Journal of Business Research 186 (2025) 114991

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

Predictors of social media influencer marketing effectiveness: A

comprehensive literature review and meta-analysis☆
Katja Spörl-Wang *, Franziska Krause , Sven Henkel
EBS University, Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Following an increased research focus on influencer marketing and social media influencers (SMIs) in recent
Social media influencers years, marketers continue to face the critical challenge of selecting effective SMIs for their campaigns. This
Influencer marketing difficulty is compounded by the fact that much empirical research is based on single-theory approaches, offering
Influencer marketing effectiveness
limited predictors and hindering the development of broad practical and theoretical insights. To address this gap,
Literature review
Meta-analysis
this paper aims to provide a comprehensive and structured overview of predictors of SMI marketing effectiveness
Social media through both qualitative and quantitative analysis. Based on a review of 93 articles, covering 108 studies, 56
predictors, and seven dependent measures of SMI marketing effectiveness, this paper introduces a generalized
framework for SMI marketing effectiveness and confirms 11 predictors of customer engagement and seven of
purchase intention, which are both key measures of effectiveness, clarifying previously inconsistent findings.

1. Introduction et al., 2022), the elaboration likelihood model (e.g., Hughes et al., 2019;
M. T. Lee & Theokary, 2021; Pozharliev et al., 2022; Sokolova & Kefi,
In the last decade, influencer marketing has rapidly emerged as a 2020; Waltenrath et al., 2022), or source credibility (e.g., Cosenza et al.,
vital sector in marketing, witnessing widespread adoption among in­ 2014; De Vries, 2019; Lou & Yuan, 2019; Uribe et al., 2016; Yuan & Lou,
dustry professionals. By 2024, expenditure on influencer marketing had 2020), from which they derived a countable number of predictors of SMI
reached $35 billion, with forecasts indicating a further 10 % annual marketing effectiveness. Various studies have explored how account
growth until 2029 (Statista Market Insights, 2024). Notably, 65 % of characteristics, such as the number of followers or SMIs, impact influ­
marketers had implemented influencer marketing strategies in the pre­ encer marketing effectiveness (De Vries, 2019; Tafesse & Wood, 2021;
vious 12 months, having a 71 % satisfaction rate (Association of Na­ Valsesia et al., 2020a; Wang et al., 2019a). Researchers have also
tional Advertisers, 2021). Marketing through social media influencers examined SMI attributes such as attractiveness (Lou & Yuan, 2019;
(SMIs) has become essential in brands’ strategies (Leung, Gu, & Pal­ Torres et al., 2019), expertise (Hughes et al., 2019; Ki & Kim, 2019), and
matier, 2022). authenticity (Audrezet et al., 2020) in influencing perceptions of SMIs as
As the influencer marketing industry has rapidly evolved, it has opinion or taste leaders, thereby enhancing their influence. Addition­
garnered significant research interest (Cascio Rizzo et al., 2023; Vrontis ally, content and posting behaviors have been scrutinized for their role
et al., 2021). Besides defining and conceptualizing the phenomenon, one in influencing power and audience engagement (Aw & Chuah, 2021; M.
research stream has focused on empirically investigating the de­ T. Lee & Theokary, 2021). However, the findings have been contradic­
terminants of SMI marketing effectiveness (Hudders et al., 2021; Hugh tory across studies. For instance, while some studies have suggested that
et al., 2022). Over the past five years, numerous empirical studies of SMI a higher number of followers positively impacts marketing outcomes
marketing effectiveness have emerged (Aw & Chuah, 2021; Cascio Rizzo such as purchase intention, others have reported contrary findings,
et al., 2024; De Vries, 2019; Janssen et al., 2022; Ki & Kim, 2019; M. T. indicating that a larger follower count does not necessarily guarantee
Lee & Theokary, 2021; Leung, Gu, Li, et al., 2022; W. Li et al., 2024; better marketing results (Park et al., 2021; Peng & Lu, 2024; Valsesia
Valsesia et al., 2020). Each of these papers applied single theories, such et al., 2020).
as persuasion theory (e.g., Evans et al., 2022; Kim & Kim, 2021; Myers Reflecting the diverse theories and findings in this field, the

☆
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
* Corresponding author: EBS University for Business and Law, 65189 Wiesbaden, Germany.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (K. Spörl-Wang), [email protected] (F. Krause), [email protected] (S. Henkel).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114991
Received 10 April 2023; Received in revised form 28 July 2024; Accepted 22 September 2024
Available online 22 October 2024
0148-2963/© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
K. Spörl-Wang et al. Journal of Business Research 186 (2025) 114991

academic exploration of SMI marketing effectiveness presents a varied findings into a comprehensive model of SMI effectiveness predictors.
tapestry of hypotheses and results (Hudders et al., 2021). Consequently,
this paper aims to distill this intricate landscape by achieving the
following three primary objectives: (1) to provide a comprehensive 2.1. Data selection and coding
overview of the existing research on predictors of SMI marketing
effectiveness, highlighting inconsistencies; (2) to develop a unifying To ensure quality in the review process, this study applied a sys­
framework that resolves theoretical overlaps; and (3) to resolve in­ tematic selection and analysis suitable for fulfilling the research goal
consistencies in predictors for key SMI marketing effectiveness meas­ and ensuring the reproducibility of research and reasonable coverage of
ures—namely, engagement and purchase intention. the literature (Fink, 2013; Rowe, 2014). To meet these criteria, this
Many literature reviews have sought to address several of these ob­ paper followed established search and selection procedures to conduct a
jectives. Yet, prior reviews have primarily been solely qualitative, systematic approach in screening relevant sources for papers that pro­
focusing on the synthesis of the literature on influencer marketing in vide answers about predictors of SMI marketing effectiveness (Paul &
general (Hudders et al., 2021; Ye et al., 2021) or targeting specific de­ Criado, 2020; Snyder, 2019).
mographics, such as children (De Veirman et al., 2019), specific sectors, To gather relevant studies of SMI effectiveness, a manual search was
such as tourism (Nafi & Ahmed, 2019) or single measures such as con­ conducted across 148 marketing journals from the Scorpus Citescore and
sumer engagement (Pradhan et al., 2023). In general reviews, SMI Chartered Association of Business School rankings for the period
marketing effectiveness has been discussed as one theme in influencer covering 2000–2022. This methodology aligned with established aca­
marketing; however, these reviews lack depth in their analysis of SMI demic protocols, prioritizing indexed journals (Billore et al., 2023; Paul
marketing effectiveness, given their general focus. For example, in the & Rosado-Serrano, 2019). Recognizing the extensive literature, the
literature review by Hudders et al. (2021), only 17 out of 154 reviewed search focused on journals with a CiteScore above 2, following the
papers focused on predictors of SMI marketing effectiveness. Further­ criteria by Paul and Criado (2020), ensuring comprehensive coverage of
more, quantitative reviews, which could reconcile conflicting study re­ significant research in the field.
sults, remain largely unexplored (Vrontis et al., 2021; Ye et al., 2021). To The final keywords selected for the study were “Social Media Influ­
date, there are two meta-analytical reviews on SMIs. Han and Balaba­ encer,” “Influencers,” “Social Media,” “Influencer Marketing,” and
nis’s (2024) analyze a subset of antecedents from six theoretical foun­ “Influencer Advertising.” The keyword selection process involved two
dations, focusing on only two constructs of dependent measures for SMI steps, following similar methodologies proposed by Arun et al. (2021)
impact. While Ao et al., (2023) only examine eight SMI characteristics. and Hudders et al. (2021)—namely, (1) a screening of keywords of 20
Other meta-analyses in social media research typically focus on singular relevant papers on SMI marketing effectiveness selected through full-
variables, such as customer engagement or specific strategies, without text searches of journals ranked B and higher and (2) consultation of
encompassing the broader scope of influencer marketing (Eisend, 2015; two academic experts in social media and influencer marketing to
Ismagilova et al., 2021; Santini et al., 2020; Verma et al., 2023). validate the chosen keywords, ensuring their comprehensiveness and
This paper integrates qualitative and quantitative reviews to fulfill its relevance to the research topic.
objectives, thereby aiming to aid the progression of this research field, The search resulted in 208 articles focusing on SMI marketing
and offers insights into a crucial question for marketers—namely, that of effectiveness predictors. After removing 36 duplicates, 172 articles
identifying the attributes that make an SMI effective (Kemp, 2021). remained. 19 qualitative papers, such as those based on grounded theory
More specifically, this paper makes three contributions. First, it sys­ or framework development, were excluded, as they represent initial
tematically structures and synthesizes knowledge in the SMI marketing theory development without extensive quantitative support (Lou, 2021).
effectiveness literature. It categorizes such knowledge into four theory Additionally, they did not provide relevant insights for the meta-analysis
clusters, details 56 independent variables, and identifies seven distinct presented in the paper’s second section (Audrezet et al., 2020; Kapitan &
SMI marketing effectiveness measures. The systematic review provides Silvera, 2016). Moreover, 60 quantitative papers not directly related to
the basis for the development of a comprehensive framework that will SMI marketing effectiveness, such as those focusing on corporate repu­
aid managers in selecting effective SMIs and navigating the intricacies of tation or SMI attachment, were excluded (Delbaere et al., 2021). This
this marketing domain. Second, distinct from earlier reviews, this study refinement left 93 relevant papers, which were included in the
utilizes meta-analytical methods to examine SMI marketing effectiveness comprehensive literature review.
predictors, with a focus on customer engagement and purchase inten­ The coding process was conducted in three steps, each incorporating
tion. It resolves the discrepancies identified in the systematic review, rigorous measures to ensure accuracy (Snyder, 2019). First, the primary
identifying consistent predictors for both engagement and purchase author extracted relevant details from each article, including author­
intention as well as ones with divergent effects. The findings suggest that ship, publication year, theories, quantitative methods, variables, sample
effective SMI selection by managers should be based on their primary sizes, effect sizes, and correlations. Second, the theories were separately
goals—that is, to enhance engagement or increase sales. Finally, the devaluated by two authors using criteria from Sandberg and Alvesson
findings enhance the understanding of SMI marketing effectiveness by (2021) and Sutton and Staw (1995), with internal crosschecks for con­
creating a coherent structure in the field. This replaces inconsistencies in sistency (Ulaga & Reinartz, 2011). Finally, the authors collaboratively
previous theories with consistent findings from quantified bivariate re­ categorized and formed theory clusters as well as constructs in the
lationships. Additionally, it identifies gaps in existing research, paving research discussions. Any disagreements were resolved through elabo­
the way for future investigations. rate discussions among the three authors to arrive at a consensus coding
This paper contains two main sections. The first section outlines a scheme (Homburg et al., 2017). Appendix A, Table A3 presents a sum­
comprehensive literature review of theories and variables on predictors mary of the papers reviewed.
of SMI marketing effectiveness, while the second presents a meta-anal­
ysis of such predictors.
2.2. Results
2. Comprehensive literature review
From the 93 manuscripts analyzed, this paper summarizes four
The literature review begins by detailing the method used to select theory clusters across 108 studies (see Appendix A, Table A2), 56 pre­
and code 93 research articles, followed by an exploration of the theories, dictors (see Appendix B, Table B1), and seven dependent constructs of
predictors, and dependent measures in the SMI marketing effectiveness SMI marketing effectiveness (see Appendix C, Table C1). There were 401
literature. It concludes by integrating overlapping and inconsistent effect sizes, with 40 incidences of conflicting effects (see Table 2).

