With advent of artificial intelligence applications, managers and policymakers are challenged to incorporate such transformative technology into their practices. Drawing upon the match-up hypothesis, this article aims to examine how consumers respond to utilitarian (food), symbolic (Gucci bag) or stigmatized (cigarettes) products endorsed by artificial intelligence influencer compared to human influencer. The phenomenon by which utilitarian/hedonic attributes trade-offs determine preference for, or resistance to, artificial intelligence-based recommendations in comparison to human influencer’s product recommendations. Research sheds light on social media’s dark side by investigating the effectiveness of influencer marketing in endorsing stigmatized product type. A ‘web-based between-subjects’ experiment was conducted on 236 Egyptian female samples with an equal exposure to artificial intelligence (n = 118) and human influencers (n = 118). After validating the designed scenarios and measurement model, structural equation modelling was employed to test the hypotheses. Results show that there is no significant difference between artificial intelligence and human influencers for symbolic product recommendations. Compared to artificial intelligence, human influencers are more effective at making recommendations for utilitarian products, while artificial intelligence influencers are more effective at making recommendations for stigmatized products. Moreover, perceived authenticity leads to variation between human and artificial intelligence influencer effectiveness for symbolic product recommendations.
AngS. H., & LimE. A. C. (2006). The influence of metaphors and product type on brand personality perceptions and attitudes. Journal of Advertising, 35(2), 39–53.
6.
AnghelcevG., McGroartyS., SarS., MoultrieJ. L., & HuangY. (2020). Marketing processed organic foods: The impact of promotional message framing (vice vs. virtue advertising) on perceptions of healthfulness. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 26(6), 401–424.
7.
ArgoJ. J., & MainK. J. (2008). Stigma by association in coupon redemption: Looking cheap because of others. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(4), 559–572.
8.
ArsenyanJ., & MirowskaA. (2021). Almost human? A comparative case study on the social media presence of virtual influencers. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 155, 102694.
9.
AudrezetA., de KervilerG., &MoulardJ. G. (2018). Authenticity under threat: When social media influencers need to go beyond self-presentation. Journal of Business Research, 117, 557–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.008
10.
BaileyA. A., & WaronskaA. K. (2015). Stigmatized products: Fostering discourse on those “Products I would never be caught dead buying!”. InMarketing, technology and customer commitment in the new economy (pp. 219–225). Springer.
11.
BaltasG., KokkinakiF., & LoukopoulouA. (2017). Does variety seeking vary between hedonic and utilitarian products? The role of attribute type. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 16(6), e1–e12.
12.
BatraR., & SinhaI. (2000). Consumer-level factors moderating the success of private label brands. Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 175–191.
13.
BazermanM. H., TenbrunselA. E., & Wade-BenzoniK. (1998). Negotiating with yourself and losing: Making decisions with competing internal preferences. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 225–241.
14.
BeverlandM. B., & FarrellyF. J. (2010). The quest for authenticity in consumption: Consumers’ purposive choice of authentic cues to shape experienced outcomes. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5), 838–856.
15.
BhargaveR., ChakravartiA., & GuhaA. (2015). Two-stage decisions increase preference for hedonic options. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 130, 123–135.
16.
BottiS., & McGillA. L. (2011). The locus of choice: Personal causality and satisfaction with hedonic and utilitarian decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(6), 1065–1078.
17.
BresnahanM. J., SilkK., & ZhuangJ. (2013). You did this to yourself! Stigma and blame in lung cancer. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(S1), E132–E140.
18.
BrevesP. L., LiebersN., AbtM., & KunzeA. (2019). The perceived fit between Instagram influencers and the endorsed brand: How influencer–brand fit affects source credibility and persuasive effectiveness. Journal of Advertising Research, 59(4), 440–454.
19.
CampbellC., SandsS., FerraroC., TsaoH. Y. J., & MavrommatisA. (2020). From data to action: How marketers can leverage AI. Business Horizons, 63(2), 227–243.
20.
CampbellJ. P., SinghP., ReddT. K., BrownJ. M., ShahP. K., SubramanianP., RajanR., ValikodathN., ColeE., OstmoS., Paul ChanR. V., VenkatapathyN., ChiangM. F., & Kalpathy-CramerJ. (2021). Applications of artificial intelligence for retinopathy of prematurity screening. Pediatrics, 147(3), e2020016618.
