THE IMPACT OF CONTENT TYPE POSTED BY INFLUENCER ON CONSUMER
BEHAVIOR: THE MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
A Thesis
Presented to the Faculty
of ISM University of Management and Economics
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of International Marketing
by
Sandra Voskaitė
May 2020
THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 2 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Abstract
Voskaitė S., The Impact of Content Type Posted by Influencer on Consumer
Behavior: The Moderating Effect of Influencer’s Type [Manuscript]: Master Thesis:
International Marketing. Vilnius, ISM University of Management and Economics, 2020.
The aim of this research paper was to examine the impact of content type posted by social media influencer on consumer behavior considering the moderating effect of influencer’s type. Literature review part overviewed previous studies in reference to influencer marketing, types of content and influencers, consumer’s intention to engage, impulsive purchase intention and brand credibility. Quantitative research design in a form of a web-based experiment was chosen and six experimental scenarios presented. Empirical research findings supported that emotional content posted by the influencer more positively affects Instagram post evaluation compared to rational one, and type of influencer moderates this relation. However, research findings failed to support that influencers “entertainers” with emotional content will lead to consumer’s intention to engage with the post or have a direct positive effect on impulsive purchase intention via Instagram post evaluation. Per contra, the results suggested that influencers “informers” with rational content will have a direct positive effect on brand credibility and consumer’s impulsive purchase intention via Instagram post evaluation. It was also confirmed that virtual influencers with emotional content result in consumer’s intention to engage with the content, whereas virtual influencers and rational content will have a direct positive effect on brand credibility via Instagram post evaluation.
The study provides guidance for marketing agencies, brands and marketing managers suggesting combinations of content and influencer type in order to reach company’s goals.
Keywords: Influencer Marketing, Influencer’s Created Content, Type of Influencer,
Instagram Post Evaluation, Impulsive Purchase Intention, Intention to Engage, Brand
Credibility. THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 3 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Table of Contents
Introduction ...... 6
Literature Review...... 12
Influencer Marketing ...... 12
Types of Content ...... 15
Rational content ...... 16
Emotional content ...... 17
Types of Influencers ...... 19
Consumer Behavior towards Instagram Post ...... 23
Post Evaluation ...... 23
Intention to Engage ...... 26
Impulsive Purchase ...... 29
Brand Credibility ...... 32
Hypothesis development ...... 35
Research Methodology ...... 41
Conceptual Model ...... 41
Research Design and Method ...... 44
Setting and Participants...... 45
Instrumentation ...... 47
Manipulation Check ...... 49
Ethical Considerations ...... 49 THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 4 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Validity Considerations ...... 49
Empirical Research Results ...... 51
Data collection and preparation ...... 51
Sample profile and demographics ...... 52
Count of respondents in the experimental conditions ...... 53
Manipulation Check ...... 54
Descriptive Statistics ...... 56
Normality ...... 57
Variable inter-correlation ...... 58
Hypotheses testing ...... 59
Discussion ...... 68
Managerial Implications ...... 71
Limitations and Recommendations...... 72
Conclusion ...... 73
References ...... 77
Appendices ...... 88
THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 5 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
List of Figures
Figure 1. Conceptual Research Model. Composed by the author...... 42
List of Tables
Table 1 Summary of the research hypotheses ...... 43
Table 2 Experimental Conditions ...... 45
Table 3 Demographics – Gender ...... 52
Table 4 Demographics – Age ...... 52
Table 5 Social Media Usage ...... 53
Table 6 Count of respondents in each experimental condition...... 54
Table 7 Manipulation check...... 55
Table 8 Scale reliability assessment ...... 56
Table 9 Descriptive Statistics...... 57
Table 10 Normality Analysis ...... 58
Table 11 Univariate Linear Regression summary ...... 60
Table 12 Moderated Mediation Model Summary ...... 61
Table 13 Moderated Mediation Model Summary ...... 62
Table 14 Moderated Mediation Model Summary ...... 63
Table 15 Moderated Mediation Model Summary ...... 64
Table 16 Moderated Mediation Model Summary ...... 65
Table 17 Moderated Mediation Model Summary ...... 66
Table 18 Summary of the hypotheses testing ...... 67
THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 6 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Introduction
Relevance of the Topic
Over the last decade, social media platforms became one of the most powerful tools for customers to interact with the brands and search or evaluate their own choices when it comes to purchasing a product or service. More specifically, social media has dramatically affected the way consumers gather information about the brands, make decisions which brands to choose, complete purchases as well as leave feedback after buying or trying products and services (Vinerean, 2017). Consumers highly trust online reviews and more than 42% of millennials believe that social media platforms are the most trustworthy and relevant channels for ads (John, 2019). In fact, consumer’s necessity to instantly read reviews from fellow consumers or search for any type of information on social media is more pressing than ever before (Lou & Yuan, 2019). To give an illustration, every day there are more than 3.5 billion search queries and 1.2 trillion queries per year on Google (Latifi, 2018).
In addition to that, consumers believe that reviews found online are more valuable, hence they are more confident with trusting other consumers or opinion leaders online rather than corporations (Lu, Chang & Chang, 2014).
Social media usage is increasing so much that around 70 million photos are uploaded to Instagram every day, 500 million tweets are shared on Twitter and 300 hours of videos are uploaded to YouTube social media platform every minute. Additionally, more than a billion people are watching millions of hours of videos on YouTube each day (Latifi, 2018). Overall, social media sites changed the way customers communicate and provided a space for individuals to become brand ambassadors and share their opinion about products or services that customers seek to purchase (Lin, Bruning & Swarna, 2018). The average internet user spends around 2 hours and 23 minutes on social media per day (Statista, 2019) and by 2021, THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 7 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE it is expected that the number of social media users will reach around 3 billion on platforms such as YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and TikTok (Dahlqvist & Preiksaite, 2018).
Consequently, as the usage of social media continued to increase, it was necessary to discover innovative strategies for the advertising industry such as influencer marketing.
According to Lou & Yuan (2019), consumers trust reviews online posted by the influencer in the similar level they trust their friend’s opinion. It was also discovered that
70% adolescent users of YouTube think of social media influencer as their close friend, hence 60% of these users would believe influencer’s opinion about the product or brand influencer recommends (Lou & Kim, 2019). In fact, a recent study shows that social media influencers might be able to generate 11 times more return on investment comparing to any other traditional marketing form. The same study also found that 40% of respondents have recently completed an impulsive online purchase after seeing a product or service used and promoted by social media influencer. Whereas, 20% of respondents have recently shared influencer’s created content on their personal social media account. The above numbers explain why companies recently started heavily investing more money in influencer marketing (Woods, 2016).
Today, around 75% of marketers are using social media influencers as a marketing tool. Multinational brands are expected to spend even more and reach around $10 billion on influencer marketing by 2020 (Hughes, Swaminathan, Brooks, 2019). The main goal of using social media influencers for a brand is to increase sales (Stubb, Nyström, Colliander, 2018), brand awareness and/or credibility (Konstantopoulou, Rizomyliotis, Konstantoulaki,
Badahdah, 2018). According to Sokolova & Kefi (2020), influencer marketing is used on
Instagram and YouTube social media platforms most intensively. However, Instagram still remains number one for influencer marketing (John, 2019). It introduced features such as THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 8 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE shoppable posts and swipe up links in 2018, making it even more attractive for companies to use as a marketing channel (Kellogg, 2020). Due to the fact that Instagram platform is used more widely, and posts are easier to present visually in the questionnaire, this research paper focuses on Instagram social media platform.
In order to perform a successful influencer marketing strategy for companies, marketing experts need to identify what type of content and which kind of influencer works best for the specific company. For instance, emotional content shared by the influencer might not work with more expensive products such as cameras or anything technology related, hence rational content shared by influencers “infotainers” has to be chosen (Manchón, 2014).
In addition to that, there are different outcomes resulting from posts shared by influencers on social media platform. These outcomes can be described as consumer behavior, more specifically consumer’s impulsive purchase intention (Lim & Yazdanifard, 2015), brand credibility (Spry, Pappu & Cornwell, 2011), or consumer’s intention to engage with the content (Picone, De Wolf & Robijt, 2016). The outcomes mentioned above mostly depend and are influenced by the type of influencer and content published on social media platform.
Even though influencer marketing is becoming a common part in business strategies, there is still a lack of information regarding factors influencing brand success in this specific field (Hughes, Swaminathan, Brooks, 2019). Previous researches have mostly focused on celebrity endorsement or online opinion leader’s success factors, hence only few researches have been done on the influencer marketing concept itself (Gross & Wangenheim, 2018).
Because of that, brands are experimenting with different social media platforms such as
Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, TikTok or Twitch, as well as different types of influencers and making predictions what type of content and social media influencer work best for company’s strategy (Vollenbroek, De Vries, Constantinides & Kommers, 2014) and which THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 9 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE influencers bring the highest return on investment. As a result, many companies fail to identify the most relevant influencers and content usage for their own specific industry. At the same time, businesses are also struggling to identify the most effective metrics, because there is a lack of literature and defined best practices by other companies (Gillin, 2018).
Overall, although some previous researchers have investigated what impact does influencer credibility has on impulsive purchase intention (Lou & Kim, 2019), there are no particular examples on how specific types of influencer (entertainers, informers, infotainers, snoopers, virtual influencers) and influencer’s created content (rational, emotional) influence consumer’s impulsive purchase intention to the knowledge of the author. In addition to that, brand credibility was heavily researched in a context of celebrity endorsement by other researchers (Spry, Pappu & Cornwell, 2011), however there are only few researches done concerning brand credibility in a context of influencer marketing. According to Qatami
(2019), celebrities’ credibility has drastically decreased over time, therefore it is crucial to investigate brand credibility in a context of influencer marketing, because it is proven to be more effective advertising strategy nowadays (Qatami, 2019). Lastly, consumer’s intention to engage has been investigated by other researchers only in a context of online marketing
(Picone, De Wolf & Robijt, 2016), therefore it is crucial to research what effect influencer’s type and created content has on consumer’s intention to engage (like, comment, share).
Research Question, Aim and Objectives THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 10 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Consequently, the research question is the following: What impact does content type posted by social media influencer have on consumer’s intention to engage, impulsive purchase intention and brand credibility via Instagram post evaluation considering the moderating effect of influencer’s type? Thus, the aim of this paper is to test the impact of content type posted by social media influencer on consumer’s intention to engage, impulsive purchase intention and brand credibility via Instagram post evaluation considering the moderating effect of influencer’s type.
In order to reach the aim of the thesis following objectives have to be reached:
1. To examine literature review in reference to influencer marketing, types of social
media influencers (entertainers, informers, infotainers, snoopers, virtual influencers),
influencer’s created content (rational and emotional), Instagram post evaluation,
consumer’s intention to engage (like, comment, share), impulsive purchase intention
and brand credibility;
2. To perform quantitative research in the form of experiment, by manipulating content
types (rational and emotional), social media influencer types (entertainers, informers
and virtual influencers) and tracking their effect on consumer’s intention to engage
(like, comment, share), impulsive purchase intention and brand credibility via
Instagram post evaluation;
3. To discuss empirical research findings and compare with previous academic research;
4. To analyze the findings, discuss relevance to the existing academic literature, and
provide recommendations for the future studies.
Research Design THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 11 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
This research paper applies quantitative research design in a form of a web-based experiment. This design method allows researcher to manipulate variables (Rutberg &
Bouikidis, 2018). Besides, it is one of the quickest ways to receive respondent’s data and provides control of external factors (Gineikiene, n.d).
Sequence of the Thesis
Structure of a research paper is the following:
1. Literature review. In this part, the academic literature related to influencer marketing,
content and influencer types, Instagram post evaluation, consumer’s intention to
engage, impulsive purchase intention and brand credibility is discussed.
2. Research methodology. In this chapter, conceptual research model is drawn, and
hypotheses are presented. Additionally, sample size, ethical considerations and
validity considerations described.
3. Empirical research results. This part of the thesis analyzes research data and tests
hypotheses raised in the previous chapter.
4. Discussion. In the discussion part, analysis of empirical research findings is
discussed, managerial implications provided, and limitations of the research study
examined.
THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 12 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Literature Review
The following chapter is an overview of academic literature, which is relevant to the thesis topic as well as each of the following variables: Influencer’s created content (rational and emotional), types of influencers (entertainers, informers, infotainers, snoopers, virtual influencers), Instagram post evaluation, brand credibility, impulsive purchase and consumer’s intention to engage with the content online. The main goal of this chapter is to examine previous academic literature and researchers done related to the thesis topic, develop a theoretical framework as well as identify gaps in the previous researches.
To begin with, the concept of influencer marketing and social media influencers is introduced. After that, the main types of influencer’s created content (rational and emotional) and five different types (entertainers, informers, infotainers, snoopers, virtual influencers) of influencers, are discussed. Later, the literature review chapter includes analysis of mediator variable Instagram post evaluation and three dependent variables – consumer’s intention to engage, impulsive purchase and brand credibility. Finally, the conclusion part which includes empirical relations between research variables, are drawn.
Influencer Marketing
Social media influencers appeared back in 2010, when social media platforms began ranking individuals by their created content, frequency of sharing as well as the number of subscribers or followers they had (Brown & Fiorella, 2013). It was known as user generated content online and marketers discovered that such content is more effective and successful than traditional advertising (Sokolova & Kefi, 2020). The concept was similar to word-of- mouth advertising (WOM) and some researchers are still referring to social media influencers as third-party word-of-mouth endorsers on this day (Granjon & Benedic, 2017). However, the THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 13 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE main difference is that influencers are expressing their opinion online through the form of writing, making a video or posting an image (Lin, Bruning & Swarna, 2018) rather than in conventional world (Vollenbroek, De Vries, Constantinides & Kommers, 2014). When online personalities started expressing their opinion about brands online, marketers and businesses realized they lost the power of controlling customer’s opinion (Brown & Fiorella, 2013) and it was getting more difficult to influence the new form of communication in digital world
(Vollenbroek, De Vries, Constantinides & Kommers, 2014).
These days, influencer marketing is known as one of the few online marketing strategies, where content creators on social media help to reach the right audience for the brands (Lemon, Hoy, 2019). In other words, it is a marketing form, which uses opinion leaders and known people in the society, in order to promote a brand while increasing brand awareness, influencing consumer’s purchase intention and increasing brand credibility
(Brows & Hayes, 2008). Previous researchers argued that influencer marketing is one of the most effective ways to reach consumers online, because advertisements are done through
“someone like me” (Lou & Kim, 2019). In fact, according to Abreu (2019), 89% of marketers stated that social media influencers online would positively affect consumer’s opinion about a brand.
Influencer marketing is a collaboration between an influencer who shares the same kind of beliefs and values as the company, and a brand. Building strong relationship with a person who is advertising your product on social media, is one of the most important parts in influencer marketing. Differently from celebrity endorsement, influencers tend to share information about the product in more natural and honest way. Therefore, if the brand has a strong and personal relationship with the influencer, he or she might put more effort when making an advertisement. Previous researchers stated that influencer marketing is the best THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 14 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE way to improve brand credibility and build consumer’s trust in the brand, because consumers are more likely to believe influencers whom they trust, rather than the brand itself. Besides, because of influencer’s close relationships with their followers, consumers are more likely to make an impulsive purchase online (John, 2019).
Social media influencers are online personalities, who can make an effect on other people’s opinions and can even influence their fan’s purchase intention because of their position in the society, knowledge and authority (Bylock & Lidberg, 2018). The name
“influencer” appeared when marketers realized that certain users are recognized as opinion leaders and can influence consumer’s opinion when it comes to choosing a brand or product
(Sokolova & Kefi, 2020). Unlike traditional celebrities, social media influencers gained their fame through making useful content and building personal relationships with their audiences on social media channels (Lou & Kim, 2019). Other researchers also state that influencers are a new type of endorsers, who continuously shape their audience point of view and attitudes through different social media platforms (Freberg, Grahan, McGaughey & Freberg, 2010), however the main goal remains to inspire their audience (Molin & Nordgren, 2019). For the brands, high number of followers or subscribers on social media accounts owned by the influencer means that more people will see the advertisement. Hence, number of followers is considered to be one of many criterions while choosing an influencer for a brand (Veirman,
Cauberghe & Hudders, 2017). According to Granjon & Benedic (2017), the main success metrics to measure social media influencer’s performance are number of followers or consumer’s intention to engage such as likes, comments, shares and retweets.
Nowadays the most influential people online are not celebrities as it used to be before.
Consumers cannot relate to celebrities and their lifestyles as much as they can with social media influencers, who constantly post about their everyday life and build personal THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 15 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE relationships with their audience. Hence, consumers trust and have confidence in social media influencers more (Bylock & Lidberg, 2018). Previous researchers discovered that 70% adolescent users of YouTube think of influencers as their close friends and 60% of them – would trust influencer’s opinion on what product to purchase, rather than TV ads or celebrities (Lou & Kim, 2019). Besides, the most influential people online are not the ones in conventional world. According to Vollenbroek, De Vries, Constantinides & Kommers
(2014), social media influencers tend to be more extraverted online rather than in real life.