2
K. Spörl-Wang et al. Journal of Business Research 186 (2025) 114991

2.2.1. Theories about predictors of SMI marketing effectiveness attributes, complements opinion leadership and source credibility the­
Analysis of the reviewed papers revealed 22 different theories. Ap­ ories. Together, these explain how perceived positive attributes
pendix A, Table A1 provides an overview and description of each of contribute to favorable marketing outcomes while perceived negative
these. Most theories have been applied once or twice. To concentrate on attributes lead to adverse results (Hugh et al., 2022; Valsesia et al.,
the most influential theories, the following discussion focuses on 10 key 2020).
theories, each chosen for their application in at least three distinct pa­ Theory cluster 2 – Consumer perspective: Three theories—parasocial
pers. In analyzing these theories, four different perspectives on SMI relationship theory (Horton & Wohl, 1956), uses and gratification the­
marketing effectiveness become evident. Therefore, these theories are ory (Katz et al., 1973), and social influence theory (Kelman, 1961)—
categorized into four theory clusters. explain predictors of SMI marketing effectiveness from the consumer’s
Theory cluster 1 – Social media influencer perspective: Three theories viewpoint. These theories propose that different aspects of SMI adver­
aiming to explain differences in SMI marketing effectiveness as a result tising may activate varied consumer relationships, motivations, and
of certain SMI traits or attributes were source credibility theory information processing, leading to diverse levels of marketing
(Hovland & Weiss, 1951), opinion leadership theory (Katz & Lazarsfeld, effectiveness.
1955), and signaling theory (Zahavi, 1975). These theories position Parasocial relationship theory describes the relationship between a
SMIs as central to their analyses, focusing on SMI characteristics as key media character, the SMI, and their followers (Horton & Wohl, 1956;
to marketing effectiveness, although they differ in their focus. Source Labrecque, 2014). Such relationships make followers susceptible to the
credibility and opinion leadership theories focus on SMI attributes, persuasion of SMIs and are therefore important to achieve higher mar­
while signaling theory takes SMI behavior into account. keting effectiveness in terms of brand attitude, engagement, and pur­
The most frequently applied theory among the reviewed papers was chase intention (De Veirman et al., 2017; Evans et al., 2017). Most
source credibility, which suggests that SMIs who are perceived as more recent theorization suggest trans-parasocial relationship which governs
credible are also more effective (Cosenza et al., 2014; Ohanian, 1990). the relationship between SMI and followers (Lou, 2021). Due to the
The conceptualization of this theory within influencer marketing is absence of a universally accepted definition of antecedents for para­
heterogeneous. Some studies used Ohanian’s (1990) three-dimensional social relationships, the derived predictors vary widely. For example,
model of trustworthiness, attractiveness, and expertise (Cosenza et al., some scholars argued that SMI characteristics with between two and
2014; Mainolfi et al., 2022), while others focused on only one or two four dimensional conceptualization, such as attractiveness and similar­
dimensions, such as expertise (Hughes et al., 2019), trustworthiness ity (Sokolova & Kefi, 2020); attractiveness, credibility, and prestige (Aw
(Jung & Im, 2021), or expertise and attractiveness (Y. Li & Peng, 2021). & Chuah, 2021); or expertise, attractiveness, trustworthiness, and sim­
Additionally, some studies introduced a four-dimensional model that ilarity (Yuan & Lou, 2020), are antecedents of parasocial relationships.
included similarity, familiarity, or likeability in addition to the three- Other predictors analyzed include SMI content characteristics such as
dimensional model (Duh & Thabethe, 2021; Schorn et al., 2022). The quality and informational text (Cheung et al., 2022) or fairness (Yuan &
content of SMI, such as message sidedness or sponsorship disclosure, is Lou, 2020).
also considered influential in source credibility (Kim & Kim, 2021; Lee & Uses and gratification theory highlights the crucial role of consumer
Johnson, 2022). Kim and Kim (2021) introduced authenticity as a new motivation in engagement with SMIs. It suggests that SMIs’ ability to
dimension for source credibility, suggesting that it enhances SMI cred­ meet consumer needs—information, entertainment, or social inter­
ibility and marketing outcomes. action—significantly influences marketing outcome (Ruggiero, 2000).
Opinion leadership theory claims that there are individuals (called Empirical research shows that SMI content perceived as entertaining,
opinion leaders) who exert a superior amount of influence on the atti­ informative, interactive, or personally rewarding enhances marketing
tudes and behaviors of the people around them (Lazarsfeld et al., 1955). effectiveness. (Cheung, Leung, Yang, et al., 2022; Myers et al., 2022).
Opinion leaders are often associated with network centrality, indicating Social influence theory explains how consumers’ decisions are
that well-connected people within a network are likelier to be opinion affected by others (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004). Research identifies
leaders (Libai et al., 2013). Therefore, several studies in the SMI mar­ several criteria for susceptibility to social influence, but without
keting effectiveness literature used opinion leadership theory to explain consensus (Book et al., 2016), leading to diverse predictors. Tafesse and
the number of followers as a key predictor for marketing outcomes (De Wood (2021) suggest followers are influenced by SMIs perceived as
Veirman et al., 2017; De Vries, 2019; Valsesia et al., 2020; Wang et al., popular, credible, or relatable. Similarly, Cheung et al. (2022) identify
2019). However, other studies found leveraging people with a high attractiveness and expertise as key drivers, while Sánchez-Fernández
degree of centrality (well-connected with others) to be a successful and Jiménez-Castillo (2021) argue that cognitive and emotional
strategy to spread information within a network but to not necessarily attachment predict SMI influence and marketing effectiveness.
reflect the level of persuasiveness of these individuals (Hinz et al., 2011). Across these theories, social influence theory intersects with para­
Therefore, even though the number of followers of SMIs directly reflects social relationships, suggesting that stronger parasocial bonds enhance
the degree of centrality of SMIs, several studies regarded other factors, social influence (Cheung, Leung, Aw, et al., 2022). Parasocial relation­
such as originality and uniqueness (Casaló et al., 2020) or creativity ships fulfill the need for social interaction, as outlined in uses and
(Cheung, Leung, Aw, et al., 2022), as key dimensions of opinion gratification theory, intensifying consumer gratification and fostering
leadership. stronger relationships, thereby boosting SMI marketing effectiveness
Signaling theory focuses on the expression of attributes of SMIs to (Dolan et al., 2019; McQuail, 1994). However, this argument has not yet
explain their level of marketing effectiveness. For example, the exposure been empirically explored.
of body markers or display of muscle alters consumers’ perception of the Theory cluster 3 – Congruence: The key idea of the congruence theory
SMI, and therefore, these attributes impact SMI marketing effectiveness cluster concerns consumers’ cognitive preference for similarity, which is
(Su et al., 2021). also the basis for the similarity–attraction theory and the balance theory
While each theory offers a distinct explanation of the predictors of (Byrne, 1971; Festinger, 1957; Heider, 1958). Both balance theory and
SMI marketing effectiveness, they are also interconnected. As SMI similarity–attraction theory share a central idea, yet they have different
credibility positively impacts opinion leadership, source credibility focal points. Balance theory primarily focuses on psychological consis­
theory reinforces opinion leadership (Jegham & Bouzaabia, 2022). The tency, while similarity–attraction theory emphasizes the role of similar
distinction between both theories was analyzed by De Veirman et al., characteristics. Within the influencer marketing literature, similarity, or
(2017), who found that the number of followers impacts popularity and consistency, increases SMIs’ influence and SMI marketing effectiveness
likability, which drives SMIs’ perceived opinion leadership, but not (Argyris et al., 2021; Belanche et al., 2021; Mettenheim & Wiedmann,
trustworthiness. Signaling theory, which emphasizes the expression of 2021). Many different dimensions of congruence, such as the similarity

3
K. Spörl-Wang et al. Journal of Business Research 186 (2025) 114991

Table 1
Overview of theories and predictors (independent variables).

1
Derived from big five personality framework.
2
Derived from influence framework.

4
K. Spörl-Wang et al. Journal of Business Research 186 (2025) 114991

Table 2
Overview of effect sizes collected from across 101 studies [colored print preferred].