21.
CarvalhoG. J. (2018). Social networks and digital influences: A description of the influences in the digital consumer behavior. PMKT—Brazilian Journal of Marketing Research, Opinion and Media, 11(3), 277–288. https://revistapmkt.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/4-Social-networks-and-digital-influences-A-description-of-the-influences-in-the-digital-consumer-behavior.pdf
22.
CarvalhoP. H. (2021). How influencers’ facial expression affects customer behavioral intentions(Doctoral Dissertation). Universidade NOVA de Lisboa.
23.
Castelo-BrancoI., Cruz-JesusF., & OliveiraT. (2019). Assessing Industry 4.0 readiness in manufacturing: Evidence for the European Union. Computers in Industry, 107, 22–32.
24.
ChoiS. M., & RifonN. J. (2012). It is a match: The impact of congruence between celebrity image and consumer ideal self on endorsement effectiveness. Psychology and Marketing, 29(9), 639–650. https://doi.org/10.1002/MAR.20550
25.
CohenJ. (1992). Statistical power analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1(3), 98–101.
26.
ContiM., GathaniJ., & TricomiP. P. (2022). Virtual influencers in online social media. IEEE Communications Magazine, 60(8), 86–91.
27.
CornwellT. B. (1997). The use of sponsorship‐linked marketing by tobacco firms: International public policy issues. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 31(2), 238–254.
28.
CornwellT. B., & MaignanI. (1998). An international review of sponsorship research. Journal of Advertising, 27(1), 1–21.
29.
CostaJ. A., & BamossyG. J. (2001). Le Parc Disney: Creating an “Authentic” American Experience. ACR North American Advances.
30.
CrockerJ., MajorB., & SteeleC. (1998). Social stigma. In GilbertD. T., FiskeS. T., & LindzeyG. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, 4th ed., pp. 504–553). McGraw Hill.
31.
CroesE., & BartelsJ. (2021). Young adults’ motivations for following social influencers and their relationship to identification and buying behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 124, 106910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106910
32.
DahlD. W., ManchandaR. V., & ArgoJ. J. (2001). Embarrassment in consumer purchase: The roles of social presence and purchase familiarity. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(3), 473–481.
33.
De VeirmanM., CaubergheV., & HuddersL. (2017). Marketing through Instagram influencers: The impact of number of followers and product divergence on brand attitude. International Journal of Advertising, 36(5), 798–828.
34.
DharR., & WertenbrochK. (2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(1), 60–71.
35.
DietvorstB. J., SimmonsJ., & MasseyC. (2014). Understanding algorithm aversion: Forecasters erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err. InAcademy of management proceedings (Vol. 2014, No. 1, p. 12227). Academy of Management.
36.
DjafarovaE., & RushworthC. (2017). Exploring the credibility of online celebrities’ Instagram profiles in influencing the purchase decisions of young female users. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 1–7.
37.
DuT. (2022). Virtual influencers in metaverse: Discussion and research on the impacts of the purchasing decisions of Generation Z(Thesis).
38.
DuffyB. E. (2017). (Not) getting paid to do what you love: Gender, social media, and aspirational work. Yale University Press.
39.
ErdoganB. Z. (1999). Celebrity endorsement: A literature review. Journal of Marketing Management, 15(4), 291–314.
40.
EwingD. R., AllenC. T., & EwingR. L. (2012). Authenticity as meaning validation: An empirical investigation of iconic and indexical cues in a context of “green” products. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 11(5), 381–390.
41.
F. Hair JrJ., SarstedtM., Hopkins L., &G. KuppelwieserV. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) An emerging tool in business research. European Business Review, 26(2), 106–121.
42.
FrankeC., Groeppel-KleinA., & MüllerK. (2023). Consumers’ responses to virtual influencers as advertising endorsers: Novel and effective or uncanny and deceiving? Journal of Advertising, 52(4), 523–539. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2022.2154721
43.
Geiger-OnetoS., GelbB. D., & SimkinsT. (2021). Stigmatized products: How conflicting laws can influence decisions to proceed. Journal of Business Strategy, 42(1), 41–49.