Previous researchers discovered that trustworthiness and expertise are two most valued traits of the influencer (Lou & Kim, 2019) and can make an impact on the effectiveness of influencer marketing strategy (Abreu, 2019). However, how to get and measure return on investment (ROI) still remains one of the main challenges. Most importantly, brands are struggling to select the right influencers that would be relevant to their businesses and help to reach specific company’s goals (Abreu, 2019), such as increase consumer’s intention to engage, impulsive purchase intention or brand credibility (Brows & Hayes, 2008).
Types of Content
Differently from celebrities, social media influencers promote a product or service in the authentic way (Schouten, Janssen & Verspaget, 2019) and usually it is done through building personal relationships with their audiences on social media channels (Lou & Kim,
2019). There are two main types of content created on social media – rational and emotional
(Manchón, 2014). Rational messages online are meant to be processed intellectually, whereas emotional messages seek to influence psychological characteristics (Dolan, Conduit, Frethey-
Bentham, Fahy & Goodman, 2019). According to Lim, Teh & Ahmed (2018), rational and emotional content are likely to have a different influence on consumer’s behavior and outcome when it comes to customers interaction with the brand. The outcome also depends THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 16 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE on consumer’s motivation to engage with the content and the type of business (Dolan,
Conduit, Frethey-Bentham, Fahy & Goodman, 2019).
Rational content. Rational content appears when the message on social media mostly includes plain facts such as product features, information and specifications (Dolan, Conduit,
Frethey-Bentham, Fahy & Goodman, 2019). This type of content usually shows brand value, performance, durability and functional value (Kusumasondjaj, 2018). According to Manchón
(2014), in most cases rational content is used only with rational purchases and more expensive products, when consumer needs more time to process and think before making a decision to buy a product. In other words, rational content online is usually applied when promoting technical or functional products (Swani, Milne, Brown, 2013). Other researches state that rational content is more appreciated by highly educated individuals, with background in tech, who base their purchasing decisions on logic, information and facts
(Dolan, Conduit, Frethey-Bentham, Fahy & Goodman, 2019).
Previous researchers discovered that rational content is more relevant to use with utilitarian products, which are more functional, practical and necessary. The advertisements which include rational content are usually based on learning, educating consumer and emphasizing the advantages, attributes as well as benefits of a particular product or service.
In addition to that, this type of advertising diminishes doubts or concerns that the consumer has. If the advertisement includes price, functionality, research, quality, packaging, material or information where to purchase a product or service – it is considered to be rational content.
Essentially, the main goal of rational advertisement is to convince the consumer that this brand is the best on the market. Therefore, in this way increasing brand credibility and/or convincing a consumer to make an impulsive purchase (Grigaliunaite & Pileliene, 2016). THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 17 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Moreover, rational content can also be called informational or utilitarian (Dolan,
Conduit, Frethey-Bentham, Fahy & Goodman, 2019). It is most effective with consumers, who are highly involved in brand and advertising (Kusumasondjaj, 2018). Previous researches explained that rational advertising results in a more certain purchase, because it uses a central route of processing (Manchón, Morante & Castella-Mate, 2014). The main disadvantage of rational advertising according to previous researchers is that this type of content does not grab consumer’s attention comparing to emotional one, hence it is dull and sometimes boring (Grigaliunaite & Pileliene, 2016).
However, under different conditions, rational content does not necessarily work with rational purchases described above. For instance, even though previous researchers described that rational content is appreciated by consumers who base their purchase on facts and information more (Dolan, Conduit, Frethey-Bentham, Fahy & Goodman, 2019), study conducted by Manchón (2014) discovered that sometimes consumers have irrational need to purchase new gadgets, consequently in this type of scenario consumers are completing impulsive purchase with rational content.
Emotional content. Per contra, emotional content appears when the message on social media includes humor, emotions, holiday mood, entertainments, emoticons etc. It influences consumer’s psychological and social needs, and includes only subjective information (Dolan, Conduit, Frethey-Bentham, Fahy & Goodman, 2019). The content is also considered emotional when a brand interacts with consumers through questionnaires or discussions on social media. In addition to that, emotional content is used when a brand wants to encourage consumer’s impulsive purchase or intention to engage with the branding content online. Also, with lower risk products that are not too expensive and can easily be bought online without long process of thinking (Manchón, 2014). Emotional content is THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 18 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE valued by consumers who pay less attention on information and facts, hence are more involved emotionally (Dolan, Conduit, Frethey-Bentham, Fahy & Goodman, 2019).
Previous researchers discovered that emotional content is more relevant to use with hedonic products, which makes the consumer feel enjoyment, fun and pleasure. In other words, usually for this type of product categories, it is not easy to rationally justify the advantages and benefits of the product. To the contrary, emotional content is linked with positive emotions when making a purchase – love, nostalgia, joy, patriotism, pride etc.
Therefore, emotional content often provokes impulsive purchase, because the decision is based on the willingness to feel good at the particular moment (Grigaliunaite & Pileliene,
2016). Previous researchers discovered that appeals of emotional message leads to positive attitudes towards the brand and advertisement (Dolan, Conduit, Frethey-Bentham, Fahy &
Goodman, 2019).
Moreover, emotional content can also be called affective or transformational. This type of content is more effective on less educated consumers or teenagers (Dolan, Conduit,
Frethey-Bentham, Fahy & Goodman, 2019) and the product itself should be value-expressive
(Swani, Milne, Brown, 2013). Previous researchers stated that emotional content should be used with consumers, who are not highly involved in brand (Kusumasondjaj, 2018) and most likely provoke some kind of feelings, because it uses peripheral route of processing
(Manchón, Morante & Castella-Mate, 2014). According to Manchón (2014), book can be a good example of emotional purchase, because the message online should provoke consumer’s feelings by telling a story. On the other hand, even though the target audience for books is wide, it mostly includes educated people, which was also described as a target audience for rational content. Additionally, consumers would be willing to see the pricing, as THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 19 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE it brings some reasoning in purchase, therefore books can also be advertised by using rational content online (Manchón, 2014).
In conclusion, there are two types of values in advertising on social media, which are the following: information and entertainment. Information is involved in rational content, which in most cases is used with more expensive products for audience with a higher purchasing power. Whereas, entertainment is involved in emotional content, which targets consumer’s feelings for lower-risk or cheaper products (Manchón, Morante & Castella-Mate,
2014).
Types of Influencers
Social media influencers can be separated into five main categories which are the following: Snoopers, Informers, Entertainers, Infotainers, and Virtual Influencers. The main differences between five types of influencers are usually content type as some influencers focus more on emotions, whereas others tend to post only rational content on their social media channels. At the same time, factors such as social media presence and reach also differ among influencers (Gross & Wangenheim, 2018).
First category snoopers refer to individuals, who create the content for fun and entertainment. This type of influencers tends to explore new ways on how to interact with their audience through different lighting, new tools such as cameras as well as experimenting how different apps work. Usually snoopers post content only for fun and do not collaborate with brands, therefore in this research paper snoopers will not be analyzed further. The second category informers are mostly individuals, who share their knowledge about the specific topics and aim to fill in the gaps left by industry experts. Sometimes informers do not necessarily have more knowledge than their audience but know how to add jokes and make THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 20 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE the information more relevant to every listener. The third category entertainers, as the name suggests, create entertaining content with the goal to provide amusement and enjoyment to its audience. The main difference between informers and entertainers is that the latter one more often includes personal touch and connection to the audience. The last type of influencer group is infotainers. Some researches state that this category lays down between entertainers and informers, because of their ability to have the latest information as well as provide entertaining content (Gross & Wangenheim, 2018). Because this category of influencers is between two other groups of influencers (entertainers and informers) and is not exclusive one, infotainers will not be analyzed further in this research paper.
Consequently, two main types of human influencers will be analyzed further in this research paper – informers and entertainers. According to Bosworth & Murphy (2015), an influencer sometimes can also be an expert in the specific field, subject or topic, which was previously described as an informer (Gross & Wangenheim, 2018). Informer tends to share a set of information like specific features of the product and he/she is accepted as an expert and reliable source by the audience (Bosworth & Murphy, 2015). At the same time, some consumers would be more willing to choose products or services advertised by an influencer with expertise, because they find the ad more credible (Hughes, Swaminathan, Brooks,
2019). As discussed previously, plain facts and product features are considered to be rational content (Dolan, Conduit, Frethey-Bentham, Fahy & Goodman, 2019). As a result, informers tend to share rational content on their personal social media channels.
On the other hand, entertainers can be individuals on social media who play video games, post food images and talk about fashion trends. This type of influencers usually has engaged community and much bigger audience than the brands itself on social media platforms (Holt, 2016). When collaborating with the brands, entertainers share information in THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 21 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE a context, which translates enjoyment, entertainment or emotions (Hughes, Swaminathan,
Brooks, 2019). Taking into account previously discussed emotional content, which includes humor, emotions, entertainments and emoticons (Dolan, Conduit, Frethey-Bentham, Fahy &
Goodman, 2019), it leads to a conclusion that social media influencers who are entertainers, share emotional content on their social media platforms.
Moreover, as the concept of Influencer Marketing was booming, the new computer- generated category of influencers was introduced, which are now officially called virtual influencers (Arvidsson & Darner, 2019), artificial influencers (Söderberg Stenman &
Axelsson, 2019), or as some other researches state – fictional characters (Herrmann, 2019).
According to Arvidsson & Darner (2019), virtual influencer is an artificial character generated by a computer and operating on social media. Some of the most famous online fictional characters, created by a creative agency in Silicon Valley are Miquela Sousa (2.2 million followers on Instagram) and Bermuda with more than two thousand followers
(Marwick, 2018). Even though there is a gap in the previous literature whether or not virtual influencers are perceived as credible source by consumers, some researchers state that virtual influencers might increase brand credibility in some cases as well as provoke consumer to engage with their created content. In addition to that, well-known brands such as Gucci or
Prada recently collaborated with virtual influencers and noticed positive results (Molin &
Nordgren, 2019). According to the same research recently done in Sweden, the main problem with virtual influencers is transparency and trustworthiness, because of the fact that they are managed by companies. Additionally, it is unknown whether virtual influencers create emotional or rational content on their social media accounts, because these influencers are generated by marketing agencies, therefore previous literature does not define whether virtual influencers share only rational or emotional content on their social media accounts. As a THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 22 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE result, content posted by artificial influencers might differ and some of them might post content with emotional elements, whereas other influencers – with rational content elements.
Consequently, both types of content will be included for virtual influencers analysis in this research paper.
THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 23 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Consumer Behavior towards Instagram Post
The following parts explain how consumers evaluate Instagram posts created by social media influencers, and why subsequently it translates into one of the following outcomes – consumer’s intention to engage with the content (like, comment, share), impulsive purchase intention or increased brand credibility.
Post Evaluation
Instagram is a social media platform which can be used in order to share a photo, story or video, either publicly or privately. The platform was initially developed for people to interact with each other and share opinion on different topics such as music, fashion or sports
(Mittal, Kaul, Gupta & Arora, 2017). Instagram also allows users to use different digital filters on their photos and share on other social media sites such as Facebook or Twitter, which users find extremely entertaining (Bakhshi, Shamma & Gilbert, 2014). According to the previous studies done in the field of social media advertising, Instagram has 10 times higher engagement with brands comparing to that with Facebook, therefore it is one of the most effective platforms for brands to advertise on. In fact, Instagram was considered to be the fastest growing platform globally few years in a row (Lindell, 2019). Even though
Instagram is becoming one of the most popular social media platforms for businesses, there is surprisingly a low number of previous researches done analyzing consumer’s interaction and engagement with social media influencer’s created posts (Mittal, Kaul, Gupta & Arora,
2017).
To begin with, there is a significant number of factors, which influences consumer’s response and behavior towards a created post by social media influencer. For instance, time when the post was published plays a major role in consumer’s reaction and engagement with THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 24 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE the post. However, specific days and times varies across different parts of the world. Some countries are more likely to engage with the post published on weekdays, whereas others – on weekends. Previous studies also investigated that impulsive purchase intention is provoked on weekends more often, rather than on weekdays. On top of that, Instagram users also notice image filters used by the influencer, which impacts their reaction towards the post. For instance, Instagram post without any filters might seem too boring for consumers, whereas content with filters on it make posts fit social media better. As a result, consumers evaluate post with filters more positively, which later results in higher engagement such as likes or comments on the post. Previous researchers have developed a system that suggest which filters or combination of effects should be used across different locations. The system was build based on consumer’s reactions towards a post measured through historical data (Mittal,
Kaul, Gupta & Arora, 2017).
Moreover, previous studies have discovered that content on Instagram which includes polite language and information, positively affects Instagram post evaluation, leads to more replies on a post and might result in increased brand credibility. In addition to that, faces have been proven to be an important component of Instagram post, when it comes to consumer’s decision which action to take after seeing an advertisement (Bakhshi, Shamma & Gilbert,
2014). According to Bakhshi, Shamma & Gilbert (2014), people are used to looking at faces from the very early age, therefore consumers tend to spend more time looking at the advertisements, which includes faces rather than any other type of object. Advertisements with faces in it, especially attractive ones, were discovered to capture more attention and significantly increase consumer’s responses on a post. For instance, post which includes at least one face on Instagram is more likely to receive higher number of likes by 38%, and comments by 32%. Besides, Instagram post with influencer’s face in it, is believed to be THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 25 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE more trustworthy and reliable source of information, which later can result in consumer’s impulsive intention to purchase the product or increased brand credibility. However, the same research also proved that the number of faces does not have a significantly higher impact on consumer. Consequently, influencer’s post including his/her face together with promoted brand, should perform better and have stronger effect on consumer behavior online, rather than a product itself.
Furthermore, impact of demographic factors such as age and gender on consumer’s intention to engage with a post or behave after seeing it, were also analyzed intensively by previous researchers. For instance, Instagram platform is used more intensively by women and younger generation, whereas other platforms such as LinkedIn or Google+ are preferred by men, therefore researchers were investigating if these statistics influence consumer’s reactions as well as likes and comments on the post. However, Bakhshi, Shamma & Gilbert
(2014) discovered that these particular demographic factors do not determine success, consumer behavior or increased engagement on Instagram post. As a result, influencer’s age or gender should not have a direct positive impact on Instagram post evaluation, which later would translate into impulsive purchase, brand credibility or consumer’s intention to engage with the post.
Not surprisingly, some literature suggests that emotional content has a higher effect on engagement compared to rational one. For instance, it is argued that content which includes emojis such as hearts or smiley faces and which was previously described as emotional content, more positively affects post evaluation, which later translates into consumer’s engagement with the post (Lindell, 2019). In addition to that, emotional content should more positively affect Instagram post evaluation, because it includes positive emotions such as love, happiness, pride or joy (Grigaliunaite & Pileliene, 2016) THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 26 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
According to Veirman, Cauberghe & Hudders (2017), number of followers on social media influencer’s account may also influence post evaluation by consumer. More specifically, the higher number of likes influencer has – the higher consumer’s perceptions of popularity are. However, the same study also investigated that number of likes does not lead to consumer’s perception of opinion leadership, which is an important factor in influencer marketing. In addition to that, even though followers may influence post evaluation, businesses should not take into account number of followers when choosing the right influencer for a brand, because consumers might find a brand less unique and result in negative effect on brand credibility.
Intention to Engage
Previous researchers described intention as a motivation or factor, which influences some kind of consumer behavior. In other words, it is the primary determinant (Abd Mutalib,
Jamil, Zuriana, Mohamed & Ismail, 2017) of one’s willingness to behave (Alajmi, 2012).
With regards to social media, there are three different activities online, which are intention to consume, intention to contribute and intention to create. Consuming refers to involvement and participation online such as reading a post or watching a video, without contributing or creating a content. Per contra, contributing is consumer’s interaction with content online such as commenting, liking and sharing. Lastly, creating, as the name suggests, is producing and publishing content online (Kim & Yang, 2017). Consequently, this research paper will focus on digital activities such as consuming and contributing, or in other words – engaging on social media (Voorveld, Noort, Muntinga & Bronner, 2018).
Digital engagement refers to consumer’s behavior in digital world, media usage or emotional and intuitive experience (Voorveld, Noort, Muntinga & Bronner, 2018). In other THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 27 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE words, engagement refers to one’s interaction online with specific brands (Hollebeek, Glynn
& Brodie, 2014). According to Voorveld, Noort, Muntinga & Bronner (2018), online interactions includes but are not limited to liking, sharing, commenting, opening, viewing, following, or clicking. All of the above digital interactions represent the level of engagement on social media, however this research paper will only focus on liking, commenting and sharing, because it was discovered to be the most powerful interactions online (Kim & Yang,
2017). Other researchers have investigated that consumers engage in online media in order to satisfy their informational, transactional and social needs (Sharma & Crossler, 2014). As discussed before, depending on consumer’s evaluation of Instagram post, digital engagement can differ. For instance, polite language, product information, influencer’s face can make an impact on consumer’s intention to engage with the post (Bakhshi, Shamma & Gilbert, 2014).
