). However, findings of the current study are based on one individual post from a relatively unknown SMI. As it takes repeated exposure to a SMI in order to develop a sense of similarity (Ballantine & Martin, 2005), it is presumed that participants in the current study were not able to form the same affective ties with the SMI as participants in the study of Gudmundsdottir and Chia (2019). This would explain the insignificant findings.
Finally, there is no difference on brand responses between the micro-celebrity, opinion leader and layperson strategy trough physical attractiveness. The micro-celebrity strategy does not result in higher levels of physical attraction than the other two strategies. It could be the case that the aspect of physical attraction in the context of influencer marketing is
normalizing in the minds of the audience. Ohanian (1991) argues that there is a widespread use of attractive endorsers in advertisements, such as athletes and fashionistas. As such, respondents might start to perceive physical attractiveness as being a “common characteristic” among SMIs (Pornpitakpan, 2004). Subsequently, all SMIs are considered to be physically attractive, regardless of their self-presentation style.
Limitations and Future Research
There are several limitations which should be kept in mind when interpreting the results. First, this study focused on a female influencer and a female target group. This limits the generalizability to a more diverse population, including men. Prior research showed that men and women respond differently to word-of-mouth (WOM) marketing, such as influencer marketing (Brown, 2011; Lokithasan, Simon, Jasmin, & Othman, 2019). This is because men have different interpretations of WOM messages than women (Kempf & Palan, 2006). Thus, men could have different views on self-presentation styles. Additionally, Kempf and Palan (2006) showed that generally, WOM marketing has stronger effects on women than on men. WOM messages are more likely to reduce perceived risks and increase purchase intentions for women than for men. The effects found in this study could therefore be different for men.
Moreover, this study used a relatively unknown SMI in the stimulus material. None of the participants knew the SMI. Additionally, participants were exposed to a single blog post. Like mentioned before, the effects could be different for people who already know the SMI,
especially if the SMI consistently implemented a certain presentation style in all his/her posts. In this case, it is assumed that people will have fewer overlapping perceptions of the self-presentation styles. Subsequently, they would better be able to categorize the self-presentation style of the SMI in a distinct category (i.e. layperson, opinion leader or micro-celebrity). In order to avoid any confounds related to misinterpretation of the self-presentation strategies, future research should consider using well-known SMIs, who often use one specific
presentation style in their posts.
Furthermore, future research could investigate whether current findings are
generalizable to other media platforms. Research showed that YouTube and Instagram are the two most popular platforms for SMIs (Glucksman, 2017) and new platforms are still arising (e.g. TikTok). It should be noted that each medium has its own features and technical possibilities. Cuore (2009) showed that social media users choose the way they present themselves, according to their aims and technical possibilities of the medium. Consequently, some medium contexts might lend itself better for certain self-presentation strategies than others and subsequently affect followers’ perceptions differently.
Finally, the current study examined the persuasive impact of SMI self-presentation styles in an experimental setting. Although this setting has several advantages over a natural setting in terms of control over extraneous variables, this forced-exposure setting might also hinder a realistic evaluation of medium context (i.e. blog context/platform) effects (Moorman, Neijens, & Smit, 2007). Future research could therefore attempt to examine the persuasive impact of presentation styles in a more realistic setting. For instance, future research could use existing blogs and ask blog readers to participate in the study.
Theoretical and practical implications
The objective of this article was to provide insights into the importance of differentiating between self-presentation styles for persuasion outcomes of influencer
marketing posts. Although several studies already demonstrated that the presence of specific presentation elements alter message persuasiveness (Stallen et al., 2010; Wei & Meng, 2016), this study was the first to compare the effects on brand responses between three overarching self-presentation strategies.
The current findings provide relevant insights into the mechanisms (i.e. expertise, trustworthiness, social attraction and physical attraction) that explain the different effects on brand responses between the self-presentation strategies. This study implies that a layperson self-presentation style results in more positive brand responses trough perceived trust than a
micro-celebrity style. Additionally, the current study shows that an opinion leadership self-presentation style results in more positive brand responses trough expertise. Therefore, this study is an important step towards a better understanding of the underlying process of persuasiveness of self-presentation styles, in the context of influencer marketing. Thereby, this study contributes to the broader magnitude of self-presentation studies.