44.
GoffmanE. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Prentice Hall.
45.
GraysonK., & MartinecR. (2004). Consumer perceptions of iconicity and indexicality and their influence on assessments of authentic market offerings. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 296–312.
46.
GroveW. M., & MeehlP. E. (1996). Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: The clinical–statistical controversy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2(2), 293–323.
47.
GuerreiroC., ViegasM., & GuerreiroM. (2019). Social networks and digital influencers: Their role in customer decision journey in tourism. Journal of Spatial and Organizational Dynamics, 7(3), 240–260. www.jsod-cieo.net/journal/index.php/jsod/article/view/198
48.
HirschmanE. C., & HolbrookM. B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: Emerging concepts, methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46(3), 92–101.
49.
HofeditzL., NissenA., SchütteR., & MirbabaieM. (2022). Trust me, I’m an influencer!—A comparison of perceived trust in human and virtual influencers(CIS 2022 Research-in-Progress Papers).
50.
HolbrookM. B. (1994). The nature of customer value: An axiology of services in the consumption experience, In RustR. T. & OliverR. L. (Eds.), Service quality: New directions in theory and practice (pp. 21–71). Sage Publications.
51.
HuangM. H., & RustR. T. (2018). Artificial intelligence in service. Journal of Service Research, 21(2), 155–172.
52.
JorgeA., MarôpoL., & NunesT. (2018). ‘I am not being sponsored to say this’: A teen youtuber and her audience negotiate branded content. Observatorio (OBS*), 2018(Special Issue), 76–96.
53.
KadekovaZ., & HolienčinovaM. (2018). Influencer marketing as a modern phenomenon creating a new frontier of virtual opportunities. Communication Today, 9(2).
54.
KaminsM. A. (1990). An investigation into the “match-up” hypothesis in celebrity advertising: When beauty may be only skin deep. Journal of Advertising, 19(1), 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1990.10673175
55.
KanungoR. N., & PangS. (1973). Effects of human models on perceived product quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(2), 172–178. https://doi.org/10.1037/H0037042
56.
KaplanA., & HaenleinM. (2019). Siri, Siri, in my hand: Who’s the fairest in the land? On the interpretations, illustrations, and implications of artificial intelligence. Business Horizons, 62(1), 15–25.
57.
KaspersonR. E., JhaveriN., KaspersonJ. X., FlynnJ., SlovicP., & KunreutherH. (2001). Risk, media, and stigma: Understanding public challenges to modern science and technology. Routledge.
58.
KhanU., DharR., & WertenbrochK. (2005). A behavioral decision theory perspective on hedonic and utilitarian choice. In. Inside consumption (pp. 166–187). Routledge.
59.
KimJ.-H., & JangS. (Shawn). (2014). A scenario-based experiment and a field study: A comparative examination for service failure and recovery. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 41, 125–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.05.004
60.
KoernigS. K., & BoydT. C. (2009). To catch a tiger or let him go: The match-up effect and athlete endorsers for sport and non-sport brands. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 18(1), 25–37.
61.
KozinetsR. V. (2001). Utopian enterprise: Articulating the meanings of Star Trek’s culture of consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 67–88.
62.
KraemerH. C., & ThiemannS. (1987). How many subjects? Statistical power analysis in research (pp. 38–53). Sage Publications.
63.
LaszkiewiczA., & Kalinska-KulaM. (2023). Virtual influencers as an emerging marketing theory: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 47(6), 2479–2494. https://doi.org/10.1111/IJCS.12956
64.
Laura SidaliK., &HemmerlingS. (2014). Developing an authenticity model of traditional food specialties: Does the self-concept of consumers matter? British Food Journal, 116(11), 1692–1709.
65.
LeeJ. A. (2020). What makes social media influencers authentic? Understanding perceived authenticity of social media influencers(Doctoral Dissertation).
66.
LeeJ. A., & EastinM. S. (2020). I like what she’s #endorsing: The impact of female social media influencers’ perceived sincerity, consumer envy, and product type. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 20(1), 76–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2020.1737849
67.
LeeY., & KooJ. (2015). Athlete endorsement, attitudes, and purchase intention: The interaction effect between athlete endorser-product congruence and endorser credibility. Journal of Sport Management, 29(5), 523–538.