The first and lowest online interaction is liking, because it does not require consumer’s effort or commitment (Kim & Yang, 2017). The number of likes represent the level to which consumers find influencer’s content relevant and interesting (Bakhshi,
Shamma & Gilbert, 2014). Whereas, the second interaction commenting involves further action and effort, which requires a bit more time of consumer. In addition to that, on social media platforms such as Facebook, the post appears on other people feed when a friend is leaving a comment. The number of comments represents the extent to which consumers find influencer’s content worth the discussion (Bakhshi, Shamma & Gilbert, 2014). The highest level of interaction on social media is considered to be sharing the content, because consumer not only needs to act, but also consider and evaluate the value of a post or video
(Kim & Yang, 2017).
Half of total social media users have shared some content at least once on their personal social media accounts (Picone, De Wolf & Robijt, 2016). Previous studies showed THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 28 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE that consumers are more likely to share content online, which offers high entertainment as well as enjoyment levels (Shedu, Bijmolt & Clement, 2016). In other words, the greater level of enjoyment, the greater chance of consumer’s intention to share the content, because consumers tend to share positive emotions with other people (Choi, Bang, Wojdynski, Lee &
Keib, 2018). Additionally, positive content online is more likely to be shared rather than negative one (Picone, De Wolf & Robijt, 2016).
There are different reasons why consumers share online content on their social media account. According to Picone, De Wolf & Robijt (2016), some of these reasons are social connection and self-presentation. In most cases, consumers tend to watch the entire advertisement if it is a video or read the whole text, just to avoid negative image effects. In addition to that, previous researchers have discovered that consumers are more likely to share the content if they specifically enjoyed the beginning or the end of advertisement, the latter one being the most powerful trigger (Shedu, Bijmolt & Clement, 2016).
With regards to social media influencers, influencers “entertainers” tend to have engaged community on their social media accounts, because they usually play video games, post food images or talk about fashion trends (Holt, 2016). When creating content for brands,
“entertainers” shares content, which includes enjoyment, entertainment and emotions
(Hughes, Swaminathan, Brooks, 2019), therefore it is believed that consumers should have higher intention to engage with the content posted on influencers “entertainer’s” feed. At the same time, content created by virtual influencers is perceived as more unusual and worth the discussion, hence consumers are more likely to share or engage with this type of content according to previous literature (Shedu, Bijmolt & Clement, 2016). THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 29 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Impulsive Purchase
Impulsive purchase is a global phenomenon (Dawson & Kim, 2009). It can be described as an unplanned purchase, the action taken in response to stimulus triggered, purchase done without further analysis and/or the result of urgent desire. In other words, when completing an impulsive purchase, consumers are not looking for any additional information about the product or service and are not browsing for alternatives (Lim &
Yazdanifard, 2015). At the same time, consequences of the purchase are not evaluated
(Dawson & Kim, 2009). Therefore, the main difference between planned purchase and impulsive one, is the speed in the decision-making process (Virvilaitė, Saladienė &
Žvinklytė, 2011).
Nowadays, internet is a common space to complete impulsive purchases, because companies can manipulate consumers by including artificial timers for discounts to expiry.
On top of that, brands practice up-selling and cross-selling in order to encourage consumer’s impulsive purchases. Up-selling refers to upgrading consumer’s purchase, whereas cross- selling means offering additional and related products to the ones consumer already has in the basket. Most of the times, supplementary products recommended on the website are bought impulsively and over 75% of the online retailers used either up-selling or cross-selling strategies at least once (Dawson & Kim, 2009).
Around quarter of purchases made on Amazon are completed impulsively based on other people recommendations (Dawson & Kim, 2009). Previous researchers have found that factors such as low price of goods, transportation, ease of using credit cards and promotions are the main reasons which lead consumer to make an impulsive purchase online (Lim &
Yazdanifard, 2015). Additionally, consumers who make impulsive purchases tend to THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 30 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE experience stronger feelings, because the process of making a decision involves ignorance of finding other alternatives as well as more information about the product or service online
(Virvilaitė, Saladienė & Žvinklytė, 2011).
There are two main stimuli, which influence consumer’s impulsive purchase intention
– internal and external. Internal stimulus can be psychological, situational, demographic and/or socio-economic factor. Whereas, external stimuli can be characteristics of a product or environment (Lim & Yazdanifard, 2015). In traditional shops, external stimuli refer to the shop environment such as decoration, exposition, colors, shop staff and integrated marketing communications. In contrast, internal stimuli refer to emotional and cognitive estimation, hedonic motives and involvement into the product category (Virvilaitė, Saladienė &
Žvinklytė, 2011). Concerning digital environment, external stimuli can be a website or promotional incentives, whereas internal stimuli does not differ from traditional one (Dawson
& Kim, 2009).
Previous researchers have discovered that younger generation completes more impulsive purchases online compared to older one, because they are more easily influenced by external stimuli on social media. With regards to the specific product categories, females are more likely to make an impulsive purchase on products with a discount, beauty and/or fashion related goods, whereas men usually make an impulsive purchase related to electronic equipment (Lim & Yazdanifard, 2015). For instance, in a context of influencer marketing, females need inspiration on how to dress up and quite often they follow online personalities only for fashion advices. Consequently, an item posted on social media influencer’s feed can instantly encourage consumer’s impulsive purchase intention (Gunawan & Iskandar, 2020). THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 31 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
As discussed previously, emotional content shared by social media influencer encourages impulsive purchase intention more often compared to rational one, because lower risk products are usually promoted by applying emotions and consumers can easily buy the product online without long process of thinking (Manchón, 2014). In addition to that, emotional content provokes purchase intention, because consumer’s decision is based on the willingness to feel good at that particular moment (Grigaliunaite & Pileliene, 2016). On the other hand, sometimes rational content can also encourage consumer’s impulsive purchase intention, which was previously described as consumer’s irrational need to purchase particular goods at that moment (Manchón, 2014). In a context of influencer marketing, social media influencers usually get a special discount codes from companies, hence it plays as an additional trigger for consumers to instantly buy a product. Moreover, previous researchers discovered that micro influencers are more effective while encouraging consumer’s impulsive intention, because they are more reliable and trustworthy, consequently followers do not need additional source of information to be convinced
(Gunawan & Iskandar, 2020).
Social media influencer’s credibility, knowledge, authority and position in the society were discussed as additional triggers for impulsive purchase intention online by previous researchers (Bylock & Lidberg, 2018). Because of specific influencer’s characteristics, almost 70% YouTube users think of social media influencers as close friends and would follow their advices on what products to purchase (Lou & Kim, 2019). As discussed above, impulsive purchase intention also depends on post evaluation. For instance, if the Instagram post includes influencer’s face, it is perceived as more trustworthy and later can translate into consumer’s intention to purchase the product (Bakhshi, Shamma & Gilbert, 2014). Even though previous researchers were investigating what impact does credibility of an influencer THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 32 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE have on impulsive purchase intention (Lou & Kim, 2019), there are no previous literature regarding specific types of influencer as well as created content impact on consumer’s impulsive purchase intention online.
Brand Credibility
According to Baek, Kim & Yu (2010), the two most important parts in building a strong brand are credibility and perceived value. In other words, a brand is considered credible when it is able to deliver a message to its consumers that a brand keeps promises, can be trusted (Erdem & Swait, 2004) and provides advantages to both companies as well as consumers. For companies, having a credible brand assures cost effective marketing strategies, because consumers are more likely to accept companies’ communication and marketing messages. It also leads to increased sales through word-of-mouth and loyal customers. Whereas consumers believe that buying a credible brand means getting a good quality product or service (Baek, Kim & Yu, 2010). Previous researchers argued that brand credibility plays a significant role when it comes to consumer’s decision making, because it helps to save time for consumers as they do not need to search for additional information, read online reviews or ask advice from the experts (Qatami, 2019).
Businesses can influence brand credibility by different marketing activities associated with a brand (Wang & Scheinbaum, 2017) such as traditional or non-traditional advertising
(Qatami, 2019). More specifically, companies can make an impact on perceived credibility by adding additional expectations which can be confirmed by consumers after they purchase or use the product (Baek, Kim & Yu, 2010). The three main components of brand credibility are trustworthiness, expertise (Erdem & Swait, 2004) and brand attractiveness (Wang &
Yang, 2010). Since brand attractiveness was only found in one research paper, THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 33 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE trustworthiness and expertise will only be analyzed further. Trustworthiness is the extent to which a brand is ready to deliver its promises, whereas expertise is the extent to which a brand is capable of delivering what was promised. More specifically, consumers perceive a brand credible when the brand is willing to (trustworthiness) and is capable of (expertise) delivering its promises (Hanzaee & Taghipourian, 2012). However, Erdem & Swait (2004) argued that trustworthiness is more important and affective component of brand credibility.
Moreover, previous researchers discovered that brand credibility has a positive effect on purchase intention. Consumers tend to believe that credible brands influence their social status, therefore it increases consumer’s confidence in brand selection (Baek, Kim & Yu,
2010). According to Erdem & Swait (2004), brand credibility highly influences brand choice and consideration. Consistency over time, stability when making brand strategies and high brand investments are considered to be components which ensure consumers that the brand can be weighted as credible (Erdem & Swait, 2004). Consistency is the extent to which a brand is able to deliver harmony among the marketing mix strategies, whereas brand investments are the money spent on corporate social responsibility and advertising sponsorships (Qatami, 2019). According to Baek, Kim & Yu (2010), brand credibility has a direct positive effect on perceived quality of a brand, it also reduces perceived risk of buying a product, therefore increases consumer’s purchase intention.
Even though a concept of brand credibility has been intensively discussed in the previous literature, there are only few researches that examined brand credibility in the context of influencer marketing. In addition to that, Spry, Pappu & Cornwell (2011) and other researchers discovered that celebrity endorsement has a direct positive effect on brand credibility. However, according to Qatami (2019), celebrities’ credibility has drastically decreased over time and these advertisements are not that effective anymore. Therefore, THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 34 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE brands needed to discover new and innovative ways how to increase brand credibility such as influencer marketing.
With regards to influencer marketing, Qatami (2019) has discovered that just like celebrities – social media influencers should have a direct positive effect on brand credibility as well. Moreover, it is believed that some parts of social media influencer’s personality traits are transferred to the brand after the advertisement. The researcher has also argued that brands are trying to select more trustworthy and reliable influencers, because it also helps to increase credibility of a brand. Besides, brand’s activity on social media is also associated with greater brand credibility and trust. According to the researcher, even impulsive purchase intention is more likely to increase when a product or service promoted by the influencer has high brand credibility (Qatami, 2019).
As discussed above, post evaluation can also influence consumer’s attitude towards brand credibility. For instance, when influencer’s post includes polite language and information, it can positively affect Instagram post evaluation and later translate into increased brand credibility (Bakhshi, Shamma & Gilbert, 2014). Qatami (2019) in his research also investigated if influencer’s credibility and attractiveness have a direct positive impact on perceived brand credibility. The findings showed that only influencer’s credibility can influence brand’s credibility, whereas influencer’s attractiveness does not play a significant role. In addition to that, the author argued that one-time or short-term collaborations are not that effective as long-term, because consumers need more time to process the information and get familiar with the endorser in order to perceive a brand as more credible. Choosing a wrong influencer or message can also have a negative effect on brand’s image and credibility, and this specific relationship how content type and influencer’s type affect brand credibility was not researched in the previous literature. Consequently, it is THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 35 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE important to research the relationship further, because businesses need to strategically plan steps of influencer marketing and choose influencers with a similar brand match in order to make a positive impact on perceived brand credibility.
Hypothesis development
Previous studies done in a field of influencer marketing are mostly related to the impact of influencer’s credibility on impulsive purchase intention or brand credibility
(Sokolova & Kefi, 2020; Lou & Yuan, 2019), however there is a lack of investigations done analyzing how influencer’s created content or influencer’s type affects different consumer behavior such as impulsive purchase intention, brand credibility or intention to engage with the content. The last dependent variable, which is intention to engage, was only explored in a context of online marketing and to the knowledge of the author, there are no previous researchers exploring consumer’s intention to engage in a field of social media influencer advertising context.
Social media influencers are believed to be more authentic in comparison to similar advertising strategy, which is celebrity endorsement. Influencers tend to build personal relationship with their audience on social media channels, therefore influencer’s created content are perceived as trustworthy, attractive, sometimes entertaining or informative
(Schouten, Janssen & Verspaget, 2019). Some influencers share only rational content, which is more appreciated by highly educated individuals and who base their purchases on information and facts. Others share content which translates emotions, humour and entertainment with a goal to influence consumer’s psychological and social needs (Dolan,
Conduit, Frethey-Bentham, Fahy & Goodman, 2019). As discussed in the literature review part, it was discovered that content which includes emojis and was previously described as THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 36 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE emotional one, affect Instagram post evaluation more positively (Lindell, 2019).
Additionally, emotional content includes positive emotions such as love, happiness, pride or joy (Grigaliunaite & Pileliene, 2016), should also result in more positive Instagram post evaluation. Consequently, the first hypothesis of this research paper is raised:
H1: There will be a difference between Content Types such that Emotional Content will more positively affect Instagram Post Evaluation.
Moreover, three types of influencers will be analyzed in this research paper – entertainers, informers and virtual influencers. Previous literature suggests that each type has a different effect on consumer and therefore, Instagram post will be evaluated differently. For instance, influencers “entertainers” provides enjoyment and entertainment to the audience.
Per contra, influencers “informers” educates and informs their audience on social media
(Hughes, Swaminathan, Brooks, 2019). Lastly, virtual influencers are created by creative agencies, hence they are more unusual and worth the discussion in comparison to human influencers (Shedu, Bijmolt & Clement, 2016). Hence, the post will be evaluated differently depending on the type of influencer. Previous literature discussed that influencers who educate and share information, leads to more replies on a post, which is usually shared by influencers “informers” (Hughes, Swaminathan, Brooks, 2019). Therefore, type of influencer is supposed to act as a moderator in the relationship between influencer’s created content and
Instagram post evaluation. Consequently, the following hypothesis is raised:
H2: Type of Influencer will moderate the relation between Influencer's Created Content and
Instagram Post Evaluation.
As discussed in the literature review part, influencers “entertainers” tend to share emotional content on their social media accounts, which includes enjoyment, entertainment THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 37 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE and emotions (Hughes, Swaminathan, Brooks, 2019). Moreover, previous researchers have discovered that consumers are more likely to engage online with the content, which offers high engagement and entertainment levels (Shedu, Bijmolt & Clement, 2016) as well as provides positive emotions (Choi, Bang, Wojdynski, Lee & Keib, 2018). Since the main goal of influencer “entertainer” is to provide enjoyment to it audience (Gross & Wangenheim,
2018) and consumers tend to share positive emotions and enjoyment with other people (Choi,
Bang, Wojdynski, Lee & Keib, 2018), the following hypothesis is raised:
H3a: Emotional Content shared by Influencers “Entertainers” will lead to the Consumer’s
Intention to Engage via Instagram Post Evaluation.
Moreover, previous studies were mostly analyzing what factors are influencing consumer’s impulsive purchase intention in online media or celebrity endorsement, however there is a gab in literature regarding influencer marketing. According to Spry, Pappu &
Cornwell (2009), celebrity endorsement has a direct positive effect on purchase intention as well as purchase behavior. Despite the lack of investigations done which would prove that influencer’s shared content has a direct positive effect on impulsive purchase intention,
Qatami (2019) discovered that influencer’s created content has a similar effect on consumers as celebrities online. In addition to this, emotional content often encourages consumer’s impulsive purchase intention, because the decision is based on the willingness to feel good at the particular moment (Grigaliunaite & Pileliene, 2016). As discussed above, influencers
“entertainers” post emotional content on their social media account and when collaborating with brands, the information is shared in the context which translates entertainment, emotions and emojis as an additional trigger which encourages consumer’s impulsive purchase intention (Hughes, Swaminathan, Brooks, 2019). As a result, the following hypothesis for this thesis research is raised: THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 38 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
H3b: Emotional Content shared by Influencers “Entertainers” will have a direct positive effect on Consumer’s Impulsive Purchase Intention via Instagram Post Evaluation.
As discussed in the literature review part, content shared by the influencer on social media platforms can be emotional and rational. Consumers who are buying expensive and high-risk product such as personal computer, will trust rational content over emotional one
(Dens & Pelsmacker, 2010), because this type of content includes facts such as product features, information and specifications (Dolan, Conduit, Frethey-Bentham, Fahy &
Goodman, 2019). In addition to that, influencers “informers” are perceived as experts in the specific field by their audience, because they usually share a set of information of the product or service they are promoting on the channel (Bosworth & Murphy, 2015). Previous researchers discussed that consumers find the ad more credible when shared by the influencer
“informer” (Hughes, Swaminathan, Brooks, 2019). Moreover, since the major parts of brand credibility includes trustworthiness and expertise (Erdem & Swait, 2004), it can be argued that influencers “informers” are closely related with brand’s credibility, because “informers” are also described as experts in the specific field by other researchers (Gross & Wangenheim,
2018). Consequently, the following hypothesis is raised:
H4a: Rational Content shared by Influencers “Informers” will have a direct positive effect on
Brand Credibility via Instagram Post Evaluation.
On the other hand, nowadays companies are trying to stimulate more impulsive purchase intentions online. For instance, Virtual Private Network companies are including artificial timers for discounts to expiry and in this way, convincing consumers to act fast.
