Be Constantly Different How To Manage Influencer A

Electronic Commerce Research (2023) 23:1485–1514
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-022-09653-6
Be constantly different! How to manage influencer

authenticity
Robert Zniva1 · Wolfgang J. Weitzl2 · Christina Lindmoser3
Accepted: 2 December 2022 / Published online: 4 January 2023

© The Author(s) 2022
Abstract
Social media influencers are increasingly approached by marketers to advocate
brands and products. This practice is commonly called ‘influencer marketing’. In-
fluencers can take advantage of their reach and importance for consumers’ decision
making by obtaining rewards from marketers. At the same time, consumers are
increasingly aware of this practice. In this context, the perception of an influenc-
ers´ authenticity is key when it comes to his/her ability to persuade others. In this
research, we shed light on the nature of the influencer authenticity construct, its
boundaries as well as its relationships with brand-related variables responsible for
consumers’ buying decisions. Using an experimental approach (n = 163), we dem-
onstrate that especially influencers’ uniqueness and consistency increase their au-
thenticity. Furthermore, our results show a strong impact of influencer authenticity
on purchase intention, which is partially mediated via brand authenticity and brand
attitude.
Keywords Influencer · Authenticity · Social influence · Social media marketing
Robert Zniva
[email protected]
Wolfgang J. Weitzl
[email protected]
1
Department of Business and Tourism, Salzburg University of Applied Sciences, Uhrstein
Süd 1, A-5412 Puch bei Salzburg, Austria
2
Institute of Digital Business, University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria,
Wehrgrabengasse 1-3, A-4400 Steyr, Austria
3
Department of Business and Tourism, Salzburg University of Applied Sciences, Uhrstein
Süd 1, A-5412 Puch bei Salzburg, Austria
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1486 R. Zniva et al.
1 Introduction
In the digital era, marketers increasingly faced the problem that consumers regarded
traditional forms of advertising (e.g., banner ads) as disturbing and untrustworthy
information sources for their purchasing decisions (Wenzel, 2016; Chen & Xie,
2008). This ultimately led to the re-occurrence and rise of influencer marketing,
which can be basically regarded as a type of word-of-mouth (WOM) on online plat-
forms. More specifically, it is a special form of endorsement marketing which uses
product or brand recommendations from ‘influencers’ to improve the effectiveness of
consumer persuasion and to ultimately drive sales. However, influencer marketing
typically has much broader goals such as increasing attention of potential custom-
ers, triggering positive WOM effects, and generating consumer engagement (e.g.,
Brown & Hayes 2008; Masuda et al., 2022). A (social) influencer is an opinion leader
who has the power and the will to affect consumers’ decision-making (e.g., product
choice) via social media channels such as YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram (Lin et
al., 2018). Some influencers have built up communities with an enormous number of
follows. For instance, Kim Kardashian has more than 300 Mio. followers (Kim Kar-
dashian, n.d.). In the recent past, marketers tried to benefit from the influencers’ reach
and consumers’ inclination to value third-party sources more than commercial infor-
mation when planning a purchase. In 2015, German consumers, for instance, particu-
larly trusted personal recommendations (78%), but were also very much inclined to
believe other persons’ opinions online (e.g., from influencers) (62%) (Nielsen, 2015).
Some years ago, almost half of the Germans could imagine buying a product advo-
cated by influencers (PwC, 2019). In these old days of influencer marketing, follow-
ers typically valued the product endorsements of the online opinion leaders. This was
an international phenomenon. For example, in the US 63% trusted influencers more
than brands (Edelman, 2019). They often regarded these messages as less biased and
more informative compared to many other sources. In this golden era companies had
a strong drive to use the viral growth potential of influencers to promote their brand’s
personality and to create a community of loyal customers.
However, in the meantime, influencer marketing had suffered from some con-
siderable drawbacks as it is currently struggling with sincerity issues: Consumers
increasingly doubt the authenticity of influencers, who are more and more arbitrarily
cooperating with diverse companies and multiple brands at the same time. These
brands often do not appear to correspond to an influencer’s interests or personality
(Audrezet et al., 2020). Every second German consumer who follows influencers
receives sponsored messages from his/her beloved opinion leader, which increasingly
erodes consumers’ faith in influencers’ independence and objectivity (Wavemaker,
2019). These days, less than 37% of German consumers trust influencer advertising
(Nielsen, 2022). Currently, only 13% of US consumers turn to influencers to inform
their purchasing decisions (Oracle & Brent Leary, 2022). Considerable anecdotal
and empirical evidence from international sources suggests that trust in influenc-
ers is declining (e.g., CXM, 2022; Entrepreneur, 2021; Forbes, 2020). Consumers
have adjusted their media knowledge, which led to an increased general skepticism
towards influencers and their motivations. Therefore, the sustainable success of influ-
encer marketing is currently at its crossroads – leading to controversial discussions
13
Be constantly different! How to manage influencer authenticity 1487
about the future of influencer marketing among practitioners and scholars alike (e.g.,
Irish Times, 2019).
It seems that the concepts of influencer credibility and authenticity are the future
key constructs for the success of influencer marketing. This implies that for market-
ers, who value the diverse benefits of influencer marketing for their brands, such as
increased purchase likelihood and better reputation among their potential and future
customers (e.g., Bu et al., 2022; Farivar & Wang, 2022), it will become increas-
ingly important to select the right influencers based on their sincerity (Tabor, 2020).
However, while marketing research has a profound understanding of the credibility
concept (e.g., Sokolova & Kefi 2020; Lindh & Lisichkova, 2017; Hu et al., 2019),
an appropriate discussion of the nature, boundaries, and role of authenticity – in
the context of influencer marketing – is still sparse. This is surprising as marketing
literature has recognized the importance of authenticity across different market offer-
ings, like historical sites (Goulding, 2000; Grayson and Martinec, 2004), (reality)
television (Becker et al., 2019; Rose & Wood, 2005), and brands (Fritz et al., 2017;
Beverland et al., 2008; Lee et al., 2009). Only a few marketing studies address the
perceived authenticity of individuals (e.g., Moulard et al., 2015). Nevertheless, our
knowledge about influencer authenticity and its relationship to key brand-related out-
comes remains extremely limited.
In this research, we shed light on the importance of an influencer’s perceived
authenticity. By doing so, we have conducted two experiments, which investigated
four possible perceptual constructs acting as the concept’s consumer-sided anteced-
ents: (i) influencer uniqueness (i.e., the perceived originality of an influencer in terms
of his/her independence, creativity, and individuality), (ii) scarcity (i.e., the perceived
popularity of an influencer in terms of his/her number of followers), (iii) longevity
(i.e., the perceived persistence of the influencer’s activities), and (iv) consistency
(i.e., the perceived perseverance of an influencer towards change). The findings of
our studies suggest that an influencer’s authenticity is mainly dependent on both his/
her uniqueness and consistency. This means that consumers particularly value the
iconic status of influencers who distinguish themselves from others and ‘stand out’
from the usual. In addition, our empirical findings indicate that consumers have a
slight tendency to especially find influencers as authentic, who are both persistent
and consistent in their actions. This interplay possibly has, however, only a weak
systematic influence. Furthermore, this research can show that influencer authenticity
is a trigger construct that can ultimately affect consumers’ purchase intention towards
a specific brand, reviewed and recommended by the influencer in his/her sponsored
posts. We demonstrate that a serial mediation process involving several brand-related
constructs (e.g., brand authenticity, brand attitude) is accountable for this reaction.
Overall, the empirical findings support our anecdotal claim that marketers should pay
increased attention to the choice of influencers by considering their purchase-relevant
authenticity. And more specifically, their uniqueness (i.e., perceived individualism)
as well as consistency (i.e., truth to their selves). This consideration pays off by posi-
tively affecting consumers’ willingness to buy the advertised brand.
13
2 Conceptual background and hypotheses
2.1 Influencers
Scholars often define influencers as individuals who interact with a specific target
audience in which they regularly stimulate online engagement (e.g., discussions) and
to whom they sell a product, service, or brand. Influencers include persons with dif-
ferent backgrounds: some of them are celebrities, while others are industry advo-
cates, professionals, or non-professional peers (Childers et al., 2019). The term also
includes individuals who make notable contributions on social media and gained
considerable recognition from others. One could recognize these individuals also can
be identified by the fact that they have created a dedicated audience and a large online
following (Bu et al., 2022; De Veirman et al., 2017). Influencers are often regarded as
‘opinion leaders’ who have a strong public reputation. They communicate with their
followers in various ways including posts, photos, videos, and other social activities
(e.g., online meetings). These activities help them to develop their own online per-
sona (Tafesse & Wien, 2018) or their personal brands (i.e., ‘human brands’; Kay et
al., 2020) and to build trust by demonstrating their knowledge in different domains
such as fashion, lifestyle, sports, and cooking. In this article, we simply refer to these
individuals as ‘influencers’, but in literature, they are also often described as ‘social
influencers’, ‘internet celebrities’, ‘digital opinion leaders’, or ‘market mavens’.
Recently, the background conditions explaining consumers’ positive reactions
to sponsored posts or social media advertising by influencers received considerable
attention among marketing scholars and practitioners alike. Extant literature often
emphasizes that this kind of communication is perceived as more credible, seems
more organic, and has a greater potential to reach the desired target audiences as com-
pared to online advertising by companies (Lou & Yuan, 2019). However, various fac-
tors contribute to this mechanism. For instance, interactions between the influencer
and consumers appear more credible than traditional advertising as the persuasive
messages are seamlessly woven into the daily narratives posted by the influencer
(Abidin, 2016). Research demonstrates that besides message characteristics (e.g.,
content length, uniqueness, originality, interactivity, informativeness, recommenda-
tion type; Ki et al., 2020; Woodroof et al., 2020), follower attributes as well as per-
ceived influencer characteristics are essential. Concerning the former, it has been
found that interest fit (Belanche et al., 2021; Martínez-López et al., 2020) as well as
followers’ loneliness (Hwang & Zhang, 2018) and self-esteem play a critical role in
their responses to influencer marketing. In addition, parasocial relationships between
the follower and the influencer can lead to an imitation of the influencer’s habits by
means of consumption (Ki & Kim, 2019; Sokolova & Kefi, 2020). Followers have
the illusion of a face-to-face relationship with influencers, which makes them more
susceptible to their opinions and recommendations (Colliander & Dahlén, 2011).
When it comes to influencer characteristics, the perceived credibility (Breves et al.,
2019; Reinikainen et al., 2020), trustworthiness (Schouten et al., 2020), as well as the
physical attractiveness (Sokolova & Kefi, 2020) are often highlighted as important
determinants of influencers’ impact on buying decisions. The discussion on essential
influencer characteristics is currently stimulated by the introduction of congruency-
13
based factors such as influencer-brand fit (Breves et al., 2019; Kim & Kim, 2022)
and – more importantly – influencer authenticity.
2.2 Authenticity concept
While in marketing at least some agreement exists about the meaning of authentic-
ity, no universally accepted definition is yet available. Various authors agree that the
concept is the outcome of a verification process of the truth or a fact (e.g., Newman &
Dhar, 2014; Eigenraam et al., 2021; Kumar & Kaushal, 2021). Beverland and Farrely
(2010, p. 839), for instance, state „despite the multiplicity of terms and interpreta-
tions applied to authenticity, ultimately what is consistent across the literature is that
authenticity encapsulates what is genuine, real, and/or true”. While this phrase pos-
tulates that being ‘authentic’ means that someone or something is ‘real’, these words
can mean different things to different persons in different contexts. Authenticity is
therefore often described as a socially constructed interpretation of an observation
(Beverland & Farrelly, 2010; Grayson & Martinec, 2004). As such, individuals (e.g.,
consumers) should always be considered as co-creators of authenticity because they
interact with the authentic object or person (Rose & Wood, 2005). They ultimately
‘define’ authenticity. While some consumers may perceive an object, person, experi-
ence, or brand as genuine and real, others may regard the same evaluation object as
fake. Consistently, various scholars theorize that the meaning of authenticity is goal
dependent. This means that personal objectives (i.e., making a well-informed pur-
chasing decision while being exposed to potentially biased market communication
and communicators with a particular self-interest) determine which characteristics
contribute to a perceived authenticity.
In line with this argumentation, Grayson and Martinec (2004) identify two types
of authenticity: ‘indexical authenticity’ and ‘iconic authenticity’. Concerning the for-
mer, authenticity can be used to describe something that is thought not to be a copy
or an imitation. Here, an object is perceived to be authentic when it is believed to be
‘the original’. Similarly, an individual’s habits are authentic in case they are believed
to reflect who the person really is. In contrast, a person would appear unauthentic
if his/her actions are thought to solely meet social norms or to make money (e.g.,
by recommending a product or brand only because a company sponsors that post).
Alternatively, iconic authenticity means that sometimes the word ‘authentic’ is used
to evaluate whether an object’s physical appearance resembles something stereotypi-
cal. For example, silver pieces in a museum gift shop are authentic if they are thought
to look like coins made by Spanish colonies in the sixteenth century. In line with
this perspective, for the remainder of this article, we regard a person’s authenticity
as a form of what Grayson and Martinec (2004) describe as ‘indexical authenticity’
as individuals primarily subjectively judge another person’s (e.g., an influencer’s)
genuineness based on the extent to which the actions mirror the other party’s real self.
13
2.3 Influencer authenticity
2.3.1 Perceived authenticity of individuals
Both self-determination theory (Ryan & Daci, 2000) as well as attribution theory
(Asch, 1946) help to explain the nature and role of the perceived authenticity of
individuals (e.g., Kowalczyk & Pounders, 2016; Moulard et al., 2015). Here, various
authors agree that in this context, authenticity can be described as the extent to which
one remains true to oneself. People are regarded as authentic if they are genuine, orig-
inal, and unique. They act in accordance with their inner believes, thoughts, feelings,
and passion. The actions of an authentic person reflect his/her unbiased self (Ilicic
& Webster, 2016; Moulard et al., 2016; Moulard et al., 2015). These actions can
be understood as intrinsically motivated behaviors, which are triggered without any
bias like commercial or opportunistic goals. According to self-determination theory,
such behaviors are free of external influences, and they align with the personal con-
cept of oneself. Intrinsic motivation originates from three native basic human needs:
self-competence, self-determination, and social affiliation (Rohlfs, 2011). Authentic
individuals strive for these needs and are not motivated by potential rewards nor
punishment (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
As the true self and the inner motivation are not obvious to others, another person’s
authenticity can never be evaluated with absolute certainty. Nonetheless, individuals
do make assessments of another’s authenticity. The perception of another person’s
(e.g., influencer’s) authenticity, despite whether the person is objectively authentic, is
the construct of interest in this research. Individuals (e.g., consumers) typically try to
infer another human’s motivation from the observable behaviors. This corresponds
with the basic tenet of attribution theory (Asch, 1946), which describes individuals’
inner urge to understand their environment and other persons’ actions by making
causal inferences. When making observations, people always try to discover connec-
tions and try to identify the most plausible reason for others’ behaviors (Schwaiger
& Meyer, 2011). Here, the theory claims that individuals typically make inferences
whether the behavior is intrinsically or extrinsically motivated. A person is judged
as being authentic when an intrinsic motivation is perceived to steer the observable
behavior. A behavior is regarded as being intrinsically motivated if it is unique, and it
is consistent across different situations and different stimuli (Kowalczyk & Pounders,
2016). For instance, a person is evaluated as acting intrinsically motivated in case this
person is much more friendly and sociable than other individuals (i.e., uniqueness),
the person remains friendly despite being in a good or bad mood (i.e., consistency
across different situations), and the person is friendly to everyone that he/she meets
(i.e., consistency across different stimuli). Having this said, depending on the con-
text, authenticity perceptions can vary concerning their most relevant components,
which can include individuality (Wentzel, 2009), empathy (MacInnis et al., 2002),
and naturalness (Zhu & Meyers-Levy, 2009). For example, Jones and her colleagues
(2022) conceptualize a chatbot’s authenticity in terms of its appearance as a real
individual with the capability to feel and experience empathy while communicating
in a natural manner.
13
A considerable acceleration of the scientific discussion of the authenticity concept