68.
LegendreT. S., & BakerM. A. (2021). The gateway bug to edible insect consumption: Interactions between message framing, celebrity endorsement and online social support. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 33(5), 1810–1829.
69.
LeightonH. (2019, November26). What it means for virtual Instagram influencers’ popularity rising. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/heatherleighton/2019/11/26/what-it-means-for-virtual-instagram-influencers-popularity-rising/?sh=2d38e9776e09
70.
LeungK. H., LukC. C., ChoyK. L., LamH. Y., & LeeC. K. (2019). A B2B flexible pricing decision support system for managing the request for quotation process under e-commerce business environment. International Journal of Production Research, 57(20), 6528–6551.
71.
LoggJ. M., MinsonJ. A., & MooreD. A. (2019). Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 151, 90–103.
72.
LongoniC., & CianL. (2022). Artificial intelligence in utilitarian vs. hedonic contexts: The “word-of-machine” effect. Journal of Marketing, 86(1), 91–108.
73.
LongoniC., BonezziA., & MorewedgeC. K. (2019). Resistance to medical artificial intelligence. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(4), 629–650.
74.
LouC., & YuanS. (2019). Influencer marketing: How message value and credibility affect consumer trust of branded content on social media. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 19(1), 58–73.
75.
LouC., KiewS. T. J., ChenT., LeeT. Y. M., OngJ. E. C., & PhuaZ. (2022). Authentically fake? How consumers respond to the influence of virtual influencers. Journal of Advertising, 52(4), 540–557.
76.
MadenD. (2018). The role of digital influencers in the diffusion of new products. Akdeniz Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Dergisi, (30), 119–141.
77.
MaehleN., IversenN., HemL., & OtnesC. (2015). Exploring consumer preferences for hedonic and utilitarian food attributes. British Food Journal, 117(12), 3039–3063. https://www.verdict.co.uk/virtual-influencers-lil-miquela-shudugram/
McCrackenG. (1989). Who is the celebrity endorser? Cultural foundations of the endorsement process. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(3), 310–321.
80.
McDanielS. R., KinneyL., & ChalipL. (2001). A cross-cultural investigation of the ethical dimensions of alcohol and tobacco sports sponsorships. Teaching Business Ethics, 5(3), 307–330.
81.
MeehlP. E. (1954). Clinical versus statistical prediction: A theoretical analysis and a review of the evidence. University of Minnesota Press.
82.
MeenaghanT. (1998). Current developments & future directions in sponsorship. International Journal of Advertising, 17(1), 3–28.
83.
MeiJ. (2021). Virtual influencers: Walking around the boundary of real and virtual. Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media (pp. 104–113).
84.
MiaoF., KozlenkovaI. V., WangH., XieT., & PalmatierR. W. (2022). An emerging theory of avatar marketing. Journal of Marketing, 86(1), 67–90.
85.
MirandaS., CunhaP., & DuarteM. (2019). An integrated model of factors affecting consumer attitudes and intentions towards youtuber-generated product content. Review of Managerial Science, 15(1), 55–73.
86.
MisraS., & BeattyS. E. (1990). Celebrity spokesperson and brand congruence: An assessment of recall and affect. Journal of Business Research, 21(2), 159–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(90)90050-N
87.
MitchellV. W., & BalabanisG. (2021). The role of brand strength, type, image and product-category fit in retail brand collaborations. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 60, 102445.
88.
MolinV., & NordgrenS. (2019). Robot or human? The marketing phenomenon of virtual influencers: A case study about virtual influencers’ parasocial interaction on Instagram(Master’s Thesis).
89.
Moliner-VelázquezB., Fuentes-BlascoM., Servera-FrancésD., & Gil-SauraI. (2019). From retail innovation and image to loyalty: moderating effects of product type. Service Business, 13, 199–224.
90.
MouritzenS. L. T., PenttinenV., & PedersenS. (2023). Virtual influencer marketing: The good, the bad and the unreal. European Journal of Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-12-2022-0915
91.
MoustakasE., LambaN., MahmoudD., & RanganathanC. (2020, June). Blurring lines between fiction and reality: Perspectives of experts on marketing effectiveness of virtual influencers. In2020 International Conference on Cyber Security and Protection of Digital Services (Cyber Security) (pp. 1–6). IEEE.