Previous researchers investigated that rational content is appreciated by consumers who base their purchase on facts and information more (Dolan, Conduit, Frethey-Bentham, Fahy & THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 39 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Goodman, 2019), however the study done by Manchón (2014) concluded that sometimes consumers have irrational need to purchase new gadgets, which are usually promoted in a rational way by influencers “informers”. Another study by Lim & Yazdanifard (2015) also investigated that men are more likely to make impulsive purchase online related to electronic equipment (Lim & Yazdanifard, 2015), which is also advertised by experts in the field or in other words, influencers “informers” by applying rational content. Consequently, the following hypothesis for this thesis research is raised:
H4b: Rational Content shared by Influencers “Informers” will have a direct positive effect on
Consumer’s Impulsive Purchase Intention via Instagram Post Evaluation.
Furthermore, recently virtual influencers have been introduced to the world
(Arvidsson & Darner, 2019). Even though there is a gab in the previous researches whether or not virtual influencers are perceived as credible source by consumers, the research done by
Molin & Nordgren (2019) concluded that virtual influencers might not have the same effect as human influencers, because they are not real and consumers cannot relate to them.
However, virtual influencers have millions of followers on social media platforms and their audience is engaged with the content they create (Darner & Arvidsson, 2019). In addition to that, consumers are more likely to share and engage with the content which they find unusual, worth the discussion and with high enjoyment level (Shedu, Bijmolt & Clement, 2016).
Emotional content, which includes positive emotions is also considered to be more engaging compared to rational one (Shedu, Bijmolt & Clement, 2016). Therefore, the following hypothesis is raised:
H5a: Emotional Content shared by Virtual Influencers will lead to the Consumer’s Intention to Engage via Instagram Post Evaluation. THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 40 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
On the other hand, some researchers argue that virtual influencers might increase brand credibility, even though they are perceived as less credible source than human influencers. For instance, recently well-known brands worldwide such as Prada and Gucci collaborated with virtual influencers and noticed positive results. In addition to that, there are number of other factors which impacts consumer’s opinion regarding credibility of virtual influencer. These factors are influencer’s attractiveness, similarity, and number of collaborations with the brands (Molin & Nordgren, 2019). Also, previous literature does not define whether virtual influencers share only rational or emotional content as they are produced by creative agencies and content might differ. Therefore, virtual influencers might also post rational content, which is perceived more trustworthy and credible (Dens &
Pelsmacker, 2010). Consequently, even though human influencers might make an impact on brand credibility sooner, it is believed that virtual influencers can also influence brand credibility in the long run when posting specifically rational content. Thus, the last hypothesis of this research paper is raised as following:
H5b: Rational Content shared by Virtual Influencers will have a direct positive effect on
Brand Credibility via Instagram Post Evaluation.
THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 41 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Research Methodology
The following chapter provides an overview of the research methodology, which was used for this research paper. First of all, the conceptual research model based on literature analyzed in the previous chapter is presented, and hypothesized relationship introduced.
Second of all, the rationality of chosen research design and methods are identified.
Additionally, participants, sample size and instruments used for data collection are described.
Lastly, ethical considerations and validity are defined.
Conceptual Model
The conceptual model presented in Figure 1, outlines all research variables and hypotheses described in the previous chapter. The main question of this research paper is the following: What impact does content type posted by social media influencer have on consumer’s intention to engage, impulsive purchase intention and brand credibility via
Instagram post evaluation considering the moderating effect of influencer’s type?
Consequently, the research model includes relationships between influencer’s created content
(rational and emotional), influencer’s type (entertainer, informer, virtual), consumer’s intention to engage, impulsive purchase intention and brand credibility, where type of influencer is set as a moderator variable. Research model also includes mediator variable, which is Instagram post evaluation. THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 42 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Figure 1. Conceptual Research Model. Composed by the author.
Based on the conceptual research model presented above, key relationships between variables are as follows. Firstly, emotional content created by the influencer more positively affects Instagram post evaluation rather than rational one. In addition to that, type of influencer moderates the relation between content created by the influencer and Instagram post evaluation. Then, emotional content created by influencer “entertainer” on SM channels leads to consumer’s intention to engage and has a direct positive effect on impulsive purchase intention via Instagram post evaluation. Moreover, rational content created by influencer
“informer” leads to brand credibility and has a direct positive effect on impulsive purchase intention via Instagram post evaluation. Finally, emotional content created by virtual influencers leads to consumer’s intention to engage via Instagram post evaluation, whereas rational content posted by virtual influencers has a direct positive effect on brand credibility.
The relationships presented in the conceptual research model were drawn based on the theories in academic literature described in the previous chapter. In addition to that, all THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 43 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE hypotheses summarized below were compiled with a support from theoretical background.
Table 1 presents the summary of all hypotheses discussed above.
Table 1
Summary of the research hypotheses
H1: There will be a difference between Content Types such that Emotional Content will more positively affect Instagram Post Evaluation.
H2: Type of Influencer will moderate the relation between Influencer's Created Content and Instagram Post Evaluation.
H3a: Emotional Content shared by Influencers “Entertainers” will lead to the Consumer’s Intention to Engage via Instagram Post Evaluation.
H3b: Emotional Content shared by Influencers “Entertainers” will have a direct positive effect on Consumer’s Impulsive Purchase Intention via Instagram Post evaluation.
H4a: Rational Content shared by Influencers “Informers” will have a direct positive effect on Brand Credibility via Instagram Post Evaluation.
H4b: Rational Content shared by Influencers “Informers” will have a direct positive effect on Consumer’s Impulsive Purchase Intention via Instagram Post Evaluation. H5a: Emotional Content shared by Virtual Influencers will lead to the Consumer’s Intention to Engage via Instagram Post Evaluation.
H5b: Rational Content shared by Virtual Influencers will have a direct positive effect on Brand Credibility via Instagram Post Evaluation.
Note. Prepared by the author of the thesis.
THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 44 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Research Design and Method
This paper applies quantitative research design. Quantitative designs are usually completed by the researcher with questionnaires or experiments. There are three types of quantitative designs, which are used most frequently in the literature: experimental, quasi- experimental, and non-experimental. The experimental design allows researcher to manipulate variables (Rutberg & Bouikidis, 2018). To be more specific, it is done through manipulating at least one independent variable and measuring the result(s) on one or more depended variables (Onwuegbuzie, 2000). Additionally, this type of research checks if the theory is right by testing if the independent variables (content type and influencer type) has an effect on the dependent variables (consumer’s intention to engage, impulsive purchase intention and brand credibility) (Lowhorn, 2007). Consequently, this research paper applies experimental design method.
Previous studies explained that quantitative research is more relevant than qualitative research as it ensures the measurements are precise and the environment is controlled. This type of research also allows a researcher to analyze the received results numerically, opposite from qualitative research method, when results are based on the behavior observed
(Lowhorn, 2007). In addition to that, online experiment is a quick way to receive data and provides good control of external factors (Gineikiene, n.d). However, each research design method has its own disadvantages. The main challenge while conducting an online experiment is that some participants might potentially quit the experiment during the process because of network problems or distractions (Arechar, Gächter & Molleman, 2018).
Moreover, online experiment comes with limited ability to apply complicated tasks, the situations online are artificial and most of the times rare in normal world. Lastly, some manipulations online are not that powerful as done in the field (Gineikiene, n.d). THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 45 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Setting and Participants
According to the previous researchers, the target population for similar studies are social media users or individuals with a knowledge about social networks, online videos, blogs and other emerging technologies or communication tools (Gillin, 2008). Since the main goal of this research paper is to test the impact of content type and social media influencer’s type on consumer behavior online, the target participant can be anyone who uses social media sites, particularly Instagram. Nowadays social media usage is rapidly increasing and distribution between age who uses Instagram platform are the following – 72% of teenagers between 13 – 17 years old use Instagram, 67% of 18 – 29 years old, 47% of 30 – 49 years old, 23% of 50 – 64 years old and 8% of 64 and above (Chen, 2020). However, teenagers will not be included in the research process, hence the target age for this research paper is 18 – 64 years old.
The research part in this paper will be conducted as a web-based experiment in a form of survey. According to Arechar, Gächter & Molleman (2018), data received from the interactive online experiments is reliable and behavior of participants is similar to the one in laboratory. The appropriate sample size per cell for online studies is 40 – 100, which is 420 respondents on average for 2x3 design (Gineikiene, n.d). Consequently, the expected sampling size is 450 people.
The experimental design will apply two different categories of independent variables
(Content Type and Influencer Type) – each of these elements will be tested by randomly and evenly presented to participants in the experiment (Table 2).
Table 2
Experimental Conditions THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 46 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Type of Influencer Entertainers Informers Virtual Influencers
Influencer Influencer Virtual “entertainer” “informer” post Influencers post Rational content post with with rational with rational rational content content content Content Type Influencer Influencer Virtual “entertainer” “informer” post Influencers post Emotional post with with emotional with emotional content emotional content content content
Note. Prepared by the author of the thesis.
The first part of online questionnaire contains of 6 experimental conditions with
visual Instagram posts of different types of influencers (entertainers, informers and virtual
influencers), caption as well as description, posting either rational or emotional content. The
visual representation is provided in the Appendix A.
As discussed in the literature review part, rational content shared on social media
platforms contains features or general information and specifications about the product
(Dolan, Conduit, Frethey-Bentham, Fahy & Goodman, 2019). To meet these requirements,
Instagram post containing rational content in the questionnaire will include plain facts,
features and product’s functional value. Per contra, emotional content is considered when
visual includes emotions or holiday mood and there is no specific information about the
product itself (Dolan, Conduit, Frethey-Bentham, Fahy & Goodman, 2019). Therefore, the
same Instagram Post will include holiday elements such as Christmas tree in the
questionnaire. Additionally, in order to ensure that participants understand the type of THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 47 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE influencer presented in the questionnaire, each experimental condition will include short description about social media influencer Jules. To be more specific, the main goal of influencer “entertainer” is to provide amusement and enjoyment to its audience while creating a “casual” everyday content (Gross & Wangenheim, 2018), therefore Jules will be described as social media influencer who posts about fashion, travel and everyday life on her social media account. On the other hand, influencer “informer” is known as an individual, who is an expert in the specific topics (Gross & Wangenheim, 2018), thus Jules will be described as social media influencer and dentist, who posts about teeth correction and share information about oral hygiene in general. Lastly, virtual influencer is a computer-generated personality (Arvidsson & Darner, 2019), hence Jules will be presented as a virtual social media influencer and fictional character generated by the creative marketing agency. In addition to Instagram post and short description, each post will include caption, which includes either emotional or rational content requirements.
Instrumentation
The online survey tool Qualtrics XM is used as an instrument in order to collect data.
Qualtrics XM allows users to create advanced question options such as drill down, constant sum, heat maps or sliding scales. In addition to that, the online survey tool allows to randomize answers in order to ensure unbiased results, collects IP addresses to avoid survey results from the same person or computer and data collected can be easily exported to the statistical software for research analysis (Ginsberg, 2011).
The experiment starts with a short introduction about the collection of IP addresses according to GDPR, experimental scenario setting, questions about participant’s demographics such as gender, age and education level. The questionnaire is done in English THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 48 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE language and shared with respondents on social media platforms. Internet-based survey allows researcher to reach more people, who use social media platforms and are familiar with influencer marketing concept. The experiment is programmed to evenly present 1 out of 6 experiment scenarios to survey participants randomly.
1) Dependent variables
a. Impulsive Purchase Intention scale (adapted from Lou & Kim, 2019)
consists of three statements evaluating intention to buy right away, intention to
visit an online store or intention to buy in the future. Statements are evaluated
using 7-point Likert Scale.
b. Intention to Engage scale (adapted from Alhabash, McAlister, Lou &
Hagerstrom, 2015) consists of three statements evaluating intention to like,
comment or share the Instagram Post. Statements are evaluated using 7-point
Likert Scale.
c. Brand Credibility scale (adapted from Spry, Pappu & Cornwell, 2011)
consists of four statements evaluating if the brand delivers what it promises
and claims are believable, has a trusted name and does not pretend to be
something else. Statements are evaluated using 7-point Likert Scale.
2) Mediator variables
a. Post Evaluation scale (adapted from Obermiller & Spangenberg, 1998; Gong
& Maddox, 2003) consists of eleven statements evaluating if presented
Instagram post is entertaining, informative, attractive, reliable source of
information etc. Statements are evaluated using 7-point Likert Scale. THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 49 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Manipulation Check
The online survey also includes manipulation check question, which is placed after presenting social media influencer’s post. The question consists of three statements – one for influencer “entertainer”, another for influencer “informer” and last one for virtual influencer.
Survey respondents are asked which of the below statements is correct. The goal is to test if respondents understand the type of influencer, content and description correctly.
Ethical Considerations
Participants of the experimental research design must be informed about anonymity and confidentiality, since any sensitive information or names are not used in the survey. In addition to that, respondents can quit the survey at any time they want or feel uncomfortable answering specific questions. Since IP addresses have to be collected to ensure the quality of experimental research, participants are asked to confirm the collection of their IP addresses, which is done as a mandatory question and if not checked, participants cannot move forward.
Overall, survey respondents are informed about the aim of the study and the fact that data collected will be only used for scientific purposes.
Validity Considerations
According to Onwuegbuzie (2000), all experimental research designs have to be evaluated for external and internal validity. Previous researchers explained internal validity as a condition, when experimenter can be assured that the results from the experiment are valid. Whereas, external validity shows how the results of experiment can be relevant for different situations as well as populations (McDermott, 2011). THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 50 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
In order to ensure internal validity condition, each manipulated scenario includes short description about social media influencer Jules, supplemented with visual Instagram post and caption. In addition to that, each manipulated variable factors are added in the description. Whereas to ensure external validity, all online survey respondents are evenly presented one of six available scenario conditions randomly. THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 51 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Empirical Research Results
The main goal of this chapter is to test hypotheses raised, review empirical research findings and answer the main research question. To begin with, data collection process and preparation is presented together with description of sample profile and demographics.
Secondly, manipulation check results are tested using Chi-Square test in SPSS. After that, correlation between variables and normality analysis is performed. Lastly, an independent sample T-test, General Linear model and Hayes PROCESS v3.4.1 macro is used (“PROCESS macro for SPSS and SAS,” n.d.). in order to test hypotheses raised.
Data collection and preparation
Data collection took 10 days from 3rd to 12th of April, 2020. The survey was shared on personal social media accounts (Facebook and Instagram platforms), instant company’s messaging platform Slack and through online Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) platform.
IBM SPSS Statistics software was used in order to analyze collected data.
In total, 584 people participated in the survey about SM influencers and their created content impact on consumer behavior. However, 109 out of 584 participants did not fully complete the survey, there were 2 survey previews and 2 people under 18, leaving 471 respondents in total. Additionally, one of the first questions was “Do you use social media sites (e.g. Instagram, YouTube, Facebook etc.)?” – 7 people answered negatively and were dropped from the survey at this point. Also, a control question in the middle asked “What color is the sky?” – as a result, one respondent answered “Green” and 3 respondents chose
“Red”, therefore these participants failed to answer control question and were not included in the further analysis. Consequently, the final number of respondents left is 460. THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 52 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Sample profile and demographics
Out of 460 respondents, 47.2% participants were male and 52.6% female (Table 3), therefore the gender distribution was almost equivalent. There were 5 groups of age with the following allocation (Table 4) – 95 respondents were between 18 – 24 making it the second largest group (21%), whereas the biggest part of survey participants (249) fell in the group between 25 – 34 years old (54%), making it the largest group of this survey. Also, 68 people were 35 – 44 years old (15%), 45 said they are between 45 – 65 (10%) and there were 3 people above 65 (0.7%).
Table 3
Demographics – Gender
Gender Frequency Percent
Male 217 47.2 Female 242 52.6 Missing 1 0.2 Total 460 100 Note. Prepared by the author of the thesis.
Table 4
Demographics – Age
Age Group Frequency Percent
18 – 24 95 20.7 25 – 34 249 54.1 35 – 44 68 14.8 45 – 65 45 9.8 More than 65 3 0.7 Total 460 100 Note. Prepared by the author of the thesis. THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 53 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Moreover, one of the first questions on the survey was about SM channels in order to learn how many social media accounts respondents have. As a result, 36% of respondents stated they have 1 – 2 accounts, the majority of survey participant (51%) have 3 – 4 accounts and 13% argued they have 5 – 6 social media accounts. In addition to that, participants were asked how much time they spend using social media sites per day. According to the results, only 13% spend less than 30 minutes, 49% spend between 1 – 2 hours per day, 21% between
2 – 3 hours and 17% of respondents stated they use social media more than 3 hours every day
(Table 5). Lastly, since the survey was about social media influencers and their posted content on Instagram, respondents had to answer if they follow any social media influencers.
As a result, 83% responded positively and 17% negatively.
Table 5
Social Media Usage
Time on SM Frequency Percent
Less than 30 minutes 61 13.3 1 – 2 hours 226 49.1 2 – 3 hours 95 20.7 More than 3 hours 78 17.0 Total 460 100 Note. Prepared by the author of the thesis.