(continued on next page)

5
 K. Spörl-Wang et al. Journal of Business Research 186 (2025) 114991

Table 2 (continued )

between an SMI and their followers (Lou & Yuan, 2019a), the congru­ Cacioppo, 1986). Both theories center on persuasion, with persuasion
ence of a product and a SMI (Torres et al., 2019) and a brand and a SMI knowledge model outlining strategies for coping with persuasion and
(Kim & Kim, 2021), as well as the cultural similarity between a SMI and elaboration likelihood model delving into the processing mechanisms of
their followers (Xu (Rinka) & Pratt, 2018), have been mooted as driving persuasive messages.
marketing effectiveness. Persuasion knowledge model suggests that consumers have a certain
Theory cluster 4 – Persuasion: Persuasion theories in communication awareness or understanding of the tactics and motives behind persua­
examine the interplay of the sender, the message content, and the sive messages, such as advertising or sponsorship disclosures, which in
receiver and conceptualize persuasion as a process of human informa­ turn influence their responses to these messages. SMIs’ capacity to
tion processing. Depending on persuasion theory, different factors as mitigate the negative impact of persuasive messages contributes to
well as mechanisms of the sender, content, and receiver lead to various variations in their marketing effectiveness. Therefore, the papers
degrees of processing ease and, therefore, to different levels of persua­ reviewed that utilized persuasion knowledge model all focused on
sion. There are two main theories, the persuasion knowledge model defensive responses from sponsorship disclosure (Evans et al., 2018; Kim
(Friestad & Wright, 1994) and the elaboration likelihood model (Petty & & Kim, 2021; Saternus et al., 2022). They found that factors such as the

6
K. Spörl-Wang et al. Journal of Business Research 186 (2025) 114991

number of followers (Kay et al., 2020) or transparency (Woodroof et al., theory are yet to be developed. An overview of how predictors map on
2020) may moderate or reverse these negative effects. theories is presented in Table 1.
Elaboration likelihood model suggests that the effectiveness of an Within the reviewed literature, SMI marketing effectiveness was
SMI’s persuasive message depends on the individual’s ability and conceptualized using seven constructs—namely, brand awareness, atti­
motivation to process the information and the route through which the tude toward ads, brand attitude, product attitude, customer engagement
information is processed (Ki & Kim, 2019; M. T. Lee & Theokary, 2021; intention, purchase intention, and customer engagement action (see
Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Different factors impact receivers’ ability and Appendix C, Table C1). There exists extensive marketing research on all
motivation—for example, language expressions (Aleti et al., 2019), the seven constructs. A more detailed elaboration on the seven dependent
display of information (Pozharliev et al., 2022), the platform (Hughes constructs is presented in Appendix C.
et al., 2019), and congruence (Mettenheim & Wiedmann, 2021). Most existing research focuses on engagement and purchase inten­
Summarizing the theory clusters, existing research applies theories tion. Across the studies reviewed, engagement intention was part of 32
on senders (theory cluster 1), receivers (theory cluster 2), the relationship studies, and 48 studies conceptualized SMI marketing effectiveness
between senders and other actors within SMI advertising (theory cluster using purchase intention. Other dimensions were rarely tested, and key
3), and the processing of SMI advertising messages (theory cluster 4) to predictors for those dependent variables are yet to be established.
derive predictors of SMI marketing effectiveness. For many theories, Table 2 depicts the effects of predictors on SMI marketing effec­
there is no consensus on the conceptualization of predictors for SMI tiveness collected from the reviewed papers. The study results of many
marketing effectiveness, making clear demarcations between theoretical predictors were contradictory. In total, we counted 40 occurrences of
explanations for predictors difficult to establish. For example, there is inconsistent results. For dependent measures of SMI marketing effec­
elaborate research on expertise being a predictor of SMI marketing tiveness, in a limited number of studies, the results remained consistent.
effectiveness because it makes SMIs more credible, according to the For example, the best predictor for achieving brand awareness was SMI
source credibility theory (Cosenza et al., 2014; Ki et al., 2020; Lou & expertise and attractiveness. Furthermore, attitude toward ads was
Yuan, 2019); at the same time, it has also been found to be a key driven by follower count, ideal-self, and product congruence, while
identifier for opinion leaders (Gomes et al., 2022). Simultaneously, sponsorship disclosure negatively impacted it.
while source credibility fosters parasocial relationships, the effect of For customer engagement and purchase intention, numerous pre­
expertise is nonsignificant (Yuan & Lou, 2020); however, according to dictors were repeatedly tested, but the results were frequently incon­
elaboration likelihood model, expertise shows an effect depending on sistent. Therefore, for the two SMI marketing effectiveness variables,
the degree of involvement (Hughes et al., 2019). This theoretical un­ customer engagement and purchase intention, a meta-analytical review
clarity is the source of the many inconsistent results that are summarized is required to improve the quality of the research findings. An exami­
in the following sections, where the three key areas of inconsistencies nation of the most significant inconsistencies in the literature revealed
are discussed in more detail and partially quantitatively resolved for two conflicting hypotheses and results, even with similar methodologies.
SMI marketing effectiveness measures, which are engagement and The three predictors with the greatest inconsistencies were number of
purchase intention. followers (22 effect sizes spread across three dimensions), expertise (22
effect sizes across three dimensions), and similarity (31 effect sizes
2.2.2. Classification of predictors, dependent variables, and summary of across three dimensions).
effects According to opinion leadership theory, the number of followers is
This paper identifies 56 conceptually distinct predictors of SMI essential for engagement, signifying an SMI’s potential reach (Valsesia
marketing effectiveness through an analysis of 108 studies and et al., 2020). This perspective is reinforced by social network theory,
thematically groups them into seven constructs, which are further which suggests that an increase in connections amplifies an SMI’s
condensed into three overarching categories. impact and the likelihood of user engagement within the network (Wang
The first category focuses on predictors centered on the SMI (i.e., who et al., 2019). From the standpoint of source credibility and signaling
this person is). We define three constructs in this category: (i) account theory, a larger follower count is seen as a marker of credibility,
characteristics, which cover predictors that feature social media user reflecting the SMI’s popularity, status, and reputation (Leung, Gu, Li,
account-related metrics, such as the number of followers and duration et al., 2022). Conversely, other scholars have argued that engagement
since the account has been registered; (ii) personal characteristics, which with SMI content hinges on perceptions of personal, authentic, and
encompass the personal attributes of SMIs, such as gender, attractivity, relatable SMIs (Belanche et al., 2021; Janssen et al., 2022; Lou & Yuan,
or expertise; and (iii) congruence, which contains features delineating the 2019). As an SMI’s popularity rises, the sense of personal connection and
level of similarity between SMIs and the different parties involved—for perceived trust may wane, potentially reducing engagement (Chen et al.,
example, their followers, brands, or products. The second category 2022). As there are arguments for the positive and the negative impact
pertains to SMI content (i.e., what SMIs communicate). Two constructs, of the number of followers on engagement, several scholars have sug­
content style and content scope, form this category. Content style in­ gested that SMIs’ number of followers has only a positive effect on
corporates predictors that describe the content, such as informative and engagement when regarded in relationship with the number of follow­
functional or hedonic and emotional. Content scope constitutes pre­ ees (De Vries, 2019; Peng & Lu, 2024). However, whether a high or low
dictors specifying the topics that SMIs share, such as the disclosure of ratio of follower count to followee count is better for engagement and
sponsorships. The last category attends to factors illustrating the way of purchase intention remains unsolved, due to opposing results (De
communication (i.e., how SMIs communicate). Two constructs were Veirman et al., 2017; Valsesia et al., 2020, Peng & Lu, 2024). Steils et al.
identified in this category. First, the way of display encapsulates the (2022) suggested an inverted U-shaped relationship between follower
aesthetics and frequency of content communication. Second, the way of count and engagement, moderated by sponsorship disclosure, that could
expression outlines attributes of SMIs’ verbal communication, such as the address previous inconsistencies. Given the diverse discussion on the
precision of language or the level of abstraction in their messages. Ap­ relationship between the number of followers and engagement, a similar
pendix B, Table B1 presents an overview and definition of the 56 dynamic could be expected for purchase intention. However, most
predictors. studies reported the positive impact of follower count, supporting its
Many predictors were only studied once, with most studies concen­ influence on SMI credibility, and thus, consumer purchase intention
trating on similarity, number of followers, expertise, and attractiveness. (Janssen et al., 2022; Pittman & Abell, 2021; Weismueller et al., 2020).
There was no exclusivity of theory on predictors. A single predictor was Conversely, studies advocating a negative effect proposed that micro-
often explained by multiple theories, and as outlined in the theory influencers, perceived as more authentic and trustworthy, have a
cluster section, clear boundary conditions for the applicability of each greater persuasive impact, leading to higher purchase intention,

7
K. Spörl-Wang et al. Journal of Business Research 186 (2025) 114991

Fig. 1. Generalized SMI marketing effectiveness model.

especially in hedonic consumption and SMIs in the sustainability sector concentrated on students, Balabanis and Chatzopoulou (2019) included
(Park et al., 2021; Pittman & Abell, 2021). Other studies investigated participants with a broader age range.
how different drivers may lead to varying impact when combined with
the number of followers, such as arousal language or consumer mindset 2.2.3. Proposed generalized SMI marketing effectiveness model
which differs for macro vs. micro SMIs (Rizzo et al., 2024; W. Li et al., Based on the findings, this paper has developed a comprehensive SMI
2024). marketing effectiveness model that includes all the variables reviewed.
Regarding expertise as a predictor, the debate centers on whether it This model features three categories, seven dependent measures of SMI
has a positive impact or not, with no studies indicating a negative effect. marketing effectiveness, and 56 predictors. The activation of these
As a fundamental element of source credibility, expertise is believed to predictors, whether joint, selected, or singular, can result in varied di­
influence trust in SMI content, leading to increased engagement and mensions of marketing effectiveness. Fig. 1 illustrates this generalized
purchase intentions. However, some studies reported insignificant re­ model.
sults, with limited explanations for these findings (Duh & Thabethe, This model echoes McGuire’s (2001) communication persuasion
2021; Saima & Khan, 2021). One suggested reason relates to the age of model in assuming a multitude of factors that collectively influence
the population studied; for instance, Fernandes et al. (2022) found varying levels of marketing outcomes. However, the generalized SMI
expertise to be a significant predictor of older consumers. Hughes et al. marketing effectiveness model has been specifically crafted for the
(2019) contended that expertise is primarily relevant for content aimed influencer marketing context. It was constructed through a compre­
at raising awareness. This perspective is supported by the positive in­ hensive, bottom-up approach grounded in an extensive review of the
fluence of expertise on brand awareness (Lou & Yuan, 2019). existing literature on SMI marketing effectiveness.
Inconsistencies in the predictor of similarity occurred mainly in the Second, even though the three categories of who, what, and how
context of purchase intention, with 10 effect sizes being nonsignificant resemble the source and message factors in the communication and
and 15 showing positive results. Conversely, for engagement, the persuasion model, McGuire’s communication persuasion model is a
existing literature uniformly identified the significant positive effect of classical communication model that evaluates only how mass media
similarity in six studies. Regarding purchase intention, the impact of communication persuades consumers and presupposes marketer control
similarity depends on various mediators and moderators. wo studies over most input factors (McGuire, 2001). In contrast, influencer mar­
suggest that parasocial relationships mediate the effect, with stronger keting involves marketers selecting an SMI, thereby largely controlling
relationships enhancing purchase intention (Bu et al., 2022; Sokolova & inputs such as message, channel, and receiver. Thus, the SMI marketing
Kefi, 2020). Other studies indicate trust as a mediator, with source effectiveness model concentrates on evaluating factors accessible to
credibility driving increased purchase intention (Lou & Yuan, 2019a; marketers, such as SMI attributes and the style and scope of the content.
Naderer et al., 2021). Closeness between SMI and followers inversely Third, in SMI marketing effectiveness, it is crucial to highlight the
moderates the similarity–purchase intention relationship, with similar­ predictors related to delivery style and expression. The generalized SMI
ity positively affecting purchase intention only when closeness is low marketing effectiveness model addresses this by incorporating the HOW
(Taillon et al., 2020). Similarity positively affects purchase intention category, which is absent from McGuire’s communication persuasion
only when closeness is low. Involvement also moderates this effect, model, thereby offering a more comprehensive framework for influencer
though its impact is debated. Mettenheim and Wiedmann (2020) marketing.
observed that similarity to be significant in high-involvement scenarios, Finally, the seven levels of marketing effectiveness in the model
contrasting with the common view of social media as a low-involvement correspond to four of the seven levels in McGuire’s communication
environment (Hughes et al., 2019). Balabanis and Chatzopoulou (2019) persuasion model. While McGuire’s framework suggests a stepwise
noted the significance of similarity to moderately involved consumers. progression from one persuasion level to another, correlating with
These studies did not focus on a specific platform, with participants stages of consumer information processing, the influencer marketing
asked about the last platform they visited. The age groups in these context centers on engagement with the SMI that does not always follow
studies differed significantly; while Mettenheim and Wiedmann (2020) a stepwise trajectory. Due to social media algorithms favoring content