came from the intensified research in consumer research (Rose & Wood, 2005). Since
then, academic studies gained momentum leading to further insights concerning the
role and nature of this concept (Beverland & Farrelly, 2010; Napoli et al., 2014;
Kumar & Kaushal, 2021). In the branding context, scholars agree that the meaning
of authenticity revolves around the extent to which consumers perceive brands (i.e.,
both human brands such as celebrities or artists and product or service brands) as
intrinsically motivated. Here, a brand is perceived to be authentic if it seems to be in
business because it is enjoyable or provides hedonic value and not to increase profits
or purely prestige. In the consumption context, authenticity is a consumer’s sub-
jective judgment of genuineness attributed to a (market) object (Napoli & Kaushal,
2014; Davis et al., 2019). Consumers evaluate the authenticity of products based on
their sincerity, innocence, or originality (Fine, 2003), or the judgment can be related
to perceptions of the reality or truth of it (Grayson & Martinec, 2004). A product can
be authentic when it is perceived as being true to its heritage, using traditional modes
of production (Beverland, 2005). Switching to social entities, Ilicic and Webster
(2016) as well as Kowalczk and Pounders (2016) define ‘celebrity authenticity’ as the
consumers’ perception of the extent to which well-known human brands remain true
to their true self. An authentic celebrity must act based on his/her personal values.
Moulard et al. (2014) also conceptualized ‘artist authenticity’ in a similar manner. In
the work of Cuesta-Valino and his colleagues (2022), a product manager’s authentic-
ity is defined as the extent to which consumers evaluate this person as intrinsically
motivated and to which degree, he/she is passionate and devoted to his/her products.
Hence, based on the above discussion, one can conclude that consumers regularly
infer the degree of perceived authenticity of various market participants including
objects (e.g., stores, brands) and subjects (e.g., managers, advertisers, testimoni-
als, influencers). Based on the thing being evaluated, the factors used to evaluate
can strongly vary. However, marketing scholars widely agree that authenticity is an
impactful concept that can affect consumers’ feelings, opinions, evaluations, and has
the potential to dictate actions (e.g., brand purchases) (e.g., Morhart et al., 2015;
Spiggle et al., 2012; Davis et al., 2019).
2.3.2 Perceived authenticity of influencers
Based on the dominant understanding of authenticity in marketing, this research con-

ceptualizes influencer authenticity as the extent to which consumers perceive a social
media influencer as behaving in accordance with his/her true self. Authentic influ-
encers are regarded as acting in correspondence with their personal characteristics,
thoughts, feelings, and passions because of a strong intrinsic motivation (Ilicic &
Webster, 2016; Moulard et al., 2016; Moulard et al., 2015). They produce content
(e.g., posts) that is seen as being dominantly based on their dedication to a topic, prod-
uct, or brand. In line with this perspective, Kapitan et al., (2021) define influencers’
authenticity as the consumer’s perception of acting in accordance with one’s values,
preferences, and needs versus acting in such a way to please others or obtain rewards.
Satisfying the audience (i.e., followers) or involved brands as well as any monetary
incentives have minor importance to the authentic influencer. Their activities revolve
13
around self-expression and independence. For authentic influencers, producing social

media content is not a means to an end (e.g., to please followers or marketers), but
more importantly the possibility to create a real added value for their audiences. In
line with this reasoning, Audrezet et al. (2020) state that authentic influencers pro-
vide fact-based information about companies and their products. Furthermore, they
argue that ‘transparent authenticity’ means that the influencer discloses information
about the contractual terms of the partnership with a particular brand as well as post-
ing unedited content. Authentic influencers are perceived to derive gratification from
self-improvement, enjoyment, pleasure, and positive emotions. Consumers interpret
influencers’ positive/negative statements about products or brands as recommenda-
tions based on their true and unbiased beliefs about market offerings. That is, only
if they provide fair, intrinsically motivated reviews mirroring his/her own personal
experiences. Adding to this understanding, Lee and Eastin (2021) describe social
media influencers’ authenticity as the extent to which consumers perceive influencers
to be kindhearted, engage in intrinsically motivated brand endorsements, reveal per-
sonal information about themselves, are naturally talented in their area of expertise,
and are distinct from other influencers. Based on above discussion, one can say that
overall, influencer authenticity is a construct that comprises a consumer’s evaluation
of the extent to which a social media producer genuinely communicates purchasing-
relevant information which resembles his/her true stance towards the presented and
discussed products or brands.
Influencer authenticity must be conceptually separated from ‘influencer cred-
ibility’. The latter is a well-established multi-dimensional construct, which was first
conceptualized – as a general consumer research construct – by Hovland and Weiss
(1951). According to these scholars, individuals evaluate the credibility of a source
based on (1) its perceived expertise (i.e., the extent to which the source is regarded
as knowledgeable) and (2) its perceived trustworthiness (i.e., the extent to which the
source is assumed to be honest and caring for the welfare of his/her audience). While
in the context of social media endorsers some scholars focus only on one dimension
(e.g., Chung & Cho, 2017), it is however widely agreed that at least these two dimen-
sions should be regarded to fully capture an influencer’s perceived credibility (e.g.,
Sokolova & Kefi 2020; Lindh & Lisichkova, 2017; Hu et al., 2019). Sometimes, in
the context of social influencers, other scholars regard the perceived attractiveness
as another component of source credibility or delimited construct (e.g., Torres et
al., 2019). Here, the concept regularly not only encompasses the physical appear-
ance, but also other factors such as sympathy and familiarity. These are components,
which are often not used to conceptualize authenticity or represent only parts of its
nature. The argument that influencer authenticity and above-mentioned constructs are
related, but conceptually disjunct constructs is supported by the fact that marketing
literature widely agrees that these constructs have different antecedents (e.g., Mou-
lard et al., 2015), while affecting similar brand-related concepts.
2.4 Conceptual model
Given our understanding of the nature of influencer authenticity, we conceptualized

a stimulus-organism-response-model (see Fig. 1), which specifies the construct’s
13
Fig. 1 Conceptual model
important consumer-sided perceptual antecedents and its impact on consumers’ pur-