Count of respondents in the experimental conditions
Even though the online survey tool Qualtrics allows to evenly present all elements in the experimental research, it does not necessary divide experiment conditions equivalently.
Consequently, the presented table below (Table 6) displays number of respondents in each of experimental conditions. The table below might create concerns for significance of the research results, however each condition had around 80 respondents in total. THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 54 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Table 6
Count of respondents in each experimental condition
Emotional content Entertainer Informer Virtual Total
Count 80 80 72 232 Rational content Entertainer Informer Virtual Total
Count 73 76 79 228 Total 153 156 151 460
Note. Prepared by the author of the thesis.
Manipulation Check
The manipulation check question was included in the survey after presenting
Instagram Post together with the influencer’s caption and description. In order to ensure internal validity of the experimental study online, the question was placed to test if participants paid attention to the description, content type and influencer itself. Respondents had to choose only one available answer, therefore the results were tested using Chi-Square
Test in SPSS and confirmed successful manipulation (p=.000), provided in the Table 7.
Overall, the table below outlines that majority of respondents understood the influencer and content type presented in the questionnaire correctly and realized the difference between different types of influencers. For further analysis see Appendix B.
THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 55 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Table 7
Manipulation check
Experimental Conditions Emotional Emotional Emotional Rational Rational Rational Content by Content Content Content by Content Content Influencer by by Virtual Influencer by by Virtual Entertainer Influencer Influencer Entertainer Influencer Influencer Informer Informer Infl. Count 61 13 10 37 13 15 Entertain. Percent 40.9% 8.7% 6.7% 24.8% 8.7% 10.1% Infl. Count 8 61 7 19 50 9 Informer Percent 5.2% 39.6% 4.5% 12.3% 32.5% 5.8% Virtual Count 8 5 51 12 10 52 Infl. Percent 5.8% 3.6% 37% 8.7% 7.2% 37.7% Note. Prepared by the author of the thesis.
Assessment of Scales Reliability
Cronbach’s Alpha method was used in order to evaluate the internal reliability and consistency of the scales used in the online survey. All of the scales used were adopted from different academic researchers. As presented in Table 8 below, all scales used in this research paper passed the minimal requirements for reliability, which is 0.70 or higher (Post
Evaluation scale =0.879, Brand Credibility scale =0.876, Influencer Likeability scale
=0.919, Impulsive Purchase Intention scale =0.891, Intention to Engage scale =0.904).
All scales were computed into one variable for further analysis using mean scores.
THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 56 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Table 8
Scale reliability assessment
Variable Cronbach’s N of Items Alpha Post Evaluation .879 11 Brand Credibility .876 4 Influencer Likeability .919 3 Impulsive Purchase .891 3 Intention Intention to Engage .904 3 Note. Prepared by the author of the thesis.
Descriptive Statistics
7-point Likert Scale was used for the mediator variable (Instagram Post Evaluation) as well as depended variables (Intention to Engage, Brand Credibility and Impulsive
Purchase Intention) in the survey. Thus, in order to calculate mean scores, descriptive statistics was used in SPSS (Table 9). As a result, the lowest mean score appeared for one of the dependent variables – Intention to Engage (2.8406), indicating that on average respondents slightly disagreed with their intention to like, comment or share the post. Per contra, Brand Credibility (4.4847) had the highest mean score of dependent variables.
Standard deviation numbers were close to 1 for mediator variable Post Evaluation (1.27686) and Brand Credibility (1.24782). Whereas, Impulsive Purchase Intention (1.72079) and
Intention to Engage (1.82656) were slightly higher.
THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 57 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Table 9
Descriptive Statistics
Variable Mean Std. Variance Deviation Brand Credibility 4.4847 1.24782 1.557
Impulsive Purchase 3.3050 1.72079 2.961 Intention
Intention to Engage 2.8406 1.82656 3.336
Post Evaluation 4.1834 1.27686 1.630
Note. Prepared by the author of the thesis.
Normality Analysis
All variables used in the research were tested for normal distribution using
Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk test. It is widely accepted that Shapiro-Wilk test is more valid and therefore, the null hypothesis has to be rejected in order for data to be normally distributed. According to the Table 10, all variables did not have normal distribution because the p value were less than .05 (according to Shapiro-Wilk test, post evaluation p=.017, where all other variables’ p=.000). Consequently, for this thesis non- parametric tests have to be used such as ANOVA or regression analyses. For further analysis see Appendix C.
THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 58 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Table 10
Normality Analysis
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig. Brand Credibility .088 460 .000 .978 460 .000
Impulsive Purchase .096 460 .000 .945 460 .000 Intention Intention to Engage .178 460 .000 .871 460 .000
Content Type .351 460 .000 .636 460 .000
Influencer Type .223 460 .000 .795 460 .000
Post Evaluation .047 460 .023 .992 460 .017
Note. Prepared by the author of the thesis.
Variable inter-correlation testing
In order to evaluate correlation between different scale variables, Spearman’s correlation test was applied. Spearman’s test instead of Pearson’s was chosen because variables were not normally distributed. First of all, the test was done to compare Post
Evaluation (mediator) and Intention to Engage (DV), Post Evaluation (mediator) and
Impulsive Purchase Intention (DV) as well as Post Evaluation (mediator) and Brand
Credibility (DV). Even though the perfect correlation is considered to be close to 1, all correlations proved to be significant and above 0.70. Exact correlation numbers were as follows: .704, .728, .728. For further analysis see Appendix D.
THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 59 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Hypotheses testing
Post Evaluation as dependent variable
In order to test the first hypothesis of this research paper, an Independent sample T- test was used. In the first hypothesis, it is predicted that there is a difference between two content types posted on Instagram such that emotional content will more positively affect
Instagram Post Evaluation. The results of this test suggest that both emotional and rational content will have a direct positive effect on Instagram post evaluation, without one being significantly more influential than the other (t=2.612, p=.009). However, when comparing mean scores of two content types, emotional appeared to have the highest mean score
(4.3086) and rational was slightly lower (3.9944). Therefore, the first hypothesis of this research paper is supported because the findings proved that emotional content affects
Instagram Post Evaluation more positively. For further analysis see Appendix K.
Hypotheses Results H1: There will be a difference between Content Types such that Emotional Supported Content will more positively affect Instagram Post Evaluation. Note. Prepared by the author of the thesis.
Moderation testing – Type of Influencer
For the second hypothesis of this research paper, General Linear Model was used in order to see if the type of influencer moderates the relation between influencer’s created content and Instagram post evaluation. As a result (Table 11), the interaction between content type and influencer type proved to be statistically significant (p=.039, F=3.276) as well as influencer type (p=.053, F=2.777). Consequently, the second hypothesis of this research paper is supported. THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 60 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Table 11
Univariate Linear Regression summary
Tests of Between-Subject Effects Dependent Variable: Post Evaluation Source Type III Sum df Mean Square F Sig. of Squares Corrected Model 30.679 5 6.136 3.870 .002 Intercept 7670.466 1 7670.466 4837.841 .000 Content_Type 10.304 1 10.304 6.499 .011 Influencer_Type 8.805 2 4.402 2.777 .053 Content_Type * 10.388 2 5.194 3.276 .039 Influencer_Type Error 699.212 441 1.586 Total 8448.235 447 Corrected Total 729.890 446 R Squared = .042 (Adjusted R Squared = .031) Note. Prepared by the author of the thesis.
Hypotheses Results H2: Type of Influencer will moderate the relation between Influencer's Supported Created Content and Instagram Post Evaluation. Note. Prepared by the author of the thesis.
Emotional content and Influencers “Entertainers”
In order to test H3a hypothesis, Hayes PROCESS v3.4.1 macro Model 7 (“PROCESS macro for SPSS and SAS,” n.d.) was used on perception of Instagram Post with the content type (rational versus emotional) and influencers’ type (dummy coded – entertainer). In this hypothesis, it is predicted that when influencers “entertainers” share emotional content, it will lead to consumer’s intention to engage (like, comment, share). However, the interaction between content type and influencer type turned out to be statistically non-significant
(b=.2691, se=.2577, t=1.0442, p=.2970). The effect of influencer “entertainer” on post THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 61 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE evaluation also proved to be non-significant (b=-.4714, se=.4022, t=-1.1720, p=.2418) as well as content type (b=-.2682, se=.1490, t=-1.8001, p=.0725). Therefore, the model indicates that influencer “entertainer” does not moderate the relation between content type and consumer’s intention to engage, thus the hypothesis is rejected (Table 12). For further analysis see
Appendix E.
Table 12
Moderated Mediation Model Summary
Outcome: PE Model 7 Model Summary R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p .0895 .0080 1.6314 1.1800 3.0000 438.0000 .3169 Model coeff se t p LLCI ULCI constant 4.6034 .2342 19.6589 .0000 4.1432 5.0636 CT -.2682 .1490 -1.8001 .0725 -.5611 .0246 Entert -.4714 .4022 -1.1720 .2418 -1.2620 .3191 Int_1 .2691 .2577 1.0442 .2970 -.2374 .7757 Note. Prepared by the author of the thesis.
Hypotheses Results H3a: Emotional Content shared by Influencers “Entertainers” will lead to Rejected the Consumer’s Intention to Engage via Instagram Post Evaluation.
Note. Prepared by the author of the thesis.
Moreover, to test H3b hypothesis also Model 7 was used on perception of Instagram
Post with the content type (rational versus emotional) and influencers’ type (dummy coded – entertainer). In this hypothesis, it is predicted that when influencers “entertainers” share emotional content, it will lead to consumer’s impulsive purchase intention via Instagram post evaluation. The results indicate that influencer “entertainer” does not moderate the THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 62 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE relationship and the effect is statistically non-significant (b=-.4230, se=.3982, t=-1.0624, p=.2886) as well as content type (b=-.2345, se=1486, t=-1.5778, p=.1153). Additionally, the interaction between content type and influencer type is also non-significant (b=.2431, se=.2547, t=.9544, p=.3404). Consequently, the second hypothesis of this research paper is not confirmed and rejected (Table 13). For further analysis see Appendix F.
Table 13
Moderated Mediation Model Summary
Outcome: PE Model 7 Model Summary R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p .0785 .0062 1.6118 .9069 3.0000 439.0000 .4376 Model coeff se t p LLCI ULCI constant 4.5548 .2335 19.5031 .0000 4.0958 5.0138 CT -.2345 .1486 -1.5778 .1153 -.5266 .0576 Entert -.4230 .3982 -1.0624 .2886 -1.2056 .3595 Int_1 .2431 .2547 .9544 .3404 -.2575 .7437 Note. Prepared by the author of the thesis.
Hypotheses Results H3b: Emotional Content shared by Influencers “Entertainers” will have a Rejected direct positive effect on Consumer’s Impulsive Purchase Intention via Instagram Post Evaluation. Note. Prepared by the author of the thesis.
Rational Content and Influencers “Informers”
In a hypothesis H4a, it is predicted that when influencers “informers” share rational content on their social media accounts, it will lead to the direct positive effect on brand credibility via Instagram Post Evaluation. In order to test that, macro Model 7 was used on THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 63 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE perception of Instagram Post with the content type (rational versus emotional) and influencers’ type (dummy coded – informer). As a result, the overall model is significant and p=.0040. The interaction between content type and influencer type also proved to be significant (b=-.6164, se=.2527, t=-2.4390, p=.0151) as well as the effect of influencer
“informer” (b=1.2056, se=.3949, t=3.0527, p=.0024). Consequently, the hypothesis is supported (Table 14). For further analysis see Appendix G.
Table 14
Moderated Mediation Model Summary
Outcome: PE Model 7 Model Summary R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p .1729 .0299 1.5848 4.4987 3.0000 438.0000 .0040 Model coeff se t p LLCI ULCI constant 4.0241 .2317 17.3640 .0000 3.5686 4.4796 CT .0369 .1476 .2502 .8026 -.2532 .3271 Informer 1.2056 .3949 3.0527 .0024 .4294 1.9817 Int_1 -.6164 .2527 -2.4390 .0151 -.1.1131 -.1197 Note. Prepared by the author of the thesis.
Moreover, the following hypothesis (H4b) states that content, which is rational and shared by influencers “informers” will influence consumer’s impulsive purchase intention via
Instagram post evaluation. For testing this hypothesis, macro Model 7 was used on perception of Instagram Post with the content type (rational versus emotional) and influencers’ type
(dummy coded – informer). According to the results, the effect is significant as the overall p=.0087. The interaction between content type and influencer type appeared to be significant
(b=-.5948, se=.2525, t=-2.3554, p=.0189). The effect of influencer “informer” on post evaluation also proved to be statistically significant (b=1.1540, se=.3951, t=2.9208, p=.0037). THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 64 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Therefore, rational content shared by influencers “informers” influences consumer’s impulsive purchase intention so H4b hypothesis is confirmed (Table 15). For further analysis see Appendix H.
Table 15
Moderated Mediation Model Summary
Outcome: PE Model 7 Model Summary R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p .1618 .0262 1.5794 3.9320 3.0000 439.0000 .0087 Model coeff se t p LLCI ULCI constant 4.0145 .2306 17.4112 .0000 3.5613 4,4676 CT .0522 .1469 .3555 .7224 -.2365 .3409 Informer 1.1540 .3951 2.9208 .0037 .3775 1.9305 Int_1 -.5948 .2525 -2.3554 .0189 -1.0910 -.0985 Note. Prepared by the author of the thesis.
Hypotheses Results H4a: Rational Content shared by Influencers “Informers” will have a Supported direct positive effect on Brand Credibility via Instagram Post Evaluation. H4b: Rational Content shared by Influencers “Informers” will have a Supported direct positive effect on Consumer’s Impulsive Purchase Intention via Instagram Post Evaluation. Note. Prepared by the author of the thesis.
Rational and Emotional Content and Virtual Influencers
According to H5a, when “virtual” or computer-generated influencers share emotional content on their social media accounts, it will lead to consumer’s intention to engage (like, comment, share) through Instagram post evaluation. As for previous hypotheses, Hayes THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 65 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
PROCESS v3.4.1 macro Model 7 (“PROCESS macro for SPSS and SAS,” n.d.) was used in order to test if hypothesis is rejected or supported with the content type (rational versus emotional) and influencers’ type (dummy coded – virtual). The overall significance of the model is p=.0050, hence it is still statistically significant. The effect of virtual influencer on post evaluation also proved to be statistically significant (b=-.8756, se=.4055, t=-2.1593, p=.0314) as well as content type (b=-.4537, se=.1463, t=-3.1018, p=.0020). In addition to that, the interaction effect was also statistically significant confirming that moderation effect exists (b=.4336, se=.2573, t=1.6854, p=.0426). As a result, hypothesis H5a is supported
(Table 16). For further analysis see Appendix I.
Table 16
Moderated Mediation Model Summary
Outcome: PE Model 7 Model Summary R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p .1696 .0288 1.6011 4.3318 3.0000 439.0000 .0050 Model coeff se t p LLCI ULCI constant 4.8989 .2280 21.4850 .0000 4.4507 5.3470 CT -.4537 .1463 -3.1018 .0020 -.7412 -.1662 Virtual -.8756 .4055 -2.1593 .0314 -1.6726 -.0786 Int_1 .4336 .2573 1.6854 .0426 -.0720 .9392 Note. Prepared by the author of the thesis.
To test the last hypothesis of this research paper (H5b) if rational content posted by virtual influencers have a direct positive effect on brand credibility, again Model 7 was used with the content type (rational versus emotional) and influencers’ type (dummy coded – virtual). The overall significance of the model is statistically significant with p=.0045. The effect of virtual influencer on post evaluation is also statistically significant (b=-.8849, THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 66 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE se=.4059, t=-2.1800, p=.0298) as well as content type (b=-.4482, se=.1454, t=-3.0831, p=.0022). The interaction effect between influencer and content type is also significant, signalizing that the moderation effect exists, and last hypothesis of this research paper is supported (b=.4311, se=.2575, t=1.6742, p=.0448) (Table 17). For further analysis see
Appendix J.
Table 17
Moderated Mediation Model Summary
Outcome: PE Model 7 Model Summary R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p .1711 .0293 1.5919 4.4155 3.0000 439.0000 .0045 Model coeff se t p LLCI ULCI constant 4.8940 .2266 21.5955 .0000 4.4486 5.3394 CT -.4482 .1454 -3.0831 .0022 -.7339 -.1625 Virtual -.8849 .4059 -2.1800 .0298 -1.6826 -.0871 Int_1 .4311 .2575 1.6742 .0448 -.0750 .9371 Note. Prepared by the author of the thesis.
Hypotheses Results H5a: Emotional Content shared by Virtual Influencers will lead to the Supported Consumer’s Intention to Engage via Instagram Post Evaluation. H5b: Rational Content shared by Virtual Influencers will have a direct Supported positive effect on Brand Credibility via Instagram Post Evaluation. Note. Prepared by the author of the thesis.
All other possible relationships and interactions between variables were tested, however no significant interaction was found.
THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 67 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Summary of the Empirical Research Findings
Table 18
Summary of the hypotheses testing
H1: There will be a difference between Content Types such that Supported Emotional Content will more positively affect Instagram Post Evaluation. H2: Type of Influencer will moderate the relation between Supported Influencer's Created Content and Instagram Post Evaluation.