8
K. Spörl-Wang et al. Journal of Business Research 186 (2025) 114991

Table 3
Meta-analysis of SMI predictors of customer engagement.
Predictors K N ρ 95 % Confidence Interval Q I2

lower upper

WHO Account characteristics Number of followees 4 10,079 − 0.10 0.24 0.05 7.04 57.40 %
Number of followers 5 11,303 − 0.08** − 0.13 − 0.04 2.22 0%
SMI personal characteristics Expertise 6 1,395 0.34* 0.07 0.57 76.92*** 93.50 %
Attractiveness 4 1,377 0.21** 0.10 0.31 4.74 36.70 %
Authenticity 2 1,286 0.49 − 0.90 0.99 2.3 45.40 %
Credibility 8 4,458 0.55** 0.05 0.83 9.35 32.45 %
Likeability 3 932 0.25* 0.07 0.41 3.28 39.20 %
Congruence Similarity 6 2,884 0.51** 0.36 0.63 35.93*** 88.90 %

WHAT Content style Informative and functional 8 2,421 0.33*** 0.22 0.43 14.23 48.60 %
Hedonic and emotional 3 9,209 0.09*** 0.09 0.09 16.25 32.82 %
Original 2 1,088 0.56** 0.51 0.61 422 38,20 %
Content scope Sponsorship disclosure 6 18,101 0.03 − 0.20 0.27 4.46 48.00 %

HOW Ways of display Quality 15 4,969 0.28*** 0.22 0.34 60.49*** 76.90 %
Quantity 3 2,578 0.21 − 0.11 0.49 24.79** 91.90 %
Ways of expression Language psych. closeness 3 318 0.57** 0.48 0.65 0.52 0.00 %

K = Number of studies; N = Number of observations; ρ = Corrected population correlation; Q=Cochran’s Q; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

with high engagement, engagement can precede brand awareness, of the meta-analysis of bivariate correlations.
which may then affect purchase intention (Han et al., 2020). In particular, the account characteristic of number of followees’
relationship to customer engagement was nonsignificant (ρ = − 0.10, p
3. Meta-analytical review = n.s.), while the account characteristic of number of followers was
negatively correlated with SMI customer engagement (ρ = − 0.08, p =
The section begins with an overview of the meta-analytical meth­ 0.006). This finding suggests that once an SMI has established a follower
odologies and techniques used, followed by an assessment of the pres­ community with a significant number of followers and is recognized as
ence and strength of bivariate relationships between SMI marketing an SMI, an additional number of followers leads to a deterioration of
effectiveness predictors and key metrics such as customer engagement engagement within the SMI follower community that has formed.
and purchase intention. Notably, existing research often shows incon­ Practitioners largely agree with this result, since the measured engage­
sistent and inconclusive results regarding these predictors (see Table 2). ment rate for SMIs in terms of likes, comments, and reposts on Instagram
While consensus exists, the effect sizes still vary. Thus, this meta- and Twitter supports this fact (Trend, 2020). Academics also support
analytical review seeks to validate and quantify these relationships. this finding, explaining, based on construal level theory, that when
followers’ communities are limited, followers are more homogeneous,
compared to large follower communities. Therefore, it is easier for SMIs
3.1. Meta-analytical techniques
to uphold a closer and more intense connection with their followers (Kay
et al., 2020). Parasocial identification and relationships are stimulated,
This meta-analysis of SMI marketing effectiveness in terms of
making followers more susceptible to SMIs’ influence (Horton & Richard
customer engagement incorporates data from 32 papers and 15 pre­
Wohl, 1956b). On the contrary, when the number of followers rises, the
dictors, while the analysis focusing on purchase intention draws from 48
follower community grows heterogeneous, and it becomes difficult for
papers and 13 predictors. For other dependent measures of SMI mar­
SMIs to uphold a close connection with all followers, whereby engage­
keting effectiveness, there were too few studies available for a meta-
ment declines (De Vries, 2019; Kay et al., 2020).
analytical approach.
Apart from authenticity (ρ = 0.49, p = n.s.), all other predictors of
To determine the effect sizes, this paper follows established meta-
SMIs’ personal characteristics showed a significant positive relationship
analytical procedures applied in previous meta-analytical studies (Babić
with customer engagement (expertise: ρ = 0.34, p = 0.003; attractive­
Rosario et al., 2016; Santini et al., 2020). Primarily, Pearson’s correla­
ness: ρ = 0.21, p = 0.008; credibility: ρ = 0.55, p = 0.02; and likeability:
tion coefficients were extracted from each article, since they were the
ρ = 0.25, p = 0.08). The positive relationship between expertise,
most frequently used metric. Where correlation coefficients were not
attractiveness, credibility, and likeability further underlines the validity
available, mean differences, F-, or t-values were first converted into
of the source credibility theory (Han & Balabanis, 2024; Pornpitakpan,
correlations (Hunter & Schmidt, 1991) and then transformed into
2004). However, contrary to most practitioners’ beliefs, authenticity,
Fisher’s z (Olkin & Finn, 1995).
one of the most frequently named success factors among SMIs and
The meta-analysis utilized a random effects model, applying inverse
marketing professionals, was not significantly correlated with marketing
variance weighting to pool effect sizes and the restricted maximum
effectiveness in terms of customer engagement and attitude (Audrezet
likelihood method to estimate heterogeneity variances (DerSimonian &
et al., 2020; Han & Balabanis, 2024).
Kacker, 2007; Hartung & Knapp G., 2003; Viechtbauer et al., 2015).
In terms of congruence, similarity was strongly positively correlated
Between-study heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran’s Q, which
with customer engagement (ρ = 0.51, p = 0.008). This finding corrob­
evaluates the likelihood of observed heterogeneity occurring by chance,
orates previous results regarding the positive effect of congruence on
and the I2 statistic, which reflects the percentage of total variation due
consumer behavior (Choi & Rifon, 2012). By establishing relatedness to
to heterogeneity (Cochran, 1954; Higgins & Thompson, 2002).
followers, and thus eliciting perceived similarity, SMIs achieve
emotional bonds with followers and stimulate engagement (Ki et al.,
3.2. Results and discussion of customer engagement 2020).
Of the predictors of content styles, all three had a positive relation­
Of the 15 predictors included in the meta-analysis, 11 were signifi­ ship with customer engagement (informative and functional: ρ = 0.33, p
cantly related to SMI customer engagement. Table 3 presents the results

9
K. Spörl-Wang et al. Journal of Business Research 186 (2025) 114991

Table 4
Meta-analysis of SMI predictors of purchase intention.
Predictors K N ρ 95 % Confidence Interval Q I2

lower upper

WHO Account characteristics Number of followers 15 9,133 0.12 − 0.07 0.39 45.97* 28.30 %
SMI personal characteristics Attractiveness 16 8,931 0.23*** 0.14 0.33 21.39 25.40 %
Expertise 16 5,922 0.18** 0.08 0.27 26.16 29.30 %
Credibility 6 2,268 0.27* 0.02 0.49 16.10 51.61 %
Trustworthiness 8 3,241 0.23 − 0.01 0.44 20.87*** 96.40 %
Congruence Brand congruence 4 3,663 0.24*** 0.19 0.28 1.31 0.00 %
Ideal Self-congruence 5 2,855 0.07 − 0.01 0.14 15.24* 60.60 %
Similarity 19 10,066 0.15*** 0.09 0.22 137.13*** 86.90 %

WHAT Content style Informative and functional 6 2,364 0.36*** 0.28 0.44 15.89 25.70 %
Content scope Interaction 4 6,415 0.09 − 0.17 0.34 49,50** 93.80 %
Intimate Disclosure 8 2,937 0.18 − 0.11 0.44 19,52* 63.66 %
Sponsorship disclosure 25 12,836 − 0.23*** − 0.32 − 0,13 8.48 37.56 %

HOW Ways of display Quality 5 1,150 0.42** 0.30 0.54 12.88 20.30 %

K = Number of studies; N = Number of observations; ρ = Corrected population correlation; Q = Cochran’s Q; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***
p < 0.001.