From a practical point of view, this study provides implications for brands and marketeers. When engaging in influencer marketing, it should be taken into account that the audiences’ perception of the SMIs’ credibility determines persuasiveness of the message. Specifically, brand and marketeers are advised to keep an eye on credibility constructs of trustworthiness and expertise, as these variables can be influenced by SMIs self-presentation styles and positively affect brand responses. So, when brands and marketeers are looking for a SMI with the aim to start a sponsorship or partnership, they should consider the overall self-presentation style of the SMI in their posts. They should understand how self-self-presentation styles are perceived by the audience and affect brand responses.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Eva van Reijmersdal for her enthusiastic supervision and valuable feedback. The author also thanks Andrea Gudmundsdottir for her assistance during the development of the stimulus material. Finally, the author thanks Dieuwke Zwier for her helpful input in this project.
References
Abidin, C. (2014). #In$tagLam: Instagram as a repository of taste, a burgeoning marketplace, a war of eyeballs. In Mobile media making in an age of smartphones (pp. 119–128). New York: Palgrave Pivot.
Abidin, C. (2015). Communicative ❤ Intimacies: Influencers and perceived
interconnectedness. Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media & Technology, 8, 1–16. Abidin, C. (2016). Aren’t these just young, rich women doing vain things online? Influencer
selfies as subversive frivolity. Social Media + Society, 2(2), 1–17.
Abidin, C. (2017). Influencer extravaganza: Commercial “lifestyle” microcelebrities in Singapore. In The Routledge Companion to Digital Ethnography (1st Edition).
Aguiar, T. D., & Van Reijmersdal, E. A. (2018). Influencer marketing. Amsterdam: Stichting Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Commerciële Communicatie, SWOCC.
Antil, J., Burton, R., & Robinson, M. (2012). Exploring the challenges facing female athletes as endorsers. Journal of Brand Strategy, 1(3), 292–307.
Audrezet, A., De Kerviler, G., & Moulard, J. (2018). Authenticity under threat: When social media influencers need to go beyond self-presentation. Journal of Business Research. Ballantine, P. W., & Martin, B. A. (2005). Forming parasocial relationships in online
communities. ACR North American Advances.
Bazarova, N. N., & Choi, Y. H. (2014). Self-Disclosure in Social Media: Extending the Functional Approach to Disclosure Motivations and Characteristics on Social Network Sites. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 635–657.
Bazarova, N. N., Taft, J. G., Choi, Y. H., & Cosley, D. (2013). Managing impressions and relationships on Facebook: Self-presentational and relational concerns revealed through the analysis of language style. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 32(2), 121–141.
Braunsberger, K. (1996). The effects of source and product characteristics on persuasion. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of South Florida St. Petersburg). Retrieved from
https://digital.usfsp.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2871&context=fac_publications
Brown, M. (2011). Do men and women respond differently to ads? Retrieved 19 June 2020 from https://armi-marketing.com/library/MenWomenRespondDifferentlyAds.pdf
Chang, Y., & Thorson, E. (2004). Television and web advertising synergies. Journal of Advertising, 33(2), 75–84.
Chester, A., & Bretherton, D. (2012). Impression management and identity online (A. N. Joinson, K. Y. A. McKenna, T. Postmes, & U. D. Reips, Eds.).
Cheung, C. M. K., & Thadani, D. R. (2012). The impact of electronic word-of-mouth communication: A literature analysis and integrative model. Decision Support Systems, 54(1), 461–470.
Chu, S.-C., & Kamal, S. (2008). The effect of perceived blogger credibility and argument quality on message elaboration and brand attitudes: An exploratory study. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 8(2), 26–37.
Clark, J. K., Wegener, D. T., Habashi, M. M., & Evans, A. T. (2012). Source expertise and persuasion: The effects of perceived opposition or support on message scrutiny. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(1), 90–100.
Colucci, C., & Cho, E. (2014). Trust inducing factors of generation Y blog-users. International Journal of Design, 8(3), 113–122.
De Beer, C. (2017). “Follow” my constructed Instagram lifestyle! The impression
management practices of lifestyle influencers on Instagram. (Master thesis, Erasmus University Rotterdam). Retrieved from https://thesis.eur.nl/pub/40378/Beer-Celeste-de.pdf
De Bruijn, M. (2016). Reconciling authenticity and commerciality? A descriptive study of the relationship of trust between beauty and style vlogger Hello October and her
community (Master thesis, Utrecht University). Retrieved from
https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/341883
Djafarova, E., & Trofimenko, O. (2019). ‘Instafamous’ – credibility and self-presentation of micro-celebrities on social media. Information, Communication & Society, 22(10), 1432–1446.