H3a: Emotional Content shared by Influencers “Entertainers” will Rejected lead to the Consumer’s Intention to Engage via Instagram Post Evaluation. H3b: Emotional Content shared by Influencers “Entertainers” will Rejected have a direct positive effect on Consumer’s Impulsive Purchase Intention via Instagram Post Evaluation. H4a: Rational Content shared by Influencers “Informers” will have a Supported direct positive effect on Brand Credibility via Instagram Post Evaluation. H4b: Rational Content shared by Influencers “Informers” will have a Supported direct positive effect on Consumer’s Impulsive Purchase Intention via Instagram Post Evaluation.
H5a: Emotional Content shared by Virtual Influencers will lead to Supported the Consumer’s Intention to Engage via Instagram Post Evaluation. H5b: Rational Content shared by Virtual Influencers will have a Supported direct positive effect on Brand Credibility via Instagram Post Evaluation. Note. Prepared by the author of the thesis.
THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 68 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Discussion
The purpose of this research paper was to test the impact of content type posted by social media influencer on consumer’s intention to engage, impulsive purchase intention and brand credibility via Instagram post evaluation, taking into account the moderating effect of social media influencer’s type. The discussion part of empirical research results is established on three aspects. To begin with, study implications as well as contribution to the literature are discussed. After that, managerial implications are presented. Finally, limitations of the study are described and recommendations for the future researches proposed.
Study Implications and Contribution to the Literature
The primary goal of this research paper was to test the different effect between rational and emotional content on Instagram post evaluation. According to the research findings, emotional content more positively affects Instagram post evaluation compared to rational one, therefore it provides the support for the first hypothesis (H1) of the thesis. To the knowledge of the author, this specific relationship regarding which content has a more positive effect on Instagram post evaluation was not tested in the previous literature.
However, the results are not surprising, because emotional content is linked with positive emotions such as love or happiness (Grigaliunaite & Pileliene, 2016). In addition to that, in some cases emotional content includes emojis such as hearts or smiley faces which according to the literature, positively affect Instagram post evaluation (Lindell, 2019). The presented
Instagram post to the experiment participants also included emojis in the post caption, which only proved that emojis have an impact when it comes to Instagram post evaluation. To recap, positive relationship between influencer’s created emotional content and Instagram post evaluation contributes to influencer marketing and social media research topics. THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 69 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Moreover, the second hypothesis proposed that type of influencer moderates the relationship between influencer’s created content and Instagram post evaluation. The moderating variable of influencer’s type was chosen because of the previous researches done in the field of influencer marketing which predicted that post can be perceived and evaluated differently taking into account type of influencer (Hughes, Swaminathan, Brooks, 2019). As a result, the hypothesis (H2) was supported suggesting that different types of influencers
(entertainers, informers, virtual influencers) moderates the relation between influencer’s created content and Instagram post evaluation. The results contribute well to the future research topics in influencer marketing.
Furthermore, it was predicted that influencers “entertainers” who share emotional content on their social media accounts will lead to consumer’s intention to engage via
Instagram post evaluation (H3a). According to Shedu, Bijmolt & Clement (2016), consumers on social media are more likely to engage with the content which provides high entertainment and engagement levels as influencers “entertainers” do (Hughes, Swaminathan, Brooks,
2019). However, results of the research indicated that emotional content shared by influencers “entertainers” do not lead to the consumer’s intention to engage via Instagram post evaluation, thus the hypothesis was rejected. In addition to that, H3b hypothesis suggested that influencers “entertainers” who share emotional content on their social media accounts will have a direct positive effect on consumer’s impulsive purchase intention via
Instagram post evaluation. Previous researches discovered that celebrity endorsement has a direct positive effect on impulsive purchase intention (Spry, Pappu & Cornwell, 2009), thus it was expected that influencers “entertainers” will have similar effect because celebrity endorsement and influencer marketing are highly related (Qatami, 2019). As a result, the hypothesis (H3b) was rejected, because it did not prove to be statistically significant. The THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 70 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE results of H3a and H3b were surprising, because the first hypothesis (H1) supported that emotional content more positively affects Instagram post evaluation. Therefore, it was expected that the moderating effect of type of influencer (entertainer) will only strengthen this relationship and as a result, lead to consumer’s intention to engage as well as impulsive purchase intention. However, since both hypotheses were rejected it is believed that consumers do not feel comfortable enough with trusting influencers whose only goal is to provide amusement and enjoyment to the audience (Gross & Wangenheim, 2018).
The following hypothesis of this research paper predicted that influencers “informers” who share rational content on their social media accounts will have a direct positive effect on brand credibility via Instagram post evaluation (H4a). The hypothesis was raised based on the previous literature that influencers “informers” tend to be more credible because they are perceived as experts in the field (Bosworth & Murphy, 2015) and consumers tend to believe rational content is more credible rather than emotional (Dens & Pelsmacker, 2010). The results were statistically significant, therefore the hypothesis (H4a) was supported and findings will be valuable contribution for the future researches analysing influencer marketing, specifically how influencer’s type and content affects brand credibility. In addition to that, research results also confirmed that rational content shared by influencers
“informers” on their social media accounts will have a direct positive effect on consumer’s impulsive purchase intention via Instagram post evaluation, which was hypothesized in H4b.
Even though the first hypothesis of this research paper (H1) suggested that rational content has less positive effect on Instagram post evaluation compared to emotional one, when adding the moderating variable of type of influencer, all hypotheses with rational content were supported. Therefore, the findings are suggesting that consumers trust influencers THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 71 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
“informers” more and find their content more reliable. Since this specific area is not well researched yet, the findings will be important in the current and future literature.
Lastly, it was hypothesized (H5a) that virtual influencers who share emotional content on their social media accounts will lead to consumer’s intention to engage via Instagram post evaluation. Previous researchers discussed that consumers are more likely to like, comment or share the content which they find unusual and worth the discussion (Shedu, Bijmolt &
Clement, 2016). As a result, it was predicted that virtual influencers should encourage consumer’s intention to engage. The findings of the research results supported the hypothesis and it will be significant discovery for the future studies in the field of influencer marketing, particularly virtual influencers controlled by the creative agencies. Moreover, the prediction was that virtual influencers not only encourages consumer’s intention to engage with the content, but also has a direct positive effect on brand credibility when sharing rational content specifically (H5b). Virtual influencers and brand credibility relation was previously researched by Molin & Nordgren (2019). The researchers argued that virtual influencers might increase brand credibility in the long run, even though they are seen as less credible source comparing to human influencers. As a result, the findings were statistically significant, which supported previous literature done in the field of virtual influencers.
Managerial Implications
To sum up, the findings of this research paper provides recommendations and direction for influencer marketing and creative agencies that manages different types of influencers directly, also brands and marketing managers who work with influencers personally or through creative agencies, as well as influencers themselves who create the content for brands in order to make it more effective and reach the goals. According to the THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 72 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE results, it is crucial to select the right type of influencer as well as content type in order to successfully achieve company’s goals. These goals may differ across brands, and whether it is consumer’s intention to engage, impulsive purchase or brand credibility, failure of choosing the right influencer and content type may lead to unsuccessful results.
The research findings reveal that influencers “informers” who create rational content should be chosen instead of influencers “entertainers” with emotional content when the goal of a company is to encourage consumer’s impulsive purchase intention. In addition to that, virtual influencers by posting emotional content have higher impact on consumer’s intention to engage with the content rather that influencers “entertainers”. Lastly, it was found that rational content posted by influencers “informers” as well as virtual influencers both have a direct positive effect on brand credibility. This is an important finding for brands and managers when choosing the strategy to improve credibility of a brand.
Limitations and Recommendations
In this research paper, the impact of different product categories was not taken into account when conducting an experiment. However, previous researchers were discussing that high product involvement is considered to perform better with rational content rather than emotional. Per contra, emotional content might be used by influencer for consumer’s with low level of involvement into the product category (Dens & Pelsmacker, 2010). At the same time, it is believed that consumers who are highly involved into the product category are also more involved in advertising (Kim, Haley & Lee, 2008). Therefore, involvement into the product category could be addressed in the future research.
Moreover, in this research paper only Instagram as a social media platform was analyzed. However, influencer marketing is also actively used on other platforms such as THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 73 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Twitch or TikTok. There are also different formats how the message can be translated. For instance, on YouTube influencer’s content is posted in a format of short integration in the video. Consequently, different social media platforms as well as content format could be explored and investigated.
Additionally, Instagram influencer tiers (micro-influencers, mid-tier influencers, macro-influencers etc.) were not taken into account in this research paper, even though previous literature analyzing different sizes of influencers exists. For instance, it is widely known that micro influencers might be more effective while encouraging consumer’s impulsive purchase intention, because it is believed that they are more reliable and trustworthy (Gunawan & Iskandar, 2020). Thus, influencer tiers could be taken into account for future research.
Lastly, experiment was performed online, and participants were able to drop off at any point. In addition to that, possible distractions online as well as careless fill-in process may affect the survey results and participant’s attention. Hence, a recommendation for the future studies would be to perform a real-life experiment.
Conclusion THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 74 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
To conclude, the goal of the thesis was reached as well as the main research question was answered. Literature review analysis indicated that content posted on social media channels by influencers “entertainers” is emotional as it translates enjoyment, entertainment and emotions. Per contra, influencers “informers” share rational content with the goal to educate the consumer. For virtual influencers, literature review did not define whether they post rational or emotional content, thus both types of content were analyzed in the research part. The academic literature review on the first depended variable intention to engage allowed suggesting that consumers are more likely to engage with the emotional content as it offers high entertainment levels. Moreover, academic literature suggested that the second depended variable impulsive purchase intention can be encouraged by emotional content, because of consumer’s willingness to feel good, but also by rational content as consumers might have irrational need to purchase more expensive products promoted in a rational way.
Lastly, the literature suggested that brand credibility might be affected only by rational content since consumers find the ad more credible. Based on the literature findings, the conceptual model composed tested the relationship between content type posted by influencer and consumer’s intention to engage, impulsive purchase and brand credibility. Additionally, moderating effect of influencer’s type was also investigated.
In order to acknowledge the relationships proposed, quantitative research in the form of experiment was performed of random 460 respondents’ sample size. Based on the previous studies in the field of influencer marketing, it was expected that influencers “entertainers” together with emotional content will lead to consumer’s intention to engage with the
Instagram post and will encourage consumer’s impulsive purchase intention via Instagram post evaluation. The participants in the experiment were presented with Instagram post, which included emotional elements and post description with emojis such as heart and smiley THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 75 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE face. It was supported that emotional content will more positively affect Instagram post evaluation compared to rational one. However, the findings of this study indicate that emotional content posted by influencers “entertainers” will neither lead to consumer’s intention to engage, nor impulsive purchase intention, hence it can be concluded that consumers do not feel comfortable enough with trusting influencers “entertainers” whose primary goal is to deliver enjoyment or amusement to the audience.
Per contra, even though it was confirmed that rational content will less positively affect Instagram post evaluation, the research results suggested that influencers “informers” together with rational content will have a direct positive effect on brand credibility and will encourage consumer’s impulsive purchase intention via Instagram post evaluation. The participants in the experiment were presented with Instagram post which included product information as well as additional specifications in the caption. As a result, consumers find influencers “informers” content more trustworthy and reliable, because they are considered to be experts in the field and their content is usually based on the specific product information and features rather than emotions.
Based on the findings, it was also confirmed that virtual influencers together with emotional content will lead to consumer’s intention to engage with Instagram post, whereas rational content shared by virtual influencers has a direct positive effect on brand credibility via Instagram post evaluation. Therefore, even though some previous researches argued that virtual influencers might not be perceived as a credible source and therefore do not translate into increased brand credibility, the findings of this research paper showed that virtual influencers have a direct positive effect on brand credibility when posting rational content. THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 76 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
The findings of this research paper are of interest of influencer marketing and creative agencies, also brands and marketing managers. Influencer marketing strategy should be used in order to either encourage consumer’s impulsive purchase intention, intention to engage or brand credibility. As per research results, it is crucial to know which combination of influencer and content type have the highest effect while reaching specific company’s goals.
More explicitly, the research findings suggest that most of the times companies should choose influencers “informers” with rational content because of their ability to educate consumer and provide specific product information and features. Additionally, brand managers should not be afraid to collaborate with virtual influencers because consumers also trust their opinion and recommendations.
THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 77 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
References
Abd Mutalib, H., Jamil, M., Zuriana, C., Mohamed, R., & Ismail, S. N. A. (2017). Attitude,
subjective norms, perceived behavioral control and intention to share environmental
knowledge: accounting students’ perspective. International Journal of Business and
Management, 1(2), 189-196.
Abreu, R. (2019). Social media micro-infleuncer marketing and purchasing intention of
millenials: The role of perceived authenticity and trust (Doctoral dissertation, Dublin
Business School).
Al-Qatami, M. M. J. (2019). The Effects Of Social Media Influencer Attributes On
Collaborating Brand Credibility And Advocacy (Master's thesis).
Alajmi, B. M. (2012). The intention to share: psychological investigation of knowledge sharing
behaviour in online communities. Journal of Information & Knowledge
Management, 11(03), 1250022.
Alhabash, S., McAlister, A. R., Lou, C., & Hagerstrom, A. (2015). From clicks to behaviors:
The mediating effect of intentions to like, share, and comment on the relationship
between message evaluations and offline behavioral intentions. Journal of Interactive
Advertising, 15(2), 82-96.
Arechar, A. A., Gächter, S., & Molleman, L. (2018). Conducting interactive experiments
online. Experimental economics, 21(1), 99-131.
Baek, T. H., Kim, J., & Yu, J. H. (2010). The differential roles of brand credibility and brand
prestige in consumer brand choice. Psychology & Marketing, 27(7), 662-678.
Bakhshi, S., Shamma, D. A., & Gilbert, E. (2014, April). Faces engage us: Photos with faces
attract more likes and comments on instagram. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI
conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 965-974). THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 78 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Barnham, C. (2015). Quantitative and qualitative research. International Journal of Market
Research, 57(6), 837–854. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJMR-2015-070
Ben-Shaul, M., & Reichel, A. (2018). Motives, modes of participation, and loyalty intentions
of Facebook tourism brand page consumers. Journal of Travel Research, 57(4), 453-
471.
Biaudet, S. (2017). Influencer Marketing as a Marketing Tool: The process of creating an
Influencer Marketing Campaign on Instagram.
Boddy, C. (2016), "Sample size for qualitative research", Qualitative Market Research, Vol.
19 No. 4, pp. 426-432. https://doi.org/10.1108/QMR-06-2016-0053
Bosworth, A. G., & Murphy, M. P. (2015). U.S. Patent No. 8,954,503. Washington, DC: U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office.
Brinkmann, S. (2014). Unstructured and semi-structured. The Oxford handbook of qualitative
research, 277-299.
Brown, D., & Fiorella, S. (2013). Influence marketing: How to create, manage, and measure
brand influencers in social media marketing. Que Publishing.
Brown, D., Hayes, N. (2008). Influencer Marketing: Who Really Influences Your Customers?
Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Bylock, C., & Lidberg, T. (2018). # Incollaborationwith: The importance of using influencer
marketing in order to create brand awareness in international markets for e-commerce
companies.
Chaffey, D. (2014). Digital marketing Planning Template. Retrieved from
http://marangoniparis.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/digital-marketing-plan-
template-smart-insights.pdf
Chaffey, D., & Bosomworth, D. (2012). Digital Marketing Strategy, Smart Insights. Retrieved
from http://www.smartinsights.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/digital-marketing- THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 79 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
plan-template-smart-insights.pdf
Chaffey, D., & Patron, M. (2012). From web analytics to digital marketing optimization:
Increasing the commercial value of digital analytics. Journal of Direct, Data and
Digital Marketing Practice, 14(1), 30-45.
Chen, J. (2020, March 24). Social media demographics to inform your brand's strategy in 2020.
Retrieved from https://sproutsocial.com/insights/new-social-media-demographics/
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
(Routledge), 40(3), 258–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2018.1521113
Choi, D., Bang, H., Wojdynski, B. W., Lee, Y. I., & Keib, K. M. (2018). How Brand disclosure
timing and Brand prominence influence consumer's intention to share branded
entertainment content. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 42, 18-31.
Choy, L. T. (2014). The strengths and weaknesses of research methodology: Comparison and
complimentary between qualitative and quantitative approaches. IOSR Journal of
Humanities and Social Science, 19(4), 99-104.
Cohen D. (2006). Unstructured Interviews. Retrieved from http://www.qualres.org/HomeUnst-
3630.html.
Dahlqvist, J., & Preiksaite, S. (2018). How competing brands are being communicated through
Influencer Marketing: A qualitative study aimed to explore how consumers evaluate an
influencer communicating competing brands.
Darner, A., & Arvidsson, N. (2019). Virtual influencers: Anonymous celebrities on social
media.
Dawson, S., & Kim, M. (2009). External and internal trigger cues of impulse buying
online. Direct Marketing: An International Journal.