< 0.001; hedonic and emotional: ρ = 0.09, p < 0.001; and original: ρ = classical celebrity attributes (Ohanian, 1991). As such, many researchers
0.56, p = 0.009). Interestingly, informative and functional content agree that these attributes foster persuasion and purchase intention (Ryu
exhibited a stronger effect than hedonic and emotional content, with & Han, 2021). A significant correlation between trustworthiness (ρ =
originality displaying the strongest correlation. These results are in line 0.23, p = n.s.) and purchase intention, however, could not be verified.
with the literature (Hughes et al., 2019; Sánchez-Fernández & Jiménez- This result is counterintuitive and contradicts the outcome of many re­
Castillo, 2021). searchers who argue for the importance of trustworthiness in SMI
Sponsorship disclosure is a predictor within the content scope that marketing effectiveness (Martensen et al., 2018; Wiedmann & von
emerged as a result of the gradual introduction of regulation into the Mettenheim, 2020).
influencer marketing sphere (FTC, 2019). As such, it has gained Brand congruence (ρ = 0.24, p < 0.001) and similarity (ρ = 0.15, p <
increased attention among practitioners as to how far it decreases the 0.001) were both significantly positively correlated with purchase
marketing effectiveness of SMIs. Based on the meta-analysis, the rela­ intention, but self-congruence was not significantly correlated (ρ = 0.07,
tionship between sponsorship disclosure and customer engagement p = 0.07). These results resemble the study outcome by Pradhan et al.
cannot be supported (ρ = 0.03, p = n.s.). (2016) in the celebrity context. They found a significant effect on brand
Considering ways of display, the quality of SMI content exhibited a congruence but not on congruence between celebrities and consumers
positive relationship with customer engagement (ρ = 0.28, p < 0.001), (Pradhan et al., 2016). In the analyses, there was a further differentia­
while for the quantity of SMI content, the relationship was non- tion between two dimensions of self-congruence—namely, similarity
significant (ρ = 0.21, p = n.s.). Finally, the language of psychological (also referred to as actual self-congruence) and ideal self-congruence.
closeness showed a significant positive correlation with customer We found disparate effects for both. In the broader consumer behavior
engagement (ρ = 0.57, p = 0.002). context, Malär et al. (2011) and Tan et al. (2019) arrived at similar
disparate results for actual and ideal self-congruence.
Informative and functional content style was significantly correlated
3.3. Results and discussion of purchase intention
with purchase intention (ρ = 0.36, p < 0.001), further confirming prior
meta-analytical study in SMI research (Han & Balabanis, 2024).Within
Of the 13 predictors included in the meta-analysis, eight were
the three predictors under the content scope, only sponsorship disclo­
significantly related to purchase intention. Table 4 presents the results of
sure demonstrated a significant negative correlation (ρ = − 0.23, p <
the meta-analysis of bivariate correlations.
0.001) with purchase intention. This outcome corroborates the persua­
The account characteristic of number of followers was not signifi­
sion knowledge model theory, suggesting consumers’ negative and
cantly correlated with purchase intention (ρ = 0.12, p = n.s.), which is
defensive reactions to persuasive advertising messages (Evans et al.,
counterintuitive. According to the prevailing customer engagement
2017; Kay et al., 2020; S. S. Lee & Johnson, 2022). The other two pre­
research, customer engagement intention contributes to purchase
dictors, interaction (ρ = 0.09, p = n.s.) and intimate disclosure (ρ = 0.18,
intention and actual purchases (Pansari & Kumar, 2017; Santini et al.,
p = n.s.), were not significantly correlated with purchase intention.
2020). Therefore, when a predictor reduces customer engagement
Finally, the quality of SMI content as a predictor of ways of display
intention, the same predictor should also negatively impact purchase
was significantly positively correlated with purchase intention (ρ =
intention. However, the meta-analytic results do not support this. It
0.42, p = 0.007), further highlighting the importance of visual appeal on
seems that theories arguing for a positive effect on the number of fol­
social media platforms.
lowers, such as opinion leadership, and theories maintaining a negative
effect on the number of followers, as stated above, outweigh each other
4. Implications
when it comes to purchase intention. The circumstances in which theory
applies are still open for research and require further study (Santini
4.1 Research contribution
et al., 2020).
Three predictors of SMI personal characteristics—namely, attrac­
This paper pioneers the integration of qualitative and quantitative
tiveness (ρ = 0.23, p < 0.001), expertise (ρ = 0.18, p = 0.008), and
reviews in social media and influencer marketing research, significantly
credibility (ρ = 0.27, p = 0.03)—were significantly positively correlated
contributing to the field by addressing the fundamental question of what
with purchase intention. This result falls within expectation and con­
factors predict SMI marketing effectiveness. The literature review syn­
firms recent meta-analysis in this field (Han & Balabanis, 2024). From a
thesized existing research and identified both overlaps and
theoretical perspective, this result further confirms the validity of the

10
K. Spörl-Wang et al. Journal of Business Research 186 (2025) 114991

inconsistencies prevalent in the field. It culminated in a generalized Table 5

framework conceptualizing three categories and seven constructs that Future research agenda.
influence varying levels of marketing effectiveness through SMIs. Uti­ Themes Critical observations Sample research questions
lizing meta-analytical methods led to more consistent conclusions
Advancing conceptual • Each of the 22 theories Operationalization
(Grewal et al. 2018). The study confirmed 11 key predictors for clarity in SMI reviewed offers a unique inconsistencies:
customer engagement intention and seven for purchase intention. Spe­ marketing perspective on SMI − How do varying
cifically, similarity, originality, and language strongly correlated with effectiveness marketing effectiveness operationalization
customer engagement, while the number of followers showed a negative research predictors. approaches, e.g., ranging
• Further exploration and from two to four
correlation. For purchase intention, the strongest predictors were validation of their dimensions for source
attractiveness, informative and functional content, and content quality. boundary conditions and credibility theory, impact
Finally, a combination of the literature and meta-analytical reviews interrelationships are its perceived effectiveness?
revealed critical focus areas in SMI and influencer research, while also needed. − In what specific contexts
• A significant challenge is or conditions does each
highlighting under-researched topics.
the overlap and ambiguity operationalization model
due to the lack of demonstrate optimal
4.2. Practical implications consensus in operational utility?
definitions. Interrelationships among
In recent years, the amount of marketing spending dedicated to theories
− What specific conditions
influencer marketing has increased (Influencer Marketing Hub, 2024). facilitate interaction effects
By addressing the primary concern of marketers, which is how to find between paired theoretical
effective SMIs, the findings of this paper provide several key frameworks?
implications. − Under what
circumstances do
First, the paper informs marketers about the mechanisms explaining
interaction effects between
SMI marketing effectiveness and offers a framework with factors for paired theories fail to
evaluation to achieve certain marketing outcomes. Through the narra­ manifest?
tive review, marketers can gain a brief overview of theories that explain
how different factors lead to varying levels of marketing effectiveness. Uncharted interactions • This paper resolves 28 of − How do brand
Based on the synthesis of knowledge on the topic and the generalized and persistent gaps the 40 addressed congruence and follower
framework, marketers are provided with a structural concept of how to inconsistencies. count influence consumer
• Validation and attitudes towards a brand?
think about and approach this question. Second, the meta-analyses for
resolution of the Are there any boundary
engagement and purchase intention present a set of key predictors that remaining inconsistencies conditions?
are important for marketers to compare when selecting SMIs with which present significant future − In what ways does the
to partner. This research suggests that when aiming to increase customer research opportunities. disclosure of sponsorship
engagement, instead of using a SMI with 1 million followers, it is • Investigating the impact consumer attitudes
interaction effects among towards the
worthwhile to consider using several SMIs with a lower number of fol­
all identified predictors advertisement?
lowers, with the sum of their number of followers reaching 1 million. remains an unexplored − How do the WHO,
With such strategies, the negative effect of the number of followers is area. WHAT, and HOW
overcome while not scarifying the total number of consumers reached. predictors interact in the
context of SMI marketing?
Furthermore, when selecting SMIs with a lower number of followers,
− What implications do
this paper suggests that marketers should focus on similarity, originality, these interactions have on
and language to achieve the best engagement results. The risk of heavily the overall effectiveness of
relying on follower count as a key selection criterion is the reliability of SMI marketing strategies?
online data and fraud (Influencer Marketing Hub, 2024). Followers are
purchasable, and practitioners should be cautious when using these data Distinguishing SMIs • Parallels between SMIs − How do SMI marketing
for their consideration. If the aim of marketers is more sales-oriented, from celebrities and celebrities as effective effectiveness theories apply
the focus on the number of followers is less relevant. Instead, attrac­ endorsers highlight the to celebrities?
need for detailed − What are the distinct
tiveness and informative and high-quality content should become cen­ delineation. characteristics of SMI
tral evaluation criteria. Finally, the results provide clearer guidance and • Further exploration aims endorsements as opposed
a set of evaluation criteria for marketers when comparing SMIs. to deepen understanding to celebrity endorsements
Therefore, this paper offers marketers a more structured and efficient of specific predictors of in terms of personal-related
SMI marketing factors, content creation,
approach to increasingly important marketing decisions.
effectiveness. and audience engagement?
− Beyond understanding
4.3. Limitations and a future research agenda their difference, what
effects do SMI-celebrity
collaborations have on
Despite the growing attention on influencer marketing among
marketing effectiveness?
practitioners and researchers in recent years, there has been a lack of a How do predictors behave
systematic review and consolidation of study results on SMI effective­ in this scenario?
ness. This paper stands out as the first to address this gap by employing
both qualitative and quantitative review methods. However, there are Quantitative • This paper introduces a − Which quantitative
several limitations. validation and generalized framework for methods best assess the
First, the scope of this paper is defined by its focus on 93 marketing application of SMI assessing SMI marketing SMI framework’s reliability
papers published between 2000 and 2022. The breadth of the review marketing effectiveness. and accuracy?
effectiveness • Future research should − How can the proposed
thus shapes the extent of our analysis. Second, the diversity of the framework provide additional framework be
dependent variables means that the meta-analysis was based on a rela­ validation and quantitatively aligned with
tively limited number of studies. This constraint limited the inclusion of quantitative assessment. key marketing
certain predictors in the quantitative analyses. Nonetheless, as a pio­ performance indicators?
neering effort to apply meta-analytical techniques to this emerging field, (continued on next page)