chase intention - a critical brand-related behavioral variable. Based on attribution
theory (Asch, 1946) and the conceptualization of celebrity authenticity we define (1)
uniqueness, (2) stability, (3) longevity, and (4) consistency as essential factors deter-
mining influencer authenticity (Moulard et al., 2016; Moulard et al., 2015). In contrast
to recent works, which conceptualize influencer authenticity as strongly dependent
on the style of communication an influencer endorses a brand with (Audrezet et al.,
2020), we define influencer authenticity as a personality characteristic or general
nature of an influencer. This nature is naturally mirrored by the perceivable charac-
teristics of his/her social media account and the associated information on his/her
person (identifiable in the profile description) and his/her popularity (described by
the number of followers or likes) (Lindmoser et al., 2022). Hence, we do not focus on
self-determination theory and on whether the influencer perceives himself/herself as
authentic. In contrast, this research’s conceptualization involves whether an individ-
ual, specifically another consumer, perceives an influencer or the available informa-
tion on the influencer (i.e., someone other than himself/herself) as intrinsically driven
and therefore authentic. By doing so, we borrow from typical conceptualizations of
previous works on artist authenticity, celebrity authenticity, and brand authenticity
(e.g., Moulard et al., 2014, Moulard et al., 2016; Moulard et al., 2015) (see above).
Furthermore, our research follows the basic definition of the ‘Entity-Referent Cor-
respondence’ (ERC) framework of authenticity which defines the construct as “a
consumer’s perception of the extent to which an entity corresponds to a referent”
(Moulard et al., 2021, p. 99) and can be categorized according to the framework as
research on ‘true-to-self authenticity’.
13
2.4.1 Perceived rarity as antecedent of influencer authenticity
According to the ERC framework, an authentic entity is strongly defined by cues

of uniqueness and scarcity (Moulard et al., 2021). These variables are two subdo-
mains of the concept of rarity which has been already investigated in the context
of celebrity authenticity and brand authenticity (Audrezet et al., 2020; Moulard et
al., 2016). Rarity can be described as the degree to which a person or brand is seen
as uncommon. Society typically makes it more difficult to act against social confor-
mity and withholds social approval (Jones & Davis, 1965; Kelley, 1973; Bellezza
et al., 2014). A person or brand which ’goes against the grain’ by not conforming to
social norms is perceived as intrinsically motivated and is therefore experienced as
more authentic. Uniqueness, in this context, describes the perceived originality of a
person. It is defined by the independence, creativity, and individuality of the person
(Moulard et al., 2016). Anyone who is not considered to be ’typical’ because of, for
example, his/her age, occupation, social status and/or political beliefs is evaluated as
more authentic (Fine, 2003; Peterson, 2005). Influencers reveal constantly personal
information through their profile description and messages on social media outlets.
We argue, in line with attribution theory, that the more this information distinguishes
the influencer from his/her peers, the more it is interpreted as a sign of uniqueness
and signals an intrinsic motivated person. Therefore, we hypothesize:
H1. Influencer uniqueness has a positive effect on influencer authenticity.
Scarcity, the second subdomain of rarity, is defined as the extent to which con-
sumers perceive that another entity (a person or a brand) is not widely available
or accessible (Moulard et al., 2016). A notion supported by the branding literature
where ubiquity and over-commercialization as signs of aggressive growth decrease
authenticity (Gilmore & Pine, 2007). The limited accessibility gives consumers the
impression that an entity takes pride in and is committed to its craft and has been
investigated and reported as a sign of authenticity of brands, products (Beverland,
2005) and persons (Moulard et al., 2015). The effect of scarcity is determined by
attribution theory. An entity which “does not search the spotlight” and limits its
accessibility is interpreted as more intrinsically motivated. In the context of social
media, a common indicator of accessibility and popularity is the number of followers
an account or influencer has. In recent years, several studies investigated the effect
of follower numbers on different aspects of consumer behavior in social media envi-
ronments (Britt et al., 2020; Kay et al., 2020; Park et al., 2021). Results show that
influencers with a low number of followers have more two-way-interactions with
their followers (Britt et al., 2020; Campbell & Farrell, 2020), create more product
knowledge through their communication (Kay et al., 2020) and are perceived to
have fewer ulterior commercial intentions compared to influencers with higher fol-
lower numbers (Audrezet et al., 2020; Campbell & Farrell, 2020; Kay et al., 2020). A
plausible theoretical explanation for these results can be drawn from the Persuasion
Knowledge Model, which implies that consumers try to resist or ignore marketing
and advertising content which attempts to be more persuasive (Friestad & Wright,
1994). Consumers thus perceive influencers with a high number of followers as more
commercially driven and manipulative, and subsequently they resist these efforts and
evaluate the influencer as more inauthentic. In this context, Britt et al. (2020) found
13
no substantial differences in affective, social, and cognitive content communicated

by influencers with high or low numbers of followers. Therefore, we argue that it is
not the content communicated but the number of followers itself causing an effect of
scarcity. Hence, we hypothesize:
H2. Influencer scarcity has a positive effect on influencer authenticity.
2.4.2 Perceived stability as antecedent of influencer authenticity
A second factor proposed to positively influence ‘true-to-self authenticity’ is the con-

cept of stability (Moulard et al., 2020). According to attribution theory brands and
persons perceived as unwavering are interpreted as authentic because the demon-
strated stable behavior is attributed to an intrinsic motivation and not interpreted as
caused by external pressures (Kelley, 1973). Stability comprises of two sub-domains:
(c) longevity and (d) longitudinal consistency. Longevity represents the persistence
and therefore the length of existence of an entity (Moulard et al., 2020; Moulard et
al., 2016). In the context of social media, we argue that influencers who already com-
municate constantly over a longer period of time are perceived as more authentic than
influencers who just started their influencer career. Accordingly, we hypothesize:
H3. Influencer longevity has a positive effect on influencer authenticity.
Longitudinal consistency describes the perseverance of an entity towards change
over time (Moulard et al., 2020). Brands that exhibit a consistent image, even though
specific aspects and attributes (e.g., ingredients, products) have changed over time
are considered to be authentic (Moulard et al., 2016). Similarly, the degree of change
of an influencer’s personality and characteristics over time influence how authentic
the person will be perceived as his/her consistency (Moulard et al., 2015). According
to self-determination theory a person considers himself/herself as more authentic if
his/her self-concepts are consistent across time and contexts (Diehl et al., 2006). A
logic also applied when the same person is evaluating others. Therefore, we propose
that an influencer who does not change in personality and his/her associated image
appears to be more intrinsically motivated – and is therefore perceived to be more
authentic. Consequently, we hypothesize:
H4. Influencer consistency has a positive effect on influencer authenticity.
2.4.3 Effect of influencer authenticity on brand authenticity
Several studies have investigated applicability of the authenticity concept to the

branding context (e.g., Dwivedi & McDonald, 2018; Moulard et al., 2015; Moulard
et al., 2016). They agree that brand authenticity offers consumers several advantages
such as the ability to offer a sense of continuity in ever-changing, complex environ-
ments characterized by uncertainty (Fritz et al., 2017), cultivating the credibility of
brands (Schallehn et al., 2014; Becker et al., 2019), enabling a unique brand position-
ing (Lu et al., 2015), increasing customer satisfaction (Bruhn et al., 2012), or making
consumers more receptive to brand messages (Audrezet et al., 2020). Brand authen-
ticity describes the extent to which a specific brand appears to be genuine, real, and
true. (Beverland & Farrelly, 2010). An authentic brand conforms to consumers’ men-
13
tal frames how it ought to be and has proven that it has a fit with consumers’ expecta-
tions (Beverland et al., 2008; Cinelli & LeBoeuf, 2020; Eigenraam et al., 2021).
Influencer authenticity is strongly related to brand authenticity due to a naturally
occurring image transfer as proposed by the meaning-transfer-model (McCracken,
1989). According to this model, in a so-called ‘rub-off effect’ (McCracken, 1989;
Silvera & Austad, 2004) characteristics and meanings get transferred from a celeb-
rity testimonial onto advertised products or services. In this context, the findings of
Chung and Cho (2017) suggest that the trustworthiness of a celebrity has a positive
influence on the credibility of the advertised brand. Silvera and Austad (2004) illus-
trate that ‘stylish’ celebrities make consumers think that the products endorsed by
these celebrities are also ‘stylish’. Finally, Park et al. (2021) demonstrate that percep-
tions of influencer authenticity can be transferred to brands via endorsements from
these influencers., Therefore, we hypothesize:
H5. Influencer authenticity has a positive effect on brand authenticity.
2.4.4 Effect of brand authenticity on brand attitude
Attitudes are a cornerstone of modern persuasion theories and are relatively endur-
ing and general evaluations of an object, person, group, issue, or concept (Petty &
Cacioppo, 1996). Ewing et al. (2012) demonstrate the impact of brand authenticity on
brand attitude based on the Peirican approach (Grayson & Shulman, 2000; Grayson
& Martinec, 2004; Beverland et al., 2008; Beverland & Farrelly, 2010). According
to this approach drawn from semiotics, a product’s appearance and features define
what it is supposed to be or represent but a consumer may or may not accept it.
Perceived meaning of an object based on face value is subject to consumer judge-
ment of its validity (Sommers & Kernan, 1967; Kleine & Kernan, 1991). Hence, per-
ceived brand authenticity as a genuine sign of validity positively effects the general
evaluation of a brand. The relationship between authenticity and attitude has been
investigated in different contexts in previous studies. Brand authenticity positively
influenced consumers attitudes towards green products in the USA (Ewing et al.,
2012), private-label brands in France (Carsana & Jolibert, 2018), global brands in
Pakistan and China (Safeer et al., 2021) and stores in Spain (Cuesta-Valino et al.,
2022). Thus, we hypothesize:
H6. Brand authenticity has a positive effect on brand attitude.
2.4.5 Effect of brand attitude on purchasing intention
Finally, based on the classical interpretation of the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen,
1985) and the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein, 1979) we propose that intentions
to perform behaviors can be predicted from attitudes toward the behavior. Therefore,
we propose a positive effect of a positive brand attitude on behavioral outcomes like
the intention to purchase the brand. Correspondingly we hypothesize:
H7. Brand attitude has a positive effect on purchasing intention.
13
3 Empirical study
3.1 Data collection
3.1.1 Research design, procedure, and participants
To investigate the proposed hypotheses, we exposed our participants to two online