De Veirman, M., Cauberghe, V., & Hudders, L. (2017). Marketing through Instagram THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 80 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
influencers: the impact of number of followers and product divergence on brand
attitude. International Journal of Advertising, 36(5), 798-828.
Dens, N., & De Pelsmacker, P. (2010). Consumer response to different advertising appeals for
new products: The moderating influence of branding strategy and product category
involvement. Journal of Brand Management, 18(1), 50-65.
Dolan, R., Conduit, J., Frethey-Bentham, C., Fahy, J., & Goodman, S. (2019). Social media
engagement behavior A framework for engaging customers through social media
content. European Journal of Marketing, 53(10), 2213-2243.
Dreifaldt, N., & Drennan, T. (2019). DOES YOUR BRAND NEED ONLINE INFLUENCER
MARKETING? IT DEPENDS: A mixed method approach to country of origin, brand
image, and online influencer marketing on consumers’ purchase intention online.
Erdem, T., & Swait, J. (2004). Brand credibility, brand consideration, and choice. Journal of
consumer research, 31(1), 191-198.
GARLAND, C. (2018). How to Measure the Value of Influencer Marketing: By applying the
principles of growth marketing to influencer marketing, brands can now effectively
track the success of an influencer partnership; Part 2 of a 3-part series. Global Cosmetic
Industry,186(6),22–25. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bsu&AN=130011715&site=e
host-live
Gillin, P. (2008). New media, new influencers and implications for the public relations
profession. Journal of New Communications Research, 2(2), 1-10.
Gineikiene, J. (n.d.). Research designs. ISM University of Management and Economics,
Vilnius, Lithuania.
Ginsberg, D. (2011). Qualtrics Demonstration.
Gong, W., & Maddox, L. M. (2003). Measuring web advertising effectiveness in THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 81 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
China. Journal of Advertising Research, 43(1), 34-49.
Granjon, V., & Benedic, R. (2017). Instagram's Social Media Influencers: A study of Online
Popularity From Source Credibility to Brand Attitude.
Grigaliunaite, V., & Pileliene, L. (2016). Emotional or rational? The determination of the
influence of advertising appeal on advertising effectiveness. Scientific Annals of
Economics and Business, 63(3), 391-414.
Gross, J., & Wangenheim, F. V. (2018). The Big Four of Influencer Marketing. A Typology
of Influencers. Marketing Review St. Gallen, 2, 30-38.
Gunawan, N. P., & Iskandar, I. B. P. (2020). Analyzing the Impact of Fashion Influencer on
Online Impulsive Buying Behavior. KnE Social Sciences, 350-363.
Hanzaee, K. H., & Taghipourian, M. J. (2012). The effects of brand credibility and prestige on
consumers purchase intention in low and high product involvement. Journal of Basic
and Applied Scientific Research, 2(2), 1281-1291.
Helmenstine, T. (2018). Understand the Difference Between Independent and Dependent
Variables. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/independent-and-dependent-
variables-differences-606115.
Herrmann, B. F. (2019). A influenciadora artificial: um estudo sobre as modulações imagéticas
do Instagram e os Avatar Influencers através do perfil de Lil Miquela.
Hollebeek, L. D., Glynn, M. S., & Brodie, R. J. (2014). Consumer brand engagement in social
media: Conceptualization, scale development and validation. Journal of interactive
marketing, 28(2), 149-165.
Holt, D. (2016). Branding in the age of social media. Harvard business review, 94(3), 40-50.
Hughes, C., Swaminathan, V., & Brooks, G. (2019). Driving Brand Engagement Through
Online Social Influencers: An Empirical Investigation of Sponsored Blogging
Campaigns. Journal of Marketing, 83(5), 78–96. THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 82 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242919854374
Johansen, I. K., & Guldvik, C. S. (2017). Influencer marketing and purchase intentions: how
does influencer marketing affect purchase intentions? (Master's thesis).
John, A. M. (2019). THE ROLE OF SOCIAL MEDIA INFLUENCERS IN DIGITAL
MARKETING ERA-AN ANALYTICAL STUDY. Journal of the Gujarat Research
Society, 21(16s), 125-130.
Kellogg, K. (2020, February 5). The 7 Biggest Social Media Sites in 2020. Retrieved from
https://www.searchenginejournal.com/social-media/biggest-social-media-sites/#close
Kim, C., & Yang, S. U. (2017). Like, comment, and share on Facebook: How each behavior
differs from the other. Public Relations Review, 43(2), 441-449.
Kim, S., Haley, E., & Lee, Y. J. (2008). Does consumers' product-related involvement matter
when it comes to corporate ads?. Journal of Current Issues & Research in
Advertising, 30(2), 37-48.
Konstantopoulou A., Rizomyliotis I., Konstantoulaki K., Badahdah R., (2018). "Improving
SMEs’ competitiveness with the use of Instagram influencer advertising and eWOM",
International Journal of Organizational Analysis, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-04-
2018-1406.
Kusumasondjaja, S. (2018). The roles of message appeals and orientation on social media
brand communication effectiveness. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics.
Lampeitl, A., & Åberg, P. (2017). The Role of Influencers in Generating Customer-Based
Brand Equity & Brand-Promoting User-Generated Content.
Laroche, M., Nepomuceno, M. V., & Richard, M. O. (2010). How do involvement and product
knowledge affect the relationship between intangibility and perceived risk for brands
and product categories?. Journal of Consumer Marketing.
Latifi, S. (Ed.). (2018). Information Technology-New Generations: 15th International THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 83 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Conference on Information Technology (Vol. 738). Springer.
Lindell, A. K. (2019). Left cheek poses garner more likes: the effect of pose orientation on
Instagram engagement. Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition, 24(5),
600-613.
Lim, P. L., & Yazdanifard, R. (2015). What internal and external factors influence impulsive
buying behavior in online shopping?. Global Journal of Management and Business
Research.
Lim, W. M., Teh, P. L., & Ahmed, P. K. (2018). It is not about what you read, but how you
read it: the effects of sequencing rational and emotional messages on corporate and
product brand attitudes. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 26(4), 339-355.
Lou, C., & Kim, H. K. (2019). Fancying the New Rich and Famous? Explicating the Roles of
Influencer Content, Credibility, and Parental Mediation in Adolescents’ Parasocial
Relationship, Materialism, and Purchase Intentions. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2567.
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.
Lowhorn, G. L. (2007, May). Qualitative and quantitative research: How to choose the best
design. In Academic Business World International Conference. Nashville, Tennessee.
Lu, L.-C., Chang, W.-P., & Chang, H.-H. (2014). Consumer attitudes toward blogger’s
sponsored recommendations and purchase intention: The effect of sponsorship type,
product type, and brand awareness. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 258–266.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.007
Manchón, L. M. (2014). Rational VS Emotional Content in Mobile Advertising. Pensar La
Publicidad, 8(2), 257-275.
Marwick, A. E. (2018). The Algorithmic Celebrity: The Future of Internet Fame and THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 84 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Microcelebrity Studies. Microcelebrity Around the Globe: Approaches to Cultures of
Internet Fame, 161.
McDermott, R. (2011). Internal and external validity. Cambridge handbook of experimental
political science, 27-40.
Mittal, V., Kaul, A., Gupta, S. S., & Arora, A. (2017). Multivariate features based instagram
post analysis to enrich user experience. Procedia computer science, 122, 138-145.
Molin, V., & Nordgren, S. (2019). Robot or Human? The Marketing Phenomenon of Virtual
Influencers: A Case Study About Virtual Influencers’ Parasocial Interaction on
Instagram.
Obermiller, C., & Spangenberg, E. R. (1998). Development of a scale to measure consumer
skepticism toward advertising. Journal of consumer psychology, 7(2), 159-186.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2000). Expanding the Framework of Internal and External Validity in
Quantitative Research.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Collins, K. M. (2007). A typology of mixed methods sampling designs
in social science research. The qualitative report, 12(2), 281-316.
Percy, L., & Donovan, R. J. (1991). A better advertising planning grid. Journal of advertising
research, 31(5), 11-21.
Picone, I., De Wolf, R., & Robijt, S. (2016). Who shares what with whom and why? News
sharing profiles amongst Flemish news users. Digital journalism, 4(7), 921-932.
Puyvelde, D. V. (2018). Qualitative Research Interviews and the Study of National Security
Intelligence. International Studies Perspectives, 19(4), 375–391.
https://doi.org/10.1093/isp/eky001
Ratchford, B. T., & Vaughn, R. (1989). On the relationship between motives and purchase
decisions: Some empirical approaches. ACR North American Advances.
Rutberg, S., & Bouikidis, C. D. (2018). Focusing on the fundamentals: A simplistic THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 85 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
differentiation between qualitative and quantitative research. Nephrology Nursing
Journal, 45(2), 209-213.
Sampling. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.statisticssolutions.com/sample-size-calculation-
and-sample-size-justification/sampling/.
Sharma, S., & Crossler, R. E. (2014). Intention to engage in social commerce: Uses and
gratifications approach.
Shehu, E., Bijmolt, T. H., & Clement, M. (2016). Effects of likeability dynamics on consumers'
intention to share online video advertisements. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 35,
27-43.
Söderberg Stenman, M., & Axelsson, I. (2019). Fake it'til you make it! Influencer Marketing
2.0: Verkliga-och Artificiella Influencers påverkan på konsumenters
varumärkespercepion, från ett autenticitetsperspektiv.
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 Consumer Services, 53.
Stubb, C., Nyström, A.-G., & Colliander, J. (2019). Influencer marketing: The impact of
disclosing sponsorship compensation justification on sponsored content effectiveness.
Journal of Communication Management, 23(2), 109–122.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-11-2018-0119
Swani, K., Milne, G., & Brown, B. P. (2013). Spreading the word through likes on
Facebook. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing.
Tsimonis, G. and Dimitriadis, S. (2014), "Brand strategies in social media", Marketing
Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 328-344. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-04-
2013-0056
Um, N. H. (2008). Exploring the effects of single vs. multiple products and multiple celebrity THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 86 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
endorsements. Journal of Management and Social Sciences, 4(2), 104-114.
Valentini, C., Romenti, S., Murtarelli, G. and Pizzetti, M. (2018), "Digital visual engagement:
influencing purchase intentions on Instagram", Journal of Communication
Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 362-381. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-01-2018-
0005 van Dam, S., & van Reijmersdal, E. A. (2019). Insights in Adolescents’ Advertising Literacy,
Perceptions and Responses Regarding Sponsored Influencer Videos and Disclosures.
Cyberpsychology, 13(2), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2019-2-2
Vinerean, S. (2017). Importance of strategic social media marketing. Expert journal of
marketing, 5(1).
Virvilaitė, R., Saladienė, V., & Žvinklytė, J. (2011). The impact of external and internal stimuli
on impulsive purchasing. Ekonomika ir vadyba, (16), 1329-1336.
Voorveld, H. A., van Noort, G., Muntinga, D. G., & Bronner, F. (2018). Engagement with
social media and social media advertising: The differentiating role of platform
type. Journal of advertising, 47(1), 38-54.
Wang, S. W., & Scheinbaum, A. C. (2017). Trustworthiness Trumps attractiveness and
expertise: Enhancing brand credibility through celebrity endorsement. Journal of
Advertising Research.
Wang, X., & Yang, Z. (2010). The effect of brand credibility on consumers’ brand purchase
intention in emerging economies: The moderating role of brand awareness and brand
image. Journal of Global Marketing, 23(3), 177-188.
Woods, S. (2016). # Sponsored: The emergence of influencer marketing.
Wu, G. (2007). Applying the Rossiter-Percy grid to online advertising planning: the role of
product/brand type in previsit intentions. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 8(1), 15-
22. THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 87 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Yssel, J. C. (1994). An evaluation of advertising strategies developed according to the FCB
grid and the Bendinger formula (Doctoral dissertation).
THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 88 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Appendices
Appendix A
Questionnaire
The following questionnaire was prepared for the master thesis at ISM University of Management and Economics. The purpose of this research is to test consumers' reactions to influencers' Instagram posts.
Your IP address will be known to the researching student, their supervisor(s) and the authorized university representatives such as programme director, defense committee, and committee on ethics. The IP address data will be stored in password-protected computers. We do not actively collect other personal data, such as your physical location.
If you have any questions on data protection prior to or after the participation, please contact research conducting student [email protected] or [email protected].
[Click here]: I have read the information above and I consent my data to be collected for the purposes stated above.
Screening questions 1. Do you use social media sites (e.g. Instagram, YouTube, Facebook etc.)?
Yes
No
2. How many accounts you have on social media sites?
1 – 2 accounts
3 – 4 accounts
5 – 6 accounts
3. Do you have an account on Instagram?
Yes
No
4. How much time do you spend on social media sites per day?
Less than 30 minutes THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 89 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
1 – 2 hours
2 – 3 hours
More than 3 hours
5. Do you follow any social media influencers/bloggers (online personalities, who can influence consumer’s opinion) on social media sites? Yes
No
Emotional Content Posts:
INFLUENCER Entertainer INFLUENCER Informer Virtual Influencer
@Mynameisjules @Mynameisjules @Mynameisjules We all want our teeth and hygiene to We all want our teeth and hygiene to We all want our teeth and hygiene be as fresh as it can be be as fresh as it can be to be as fresh as it can be Our loved ones deserve the best this Our loved ones deserve the best this Our loved ones deserve the best this holiday season, and OralCare is just holiday season, and OralCare is just holiday season, and OralCare is just that! Make your relatives smile even that! Make your relatives smile even that! Make your relatives smile more often ♡ more often ♡ even more often ♡
Jules is a social media influencer, Jules is a social media influencer Jules is a virtual social media based in Canada. She posts about and dentist, based in Canada. She influencer (fictional character), fashion, travel and everyday life on posts about teeth correction, created by the creative agency in her social media account. In this treatments and provides information Canada. She posts about fashion, post, Jules is promoting an electric about oral hygiene on her social modelling and everyday life. In this toothbrush “OralCare”. Post also media account. In this post, Jules is post, Jules is promoting an electric includes emotions and holiday promoting an electric toothbrush toothbrush “OralCare”. Post also mood. “OralCare”. Post also includes includes emotions and holiday emotions and holiday mood. mood.
THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 90 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Rational Content Posts:
INFLUENCER Entertainer INFLUENCER Informer Virtual Influencer
@Mynameisjules @Mynameisjules @Mynameisjules The newest and most advanced The newest and most advanced The newest and most advanced OralCare electric toothbrush does all OralCare electric toothbrush does all OralCare electric toothbrush does all the work for you. It has five the work for you. It has five the work for you. It has five brushing modes, wireless charger, brushing modes, wireless charger, brushing modes, wireless charger, and much more! Use a code and much more! Use a code and much more! Use a code “mynameisjules” for 15% discount. “mynameisjules” for 15% discount. “mynameisjules” for 15% discount.
Jules is a social media influencer, Jules is a social media influencer Jules is a virtual social media based in Canada. She posts about and dentist, based in Canada. She influencer (fictional character), fashion, travel and everyday life on posts about teeth correction, created by the creative agency in her social media account. In this treatments and provides information Canada. She posts about fashion, post, Jules is promoting an electric about oral hygiene on her social modelling and everyday life. In this toothbrush “OralCare”. Post also media account. In this post, Jules is post, Jules is promoting an electric includes facts, features and promoting an electric toothbrush toothbrush “OralCare”. Post also information about the product. “OralCare”. Post also includes facts, includes facts, features and features and information about the information about the product. product.
6. While answering the below provided question refer to the social media post presented above.
Which of the below is correct? Manipulation check
6.1 Jules is a social media influencer, who talks about latest fashion trends and entertains people online 6.2 Jules is a social media influencer and expert in her field, who shares her knowledge about the specific topics and informs people online 6.3 Jules is a social media influencer, who was generated by the creative agency and is not real
THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 91 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
7. While answering the below provided question refer to the social media post presented above.
Please indicate the extent of the agreement with the following statements, in which 1 stands for “strongly disagree” and 7 means “strongly agree”. Post Evaluation (adapted from Obermiller & Spangenberg, 1998; Gong & Maddox, 2003).
7.1 I believe this Instagram post is entertaining 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7.2 I believe this Instagram post is informative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7.3 I believe this Instagram post is attractive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7.4 I believe this Instagram post fits social media well 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7.5 I believe this Instagram post is boring 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7.6 I believe this Instagram post provides with essential 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 information about the product
7.7 I believe this Instagram post tells the truth 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7.8 I believe this Instagram post is a reliable source of information 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7.9 I believe this Instagram post presents a true picture of the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 product 7.10 This Instagram post makes me curious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7.11 In general, I like this Instagram post 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. Imagine the company just launched a new product – the electric toothbrush named “OralCare”. Referring to the social media post presented above, please indicate the extent of the agreement with the following statements, in which 1 stands for “strongly disagree” and 7 means “strongly agree”. Brand Credibility (adapted from Spry, Pappu & Cornwell, 2011)
8.1 This brand delivers what it promises 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8.2 This brand has a name you can trust 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8.3 This brand’s product claims are believable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8.4 This brand doesn’t pretend to be something it isn’t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. What color is the sky? Control Question Green
Purple
Blue
10. Referring to the social media post presented above, please indicate the extent of the agreement with the following statements, in which 1 stands for “strongly disagree” and 7 means “strongly agree”. Influencer Likeability (Um, 2008)
10.1 This social media influencer is very likeable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 92 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
10.2 This social media influencer is very agreeable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10.3 This social media influencer is very pleasant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. Referring to the social media post presented above, please indicate the extent of the agreement with the following statements, in which 1 stands for “strongly disagree” and 7 means “strongly agree”. Impulsive Purchase Intention (adapted from Lou & Kim, 2019)
11.1 I would likely buy this product right away, because I saw it on 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 this influencer’s post. 11.2 I would likely visit an online store or actual store of this 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 product, because I saw it on this influencer’s post. 11.3 I would likely buy this product if I need it in the future, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 because I saw it on this influencer’s post.