11
K. Spörl-Wang et al. Journal of Business Research 186 (2025) 114991

Table 5 (continued ) Appendix A. Supplementary data

Themes Critical observations Sample research questions
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
− In what ways can this
generalized framework be
org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114991.
practically implemented by
marketing professionals to References
evaluate SMI campaigns?
Aleti, T., Pallant, J. I., Tuan, A., & Van Laer, T. (2019). Tweeting with the stars:
Automated text analysis of the effect of celebrity social media communications on
the findings reflect the current state of accumulated research knowl­ consumer word of mouth. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 48, 17–32. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.intmar.2019.03.003
edge. Third, the limited dataset precludes the use of meta-analytic
Ao, L., Bansal, R., Pruthi, N., & Khaskheli, M. B. (2023). Impact of social media
structural equation modeling to validate causal relationships between influencers on customer engagement and purchase intention: A meta-analysis.
predictors and dependent measures of SMI marketing effectiveness. Sustainability, 15(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032744
Argyris, Y. A., Muqaddam, A., & Miller, S. (2021). The effects of the visual presentation
Consequently, understanding the dynamics within the generalized
of an Influencer’s Extroversion on perceived credibility and purchase
framework of marketing effectiveness remains a challenge for future intentions—Moderated by personality matching with the audience. Journal of
research. Retailing and Consumer Services, 59, Article 102347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
This paper summarizes four major directions for future research. jretconser.2020.102347
Arun, T. M., Kaur, P., Ferraris, A., & Dhir, A. (2021). What motivates the adoption of
First, the discussion on theory clusters revealed several questions on the green restaurant products and services? A systematic review and future research
clear demarcation of theories, such as source credibility, opinion lead­ agenda. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(4), 2224–2240. https://doi.org/
ership, and elaboration likelihood model, and their relationships with 10.1002/bse.2755
Association of National Advertisers. (2021). The state of influence—challenges and
each other in explaining expertise. However, there are certain combi­ opportunities in influencer marketing.
nations of relationships that have not yet been explored, such as how Audrezet, A., de Kerviler, G., & Guidry Moulard, J. (2020). Authenticity under threat:
parasocial relationships with SMI satisfy the need for social interaction When social media influencers need to go beyond self-presentation. Journal of
Business Research, 117(C), 557–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.008
from a uses and gratification theory perspective. Second, for several Aw, E. C. X., & Chuah, S. H. W. (2021). “Stop the unattainable ideal for an ordinary me!”
predictors, further research is required to resolve the inconsistencies in fostering parasocial relationships with social media influencers: The role of self-
the existing findings. For example, the inconsistency of follower count discrepancy. Journal of Business Research, 132(July 2020), 146–157. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.025
on engagement requires further investigation of the conditions of effect
Babić Rosario, A., Sotgiu, F., De Valck, K., & Bijmolt, T. H. A. (2016). The effect of
change. In sum, the interaction effects across predictors are still unex­ electronic word of mouth on sales: A meta-analytic review of platform, product, and
plored and could be resolved when enough primary data are available to metric factors. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(3), 297–318. https://doi.org/
10.1509/jmr.14.0380
conduct a meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach. The
Belanche, D., Casaló, L. V., Flavián, M., & Ibáñez-Sánchez, S. (2021). Understanding
remaining questions concern how moderators for similarity—for influencer marketing: The role of congruence between influencers, products and
example, trustworthiness and closeness—interact in a joint model. For consumers. Journal of Business Research, 132, 186–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
some predictors, such as authenticity, empirical evidence is still limited. jbusres.2021.03.067
Billore, S., Anisimova, T., & Vrontis, D. (2023). Self-regulation and goal-directed
For the meta-analysis of customer engagement, only two studies were behavior: A systematic literature review, public policy recommendations, and
identified. Third, many celebrities have social media accounts with research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 156, Article 113435. https://doi.org/
many followers. The similarity between SMIs and celebrities is incon­ 10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113435
Book, L. A., Tanford, S., & Chen, Y. S. (2016). Understanding the impact of negative and
testable. Therefore, there is a need to identify further boundary condi­ positive traveler reviews: Social influence and price anchoring effects. Journal of
tions and delineate how predictors of marketing effectiveness behave in Travel Research, 55(8), 993–1007. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287515606810
comparisons between SMIs and celebrities. Fourth, based on the existing Bu, Y., Parkinson, J., & Thaichon, P. (2022). Influencer marketing: Homophily, customer
value co-creation behaviour and purchase intention. Journal of Retailing and
literature, this paper presents a comprehensive framework for evalu­ Consumer Services, 66, Article 102904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ating SMI marketing effectiveness. While this framework is extensive, it jretconser.2021.102904
requires further validation and quantitative analysis. The development Byrne, D. E. (1971). The attraction paradigm. Academic Press.
Casaló, L. V., Flavián, C., & Ibáñez-Sánchez, S. (2020). Influencers on Instagram:
of specific SMI measurement scales, in addition to meta-analytical
Antecedents and consequences of opinion leadership. Journal of Business Research,
methods, is crucial because such scales would contribute significantly to 117, 510–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.005
scholarly discussions and provide tangible tools for marketers. With the Cascio Rizzo, G. L., Berger, J., Deangelis, M., & Pozharliev, R. (2023). How sensory
language shapes influencer’s impact. Journal of Consumer Research, 50. https://doi.
rising digitalization and transparency of data that social media plat­
org/10.1093/jcr/ucad017
forms provide, such analyses and calculations have become increasingly Cascio Rizzo, G. L., Villarroel Ordenes, F., Pozharliev, R., De Angelis, M., & Costabile, M.
feasible. Table 5 presents a summary of the key dimensions for future (2024). How high-arousal language shapes micro- versus macro-influencers’ impact.
research with sample research questions. Journal of Marketing, 88(4), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/
00222429231207636
Chen, Y., Tingchi Liu, M., Liu, Y., Chang, A. W., & Yen, J. (2022). The influence of trust
CRediT authorship contribution statement and relationship commitment to vloggers on viewers’ purchase intention. Asia Pacific
Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 34(2), 249–267. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-
08-2020-0626
Katja Spörl-Wang: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original Cheung, M. L., Leung, W. K. S., Aw, E.-C.-X., & Koay, K. Y. (2022). “I follow what you
draft, Validation, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, post!”: The role of social media influencers’ content characteristics in consumers’
Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Franziska Krause: online brand-related activities (COBRAs). Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
66, Article 102940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2022.102940
Writing – review & editing, Validation, Supervision, Project adminis­ Cheung, M. L., Leung, W. K. S., Yang, M. X., Koay, K. Y., & Chang, M. K. (2022).
tration, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Conceptualiza­ Exploring the nexus of social media influencers and consumer brand engagement.
tion. Sven Henkel: Writing – review & editing, Validation, Supervision, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 34(10), 2370–2385. https://doi.org/
10.1108/APJML-07-2021-0522
Project administration, Methodology, Conceptualization.
Choi, S. M., & Rifon, N. J. (2012). It is a match: The impact of congruence between
celebrity image and consumer ideal self on endorsement effectiveness. Psychology &
Acknowledgment Marketing, 29(9), 639–650. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20550
Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). SOCIAL INFLUENCE: Compliance and
conformity. Annu. Rev. Psychol, 55, 591–621. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.
No acknowledgments. psych.55.090902.142015
Cochran, W. G. (1954). Some methods for strengthening the common χ2 tests. Biometrics,
10(4), 417–451. https://doi.org/10.2307/3001616