experimental conditions. In each experimental condition one subdimension of rarity
and one subdimension of stability was manipulated. More precisely, experiment 1
can be described as a 2 (uniqueness high vs. uniqueness low) by 2 (longevity high vs.
longevity low) design. The second experiment can be classified as a 2 (scarcity high
vs. scarcity low) by 2 (consistency high vs. consistency low) design. Each condition
in each experiment consisted of a scenario description and two pictorial stimuli in the
form of an Instagram post and Instagram profile description.
A total of 163 subjects participated in both experiments that were conducted
online. Students at a German speaking university (70.6% female; average age of
23.2 years; 60.7% of participants possessed a high school degree, 39.3% possessed a
bachelor´s or master´s degree) were invited to participate in the experiment. A link to
the experiment was provided in class or via social media. We controlled the environ-
ment of participants during the experiment. The experiments took place in a quiet
environment and subjects were not allowed to interfere with other persons during
data collection. All subjects participated via smart phone or laptop. The participants
were randomly assigned to the conditions of the experiments. Gender, age and educa-
tion showed the same distribution in all conditions of the experiment.
The online questionnaire begins with an introduction in which participants are
instructed that the study is about evaluating an influencer on Instagram. Instagram
was chosen as the platform of interest because at the time of the investigation it was
the main social media platform for people aged 16 to 35 years in the country the
university is situated in. Subsequently, the stimulus ad was presented, followed by
the manipulation assessment measurements, dependent variables, and demographic
variables.
In experiment 1 we exposed our participants to a picture of an Instagram post-
ing of a chronologically old female influencer (uniqueness high condition) and a
chronologically young female influencer (uniqueness low condition). We have cho-
sen chronological age as a signal for uniqueness because influencer marketing is a
profession predominantly practiced by a younger population group. In 2019, most
influencers on Instagram were 18 to 34 years old (85%), only 12% of global influenc-
ers were aged 35 years and older and only 1% of influencers were more than 50 years
old (Klear Research, 2019). Both influencers promoted a food delivery service called
“Tasty Box”. The post was marked as “sponsored” to signify transparently that the
influencer endorses a product in exchange for money. The pictorial cue was accompa-
nied by a profile picture and scenario description indicating that the chronologically
older food influencer is 62 years old and a social media pro (uniqueness high condi-
tion). The younger food influencer was described as a typical influencer and accom-
panied by a profile picture showing a young adult (uniqueness low condition). To
manipulate the longevity associated with the influencer we provided a picture of the
13
Instagram profile indicating the number of posts the influencer had communicated.
A high number of 4,860 posts signified a situation of high longevity, a low number
of 20 posts low longevity. Additionally, we provided the number of posts also in the
scenario description and added also information on how long the influencer had been
active on social media. In the low longevity condition, we indicated a duration of 11
months. In the high longevity condition, we indicated that the influencer is active for
more than 6 years.
In experiment 2 we confronted our participants with a picture of an Instagram
posting and an Instagram profile description of a male influencer. The influencer pro-
moted a fictious camera called “Camy”. The post was marked as “sponsored” to
signify transparently that the influencer endorses a product in exchange for money.
Consistency was manipulated by providing information on the vita of the influencer.
In the high consistency condition the male influencer was described as photography
aficionado from his early days until today. In the low consistency condition the influ-
encer was described as a person who recently developed a passion for photography
but had many different interests and activities before that. Scarcity was manipulated
by providing the number of followers the influencer had. Low scarcity was described
with an account with 400 followers. High scarcity was achieved by a stated follower
number of one million. Indicators for low and high scarcity where also included in
the scenario descriptions.
To ensure a basic cognitive processing of our manipulations every participant was
asked several questions after exposure to the stimuli indicating if he/she has correctly
perceived and understood the specific scenario conditions. Participants who provided
a wrong answer were given the possibility to review the stimuli material and revise
their answers afterwards. Only participants indicating the correct answers were able
to proceed with the questionnaire. All presented brand names and influencer pro-
files were invented for the purpose of the experiment and participants who indicated
any a priori knowledge of the fictious brands or influencers were excluded from the
experiments.
Manipulations in experiment 1 and 2 were tested with items derived from Moulard
et al. (2016). In experiment 1 uniqueness was measured on four items, longevity was
assessed using two items. In experiment 2 we used three items to rate consistency
and three items to evaluate scarcity. All items were evaluated on a five-point scale
(ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”). We conducted an ANOVA
with two factors for experiment 1 (uniqueness and longevity) and experiment 2
(consistency and scarcity). The results for experiment 1 indicate that stimuli mate-
rial describing the chronological old influencer (uniqueness high) was perceived
as more unique than material describing the younger influencer (old [M = 3.49] vs.
young [M = 1.88]; F(1,159) = 145.38; p < 0.001). Furthermore stimuli material indi-
cating a long activity on social media (longevity high) scored significantly higher
on longevity than stimuli material indicating a short activity (long [M = 4.16] vs.
short [M = 1.81]; F(1,159) = 374.21; p < 0.001). The results for experiment 2 indicate
that the presentation of an unambiguous vita (consistency high) led to a significantly
higher score in consistency than an ambiguous one (unambiguous [M = 3.92] vs.
ambiguous [M = 2.50]; F(1,159) = 113.28; p < 0.001). Furthermore, the indication of
a low number of followers (scarcity high) led to significant higher ratings in scarcity
13
Table 1 Construct measurement (Experiment 1 and 2)

Constructs and measurement items Standardized fac-
tor loadings
Influencer authenticity – Based on Moulard et al. (2015) and Moulard et al. (2016)
α = 0.87 (0.91), CR = 0.86 (0.91), AVE = 0.51 (0.63)
The influencer (name) has a true passion for its business. 0.69*** (0.69***)
The influencer (name) does his/her best to share his/her experiences. 0.72*** (0.69***)
The influencer (name) loves what he/she is doing. 0.66*** (0.71***)
The influencer (name) is genuine. 0.71*** (0.88***)
The influencer (name) is real to me. 0.74*** (0.87***)
The influencer (name) is authentic. 0.75*** (0.90***)
Brand authenticity – Based on Bruhn et al. (2012)
α = 0.91 (0.93), CR = 0.91 (0.93), AVE = 0.57 (0.61)
I think the brand (name) stays true to itself. 0.65*** (0.79***)
I think the brand (name) offers continuity. 0.70*** (0.85***)
I think the brand (name) has a clear concept that it pursues. 0.74*** (0.78***)
I think the brand (name) delivers what it promises. 0.88*** (0.77***)
I think the promises of brand (name) are credible. 0.86*** (0.82***)
I think the brand (name) makes reliable promises. 0.83*** (0.83***)
I think the brand (name) does not seem artificial. 0.65*** (0.67***)
I think the brand (name) is real. 0.70*** (0.75***)
Brand attitude – Based on Mitchell and Olson (1981)
α = 0.87 (0.91), CR = 0.88 (0.90), AVE = 0.64 (0.69)
The brand (name) is good. 0.87*** (0.86***)
The brand (name) is of high quality. 0.83*** (0.94***)
I like the brand (name) very much. 0.77*** (0.81***)
The brand (name) is pleasant. 0.74*** (0.69***)
Note: All constructs were measured on 5-point scales, anchored at 1 = “I strongly disagree” and 5 =
“I strongly agree”. Values in parentheses are from experiment 2. α: Cronbach’s alpha, CR: Composite
reliability, AVE: Average variance extracted. *** p < 0.001.
compared to a high number of followers (high number: [M = 2.29] vs. low number
[M = 4.45]; F(1,159) = 320.105; p < 0.01). No other effects (main or interaction were
significant). Hence, we assume that our manipulations were successful.
Dependent variables measured were influencer authenticity, brand authenticity,
brand attitude, and purchase intention. All measures were derived from published
literature (for an overview of multi-item measures and associated literature see
Table 1). Participants reported influencer authenticity on six-item five-point scales
and brand authenticity on eight-item five point scales. To assess brand attitude, we
used four-item five point scales. All scales ranged from “strongly agree” to “strongly
disagree”. Purchase intention was measured using a single item approach based on
Mitchell and Olsen (1981). We asked respondents how probable they are going to
buy the promoted product. Answers were indicated on a five-point scale ranging from
“not at all probable” to “very probable”.
3.1.2 Measurement
Two confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were conducted for testing the psychometric
properties of the main latent construct measures: one for the measures included in
13
Table 2 Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix (Experiment 1 and 2)

Mean SD 1 2 3
1 Influencer 3.35 (3.58) 0.78 (0.84) 0.51 (0.63)
authenticity
2 Brand authenticity 3.06 (3.03) 0.67 (0.64) 0.34*** 0.57 (0.61)
(0.36***)
3 Brand attitude 2.85 (2.89) 0.70 (0.68) 0.28*** 0.59*** 0.64
(0.39***) (0.42***) (0.69)
Note: Values in parentheses are from experiment 2. Figures on the diagonal refer to the average variance
extracted of the respective construct. Values below the diagonal are the squared correlations of the
individual constructs. *** p < 0.001.
experiment 1 and another one evaluating the appropriateness of measurement within

experiment 2. The measurement models fitted the data well (experiment 1: χ² =
253.462, df = 124, χ²/df = 2.04, RMSEA = 0.08, CFI = 0.93, SRMR = 0.06; experiment
2: χ² =234.888, df = 116, χ²/df = 2.03, RMSEA = 0.08, CFI = 0.95, SRMR = 0.06). Fur-
ther, the construct validity as well as the reliability were ensured as indicated by (a)
high Cronbach’s alpha coefficients (experiment 1: ranging from 0.87 to 0.91; experi-
ment 2: ranging from 0.91 to 0.93), (b) satisfactory indicator reliabilities (experi-
ment 1: ranging from 0.42 to 0.77; experiment 2: ranging from 0.45 to 0.89) and
standardized item-to-construct loadings (experiment 1: ranging from 0.65 to 0.88;
experiment 2: ranging from 0.67 to 0.94), and (c) composite reliabilities (experiment
1: ranging from 0.86 to 0.91; experiment 2: ranging from 0.90 to 0.93) and average
variance extracted (AVE) values (experiment 1: ranging from 0.51 to 0.64; exper-
iment 2: ranging from 0.61 to 0.69) exceeding the conventional threshold levels.
Moreover, discriminant validity for all constructs was also established, which was
demonstrated by AVE values exceeding corresponding squared correlations for all
construct pairs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). An overview of the measurement scales is
given in Table 1, while Table 2 provides a summary of the relevant means, standard
deviations, and inter-construct correlations.
Given all measures for the variables are self-reported and hence come from the
same kind of source, common-method bias (CMB) can be a potential problem (Pod-
sakoff et al., 2003). We attempted to mitigate this issue by introducing various pro-
cedures (MacKenzie & Podsakoff, 2012), by, for example, enhancing participants’
motivation to respond to our questions by giving careful instructions and minimizing
the repetitiveness of the used scales. In addition to these data collection principles,
we applied statistical procedures to assess CMB. By using CFA, we compared three
measurement models: In the one-factor model, a common factor loaded on all items.
The second model was a full measurement three-factor model, in which the items
loaded on their respective factors (i.e., influencer authenticity, brand authenticity,
brand attitude). The third model was a four-factor model, in which an unmeasured
latent method factor loaded on the measurement items. To achieve model conver-
gence, we specified all loadings of the method factor as being the same, which corre-
sponds to the assumption that common variance affects all items equally (Rindfleisch
et al., 2008; Homburg et al., 2015). For experiment 1, the one-factor model l (χ²
= 486.020, df = 127, χ²/df = 3,83, RMSEA = 0.13, CFI = 0.81, SRMR = 0.10) fitted
the data poorly. A significant difference was found between the two models (Δχ²
13
Table 3 Impact of influencer Dependent variable: Influencer authenticity