92.
MradM., RamadanZ., & NasrL. I. (2022). Computer-generated influencers: The rise of digital personalities. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 40(5), 589–603.
93.
NdichuE. G., & RittenburgT. L. (2021). Consumers’ navigation of risk perceptions in the adoption of stigmatized products. Journal of Business Research, 132, 340–353.
94.
NegroG., HannanM. T., & RaoH. (2010). Categorical contrast and audience appeal: Niche width and critical success in winemaking. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(5), 1397–1425.
95.
OkadaE. M. (2005). Justification effects on consumer choice of hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(1), 43–53.
96.
PalanS., & SchitterC. (2018). Prolific. ac—A subject pool for online experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 17, 22–27.
97.
ParkC. W., & MoonB. J. (2003). The relationship between product involvement and product knowledge: Moderating roles of product type and product knowledge type. Psychology & Marketing, 20(11), 977–997.
98.
ParkG., NanD., ParkE., KimK. J., HanJ., & del PobilA. P. (2021, January). Computers as social actors? Examining how users perceive and interact with virtual influencers on social media. In2021 15th International Conference on Ubiquitous Information Management and Communication (IMCOM) (pp. 1–6). IEEE.
99.
PelletierM. J., KrallmanA., AdamsF. G., & HancockT. (2020). One size doesn’t fit all: A uses and gratifications analysis of social media platforms. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 14(2), 269–284.
100.
PennyS. (2019). How brands can spot influencers with fake followers. Marketing Week.
101.
PollayR. W., LeeJ. S., & Carter-WhitneyD. (1992). Separate, but not equal: Racial segmentation in cigarette advertising. Journal of Advertising, 21(1), 45–57.
102.
PrebensenN. K., & RosengrenS. (2016). Experience value as a function of hedonic and utilitarian dominant services. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(1), 113–135.
103.
RaykovT. (2001). Bias of coefficient for fixed congeneric measures with correlated errors. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25(1), 69–76.
104.
ReipsU. D. (2009, February). Internet experiments: Methods, guidelines, metadata. InHuman vision and electronic imaging XIV (Vol. 7240, pp. 53–61). SPIE.
105.
ReisJ., AmorimM., CohenY., & RodriguesM. (2020). Artificial intelligence in service delivery systems: A systematic literature review. Trends and Innovations in Information Systems and Technologies, 1(8), 222–233.
106.
RobinsonB. (2020). Towards an ontology and ethics of virtual influencers. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 24.
107.
Rodrigo-MartínL., Rodrigo-MartínI., & Muñoz-SastreD. (2021). Virtual influencers as an advertising tool in the promotion of brands and products. Study of the commercial activity of lil miquela. Revista Latina De Comunicación Social, 2021(79), 69–90. https://doi.org/10.4185/RLCS-2021-1521
108.
RosaJ. A., PoracJ. F., Runser-SpanjolJ., & SaxonM. S. (1999). Sociocognitive dynamics in a product market. Journal of Marketing, 63(4_suppl1), 64–77.
109.
SaldanhaN., MulyeR., & RahmanK. (2018). Who is the attached endorser? An examination of the attachment-endorsement spectrum. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 43, 242–250.
110.
SandsS., CampbellC., FerraroC., & MavrommatisA. (2020). Seeing light in the dark: Investigating the dark side of social media and user response strategies. European Management Journal, 38(1), 45–53.
111.
SandsS., FerraroC., DemsarV., & ChandlerG. (2022). False idols: Unpacking the opportunities and challenges of falsity in the context of virtual influencers. Business Horizons, 65(6), 777–788.
112.
ScholzJ. (2021). How consumers consume social media influence. Journal of Advertising, 50(5), 510–527.
113.
SchomerA. (2019). Influencer marketing: State of the social media influencer market in 2020. https://www.businessinsider.com/influencer-marketing-report?r=AU&IR=T
114.
ShinJ., & LeeS. (2020, January). Intimacy between actual users and virtual agents: Interaction through “likes” and “comments”. In2020 14th International Conference on Ubiquitous Information Management and Communication (IMCOM) (pp. 1–4). IEEE.