12
K. Spörl-Wang et al. Journal of Business Research 186 (2025) 114991

Cosenza, T., Solomon, M., & Kwon, W.-S. (2014). Credibility in the blogosphere: A study social media influencers. International Journal of Advertising, 40(3), 327–375. https://
of measurement and influence of wine blogs as an information source. Journal of doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2020.1836925
Consumer Behaviour, 14. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1496 Hugh, D. C., Dolan, R., Harrigan, P., & Gray, H. (2022). Influencer marketing
De Veirman, M., Cauberghe, V., & Hudders, L. (2017). Marketing through instagram effectiveness: The mechanisms that matter. European Journal of Marketing, 56(12),
influencers: The impact of number of followers and product divergence on brand 3485–3515. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-09-2020-0703
attitude. International Journal of Advertising, 36(5), 798–828. https://doi.org/ Hughes, C., Swaminathan, V., & Brooks, G. (2019). Driving brand engagement through
10.1080/02650487.2017.1348035 online social influencers: An empirical investigation of sponsored blogging
De Veirman, M., Hudders, L., & Nelson, M. R. (2019). What is influencer marketing and campaigns. Journal of Marketing, 83(5), 78–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/
how does it target children? A review and direction for future research. Frontiers in 0022242919854374
Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02685 Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1991). Methods of meta-analysis: correcting error and
De Vries, E. L. E. (2019). When more likes is not better: The consequences of high and bias in research findings. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 86(413), 242.
low likes-to-followers ratios for perceived account credibility and social media https://doi.org/10.2307/2289738
marketing effectiveness. Marketing Letters, 30(3–4), 275–291. https://doi.org/ Influencer Marketing Hub. (2024). The state of influencer marketing 2024: Benchmark
10.1007/s11002-019-09496-6 report. https://influencermarketinghub.com/influencer-marketing-benchmark-rep
Delbaere, M., Michael, B., & Phillips, B. J. (2021). Social media influencers: A route to ort/.
brand engagement for their followers. Psychology and Marketing, 38(1), 101–112. Ismagilova, E., Rana, N. P., Slade, E. L., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2021). A meta-analysis of the
https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21419 factors affecting eWOM providing behaviour. European Journal of Marketing, 55(4),
DerSimonian, R., & Kacker, R. (2007). Random-effects model for meta-analysis of clinical 1067–1102. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-07-2018-0472
trials: An update. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 28(2), 105–114. https://doi.org/ Janssen, L., Schouten, A. P., & Croes, E. A. J. (2022). Influencer advertising on Instagram:
10.1016/j.cct.2006.04.004 Product-influencer fit and number of followers affect advertising outcomes and
Dolan, R., Conduit, J., Freithey-Bentham, C., Fahy, J., & Goodman, S. (2019). Social influencer evaluations via credibility and identification. International Journal of
media engagement behavior: A framework for engaging customers through social Advertising, 41(1), 101–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2021.1994205
media content. European Journal of Marketing, 53(10), 2213–2243. https://doi.org/ Jegham, S., & Bouzaabia, R. (2022). Fashion influencers on Instagram: Determinants and
10.1108/EJM-03-2017-0182 impact of opinion leadership on female millennial followers. Journal of Consumer
Duh, H. I., & Thabethe, T. (2021). Attributes of Instagram influencers impacting Behaviour, 21(5), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.2050
consumer brand engagement. International Journal of Internet Marketing and Jung, N., & Im, S. (2021). The mechanism of social media marketing: Influencer
Advertising, 15(5/6), 477. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIMA.2021.118261 characteristics, consumer empathy, immersion, and sponsorship disclosure.
Eisend, M. (2015). Have we progressed marketing knowledge? A Meta-Meta-Analysis of International Journal of Advertising, 40(8), 1265–1293. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Effect Sizes in Marketing Research., 79(3), 23–40. https://doi.org/10.1509/ 02650487.2021.1991107
jm.14.0288 Kapitan, S., & Silvera, D. H. (2016). From digital media influencers to celebrity
Evans, N. J., Balaban, D. C., Naderer, B., & Mucundorfeanu, M. (2022). How the impact endorsers: Attributions drive endorser effectiveness. Marketing Letters, 27(3),
of social media influencer disclosures changes over time: Discounting cues and 553–567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-015-9363-0
exposure level can affect consumer attitudes and purchase intention. Journal of Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). Uses and gratification research. Public
Advertising Research, 2022–2023. https://doi.org/10.2501/JAR-2022-023 Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 509–523. https://doi.org/10.1086/268109
Evans, N. J., Hoy, M. G., & Childers, C. C. (2018). Parenting “YouTube Natives”: The Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1955). Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow
impact of pre-roll advertising and text disclosures on parental responses to sponsored of mass communications (2nd ed.). Routledge.
child influencer videos. Journal of Advertising, 47(4), 326–346. https://doi.org/ Kay, S., Mulcahy, R., & Parkinson, J. (2020). When less is more: The impact of macro and
10.1080/00913367.2018.1544952 micro social media influencers’ disclosure. Journal of Marketing Management, 36
Evans, N. J., Phua, J., Lim, J., & Jun, H. (2017). Disclosing instagram influencer (3–4), 248–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2020.1718740
advertising: The effects of disclosure language on advertising recognition, attitudes, Kelman, H. C. (1961). Processes of opinion change. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 25(1),
and behavioral intent. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 17(2), 138–149. https://doi. 57–78.
org/10.1080/15252019.2017.1366885 Kemp, S. (2021). Digital 2021: Global overview report. https://wearesocial.com/digital-
Fernandes, T., Nettleship, H., & Pinto, L. H. (2022). Judging a book by its cover? The role 2021.
of unconventional appearance on social media influencers effectiveness. Journal of Ki, C. W. ‘Chloe,’ Cuevas, L. M., Chong, S. M., & Lim, H. (2020). Influencer marketing:
Retailing and Consumer Services, 66, Article 102917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Social media influencers as human brands attaching to followers and yielding
jretconser.2022.102917 positive marketing results by fulfilling needs. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press. Services, 55. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102133.
Fink, A. (2013). Conducting research literature reviews: From the internet to paper: Fink, Ki, C. W. ‘Chloe,’ & Kim, Y. K. (2019). The mechanism by which social media influencers
Arlene: Amazon.de: Bücher ((4th Edition).). SAGE Publications Inc. persuade consumers: The role of consumers’ desire to mimic. Psychology and
Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The Persuasion knowledge model: How people cope Marketing, 36(10), 905–922. doi: 10.1002/mar.21244.
with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1–31. https://doi. Kim, D. Y., & Kim, H. Y. (2021). Influencer advertising on social media: The multiple
org/10.1086/209380 inference model on influencer-product congruence and sponsorship disclosure.
FTC. (2019). Disclosures 101 for social media influencers. In American Federal Trade Journal of Business Research, 130, 405–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Commission. jbusres.2020.02.020
Gomes, M. A., Marques, S., & Dias, Á. (2022). The impact of digital influencers’ Labrecque, L. I. (2014). Fostering consumer-brand relationships in social media
characteristics on purchase intention of fashion products. Journal of Global Fashion environments: The role of parasocial interaction. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28
Marketing, 13(3), 187–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/20932685.2022.2039263 (2), 134–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.INTMAR.2013.12.003
Han, J. A., Feit, E. M. D., & Srinivasan, S. (2020). Can negative buzz increase awareness Lazarsfeld, P. F., Katz, E., & Roper, E. (1955). Personal influence: The part played by
and purchase intent? Marketing Letters, 31(1), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/ people in the flow of mass communications. In Personal influence: The part played by
s11002-019-09501-y people in the flow of mass communications. Taylor and Francis. doi: 10.4324/
Han, J., & Balabanis, G. (2024). Meta-analysis of social media influencer impact: Key 9781315126234.
antecedents and theoretical foundations. Psychology & Marketing, 41(2), 394–426. Lee, M. T., & Theokary, C. (2021). The superstar social media influencer: Exploiting
https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21927 linguistic style and emotional contagion over content? Journal of Business Research,
Hartung, J., & Knapp G. (2003). An alternative test procedure for meta-analysis. In R. 132, 860–871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.11.014
Schulze, H. Holling, & D. Böhning (Eds.), Meta-analysis: New developments and Lee, S. S., & Johnson, B. K. (2022). Are they being authentic? The effects of self-
applications in medical and social sciences (Eds, pp. 53–69). Hogrefe & Huber disclosure and message sidedness on sponsored post effectiveness. International
Publishers. Journal of Advertising, 41(1), 30–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations ((1958th ed.).). Martino Fine 02650487.2021.1986257
Books. Leung, F. F., Gu, F. F., Li, Y., Zhang, J. Z., & Palmatier, R. W. (2022). Influencer
Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta- marketing effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 86(6), 93–115. https://doi.org/
analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 21(11), 1539–1558. https://doi.org/10.1002/ 10.1177/00222429221102889
sim.1186 Leung, F. F., Gu, F. F., & Palmatier, R. W. (2022). Online influencer marketing. Journal of
Hinz, O., Skiera, B., Barrot, C., & Becker, J. U. (2011). Seeding strategies for viral the Academy of Marketing Science, 50(2), 226–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-
marketing: An empirical comparison. Journal of Marketing, 75(6), 55–71. https://doi. 021-00829-4
org/10.1509/jm.10.0088 Li, W., Zhao, F., Lee, J. M., Park, J., Septianto, F., & Seo, Y. (2024). How micro- (vs.
Homburg, C., Jozić, D., & Kuehnl, C. (2017). Customer experience management: Toward mega-) influencers generate word of mouth in the digital economy age: The
implementing an evolving marketing concept. Journal of the Academy of Marketing moderating role of mindset. Journal of Business Research, 171. https://doi.org/
Science, 45(3), 377–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-015-0460-7 10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114387
Horton, D., & Richard Wohl, R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction. Li, Y., & Peng, Y. (2021). Influencer marketing: Purchase intention and its antecedents.
Psychiatry, 19(3), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049 Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 39(7), 960–978. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-04-
Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication 2021-0104
effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635–650. https://doi.org/10.1086/ Libai, B., Muller, E., & Peres, R. (2013). Decomposing the value of word-of-mouth
266350 seeding programs: Acceleration versus expansion. Journal of Marketing Research, 50
Hudders, L., De Jans, S., & De Veirman, M. (2021). The commercialization of social (2), 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.11.0305
media stars: A literature review and conceptual framework on the strategic use of Lou, C. (2021). Social media influencers and followers: Theorization of a trans-parasocial
relation and explication of its implications for influencer advertising view