uniqueness and longevity on
Longevity
perceived influencer
authenticity Low High ∆
Uniqueness High 3.50 3.64 0.14ns
Low 3.11 3.16 0.05ns
∆ 0.39** 0.48**
Note: Table shows group means. ns = not significant; ** p < 0.01.
= 223, Δdf = 3, p < 0.001). Comparing the four-factor model (χ² = 223.954, df = 123,
χ²/df = 1.82, RMSEA = 0.07, CFI = 0.95, SRMR = 0.07) with our original three-fac-
tor model (see above) showed that the model fit did not substantially improve after
inclusion of an unmeasured latent method factor. Furthermore, when comparing the
standardized regression weights of both models, no substantial differences were iden-
tified. Comparable results emerged for experiment 2.
3.2 Data analysis
3.2.1 Determinants of influencer authenticity
To test the first set of perception-based hypotheses (H1 and H3), we used the data
from experiment 1, in which we have manipulated influencer uniqueness (low vs.
high) and longevity (low vs. high). A-priori analyses showed that the four experimen-
tal groups were homogeneous in respect to various control variables including gender
(χ²(3) = 0.53, p = 0.91), education (χ²(3) = 15.42, p = 0.63), and age (F(3,159) = 0.63,
p = 0.60). We applied a two-way ANOVA to examine the direct and interaction effects
of the two perceptual constructs on influencer authenticity. To account for differences in
group sizes, the sample was bootstrapped with 5,000 replications (Sadooghi-Alvandi
& Jafari, 2013). Simple main effects analysis showed that influencer uniqueness had
a significant effect on perceived authenticity (F(1,159) = 13.58, p < 0.001, η² = 0.80).
As proposed, individuals who have perceived influencer uniqueness as high, also
perceive the influencer’s authenticity as significant higher (M = 3.57, SD = 0.79) as
compares to persons who witnessed low uniqueness (M = 3.13, SD = 0.71, p < 0.001).
This supported H1. We did not find empirical support for H3, which assumed a
relationship between perceived influencer longevity and influencer’s authenticity
(F(1,159) = 0.69, p = 0.41). Furthermore, no interaction effect between uniqueness
and longevity was found (F(1,159) = 0.17, p = 0.69). Table 3 summarizes the impact
of influencer uniqueness and longevity on influencer authenticity.
By using the data from experiment 2, a similar procedure was used to investigate
H2 and H4, which emphasize the effects of influencer scarcity and consistency on
the perception of the influencer’s authenticity. The ANOVA showed a non-significant
main effect of scarcity on authenticity (F(1,159) = 0.01, p = 0.94), which was in con-
trast to H2. However, we found a significant effect of influencer consistency on the
same construct (F(1,159) = 22.73, p < 0.001, η² = 0.13). In support of H4, contrast
analysis showed that influencer authenticity was significantly higher in the high-
consistency group (M = 3.87, SD = 0.86) as compared to the low-consistency group
(M = 2.28, SD = 0.71, p < 0.001). Furthermore, the analysis indicated a weakly signifi-
13
Table 4 Impact of influencer Dependent variable: Influencer authenticity

scarcity and consistency on
Consistency
perceived influencer
authenticity Low High ∆
Scarcity High 3.18 3.98 0.80***
Low 3.38 3.76 0.38*
∆ 0.20ns 0.22ns
Note: Table shows group means. ns = not significant; * p < 0.05, ***
p < 0.001
cant interaction effect (F(1,159) = 2.87, p = 0.09, η² = 0.02). Individuals in the high-
scarcity, high-consistency group tend to evaluate influencer authenticity as higher.
The impact of influencer scarcity and consistency on influencer authenticity is sum-
marized in Table 4.
3.2.2 Brand-related effects of influencer authenticity
For testing H5-H7, we used model 6 of the SPSS PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2013).
This macro applies an ordinary least squares regression-based path analytical
approach to estimate the direct and indirect effects in mediation models. We used
5,000 bootstrap samples to estimate the 95% bias-corrected bootstrap confidence
intervals (BCIs) for evaluations concerning indirect effects and confidence intervals.
To cross validate our findings, we ran the model twice with data from experiment 1
(main sample) and 2. The latter was used as the holdout sample. In the serial mul-
tiple mediation analysis, influencer authenticity functioned as the independent vari-
able, brand authenticity as the first mediator, brand attitude as the second mediator,
and purchase intention was the dependent variable. For the main sample, the results
demonstrated a significant indirect effect of influencer authenticity on purchasing
intention (indirect effect = 0.14, boot SE = 0.05, 95% BCI [0.01; 0.22]). This indirect
effect of heightened perceived influencer authenticity on increased purchasing inten-
tion was mediated by a positive effect of influencer authenticity on brand authenticity
(b = 0.45, p < 0.001), which supported H5. A positive effect of brand authenticity on
brand attitude (b = 0.71, p < 0.001) was observable, which was in support of H6. And
finally, in support of H7, the test showed an effect of brand attitude of purchasing
intention (b = 0.42; p < 0.01). The proposed mediation model only partially mediated
the effect of influencer authenticity on purchasing intention as a direct effect still
existed (b = 0.28, p < 0.01).
To validate our findings, the same analysis was used with data from the holdout
sample. Here, consistent with our earlier findings, we also found a significant indirect
effect of our independent variable (i.e., influencer authenticity) on individuals’ will-
ingness to purchase the brand intention (indirect effect = 0.25, boot SE = 0.08, 95%
BCI [0.11; 0.41]). Also, the proposed mediation sequence influencer authenticity →
brand authenticity → brand attitude → purchase intention was empirically supported
by the alternative data set. Figure 2 summarizes the findings of the two samples. A
notable difference of the findings pertains the determinants of brand attitude: While
this variable was only determined by brand authenticity in the main sample (R² =
0.53), in the cross validation sample the same variable was determined by brand
13
Fig. 2 Serial mediation model: Effect of influencer authenticity on