Eisend, M. (2006). Source credibility dimensions in marketing communication – A generalized solution. Journal of Empirical Generalizations in Marketing Science, 10(2), 1–33.
Goffman, E. (1956). The presentation of self in everyday life. American Sociological Review, 21(5), 631.
Gudmundsdottir, A., & Chia, C. Y. S. (2019, May 27). The relationship between influencers’ self-presentation strategies and perceived source credibility. Presented at the 69th Annual International Communication Association Conference (ICA 2019):
Communication Beyond Boundaries, Washington, D.C., United States. Retrieved from
https://scholars.cityu.edu.hk/en/publications/publication(c0ff43ec-3d1b-477c-9d9e-3a28505ce366).html
Guttmann, A. (2020, January 17). Share of influencers posting sponsored content on Instagram 2019, by gender. Retrieved 7 May 2020 from https://www.statista.com/ statistics/893749/share-influencers-creating-sponsored-posts-by-gender/
Hennesy, B. (2018). Influencer: Building your personal brand in the age of social media. Citadel Press.
Hong, I. B., & Cho, H. (2011). The impact of consumer trust on attitudinal loyalty and purchase intentions in B2C e-marketplaces: Intermediary trust vs. seller trust. International Journal of Information Management, 31(5), 469–479.
Horai, J., Naccari, N., & Fatoullah, E. (1974). The effects of expertise and physical attractiveness upon opinion agreement and liking. Sociometry, 37(4), 601–606. Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion. Yale
University Press.
Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15(4), 635–650.
Jones, C. B. (1990). Systematic software development using VDM. Prentice Hall International. Joseph, W. B. (1982). The credibility of physically attractive communicators: A review.
Journal of Advertising, 11(3), 15–24.
Karlsson, M. (2010). Rituals of transparency: Evaluating online news outlets’ uses of transparency rituals in the United States, United Kingdom and Sweden. Journalism Studies, 11(4), 535–545.
Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. University of Nebraska Press. Kelley, Harold H. (2013). Personal relationships: Their structures and processes. Psychology
Press.
Kempf, D. S., & Palan, K. M. (2006). The effects of gender and argument strength on the proccessing of word-of-mouth communication. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 10(1), 1–18.
Khamis, S., Ang, L., & Welling, R. (2017). Self-branding, ‘micro-celebrity’ and the rise of social media influencers. Celebrity Studies, 8(2), 191–208.
Konstantopoulou, A., Rizomyliotis, I., Konstantoulaki, K., & Badahdah, R. (2019). Improving SMEs’ competitiveness with the use of Instagram influencer advertising and eWOM. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 27(2), 308–321.
Krämer, N. C., & Winter, S. (2008). Impression management 2.0: The relationship of self-esteem, extraversion, self-efficacy, and self-presentation within social networking sites. Journal of Media Psychology, 20(3), 106–116.
Landman, I. (2020, April 29). Fysiek en mentaal fit blijven in coronatijd: “Ga weg van die bank.” Retrieved 19 June 2020 from https://nos.nl/collectie/13839/artikel/2332197-fysiek-en-mentaal-fit-blijven-in-coronatijd-ga-weg-van-die-bank
Li, H., Jiang, J., & Wu, M. (2014). The effects of trust assurances on consumers’ initial online trust: A two-stage decision-making process perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 34(3), 395–405.
Linqia. (2020). The state of influencer marketing 2020: Influencer marketing grows up. Retrieved 19 June 2020 from https://www.linqia.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/ The-State-of-Influencer-Marketing-2020.pdf
Liu, Y., Luo, X., & Cao, Y. (2018). Investigating the influence of online interpersonal
interaction on purchase intention based on stimulus-organism-reaction model. Human-Centric Computing and Information Sciences, 8(1), 1–37.
Lokithasan, K., Simon, S., Jasmin, N. Z., & Othman, N. A. (2019). Male and female social media influencers: The impact of gender on emerging adults. International Journal of Modern Trends in Social Sciences, 2(9), 21–30.
Lou, C., & Yuan, S. (2019). Influencer marketing: How message value and credibility affect consumer trust of branded content on social media. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 19(1), 58–73.
Lyons, B., & Henderson, K. (2005). Opinion leadership in a computer-mediated environment. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 4(5), 319–329.