13
K. Spörl-Wang et al. Journal of Business Research 186 (2025) 114991

supplementary material. Journal of Advertising, 51. https://doi.org/10.1080/ attachment and information value. Journal of Marketing Management, 37(11–12),
00913367.2021.1880345 1123–1147. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2020.1866648
Lou, C., & Yuan, S. (2019). Influencer marketing: how message value and credibility Sandberg, J., & Alvesson, M. (2021). Meanings of theory: Clarifying theory through
affect consumer trust of branded content on social media. Journal of Interactive typification. Journal of Management Studies, 58(2), 487–516. https://doi.org/
Advertising, 19(1), 58–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2018.1533501 10.1111/joms.12587
Mainolfi, G., Presti, L. L., Marino, V., & Filieri, R. (2022). “YOU POST, I TRAVEL.” Santini, F. D. O., Ladeira, W. J., & Pinto, D. C. (2020). Customer engagement in social
Bloggers’ credibility, digital engagement, and travelers’ behavioral intention: The media: A framework and meta-analysis. 1211–1228.
mediating role of hedonic and utilitarian motivations. Psychology & Marketing, 39(5), Saternus, Z., Weber, P., & Hinz, O. (2022). The effects of advertisement disclosure on
1022–1034. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21638 heavy and light Instagram users. Electronic Markets, 32(3), 1351–1372. https://doi.
Malär, L., Krohmer, H., Hoyer, W. D., & Nyffenegger, B. (2011). Emotional brand org/10.1007/s12525-022-00546-y
attachment and brand personality: The relative importance of the actual and the Schorn, A., Vinzenz, F., & Wirth, W. (2022). Promoting sustainability on Instagram: How
ideal self. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.75.4.35 sponsorship disclosures and benefit appeals affect the credibility of sinnfluencers.
Martensen, A., Brockenhuus-Schack, S., & Zahid, A. L. (2018). How citizen influencers Young Consumers, 23(3), 345–361. https://doi.org/10.1108/YC-07-2021-1355
persuade their followers. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 22(3), Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and
335–353. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-09-2017-0095 guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
McQuail, D. (1994). Mass communication theory an introduction (3rd Edition). SAGE jbusres.2019.07.039
Publications Ltd. Sokolova, K., & Kefi, H. (2020). Instagram and YouTube bloggers promote it, why should
von Mettenheim, W., & Wiedmann, K.-P. (2021). The complex triad of congruence issues I buy? How credibility and parasocial interaction influence purchase intentions.
in influencer marketing. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 20(5), 1277–1296. https:// Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 53, Article 101742. https://doi.org/
doi.org/10.1002/cb.1935 10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.01.011
Myers, S., Sen, S., Syrdal, H., & Woodroof, P. (2022). The impact of Persuasion Statista Market Insights. (2024). Influencer Advertising—Global | Market Forecast
knowledge cues on social media engagement: A look at pet influencer marketing. [dataset]. https://www.statista.com/outlook/amo/advertising/influencer-advert
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 32(1), 43–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/ ising/worldwide.
10696679.2022.2093224 Steils, N., Martin, A., & Toti, J.-F. (2022). Managing the transparency paradox of social-
Naderer, B., Matthes, J., & Schäfer, S. (2021). Effects of disclosing ads on Instagram: The media influencer disclosures: How to improve authenticity and engagement when
moderating impact of similarity to the influencer. International Journal of Advertising, disclosing influencer-sponsor relationships. Journal of Advertising Research, 62(2),
40(5), 686–707. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2021.1930939 148–166. https://doi.org/10.2501/JAR-2022-008
Nafi, S. M., & Ahmed, T. (2019). The ethical standpoint of social influencers on hotel: A Su, Y., Kunkel, T., & Ye, N. (2021). When abs do not sell: The impact of male influencers
theoretical perspective on the existing literature. African Journal of Hospitality, conspicuously displaying a muscular body on female followers. Psychology and
Tourism and Leisure, 8(1). Marketing, 38(2), 286–297. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21322
Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly,
endorsers’ perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of 40(3), 371. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393788
Advertising, 19(3), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1990.10673191 Tafesse, W., & Wood, B. P. (2021). Followers’ engagement with instagram influencers:
Ohanian, R. (1991). The impact of celebrity spokespersons’ perceived image on The role of influencers’ content and engagement strategy. Journal of Retailing and
consumers’ intention to purchase. Journal of Advertising Research, 31(1), 46–54. Consumer Services, 58, Article 102303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Olkin, I., & Finn, J. D. (1995). Correlations Redux. Psychological Bulletin, 118(1), jretconser.2020.102303
155–164. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.155 Taillon, B. J., Mueller, S. M., Kowalczyk, C. M., & Jones, D. N. (2020). Understanding the
Pansari, A., & Kumar, V. (2017). Customer engagement: The construct, antecedents, and relationships between social media influencers and their followers: The moderating
consequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(3), 294–311. https:// role of closeness. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 29(6), 767–782. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11747-016-0485-6 doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-03-2019-2292
Park, J., Lee, J. M., Xiong, V. Y., Septianto, F., & Seo, Y. (2021). David and Goliath: When Tan, T. M., Salo, J., Juntunen, J., & Kumar, A. (2019). The role of temporal focus and
and why micro-influencers are more persuasive than mega-influencers. Journal of self-congruence on consumer preference and willingness to pay: A new scrutiny in
Advertising, 50(5), 584–602. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2021.1980470 branding strategy. European Journal of Marketing, 53(1), 37–62. https://doi.org/
Paul, J., & Criado, A. R. (2020). The art of writing literature review: What do we know 10.1108/EJM-04-2017-0303
and what do we need to know? International Business Review, 29(4), Article 101717. Torres, P., Augusto, M., & Matos, M. (2019). Antecedents and outcomes of digital
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2020.101717 influencer endorsement: An exploratory study. Psychology and Marketing, 36(12),
Paul, J., & Rosado-Serrano, A. (2019). Gradual Internationalization vs Born-Global/ 1267–1276. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21274
International new venture models: A review and research agenda. International Trend. (2020). Macro vs. micro-influencers: Who’s best for your campaign? | Trend. Trend.
Marketing Review, 36(6), 830–858. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-10-2018-0280 https://www.trend.io/blog/macro-influencers-micro-influencers-influencer-campai
Peng, Y., & Lu, L. (2024). Untangling influence: The effect of follower-followee gns.
comparison on social media engagement. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Ulaga, W., & Reinartz, W. J. (2011). Hybrid offerings: How manufacturing firms combine
78, Article 103747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2024.103747 goods and services successfully. Journal of Marketing, 75(6), 5–23. https://doi.org/
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. 10.1509/jm.09.0395
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19(C), 123–205. https://doi.org/ Uribe, R., Buzeta, C., & Velásquez, M. (2016). Sidedness, commercial intent and expertise
10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2 in blog advertising. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4403–4410. https://doi.
Pittman, M., & Abell, A. (2021). More trust in fewer followers: Diverging effects of org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.102
popularity metrics and green orientation social media influencers. Journal of Valsesia, F., Proserpio, D., & Nunes, J. C. (2020). The positive effect of not following
Interactive Marketing, 56, 70–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2021.05.002 others on social media. Journal of Marketing Research, 57(6), 1152–1168. https://doi.
Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of org/10.1177/0022243720915467
five decades of evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 243–281. Verma, D., Prakash Dewani, P., Behl, A., Pereira, V., Dwivedi, Y., & Del Giudice, M.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02547.x (2023). A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of eWOM credibility:
Pozharliev, R., Rossi, D., & De Angelis, M. (2022). Consumers’ self-reported and brain Investigation of moderating role of culture and platform type. Journal of Business
responses to advertising post on Instagram: The effect of number of followers and Research, 154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.08.056
argument quality. European Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 922–948. https://doi.org/ Viechtbauer, W., López-López, J. A., Sánchez-Meca, J., & Marín-Martínez, F. (2015).
10.1108/EJM-09-2020-0719 A comparison of procedures to test for moderators in mixed-effects meta-regression
Pradhan, B., Kishore, K., & Gokhale, N. (2023). Social media influencers and consumer models. Psychological Methods, 20(3), 360–374. https://doi.org/10.1037/
engagement: A review and future research agenda. International Journal of Consumer met0000023
Studies, 47(6), 2106–2130. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12901 Vrontis, D., Makrides, A., Christofi, M., & Thrassou, A. (2021). Social media influencer
Pradhan, D., Duraipandian, I., & Sethi, D. (2016). Celebrity endorsement: How marketing: A systematic review, integrative framework and future research agenda.
celebrity–brand–user personality congruence affects brand attitude and purchase International Journal of Consumer Studies, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12647
intention. Journal of Marketing Communications, 22(5), 456–473. https://doi.org/ Waltenrath, A., Brenner, C., & Hinz, O. (2022). Some interactions are more equal than
10.1080/13527266.2014.914561 others: The effect of influencer endorsements in social media brand posts on
Rowe, F. (2014). What literature review is not: Diversity, boundaries and engagement and online store performance. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 57(4),
recommendations. European Journal of Information Systems, 23, 241–255. https://doi. 541–560. https://doi.org/10.1177/10949968221096591
org/10.1057/ejis.2014.7 Wang, Q., Miao, F., Tayi, G. K., & Xie, E. (2019a). What makes online content viral? The
Ruggiero, T. E. (2000). Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass contingent effects of hub users versus non–hub users on social media platforms.
Communication and Society, 3(1), 3–37. https://doi.org/10.1207/ Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47(6), 1005–1026. https://doi.org/
S15327825MCS0301_02 10.1007/s11747-019-00678-2
Ryu, E. A., & Han, E. K. (2021). Social media influencer’s reputation: Developing and Wang, Q., Miao, F., Tayi, G. K., & Xie, E. (2019b). What makes online content viral? The
validating a multidimensional scale. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(2), 1–18. contingent effects of hubusers versus non–hub users on social media platforms.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020631 Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47(6), 1005–1026. https://doi.org/
Saima, & Khan, M. A. (2021). Effect of social media influencer marketing on consumers’ 10.1007/s11747-019-00678-2
purchase intention and the mediating role of credibility. Journal of Promotion Weismueller, J., Harrigan, P., Wang, S., & Soutar, G. N. (2020). Influencer endorsements:
Management, 27(4), 503–523. https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2020.1851847 How advertising disclosure and source credibility affect consumer purchase
Sánchez-Fernández, R., & Jiménez-Castillo, D. (2021). How social media influencers intention on social media. Australasian Marketing Journal, 28(4), 160–170. https://
affect behavioural intentions towards recommended brands: The role of emotional doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2020.03.002

14
K. Spörl-Wang et al. Journal of Business Research 186 (2025) 114991

Wiedmann, K. P., & von Mettenheim, W. (2020). Attractiveness, trustworthiness and Katja Spörl-Wang is a research assistant and doctoral student at the EBS university where
expertise – social influencers’ winning formula? Journal of Product and Brand she engages in research in the field of social media and influencer marketing. She holds a
Management, 30(5), 707–725. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-06-2019-2442 Master’s degree in Finance from the University of St. Gallen and a Bachelor’s degree from
Woodroof, P. J., Howie, K. M., Syrdal, H. A., & VanMeter, R. (2020). What’s done in the EBS University. Before re-joining EBS university as a doctoral student, she worked as a
dark will be brought to the light: Effects of influencer transparency on product project manager for a top-tier management consultancy in Frankfurt and Singapore.
efficacy and purchase intentions. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 29(5),
675–688. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-05-2019-2362
Franziska Krause is Associate Professor of Marketing and Customer Insight at EBS Uni­
Xu (Rinka), X., & Pratt, S. (2018). Social media influencers as endorsers to promote
versity for Business and Law in Germany. She received her doctoral degree from Vienna
travel destinations: An application of self-congruence theory to the Chinese
University for Economics and Business in Austria. Her research interests include digital
Generation Y. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 35(7), 958–972. doi: 10.1080/
marketing, customer experience, consumer learning, and customization.
10548408.2018.1468851.
Ye, G., Hudders, L., De Jans, S., & De Veirman, M. (2021). The value of influencer
marketing for business: A bibliometric analysis and managerial implications. Journal Prof. Dr. Sven Henkel is the Chair of Customer Behavior and Sales at EBS University, and
of Advertising, 50(2), 160–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2020.1857888 Director of the Institute for Technology, Innovation and Customer Centricity (TICC). He
Yuan, S., & Lou, C. (2020). How social media influencers foster relationships with received his doctoral degree from the University of St. Gallen, where he was Vice-Director
followers: The roles of source credibility and fairness in parasocial relationship and of the Center for Customer Insight. His research interests are digital sales and marketing,
product interest. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 20(2), 133–147. https://doi.org/ customer experience, branding and innovation acceptance in marketing and mobility.
10.1080/15252019.2020.1769514
Zahavi, A. (1975). Mate selection—A selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical
Biology, 53(1), 205–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(75)90111-3

15