purchase intention via brand authenticity and brand attitude
authenticity (b = 0.36, p < 0.001) and influencer authenticity (b = 0.31, p < 0.001) (R² =
0.40). Hence, brand authenticity only partly mediated this effect in the second experi-
ment. Besides this fact, the consistent results of the two samples provide considerable
statistical support for the validity of the proposed hypotheses (H5-H7).
4 Discussion
Marketers used to regard influencers (i.e., social media contributors who have gained
notable recognition from others; De Veirman et al., 2017) as one of the companies’
most important advocates in describing their brands, sharing positive customer expe-
riences, and recommend their products as well as services to current and potential
customers (Masuda et al., 2022). This gave rise to the growing importance of ‘influ-
encer marketing’ and companies’ attempts to win the most appropriate influencers,
who can easily persuade their target group with social media posts, photos, and vid-
eos in which a company’s brand is emphasized. It is true that marketers can benefit
from influencers’ reach and their ability to persuade others. This is because most
influencers were typically perceived as trustworthy and having a unique expertise
about the discussed or recommended brand. It is known that such perceptions make
consumers to form pseudo-social (or ‘parasocial’) relationships with influencers – a
process, which is quite similar to the fact that individuals develop feelings of inti-
macy towards media personalities after being regularly exposed to them (Alperstein,
1991). In the golden era of influencer marketing, online celebrities were a welcomed
alternative to online ads. However, with companies’ increased practice to sponsor
influencers and compensate for their efforts (i.e., granting them extrinsic benefits),
consumers have learned that the information sourced from the often-beloved influ-
13
encers may not be unbiased or intrinsically motivated. Consumers have adapted their
‘persuasion knowledge’ (Friestad & Wright, 1994). As a result, influencer marketing
increasingly experiences drawbacks as it is currently struggling with sincerity issues
(Audrezet et al., 2020). Today, consumers regularly question the influencer’s positive
source characteristics – and most importantly, their ‘authenticity’ (i.e., a consumer’s
evaluation of the extent to which a social media producer genuinely communicates
purchasing-relevant information which resembles his/her true stance towards the
presented and discussed products or brands). They only comply to his/her recom-
mendations when it has been judged positively. When influencers authentically post
content which aligns to their true selves, their persuasiveness dramatically increases
(Kowalczyk & Pounders, 2016; Lou & Yuan, 2019; Woodroof et al., 2020).
Across two experiments, we obtained empirical support that ‘influencer authen-
ticity’ is an important concept that mediates between several perceptual constructs,
which determine its rise, and brand-related outcomes that ultimately converge into
consumers’ increased likelihood to purchase products recommended by the influ-
encer. More specifically, we show that consumers are more likely to perceive influ-
encer authenticity for two main reasons: (a) in case when they appear to be ‘unique’
(Moulard et al., 2016), and (b) when they are perceived as being ‘consistent’ (Mou-
lard et al., 2015).
Being unique means that the influencer does not appear to be a copy or an imitation
of something or someone (Grayson & Martinec, 2004). This kind of perception has
been identified as a critical factor also in other contexts such as celebrity authenticity,
where it is used to be part of the rarity construct (Moulard et al., 2015). But also, in
the context of influencer authenticity, other researchers regard the extent of unique-
ness as relevant (e.g., Lee & Eastin, 2021). Here, uniqueness is typically understood
as consumers’ perception that the influencer is distinct from others – both in terms of
personality as well as content – and thus appears to be real. Extant literature empha-
sizes the importance of an influencer’s originality, which helps him/her to stand out.
Duffy and Feist (2017), for instance, claim that consumers value influencers’ authen-
tic self-expression because it is closely associated with their creative individuality.
On the other hand, consumers treat content that seems to be ordinary, unoriginal,
and thus as inauthentic disparagingly (McRae, 2017). In our research, uniqueness
is a strong predictor of influencer authenticity. However, perceived scarcity (i.e.,
another dimension of influencer rarity) was not. This means that for consumers limits
in the influencer’s accessibility (reflected by the number of fans) are not interpreted
as being a result of the influencer’s intrinsic motivation (Park et al., 2021). Consum-
ers regard the size of the influencer’s followership not as a sign of authenticity as,
for example, social impact theory would suggest. This is in line with other research
(e.g., Lee & Eastin, 2021), which suggests that similar constructs like an influencer’s
visibility (i.e., being open and transparent to a multitude of others) is of minor impor-
tance. In this context also the act of following an influencer itself could be questioned
as sign of a deeper relationship between follower and influencer. Like the results of
John et al. (2017), ‘following’ a person could be just a symptom of being fond of that
influencer but does not cause automatically a deeper personal relationship. However,
consumers value consistency in personality and self-image. Authentic individuals
can demonstrate that they do not alter their opinions, attitudes, and habits due to exo-
13
geneous factors, but they are dependable and predictable. We find strong support for
the important role of integrity-factors in the recent literature (e.g., Farivar & Wang,
2022; Kapitan et al., 2021). For example, Lee and Eastin (2021) show that ‘sincerity’
(i.e., the extent to which a person is honest and truthful) is the most dominant factor
explaining influencer authenticity. For them, sincerity is the key determinant of a
parasocial relationship, which is the driving force behind influencer marketing. Also,
Marwick and Boyd (2011) earlier claimed that followers carefully judge whether a
celebrity is sincere as they pay attention to the extent to which the account portrays a
true, unedited persona. Our research adds to these insights as the perceived reliability
(i.e., perceived consistency) appears to be more valued than the perceived length of
time the influencer is active (i.e., perceived longevity). The insignificant effect of
perceived longevity is surprising but can be explained by the investigated media out-
let. Social media outlets are, by their very nature, highly volatile and fast-changing
environments. Therefore, the personal consistency of an influencer could be a stron-
ger signal of stability than the time an influencer is actually active on a certain outlet.
Having this said, our research adds to the existing literature by drawing schol-
ars’ attention to two critical factors (i.e., uniqueness and consistency) that determine
influencer authenticity. Seemingly, these factors align to the current moral values
of (younger) consumers, who apparently regard influencers as their desired likeness
with which they identify (Choi et al., 2022). They focus on characteristics, which
they cherish in their lives and that is to be consistent differently.
On the other hand, this research contributes by linking perceived influencer
authenticity to brand-related outcomes. Specifically, we show that there is a posi-
tive spillover effect of influencer authenticity on a brand’s authenticity, which should
be regarded as an important mediator. The critical role of brand authenticity has
been highlighted by extant literature, which shows that the concept offers consum-
ers several advantages – such as the ability to offer a sense of continuity in ever-
changing, complex environments characterized by uncertainty (Fritz et al., 2017),
cultivating the credibility of brands (Schallehn et al., 2014; Becker et al., 2019),
enabling a unique brand positioning, increasing customer satisfaction (Bruhn et al.,
2012), making consumers more receptive to brand messages (Audrezet et al., 2020),
or even predicting consumers’ attitude towards brands (Napoli et al., 2014) and their
willingness to purchase them (Fritz et al., 2017). To benefit from these potentials,
brand managers must understand the nature of brand authenticity, its components,
and boundaries. Consequently, literature mirrors various attempts to clarify the con-
cept. For instance, in an early attempt, Beverland and Farrelly (2010) conceptualize
authenticity being closely related to terms like ‘realness’ and ‘trueness’. Bruhn and
his colleagues (2012) refer to this perspective by describing authenticity as a sense of
trustworthiness. The same authors continue by discussing the multi-dimensionality
of the concept and state that ‘originality’, ‘reliability’, ‘naturalness’, and ‘continu-
ity’ should be regarded as the basic dimensions of brand authenticity. Several other
approaches followed such as the work of Choi et al. (2015), who identify ‘consis-
tency’, ‘heritage’, ‘sustainability’, and ‘origin’ as the main elements of brand authen-
ticity. For some research, ‘credibility’ and ‘integrity’ also belong to the concept. For
example, Morhart et al. (2015) state that an authentic brand should, amongst others,
be able to keep its promises and to have moral pureness and responsibility. What
13
these views have in common is that brand authenticity describes the extent to which
a specific brand appears to be genuine, real, and true. (Beverland & Farrelly, 2010).
An authentic brand conforms to consumers’ mental frames how it ought to be and has
proven that it has a fit with consumers’ expectations (Beverland et al., 2008; Cinelli
& LeBoeuf, 2020; Eigenraam et al., 2021). In this research, we follow the view of
Napoli et al. (2014) and define brand authenticity as the consumer’s subjective evalu-
ation of genuineness ascribed to a brand. An understanding that is quite dominant in
current research (e.g., Das et al., 2022).
Furthermore, our two experiments shed light on the role of brand authenticity as
a mediator between influencer authenticity and brand attitude. Typically, an image
transfer takes place as it has been earlier asserted by the meaning-transfer-model
(McCracken, 1989). Hence, influencer affect with their personality characteristics
the perceived genuineness of the discussed or recommended brand. For instance,
when consumers assume that the influencer making the recommendation is real and
true, this positive mental frame disposes them to also regard the involved brand in a
favorable light. Our results confirm such a positive transfer to the brand’s authentic-
ity, but also a possible direct impact of influencer authenticity on consumers’ attitude
towards the brand and purchase intention– disintermediating brand authenticity to
some extent. These results can be explained with two main strategies of influencer-
brand relationships. According to Audrezet et al. (2020) strategies of passion and
transparency define an influencers authenticity on social media. Passionate influ-
encers are strongly intrinsically motivated and do not seek a commercial interest
when communicating brands. Therefore, in such an influencer-brand relationship the
authenticity of an influencer may overshadow the brand and lead to direct effects on
purchase intention. However, in the second scenario of a transparent influencer-brand
relationship the influencer provides fact-based information about the product or ser-
vice at the center of the brand and transparently reveals the commercial interest of
such a communication measure. In this case the promoted brand itself plays a more
dominant role and also brand authenticity as well as brand attitude are important
gatekeeper constructs (Das et al., 2022; Eigenraam et al., 2021), which trigger pur-
chase intentions. In our experiment, we did not manipulate influencer-brand relation-
ships. Instead, we presented each stimulus with the same amount of transparency and
passion, causing the aforementioned different roles of brand authenticity and brand
attitude as mediators.
The current study provides several insightful practical implications for marketers.
First, they can use influencer authenticity as a useful construct to segment (social)
influencers. In principle, marketers could apply various approaches to classify influ-
encers (e.g., popularity). For instance, serval studies suggest that an influencer’s
credibility strongly affects consumers’ purchasing behavior (Chapple & Cownie,
2017; Djafarova & Rushworth, 2017). Consumers tend to evaluate a brand more
positively when the endorser is perceived to be credible (Bergkvist & Zhou, 2016).
Credibility consists of ‘trustworthiness’ (i.e., the perception of a person’s honesty and
integrity) and ‘expertise’ (i.e., the perception of a person having the relevant knowl-
edge, skills, or experiences) (Erdogan, 1999). An influencer’s credibility is likely
to be damaged when his/her selling intent is disclosed by a company (Colliander
& Erlandsson, 2015). Hence, the extent to which an influencer genuinely shares his
13
true thoughts, personal views, and feelings is another important criterion, which is
typically included in the concept of ‘influencer authenticity’ (Tsen & Cheng, 2021).
Being authentic makes it easier for consumers to identify with the influencer as con-
sumers think that they share similar interests and values (Kelman, 2006). Consumers
not only identify with influencers because of perceived similarities but also because
of a sincere desire to be like the endorser (Hoffner & Buchanan, 2005). When influ-
encers present themselves as ordinary people who are approachable and have authen-
tic personalities, they are very likely to trigger desired brand effects (Chapple &
Cownie, 2017). Hence, marketers should consider influencer authenticity as the main
segmentation approach to identify appropriate brand advocates in social media. More
specifically, our research demonstrates that companies can benefit from a positive
spillover effect from perceived influencer authenticity on consumers’ brand-related
reactions. Clustering influencers according to their level of authenticity can help
companies to identify the most appropriate influencers where such spillover effects
are most likely. In absence of a direct authenticity measure, perceived influencer
uniqueness and consistency, which are the two main drivers of authenticity, can be
used as a proxy. Second, marketers should consider the possible (positive but also
negative) spillover effects from influencer authenticity on their brand’s authenticity.
Companies can benefit when the influencer seems to be consistent in his/her recom-
mendations and opinions about a product as this also makes the brand more authentic.
However, marketers should avoid mainstream influencers, who are stereotypes of
their profession (i.e., controllable advocates of a brand), only share generic content,
and get sponsored by various brands at the same time. De Veirman and her colleagues
(2017) support this view as the authors have found that the perceived uniqueness of a
brand (i.e., an element of brand authenticity) was reduced in case it was endorsed by
a popular, average influencer.
The study has some limitations, which future researchers may attempt to over-
come. A central limitation is its focus on the concept of one specific authenticity
type. True-to-self authenticity, defined here as a consumer´s perception of the intrin-
sic motivation of an influencer, is one well established authenticity type within the
Entity-Referent Correspondence Framework of Authenticity (Moulard et al., 2021).
We believe that the two other types of the framework, true-to-ideal and true-to-fact
authenticity, are ideal additions to conceptualize the full effect of the representation
and communication of an influencer on consumer´s perceived influencer authentic-
ity. True-to-ideal authenticity represents “the extent to which an entity´s attributes
correspond with a socially determined standard” (Moulard et al., 2021, p. 99) and is
strongly defined by categorization theory (Sujan et al., 1986) social constructivism
theory (Leigh et al., 2006). Influencers are often role models for their followers and
have to live up to a certain ‘ideal’ representation. Future studies should integrate
this view and investigate how a discrepancy between social and/or cultural defined
ideals and actual representation of these ideals effects perceived influencer authen-
ticity. Additionally, true-to-fact authenticity defined as “a consumer’s perception of
the extent to which information communicated about an entity corresponds with the
actual state of affairs” (Moulard et al., 2021, p. 100) also signifies a valuable addition.
Based on the notions of realism a fact is static and not a fluctuating ideal, it repre-
sents an underlying reality independent of the mind (Wartofsky, 1968). In influencer
13
marketing the representation of an ideal may come into conflict with a fact-based
approach creating a negative influence on consumers. For example, male teenagers
are pushed by social media influencers into an unrealistic understanding of their body
shapes and start to form muscle dysmorphia (Hawgood, 2022). Future research might
consider these issues by detangling the effect of true-to-fact-based and true-to-ideal
based authenticity cues on influencer authenticity and subsequently behavior.
Furthermore, another limitation of the study at hand is the focus on the influ-
encers’ representation in form of information typically presented and available on
social media outlets. We did not consider the design and content of the messages
themselves or the interaction between influencer and sponsored product conceptual-
ized by Audrezet et al. (2020). Future research endeavors should emphasize a better
understanding of the role of the influencer as a person and the content communicated
via the influencer and should shed light on the interaction between the two.
Finally, although we based our sample and stimuli material on typical industry
standards, by selecting the most prominent age group of customers on the most prom-
inent social media platform for influencers at the time of investigation, we cannot
generalize our results for all customer groups and platforms. Therefore, we would
like to encourage future research projects to overcome these limitations by investi-
gating more demographical diverse samples on multiple platforms – ideally across
different product contexts.
Funding information: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public,
commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Open access funding provided by FH Salzburg - University of Applied Sciences.
Declaration
Conflict of interest The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative
Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line
to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use
is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission
directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/.
References
Abidin, C. (2016). Visibility labour: engaging with Influencers’ fashion brands and OOTD advertorial
campaigns on Instagram. Media International Australia, 161(1), 86–100.
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. Action control (pp. 11–39).
Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Alperstein, N. M. (1991). Imaginary social relationships with celebrities appearing in television commer-
cials. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 35(1), 43–58.
13
Asch, S. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
41(3), 258–290.
Audrezet, A., de Kerviler, G., & Moulard, J. (2020). Authenticity under threat: when social media influenc-
ers need to go beyond self-presentation. Journal of Business Research, 117, 557–569.
Becker, M., Wiegand, N., & Reinartz, W. (2019). Does it pay to be real? Understanding authenticity in TV
advertising. Journal of Marketing, 83, 24–50.
Belanche, D., Casaló, L. V., Flavián, M., & Ibáñez-Sánchez, S. (2021). Understanding influencer mar-
keting: the role of congruence between influencers, products and consumers. Journal of Business
Research, 132, 186–195.
Bellezza, S., Gino, F., & Keinan, A. (2014). The red sneakers effect: inferring status and competence from
signals of nonconformity. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(1), 35–54.
Bergkvist, L., & Zhou, K. Q. (2016). Celebrity endorsements: a literature review and research agenda.
International Journal of Advertising, 35(4), 642–663.
Beverland, M. B. (2005). Crafting brand authenticity: the case of luxury wines. Journal of Management
Studies, 42(5), 1003–1029.
Beverland, M., & Farrelly, F. (2010). The Quest for authenticity in consumption: consumers’ purposive
choice of authentic cues to shape experienced outcomes. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5),
838–856.
Beverland, M. B., Lindgreen, A., & Vink, M. W. (2008). Projecting authenticity through advertising. Jour-
nal of Advertising, 37, 5–15.
Breves, P. L., Liebers, N., Abt, M., & Kunze, A. (2019). The perceived fit between Instagram influencers
and the endorsed brand: how influencer–brand fit affects source credibility and persuasive effective-
ness. Journal of Advertising Research, 59(4), 440–454.
Britt, R. K., Hayes, J. L., Britt, B. C., & Park, H. (2020). Too big to sell? A computational analysis of net-
work and content characteristics among mega and micro beauty and fashion social media influencers.
Journal of Interactive Advertising, 20(2), 111–118.
Brown, D., & Hayes, N. (2008). Influencer marketing. Routledge.
Bruhn, M., Schoenmüller, V., Schäfer, D., & Heinrich, D. (2012). Brand authenticity: towards a deeper
understanding of its conceptualization and measurement. Advances in Consumer Research, 40,
567–576.
Bu, Y., Parkinson, J., & Thaichon, P. (2022). Influencer marketing: Homophily, customer value co-creation
behaviour and purchase intention. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 66, 102904.
Campbell, C., & Farrell, J. R. (2020). More than meets the eye: the functional components underlying
influencer marketing. Business Horizons, 63(4), 469–479.
Carsana, L., & Jolibert, A. (2018). Influence of iconic, indexical cues, and brand schematicity on perceived
authenticity dimensions of private-label brands. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 40,
213–220.
Chapple, C., & Cownie, F. (2017). An investigation into viewers’ trust in and response towards disclosed
paid-for endorsements by YouTube lifestyle Vloggers.Journal of Promotional Communications, 5(2).
Chen, Y., & Xie, J. (2008). Online consumer review: Word-of-mouth as a new element of marketing com-
munication mix. Management science, 54(3), 477–491.
Childers, C. C., Lemon, L. L., & Hoy, M. G. (2019). # Sponsored# ad: Agency perspective on influencer
marketing campaigns. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 40(3), 258–274.
Choi, H., Ko, E., Kim, E. Y., & Mattila, P. (2015). The role of fashion brand authenticity in product
management: a holistic marketing approach. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(2),
233–242.
Choi, D., Seo, Y., Septianto, F., & Ko, E. (2022). Luxury customization and self-authenticity: implications
for consumer wellbeing. Journal of Business Research, 141, 243–252.
Chung, S., & Cho, H. (2017). Fostering parasocial relationships with celebrities on social media: implica-
tions for celebrity endorsement. Psychology and Marketing, 34(4), 481–495.
Cinelli, M. D., & LeBoeuf, R. A. (2020). Keeping it real: how perceived brand authenticity affects product
perceptions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 30(1), 40–59.
Colliander, J., & Dahlén, M. (2011). Following the fashionable friend: the power of social media: weigh-
ing publicity effectiveness of blogs versus online magazines. Journal of Advertising Research, 51(1),
313–320.
Colliander, J., & Erlandsson, S. (2015). The blog and the bountiful: exploring the effects of disguised
product placement on blogs that are revealed by a third party. Journal of Marketing Communications,
21(2), 110–124.
13
Cuesta-Valino, P., Gutiérrez-Rodríguez, P., & García-Henche, B. (2022). Word of mouth and digitalization
in small retailers: tradition, authenticity, and change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
175, 121382.
CXM (2022). Social media influencers’ marketing power is declining: What are brands’ next steps.Cus-
tomer Experience Magazine, https://cxm.co.uk/influencers-marketing-power-is-declining/.
Das, M., Jebarajakirthy, C., & Sivapalan, A. (2022). How consumption values and perceived brand authen-
ticity inspire fashion masstige purchase? An investigation. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Ser-
vices, 68, 103023.
Davis, R., Sheriff, K., & Owen, K. (2019). Conceptualising and measuring consumer authenticity online.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 47, 17–31.
Diehl, M., Jacobs, L. M., & Hastings, C. T. (2006). Temporal stability and authenticity of self-representa-
tions in adulthood. Journal of Adult Development, 13(1), 10–22.
De Veirman, M., Cauberghe, V., & Hudders, L. (2017). Marketing through Instagram influencers: the
impact of number of followers and product divergence on brand attitude. International Journal of
Advertising, 36(5), 798–828.
Djafarova, E., & Rushworth, C. (2017). Exploring the credibility of online celebrities’ instagram profiles
in influencing the purchase decisions of young female users. Computers in human behavior, 68, 1–7.
Duffy, S. E., & Feist, M. I. (2017). Power in time: the influence of power posing on metaphoric perspec-
tives on time. Language and Cognition, 9(4), 637–647.
Dwivedi, A., & McDonald, R. (2018). Building brand authenticity in fast-moving consumer goods via
consumer perceptions of brand marketing communications. European Journal of Marketing, 52(7–
8), 1387–1411.
Edelman (2019). Edelman trust barometer special report: In brands we trust? Edelman: New York, NY.
Eigenraam, A. W., Eelen, J., & Verlegh, P. W. (2021). Let me entertain you? The importance of authenticity
in online customer engagement. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 54, 53–68.
Entrepreneur (2021). Is the world becoming too cynical for social media influencers?Entrepreneur, https://www.
entrepreneur.com/science-technology/is-the-world-becoming-too-cynical-for-social-media/391606.
Erdogan, B. Z. (1999). Celebrity endorsement: a literature review. Journal of Marketing Management,
15(4), 291–314.
Ewing, D., Chris, T., & Randall, L. (2012). Authenticity as meaning validation: an empirical investigation
of iconic and indexical cues in a context of “green” products. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 11(5),
381–390.
Farivar, S., & Wang, F. (2022). Effective influencer marketing: a social identity perspective. Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 67, 103026.
Fine, G. A. (2003). Crafting authenticity: the validation of identity in self-taught art. Theory and Society,
32(2), 153–180.
Fishbein, M. (1979). A theory of reasoned action: some applications and implications. Nebraska Sympo-
sium on Motivation, 27, 65–116.
Forbes (2020). Is influencer marketing on the decline? https://www.forbes.com/sites/
forbesagencycouncil/2020/08/19/is-influencer-marketing-on-the-decline/?sh=2c21a0b1198e.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: how people cope with persuasion
attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1–31.
Fritz, K., Schoenmueller, V., & Bruhn, M. (2017). Authenticity in branding – exploring antecedents and
consequences of brand authenticity. European Journal of Marketing, 51(2), 324–348.
Gilmore, J. H., & Pine, B. J. (2007). Authenticity: what consumers really want (p. 299). Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
Goulding, C. (2000). The commodification of the past, postmodern pastiche, and the search for authentic
experiences at contemporary heritage attractions. European Journal of Marketing, 34, 835–853.
Grayson, K., & Martinec, R. (2004). Consumer perceptions of iconicity and indexicality and their influ-
ence on assessments of authentic market offerings. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 296–312.
Grayson, K., & Shulman, D. (2000). Indexicality and the verification function of irreplaceable posses-
sions: a semiotic analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(1), 17–30.
Hawgood, A. (2022, March 5). What is Bigorexia? - A social media diet of perfect bodies is spurring
some teenage boys to form muscle dysmorphia. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.
com/2022/03/05/style/teen-bodybuilding-bigorexia-tiktok.html
13
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. Introduction to mediation,
moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach edn. New York: Guilford
Publications, 1, 20.
Hoffner, C., & Buchanan, M. (2005). Young adults’ wishful identification with television characters: the
role of perceived similarity and character attributes. Media Psychology, 7(4), 325–351.
Homburg, C., Vomberg, A., Enke, M., & Grimm, P. H. (2015). The loss of the marketing department’s
influence: is it really happening? And why worry? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
43(1), 1–13.
Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635–650.
Hu, X., Chen, X., & Davidson, R. (2019). Social Support, source credibility, Social Influence, and Impul-
sive Purchase Behavior in Social Commerce. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 23(3),
297–327.
Hwang, K., & Zhang, Q. (2018). Influence of parasocial relationship between digital celebrities and their
followers on followers’ purchase and electronic word-of-mouth intentions, and persuasion knowl-
edge. Computers in Human Behavior, 87, 155–173.
Ilicic, J., & Webster, C. (2016). Being True to Oneself: investigating Celebrity Brand authenticity. Psy-
chology & Marketing, 33(6), 410–420.
Irish Times (2019). Influencer marketing is at a crossroads, it’s decision time. https://www.irishtimes.
com/advertising-feature/inside-marketing/influencer-marketing-is-at-a-crossroads-it-s-decision-
time-1.4103331 (accessed: September 28th, 2022).
John, L. K., Emrich, O., Gupta, S., & Norton, M. I. (2017). Does “Liking” lead to loving? The impact of
joining a brand’s Social Network on Marketing Outcomes. Journal of Marketing Research, 54(1),
144–155.
Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions the attribution process in person perception.
In Advances in experimental social psychology, 2, 219–266.
Jones, C. L. E., Hancock, T., Kazandjian, B., & Voorhees, C. M. (2022). Engaging the Avatar: the effects
of authenticity signals during chat-based service recoveries. Journal of Business Research, 144,
703–716.
Kapitan, S., van Esch, P., Soma, V., & Kietzmann, J. (2021). Influencer marketing and authenticity in
content creation.Australasian Marketing Journal,1–10.
Kay, S., Mulcahy, R., & Parkinson, J. (2020). When less is more: the impact of macro and micro social
media influencers’ disclosure. Journal of Marketing Management, 36(3–4), 248–278.
Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28(2), 107.
Kelman, H. C. (2006). Interests, Relationships, Identities: three. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 1–26.
Klear Research (2019). The State of Influencer Marketing 2019 [Report]. https://klear.com/state-of-influ-
encer-marketing (accessed: November 20th, 2022).
Ki, C. W. C., Cuevas, L. M., Chong, S. M., & Lim, H. (2020). Influencer marketing: social media influenc-
ers as human brands attaching to followers and yielding positive marketing results by fulfilling needs.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 55, 102133.
Ki, C. W. C., & Kim, Y. K. (2019). The mechanism by which social media influencers persuade consumers:
the role of consumers’ desire to mimic. Psychology & Marketing, 36(10), 905–922.
Kim, D. Y., & Kim, H. Y. (2022). Social media influencers as human brands: an interactive marketing
perspective. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, forthcoming.
Kim Kardashian (@kimkardashian) (n.d.). Followers [Instagram profile]. Instagram. Retrieved September
30, 2022). from https://www.instagram.com/kimkardashian/
Kleine, R., & Kernan, J. (1991). Contextual influences on the meanings ascribed to ordinary consumption
objects. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 311–324.
Kowalczyk, C., & Pounders, K. (2016). Transforming celebrities through social media: the role of authen-
ticity and emotional attachment. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 25(4), 345–356.
Kumar, V., & Kaushal, V. (2021). Perceived brand authenticity and social exclusion as drivers of psycho-
logical brand ownership. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 61, 102579.
Lee, J. A., & Eastin, M. S. (2021). Perceived authenticity of social media influencers: scale development
and validation. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 15(4), 822–841.
Lee, M. S. W., Motion, J., & Conroy, D. (2009). Anticonsumption and brand avoidance. Journal of Busi-
ness Research, 62, 169–180.
13
Leigh, T. W., Peters, C., & Shelton, J. (2006). The consumer quest for authenticity: the multiplicity of
meanings within the MG subculture of consumption. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
34(4), 481–493.
Lin, H. C., Bruning, P., & Swarna, H. (2018). Using online opinion leaders to promote the hedonic and
utilitarian value of products and services. Business Horizons, 61, 431–442.
Lindh, C., & Lisichkova, N. (2017). Rationality versus emotionality among online shoppers: the mediating
role of experts as enhancing influencer effect on purchasing intent. Journal of Customer Behavior,
16(4), 333–351.
Lindmoser, C., Weitzl, W. J., & Zniva, R. (2022). Influencer Authenticity – Conceptualization, Nature
and Nomological Role. In: Martínez-López, F.J., Martinez, L.F. (eds) Advances in Digital Market-
ing and eCommerce. Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-031-05728-1_17
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.
Lu, A. C. C., Gursoy, D., & Lu, C. Y. (2015). Authenticity perceptions, brand equity and brand choice
intention: the case of ethnic restaurants. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 50, 36–45.
MacInnis, D. J., Rao, A. G., & Weiss, A. M. (2002). Assessing when increased media weight of real-world
advertisements helps sales. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(4), 391–407.
MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2012). Common method bias in marketing: causes, mechanisms,
and procedural remedies. Journal of Retailing, 88(4), 542–555.
Martínez-López, F. J., Anaya-Sánchez, R., Fernández Giordano, M., & Lopez-Lopez, D. (2020). Behind
influencer marketing: key marketing decisions and their effects on followers’ responses. Journal of
Marketing Management, 36(7–8), 579–607.
Marwick, A. E., & Boyd, D. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse,
and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1), 114–133.
Masuda, H., Han, S. H., & Lee, J. (2022). Impacts of influencer attributes on purchase intentions in social
media influencer marketing: mediating roles of characterizations. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, 174, 121246.
McCracken, G. (1989). Who is the celebrity endorser? Cultural foundations of the endorsement process.
Journal of Consumer Research, 16(3), 310–321.
McRae, S. (2017). Get off my internets: how anti-fans deconstruct lifestyle bloggers’ authenticity work.
Persona Studies, 3(1), 13–27.
Nielsen (2022). Eine Frage des Vertrauens: Ein Viertel der über 50-jährigen Deutschen vertraut
laut Nielsen-Studie Influencer-Werbung. https://www.nielsen.com/de/news-center/2022/
eine-frage-des-vertrauens-studie/.
Mitchell, A. A., & Olson, J. C. (1981). Are product attribute beliefs the only mediator of advertising effects
on brand attitude? Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 318–332.
Moulard, J., Garrity, C., & Rice, D. (2015). What makes a human brand authentic? Identifying the Ante-
cedents of Celebrity authenticity. Psychology and Marketing, 32(2), 173–186.
Moulard, J., Raggio, R., & Folse, G., J (2016). Brand authenticity: testing the Antecedents and Outcomes
of Brand Management’s passion for its products. Psychology and Marketing, 33(6), 421–436.
Moulard, J. G., Raggio, R. D., & Folse, J. A. G. (2020). Disentangling the meanings of brand authenticity:
the entity-referent correspondence framework of authenticity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 49(1), 96–118.
Moulard, J., Rice, D., Garrity, C., & Mangus, S. (2014). Artist authenticity: how Artists’ passion and com-
mitment shape consumers’ perceptions and behavioral intentions across genders. Psychology and
Marketing, 31(8), 576–590.
Morhart, F., Malär, L., Guèvremont, A., Girardin, F., & Grohmann, B. (2015). Brand authenticity: an
integrative framework and measurement scale. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(2), 200–218.
Napoli, J., Dickinson, S. J., Beverland, M. B., & Farrelly, F. (2014). Measuring consumer-based brand
authenticity. Journal of Business Research, 67(6), 1090–1098.
Newman, G., & Dhar, R. (2014). Authenticity Is Contagious: Brand Essence and the Original Source of
Production. Journal of Marketing Research,371–386.
Nielsen (2015). Global trust in Advertising [Report]. https://www.nielsen.com/insights/2015/global-trust-
in-advertising-2015-2/ (accessed: September 28th, 2022).
Oracle & Brent Leary (2022, May 3). 37% of Consumers Trust Social Media Influenc-
ers Over Brands [Press release]. https://www.oracle.com/at/news/announcement/
consumers-turn-to-social-media-influencers-2022-05-03/
13
Park, J., Lee, J. M., Xiong, V. Y., Septianto, F., & Seo, Y. (2021). David and Goliath: when and why micro-
influencers are more persuasive than mega-influencers. Journal of Advertising, 50(5), 584–602.
Peterson, R. A. (2005). In search of authenticity. Journal of Management Studies, 42(5), 1083–1098.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1996). Addressing disturbing and disturbed consumer behavior: is it neces-
sary to change the way we conduct behavioral science? Journal of Marketing Research, 33(1), 1–8.
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.
PwC. (2019). Zwischen Entertainer und Werber – Wie Influencer unser Kaufverhalten beeinflussen. Frank-
furt am Main: PricewaterhouseCoopers GmbH.
Reinikainen, H., Munnukka, J., Maity, D., & Luoma-Aho, V. (2020). You really are a great big sister –
parasocial relationships, credibility, and the moderating role of audience comments in influencer
marketing. Journal of Marketing Management, 36(3–4), 279–298.
Rindfleisch, A., Malter, A. J., Ganesan, S., & Moorman, C. (2008). Cross-sectional versus longitudinal
survey research: concepts, findings, and guidelines. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(3), 261–279.
Rohlfs, C. (2011). Autonomie, Kompetenz und soziale Eingebundenheit. Die Selbstbestimmungstheorie
der Motivation von Deci und Ryan. In C. Rohlfs (Ed.), Bildungseinstellungen. Schule und formale
Bildung aus der Perspektive von Schulerinnen und Schulern (pp. 93–102). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag fur
Sozialwissenschaften.
Rose, R. L., & Wood, S. L. (2005). Paradox and the consumption of authenticity through reality television.
Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 284–296.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,
social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.
Sadooghi-Alvandi, S. M., & Jafari, A. A. (2013). A parametric bootstrap approach for one-way ANCOVA
with unequal variances. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods, 42(14), 2473–2498.
Safeer, A. A., Chen, Y., Abrar, M., Kumar, N., & Razzaq, A. (2021). Impact of perceived brand localness
and globalness on brand authenticity to predict brand attitude: a cross-cultural asian perspective. Asia
Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 34(7), 1524–1543.
Schallehn, M., Burmann, C., & Riley, N. (2014). Brand authenticity: model development and empirical
testing. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 23(3), 192–199.
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.
Schwaiger, M., & Meyer, A. (2011). Theorien und Methoden der Betriebswirtschaft: Handbuch für Wis-
senschaftler und Studierende. München: Vahlen.
Silvera, D. H., & Austad, B. (2004). Factors predicting the effectiveness of celebrity endorsement adver-
tisements. European Journal of Marketing, 38(11–12), 1509–1526.
Sokolova, K., & Kefi, H. (2020). Instagram and YouTube bloggers promote it, why should I buy? How
credibility and parasocial interaction influence purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing and Con-
sumer Services, 53, forthcoming.
Sommers, M., & Kernan, J. (1967). Why products flourish here, fizzle there. The International Executive,
9(3), 14–16.
Spiggle, S., Nguyen, H. T., & Caravella, M. (2012). More than fit: brand extension authenticity. Journal of
Marketing Research, 49(6), 967–983.
Sujan, M., Bettman, J. R., & Sujan, H. (1986). Effects of consumer expectations on information processing
in selling encounters. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(4), 346–353.
Tafesse, W., & Wien, A. (2018). Implementing social media marketing strategically: an empirical assess-
ment. Journal of Marketing Management, 34(9–10), 732–749.
Tabor, E. (2020). : Credibility and trust are key to authentic influencer marketing. https://www.forbes.
com/sites/forbesagencycouncil/2020/04/08/credibility-and-trust-are-key-to-authentic-influencer-
marketing/?sh=1cfb569b48ed, Accessed 28.12.2021
Torres, P., Augusto, M., & Matos, M. (2019). Antecedents and outcomes of digital influencer endorsement:
an exploratory study. Psychology and Marketing, 36, 1267–1276.
Tsen, W. S., & Cheng, B. K. L. (2021). Who to find to endorse? Evaluation of online influencers among
young consumers and its implications for effective influencer marketing. Young Consumers, 22(2),
237–253.
Wartofsky, M. W. (1968). Conceptual foundations of scientific thought: an introduction to the philosophy
of science. London: Macmillan Company.
13
Wavemaker (2019). Spotlight Influencer 4.0 [Report]. https://wavemakerglobal.com/de/wp-content/