12. Referring to the social media post presented above, please indicate the extent of the agreement with the following statements, in which 1 stands for “strongly disagree” and 7 means “strongly agree”. Intention to Engage (adapted from Alhabash, McAlister, Lou & Hagerstrom, 2015)
12.1 It is very likely that I will “like” this influencer’s post. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12.2 It is very likely that I will “comment” on this influencer’s post. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12.3 It is very likely that I will “share” this influencer’s post. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13. Please indicate your gender
Male
Female
14. Please indicate your age
Up to 18
18 – 24
25 – 34
35 – 44
45 – 65
More than 65
THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 93 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
15. Please indicate your education level
High School
Bachelor’s degree
Master’s degree
PHD and above
Other
THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 94 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Appendix B. Manipulation Check (Chi-Square).
THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 95 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Appendix C. Normality Tests.
Intention to engage (Histogram and Normal Q-Q Plot)
Impulsive purchase (Histogram and Normal Q-Q Plot)
THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 96 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Brand Credibility (Histogram and Normal Q-Q Plot)
Post Evaluation (Histogram and Normal Q-Q Plot)
THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 97 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Appendix D. Spearman’s correlation test.
Post Evaluation (mediator) and Intention to Engage (DV)
Post Evaluation (mediator) and Impulsive Purchase Intention (DV)
Post Evaluation (mediator) and Brand Credibility (DV)
THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 98 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Appendix E. Post Evaluation as moderator, Intention to Engage as DV (H3a).
Model : 7 Y : Intentio X : Content_ M : Post_eva W : Entertai
Sample Size: 460
************************************************************************** OUTCOME VARIABLE: Post_eva
Model Summary R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p .0895 .0080 1.6314 1.1800 3.0000 438.0000 .3169
Model coeff se t p LLCI ULCI constant 4.6034 .2342 19.6589 .0000 4.1432 5.0636 Content_ -.2682 .1490 -1.8001 .0725 -.5611 .0246 Entertai -.4714 .4022 -1.1720 .2418 -1.2620 .3191 Int_1 .2691 .2577 1.0442 .2970 -.2374 .7757
Product terms key: Int_1 : Content_ x Entertai
Test(s) of highest order unconditional interaction(s): R2-chng F df1 df2 p X*W .0025 1.0904 1.0000 438.0000 .2970 ------Focal predict: Content_ (X) Mod var: Entertai (W)
Data for visualizing the conditional effect of the focal predictor: Paste text below into a SPSS syntax window and execute to produce plot.
DATA LIST FREE/ Content_ Entertai Post_eva . BEGIN DATA. 1.0000 .0000 4.3352 2.0000 .0000 4.0669 1.0000 1.0000 4.1329 2.0000 1.0000 4.1338 END DATA. GRAPH/SCATTERPLOT= THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 99 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Content_ WITH Post_eva BY Entertai .
************************************************************************** OUTCOME VARIABLE: Intentio
Model Summary R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p .6964 .4849 1.6800 206.6362 2.0000 439.0000 .0000
Model coeff se t p LLCI ULCI constant -1.2944 .2891 -4.4772 .0000 -1.8627 -.7262 Content_ .0088 .1237 .0710 .9434 -.2343 .2518 Post_eva .9820 .0484 20.2850 .0000 .8869 1.0771
****************** DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF X ON Y *****************
Direct effect of X on Y Effect se t p LLCI ULCI .0088 .1237 .0710 .9434 -.2343 .2518
Conditional indirect effects of X on Y:
INDIRECT EFFECT: Content_ -> Post_eva -> Intentio
Entertai Effect BootSE BootLLCI BootULCI .0000 -.2634 .1475 -.5546 .0211 1.0000 .0009 .1971 -.3835 .3836
Index of moderated mediation (difference between conditional indirect effects): Index BootSE BootLLCI BootULCI Entertai .2643 .2463 -.2228 .7379
THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 100 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Appendix F. Post Evaluation as moderator, Impulsive Purchase Intention as DV (H3b).
Model : 7 Y : Impulsiv X : Content_ M : Post_eva W : Entertai
Sample Size: 460
************************************************************************** OUTCOME VARIABLE: Post_eva
Model Summary R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p .0785 .0062 1.6118 .9069 3.0000 439.0000 .4376
Model coeff se t p LLCI ULCI constant 4.5548 .2335 19.5031 .0000 4.0958 5.0138 Content_ -.2345 .1486 -1.5778 .1153 -.5266 .0576 Entertai -.4230 .3982 -1.0624 .2886 -1.2056 .3595 Int_1 .2431 .2547 .9544 .3404 -.2575 .7437
Product terms key: Int_1 : Content_ x Entertai
Test(s) of highest order unconditional interaction(s): R2-chng F df1 df2 p X*W .0021 .9108 1.0000 439.0000 .3404 ------Focal predict: Content_ (X) Mod var: Entertai (W)
Data for visualizing the conditional effect of the focal predictor: Paste text below into a SPSS syntax window and execute to produce plot.
DATA LIST FREE/ Content_ Entertai Post_eva . BEGIN DATA. 1.0000 .0000 4.3203 2.0000 .0000 4.0858 1.0000 1.0000 4.1404 2.0000 1.0000 4.1490 END DATA. GRAPH/SCATTERPLOT= THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 101 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Content_ WITH Post_eva BY Entertai .
************************************************************************** OUTCOME VARIABLE: Impulsiv
Model Summary R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p .7401 .5477 1.3157 266.3836 2.0000 440.0000 .0000
Model coeff se t p LLCI ULCI constant -.9549 .2554 -3.7380 .0002 -1.4569 -.4528 Content_ .0585 .1092 .5357 .5924 -.1562 .2732 Post_eva .9934 .0431 23.0665 .0000 .9087 1.0780
****************** DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF X ON Y *****************
Direct effect of X on Y Effect se t p LLCI ULCI .0585 .1092 .5357 .5924 -.1562 .2732
Conditional indirect effects of X on Y:
INDIRECT EFFECT: Content_ -> Post_eva -> Impulsiv
Entertai Effect BootSE BootLLCI BootULCI .0000 -.2329 .1487 -.5292 .0594 1.0000 .0085 .2041 -.4060 .4061
Index of moderated mediation (difference between conditional indirect effects): Index BootSE BootLLCI BootULCI Entertai .2415 .2524 -.2564 .7331
THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 102 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Appendix G. Post Evaluation as moderator, Brand Credibility as DV (H4a).
Model : 7 Y : Brand_cr X : Content_ M : Post_eva W : Informer
Sample Size: 460
************************************************************************** OUTCOME VARIABLE: Post_eva
Model Summary R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p .1729 .0299 1.5848 4.4987 3.0000 438.0000 .0040
Model coeff se t p LLCI ULCI constant 4.0241 .2317 17.3640 .0000 3.5686 4.4796 Content_ .0369 .1476 .2502 .8026 -.2532 .3271 Informer 1.2056 .3949 3.0527 .0024 .4294 1.9817 Int_1 -.6164 .2527 -2.4390 .0151 -1.1131 -.1197
Product terms key: Int_1 : Content_ x Informer
Test(s) of highest order unconditional interaction(s): R2-chng F df1 df2 p X*W .0132 5.9488 1.0000 438.0000 .0151 ------Focal predict: Content_ (X) Mod var: Informer (W)
Conditional effects of the focal predictor at values of the moderator(s):
Informer Effect se t p LLCI ULCI .0000 .0369 .1476 .2502 .8026 -.2532 .3271 1.0000 -.5795 .2051 -2.8250 .0049 -.9826 -.1763
Data for visualizing the conditional effect of the focal predictor: Paste text below into a SPSS syntax window and execute to produce plot.
DATA LIST FREE/ Content_Type Informer Post_evaluation . BEGIN DATA. THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 103 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
1.0000 .0000 4.0610 2.0000 .0000 4.0980 1.0000 1.0000 4.6502 2.0000 1.0000 4.0707 END DATA. GRAPH/SCATTERPLOT= Content_Type WITH Post_evaluation BY Informer .
************************************************************************** OUTCOME VARIABLE: Brand_cr
Model Summary R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p .7248 .5254 .7405 242.9738 2.0000 439.0000 .0000
Model coeff se t p LLCI ULCI constant 1.3963 .1923 7.2623 .0000 1.0184 1.7742 Content_ .0878 .0821 1.0694 .2855 -.0736 .2492 Post_eva .7107 .0322 22.0395 .0000 .6473 .7741
****************** DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF X ON Y *****************
Direct effect of X on Y Effect se t p LLCI ULCI .0878 .0821 1.0694 .2855 -.0736 .2492
Conditional indirect effects of X on Y:
INDIRECT EFFECT: Content_ -> Post_eva -> Brand_cr
Informer Effect BootSE BootLLCI BootULCI .0000 .0263 .1018 -.1748 .2194 1.0000 -.4118 .1490 -.7167 -.1179
Index of moderated mediation (difference between conditional indirect effects): Index BootSE BootLLCI BootULCI Informer -.4381 .1802 -.7959 -.0930
THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 104 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Appendix H. Post Evaluation as moderator, Impulsive Purchase Intention as DV (H4b).
Model : 7 Y : Impulsiv X : Content_ M : Post_eva W : Informer
Sample Size: 460
************************************************************************** OUTCOME VARIABLE: Post_eva
Model Summary R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p .1618 .0262 1.5794 3.9320 3.0000 439.0000 .0087
Model coeff se t p LLCI ULCI constant 4.0145 .2306 17.4112 .0000 3.5613 4.4676 Content_ .0522 .1469 .3555 .7224 -.2365 .3409 Informer 1.1540 .3951 2.9208 .0037 .3775 1.9305 Int_1 -.5948 .2525 -2.3554 .0189 -1.0910 -.0985
Product terms key: Int_1 : Content_ x Informer
Test(s) of highest order unconditional interaction(s): R2-chng F df1 df2 p X*W .0123 5.5480 1.0000 439.0000 .0189 ------Focal predict: Content_ (X) Mod var: Informer (W)
Conditional effects of the focal predictor at values of the moderator(s):
Informer Effect se t p LLCI ULCI .0000 .0522 .1469 .3555 .7224 -.2365 .3409 1.0000 -.5425 .2054 -2.6415 .0085 -.9462 -.1389
Data for visualizing the conditional effect of the focal predictor: Paste text below into a SPSS syntax window and execute to produce plot.
DATA LIST FREE/ Content_ Informer Post_eva . BEGIN DATA. THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 105 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
1.0000 .0000 4.0667 2.0000 .0000 4.1189 1.0000 1.0000 4.6259 2.0000 1.0000 4.0833 END DATA. GRAPH/SCATTERPLOT= Content_ WITH Post_eva BY Informer .
************************************************************************** OUTCOME VARIABLE: Impulsiv
Model Summary R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p .7401 .5477 1.3157 266.3836 2.0000 440.0000 .0000
Model coeff se t p LLCI ULCI constant -.9549 .2554 -3.7380 .0002 -1.4569 -.4528 Content_ .0585 .1092 .5357 .5924 -.1562 .2732 Post_eva .9934 .0431 23.0665 .0000 .9087 1.0780
****************** DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF X ON Y *****************
Direct effect of X on Y Effect se t p LLCI ULCI .0585 .1092 .5357 .5924 -.1562 .2732
Conditional indirect effects of X on Y:
INDIRECT EFFECT: Content_ -> Post_eva -> Impulsiv
Informer Effect BootSE BootLLCI BootULCI .0000 .0519 .1468 -.2363 .3400 1.0000 -.5389 .2041 -.9354 -.1408
Index of moderated mediation (difference between conditional indirect effects): Index BootSE BootLLCI BootULCI Informer -.5908 .2507 -1.0807 -.0982
THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 106 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Appendix I. Post Evaluation as moderator, Intention to Engage as DV (H5a).
Model : 7 Y : Intentio X : Content_ M : Post_eva W : Virtual
Sample Size: 460
************************************************************************** OUTCOME VARIABLE: Post_eva
Model Summary R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p .1696 .0288 1.6011 4.3318 3.0000 439.0000 .0050
Model coeff se t p LLCI ULCI constant 4.8989 .2280 21.4850 .0000 4.4507 5.3470 Content_ -.4537 .1463 -3.1018 .0020 -.7412 -.1662 Virtual -.8756 .4055 -2.1593 .0314 -1.6726 -.0786 Int_1 .4336 .2573 1.6854 .0426 -.0720 .9392
Product terms key: Int_1 : Content_ x Virtual
Test(s) of highest order unconditional interaction(s): R2-chng F df1 df2 p X*W .0063 2.8406 1.0000 439.0000 .0426 ------Focal predict: Content_ (X) Mod var: Virtual (W)
Conditional effects of the focal predictor at values of the moderator(s):
Virtual Effect se t p LLCI ULCI .0000 -.4537 .1463 -3.1018 .0020 -.7412 -.1662 1.0000 -.0201 .2116 -.0950 .9244 -.4360 .3958
************************************************************************** OUTCOME VARIABLE: Intentio
Model Summary R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 107 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
.6642 .4412 1.8311 173.7042 2.0000 440.0000 .0000
Model coeff se t p LLCI ULCI constant -1.3096 .3093 -4.2342 .0000 -1.9174 -.7017 Content_ .1507 .1297 1.1624 .2457 -.1041 .4055 Post_eva .9431 .0507 18.6024 .0000 .8434 1.0427
****************** DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF X ON Y *****************
Direct effect of X on Y Effect se t p LLCI ULCI .1507 .1297 1.1624 .2457 -.1041 .4055
Conditional indirect effects of X on Y:
INDIRECT EFFECT: Content_ -> Post_eva -> Intentio
Virtual Effect BootSE BootLLCI BootULCI .0000 -.4279 .1424 -.7176 -.1622 1.0000 -.0190 .1944 -.4037 .3537
Index of moderated mediation (difference between conditional indirect effects): Index BootSE BootLLCI BootULCI Virtual .4089 .2390 -.0637 .8755
THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 108 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Appendix J. Post Evaluation as moderator, Brand Credibility as DV (H5b).
Model : 7 Y : Brand_cr X : Content_ M : Post_eva W : Virtual
Sample Size: 460
************************************************************************** OUTCOME VARIABLE: Post_eva
Model Summary R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p .1711 .0293 1.5919 4.4155 3.0000 439.0000 .0045
Model coeff se t p LLCI ULCI constant 4.8940 .2266 21.5955 .0000 4.4486 5.3394 Content_ -.4482 .1454 -3.0831 .0022 -.7339 -.1625 Virtual -.8849 .4059 -2.1800 .0298 -1.6826 -.0871 Int_1 .4311 .2575 1.6742 .0448 -.0750 .9371
Product terms key: Int_1 : Content_ x Virtual
Test(s) of highest order unconditional interaction(s): R2-chng F df1 df2 p X*W .0062 2.8029 1.0000 439.0000 .0448 ------Focal predict: Content_ (X) Mod var: Virtual (W)
Conditional effects of the focal predictor at values of the moderator(s):
Virtual Effect se t p LLCI ULCI .0000 -.4482 .1454 -3.0831 .0022 -.7339 -.1625 1.0000 -.0171 .2125 -.0805 .9359 -.4348 .4006
************************************************************************** OUTCOME VARIABLE: Brand_cr
Model Summary R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 109 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
.7058 .4981 .7812 218.3714 2.0000 440.0000 .0000
Model coeff se t p LLCI ULCI constant 1.3463 .2022 6.6578 .0000 .9489 1.7437 Content_ .1820 .0847 2.1491 .0322 .0156 .3484 Post_eva .6936 .0332 20.8936 .0000 .6284 .7589
****************** DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF X ON Y *****************
Direct effect of X on Y Effect se t p LLCI ULCI .1820 .0847 2.1491 .0322 .0156 .3484
Conditional indirect effects of X on Y:
INDIRECT EFFECT: Content_ -> Post_eva -> Brand_cr
Virtual Effect BootSE BootLLCI BootULCI .0000 -.3109 .1035 -.5118 -.1095 1.0000 -.0119 .1471 -.2996 .2725
Index of moderated mediation (difference between conditional indirect effects): Index BootSE BootLLCI BootULCI Virtual .2990 .1804 -.0518 .6588
THE IMPACT OF INFLUENCER’S CONTENT ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: THE 110 MODERATING EFFECT OF INFLUENCER’S TYPE
Appendix K. T-test.