SimkinsT. J., & AllenB. J. (2020). Illicit to legal: Marijuana as a de-stigmatizing product and the role of social acceptability in new product adoption. Innovation, 22(4), 447–468.
117.
SkurasD., & VakrouA. (2002). Consumers’ willingness to pay for origin labelled wine: A Greek case study. British Food Journal, 104(10/11), 898–912.
118.
SpangenbergE. R., VossK. E., & CrowleyA. E. (1997). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of attitude: A generally applicable scale. ACR North American Advances.
119.
SteinJ. P., Linda BrevesP., &AndersN. (2022). Parasocial interactions with real and virtual influencers: The role of perceived similarity and human-likeness. New Media & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221102900
120.
TepperK. (1994). The role of labeling processes in elderly consumers’ responses to age segmentation cues. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 503–519.
121.
ThomasV. L., & FowlerK. (2021). Close encounters of the AI kind: Use of AI influencers as brand endorsers. Journal of Advertising, 50(1), 11–25.
122.
ThomsonM. (2006), Human brands: Investigating antecedents to consumers’ strong attachments to celebrities. Journal of Marketing, 70(3), 104–119.
123.
TillB. D., & BuslerM. (2000). The match-up hypothesis: Physical attractiveness, expertise, and the role of fit on brand attitude, purchase intent and brand beliefs. Journal of Advertising, 29(3), X–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2000.10673613
124.
TIME. (2018). The 25 most influential people on the internet. TIME. https://time.com/5324130/most-influential-internet/
125.
TreiseD., WolburgJ. M., & OtnesC. C. (1999). Understanding the “social gifts” of drinking rituals: An alternative framework for PSA developers. Journal of Advertising, 28(2), 17–31.
126.
TummersJ., & JanssensK. (2014). Rethinking analyses of crossed effects experiments in marketing communications research. Academy of Marketing Conference, 2014/07/08–2014/07/10, Bournemouth.
127.
VergneJ. P., & WryT. (2014). Categorizing categorization research: Review, integration, and future directions. Journal of Management Studies, 51(1), 56–94.
128.
VerhaalJ. C., KhessinaO. M., & DobrevS. D. (2015). Oppositional product names, organizational identities, and product appeal. Organization Science, 26(5), 1466–1484.
129.
WaltherJ. B., & BoydS. (2002). Attraction to computer-mediated social support. In LinC. A. & AtkinD. (Eds.), Communication technology and society: Audience adoption and uses (pp. 153–188). Hampton Press.
130.
WatsonD., & FriendR. (1969). Measurement of social-evaluative anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33(4), 448–457.
131.
WebsterM., & SellJ. (Eds.). (2014). Laboratory experiments in the social sciences. Elsevier.
132.
WhitleyS. C., TrudelR., & KurtD. (2018). The influence of purchase motivation on perceived preference uniqueness and assortment size choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(4), 710–724.
133.
WibawaR. C., PratiwiC. P., & LarasatiH. (2021, December). The role of nano influencers through Instagram as an effective digital marketing strategy. InConference towards ASEAN Chairmanship 2023 (TAC 23 2021) (pp. 233–238). Atlantis Press.
134.
WibawaR. C., PratiwiC. P., WahyonoE., HidayatD., & AdiasariW. (2022). Virtual influencers: Is the persona trustworthy? Jurnal Manajemen Informatika (JAMIKA), 12(1), 51–62.
135.
WirtzJ., PattersonP. G., KunzW. H., GruberT., LuV. N., PaluchS., & MartinsA. (2018). Brave new world: Service robots in the frontline. Journal of Service Management, 29(5), 907–931.
136.
WootenD. B. (2006). From labeling possessions to possessing labels: Ridicule and socialization among adolescents. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(2), 188–198.
137.
WrightS. A. (2016). Reinvestigating the endorser by product matchup hypothesis in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 45(1), 26–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2015.1077360
138.
WrightK. B., RainsS., & BanasJ. (2010). Weak-tie support network preference and perceived life stress among participants in health-related, computer-mediated support groups. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15(4), 606–624.
139.
Yeshua-KatzD. (2015). Online stigma resistance in the pro-ana community. Qualitative Health Research, 25(10), 1347–1358.