Martensen, A., Brockenhuus-Schack, S., & Zahid, A. L. (2018). How citizen influencers persuade their followers. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 22(3), 335–353.
Marwick, A. E. (2013). “They’re really profound women, they’re entrepreneurs”: Conceptions of Authenticity in Fashion Blogging. Presented at the International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM), July (Vol. 8), USA. Retrieved from http://www.tiara.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/amarwick_fashionblogs_ ICWSM_2013.pdf
Marwick, A. E. (2015). Instafame: Luxury selfies in the attention economy. Public Culture, 27(1 75), 137–160.
Marwick, A. E. (2016). You may know me from YouTube: (Micro‐)Celebrity in social media. In P. D. Marshall & S. Redmond (Eds.), A Companion to Celebrity (pp. 333–350). McCay-Peet, L., & Quan-Haase, A. (2016). A model of social media engagement: User
Engagement Matters (pp. 199–217).
McCroskey, J. C., & McCain, T. A. (1974). The measurement of interpersonal attraction. Speech Monographs, 41(3), 261–266.
Moorman, M., Neijens, P. C., & Smit, E. G. (2007). The effects of program involvement on commercial exposure and recall in a naturalistic setting. Journal of Advertising, 36(1), 121–137.
Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers’ perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of Advertising, 19(3), 39–52.
Papacharissi, Z. (2002). The presentation of self in virtual life: Characteristics of personal home pages. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 79(3), 643–660. Park, C. W., Macinnis, D. J., Priester, J., Eisingerich, A. B., & Iacobucci, D. (2010). Brand
attachment and brand attitude strength: Conceptual and empirical differentiation of two critical brand equity drivers. Journal of Marketing, 74(6), 1–17.
Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 243–281.
Rifon, N. J., Jiang, M., & Kim, S. (2016). Advances in advertising research (Vol. 6; P. Verlegh, H. Voorveld, & M. Eisend, Eds.).
Schouten, A. P., Janssen, L., & Verspaget, M. (2020). Celebrity vs. influencer endorsements in advertising: The role of identification, credibility, and product-endorser fit.
International Journal of Advertising, 39(2), 258–281.
Senft, T. M. (2008). Camgirls: Celebrity and community in the age of social networks (Vol. 4). Peter Lang Publishing Inc.
Shoham, A., & Ruvio, A. (2008). Opinion leaders and followers: A replication and extension. Psychology and Marketing, 25(3), 280–297.
Smink, A. R., Frowijn, S., van Reijmersdal, E. A., van Noort, G., & Neijens, P. C. (2019). Try online before you buy: How does shopping with augmented reality affect brand
responses and personal data disclosure. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 35(2019), Article 100854.
Stallen, M., Smidts, A., Rijpkema, M., Smit, G., Klucharev, V., & Fernández, G. (2010). Celebrities and shoes on the female brain: The neural correlates of product evaluation in the context of fame. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31(5), 802–811.
Till, B. D., & Busler, M. (2000). The match-up hypothesis: Physical attractiveness, expertise, and the role of fit on brand attitude, purchase intent and brand beliefs. Journal of
Advertising, 29(3), 1–13.
Trampe, D., Stapel, D. A., Siero, F. W., & Mulder, H. (2010). Beauty as a tool: The effect of model attractiveness, product relevance, and elaboration likelihood on advertising effectiveness. Psychology & Marketing, 27(12), 1101–1121.
Van Noort, G., & Van Reijmersdal, E. A. (2019). Branded apps: Explaining effects of brands’ mobile phone applications on brand responses. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 45, Vernette, É. (2004). Targeting women’s clothing fashion opinion leaders in media planning:
An application for magazines. Journal of Advertising Research, 44(1), 90–107. Wei, J., & Meng, F. (2016). Can opinion leader influence the purchase intension of online
consumers? International Journal of u- and e-Service, Science and Technology, 9(1), 373–384.
Xiao, M., Wang, R., & Chan-Olmsted, S. (2018). Factors affecting YouTube influencer marketing credibility: A heuristic-systematic model. Journal of Media Business Studies, 15(3), 188–213.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1994). The personal involvement inventory: Reduction, revision, and application to advertising. Journal of Advertising, 23(4), 59–70.
Zhou, F., Chen, L., & Su, Q. (2019). Understanding the impact of social distance on users’ broadcasting intention on live streaming platforms: A lens of the challenge-hindrance stress perspective. Telematics and Informatics, 41, 46–54.