uploads/sites/4/2020/10/mSCIENCE_Spotlight-Influencer-4.0_Oktober-2019.pdf (accessed: Sep-
tember 28th, 2022).
Wentzel, D. (2009). The effect of employee behavior on brand personality impressions and brand attitudes.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37(3), 359–374.
Wenzel, B. (2016). Einfluss gewinnen mit Influencer Marketing. Internet World Business, 14, 18–19.
Woodroof, P. J., Howie, K. M., Syrdal, H. A., & VanMeter, R. (2020). What’s done in the dark will be
brought to the light: effects of influencer transparency on product efficacy and purchase intentions.
Journal of Product & Brand Management, 29(5), 675–688.
Zhu, R., & Meyers-Levy, J. (2009). The influence of self-view on context effects: how display fixtures can
affect product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(1), 37–45.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.
13
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center
GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers
and authorised users (“Users”), for small-scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all
copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By accessing,
sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of
use (“Terms”). For these purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and
students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and
conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal subscription. These Terms will prevail over any
conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription (to
the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of
the Creative Commons license used will apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may
also use these personal data internally within ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share
it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not otherwise
disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies
unless we have your permission as detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial
use, it is important to note that Users may not:
1. use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale
basis or as a means to circumvent access control;
2. use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any
jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is otherwise unlawful;
3. falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association
unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in writing;
4. use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
5. override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
6. share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a
systematic database of Springer Nature journal content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a
product or service that creates revenue, royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as
part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal content cannot be
used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large
scale into their, or any other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not
obligated to publish any information or content on this website and may remove it or features or
functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature may revoke
this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content
which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or
guarantees to Users, either express or implied with respect to the Springer nature journal content and
all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law, including
merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published
by Springer Nature that may be licensed from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a
regular basis or in any other manner not expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer
Nature at
[email protected]

Be Constantly Different How To Manage Influencer A

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Be Constantly Different How To Manage Influencer A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Electronic Commerce Research (2023) 23:1485–1514

Be constantly different! How to manage influencer

Robert Zniva1 · Wolfgang J. Weitzl2 · Christina Lindmoser3

Accepted: 2 December 2022 / Published online: 4 January 2023

Keywords Influencer · Authenticity · Social influence · Social media marketing

2 Conceptual background and hypotheses

2.2 Authenticity concept

2.3 Influencer authenticity

2.3.1 Perceived authenticity of individuals

A considerable acceleration of the scientific discussion of the authenticity concept

2.3.2 Perceived authenticity of influencers

Based on the dominant understanding of authenticity in marketing, this research con-

around self-expression and independence. For authentic influencers, producing social

2.4 Conceptual model

Given our understanding of the nature of influencer authenticity, we conceptualized

Fig. 1 Conceptual model

important consumer-sided perceptual antecedents and its impact on consumers’ pur-

2.4.1 Perceived rarity as antecedent of influencer authenticity

According to the ERC framework, an authentic entity is strongly defined by cues

no substantial differences in affective, social, and cognitive content communicated

2.4.2 Perceived stability as antecedent of influencer authenticity

A second factor proposed to positively influence ‘true-to-self authenticity’ is the con-

2.4.3 Effect of influencer authenticity on brand authenticity

Several studies have investigated applicability of the authenticity concept to the

2.4.4 Effect of brand authenticity on brand attitude

2.4.5 Effect of brand attitude on purchasing intention

3.1 Data collection

3.1.1 Research design, procedure, and participants

To investigate the proposed hypotheses, we exposed our participants to two online

Table 1 Construct measurement (Experiment 1 and 2)

Table 2 Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix (Experiment 1 and 2)

experiment 1 and another one evaluating the appropriateness of measurement within

Table 3 Impact of influencer Dependent variable: Influencer authenticity

3.2 Data analysis

3.2.1 Determinants of influencer authenticity

Table 4 Impact of influencer Dependent variable: Influencer authenticity

3.2.2 Brand-related effects of influencer authenticity

Fig. 2 Serial mediation model: Effect of influencer authenticity on

Conflict of interest The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Wavemaker (2019). Spotlight Influencer 4.0 [Report]. https://wavemakerglobal.com/de/wp-content/

You might also like