A 2 (influencer type: nano with 5000 followers vs mega with 1.1 million followers) × 2 (influencer self-disclosure: low depth vs high depth) between-subjects online experiment tested the different pathways social media influencers take to achieve persuasion outcomes in one model. Participants viewed an Instagram influencer’s profile page with either 5000 or 1.1 million followers, and a post from the influencer with either low or high depth self-disclosure. Participants then answered questions regarding social attraction, parasocial relationship, perceived expertise, persuasion outcomes, covariates, and demographic information. Results showed three serial pathways facilitate persuasion: two pathways through self-disclosure depth by way of social attraction and parasocial relationship development and another pathway through follower size by way of perceived expertise. This research advances understanding of the influencing process by using theory and empirical precedent to derive and test an integrated model of the influencing process.
AichnerTGrünfelderMMaurerO, et al (2021) Twenty-five years of social media: a review of social media applications and definitions from 1994 to 2019. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking24(4): 215–222.
2.
AltmanTTaylorDA (1973) Social Penetration: The Development of Interpersonal Relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
3.
BazarovaNN (2012) Public intimacy: disclosure interpretation and social judgments on Facebook. Journal of Communication62(5): 815–832.
4.
BoermanSC (2020) The effects of the standardized Instagram disclosure for micro-and meso-influencers. Computers in Human Behavior103: 199–207.
5.
BozzolaEStaianoAMSpinaG, et al (2021) Social media use to improve communication on children and adolescent’s health: the role of the Italian paediatric society influencers. Italian Journal of Pediatrics47(171): 1–9.
6.
BrevesPLiebersNMotschenbacherB, et al (2021) Reducing resistance: the impact of nonfollowers’ and followers’ parasocial relationships with social media influencers on persuasive resistance and advertising effectiveness. Human Communication Research47(4): 418–443.
7.
BrownWJ (2015) Examining four processes of audience involvement with media personae: transportation, parasocial interaction, identification, and worship. Communication Theory25(3): 259–283.
8.
BryantEMMarmoJRamirezA (2011) A functional approach to social networking sites. In: WrightKBWebbLM (eds) Computer-Mediated Communication in Personal Relationships. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, pp. 3–20.
9.
CampbellCFarrellJR (2020) More than meets the eye: the functional components underlying influencer marketing. Business Horizons63(4): 469–479.
10.
CampbellCGrimmPE (2019) The challenges native advertising poses: exploring potential federal trade commission responses and identifying research needs. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing38(1): 110–123.
11.
ChaikenS (1980) Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology39: 752–766.
12.
ChaikenS. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In: ZannaMPOlsenJMHermanCP (eds) Social Influence: The Ontario Symposium. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Vol. 5, pp. 3–39.
13.
ChaikenSLedgerwoodA (2012) A theory of heuristic and systematic information processing. In: Van LangePAMKruglanskiAWHigginsET (eds) Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 246–266.
14.
CollinsNLMillerLC (1994) Self-disclosure and liking: a meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin116(3): 457–475.
15.
De VeirmanMCaubergheVHuddersL (2017) Marketing through Instagram influencers: the impact of number of followers and product divergence on brand attitude. International Journal of Advertising36(5): 798–828.
16.
FarivarSWangFYuanY (2021) Opinion leadership vs para-social relationship: key factors in influencer marketing. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services59: 102371.
HilligossBRiehSY (2008) Developing a unifying framework of credibility assessment: construct, heuristics, and interaction in context. Information Processing & Management44(4): 1467–1484.
HovlandCIJanisILKelleyHH (1953) Communication and Persuasion. New haven, CT: Yale University Press.
24.
HuddersLDe JansSDe VeirmanM (2021) The commercialization of social media stars: a literature review and conceptual framework on the strategic use of social media influencers. International Journal of Advertising40(3): 327–375.
JinSAAPhuaJ (2014) Following celebrities’ tweets about brands: the impact of Twitter- based electronic word-of-mouth on consumers’ source credibility perception, buying intention, and social identification with celebrities. Journal of Advertising43(2): 181–195.
28.
KashianNJangJWShinSY, et al (2017) Self-disclosure and liking in computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior71: 275–283.
29.
KlineRB (2011) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. 3rd ed.New York: The Guilford Press.
30.
KostyginaGTranHBinnsS, et al (2020) Boosting health campaign reach and engagement through use of social media influencers and memes. Social Media + Society6(2): 205630512091247.
31.
LeiteFPBaptistaPDP (2022) The effects of social media influencers’ self-disclosure on behavioral intentions: the role of source credibility, parasocial relationships, and brand trust. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice30(3): 295–311.
32.
LinCACroweJPierreL, et al (2021) Effects of parasocial interaction with an instafamous influencer on brand attitudes and purchase intentions. The Journal of Social Media in Society10(1): 55–78.
33.
McCroskeyJCMcCainTA (1974) The measurement of interpersonal attraction. Speech Monographs41(3): 261–266.
34.
MetzgerMJFlanaginAJMeddersRB (2010) Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication60(3): 413–439.
35.
MironAMBrehmJW (2006) Reactance theory-40 years later. Social Psychology37(1): 9–18.
36.
Moyer-GuséE (2008) Toward a theory of entertainment persuasion: explaining the persuasive effects of entertainment-education messages. Communication Theory18(3): 407–425.
37.
NafeesLCookCMNikolovAN, et al (2021) Can social media influencer power influence consumer brand attitudes? The mediating role of perceived SMI credibility. Digital Business1(2): 1–10.
38.
NahHS (2022) The appeal of “real” in parasocial interaction: the effect of self-disclosure on message acceptance via perceived authenticity and liking. Computers in Human Behavior134: 1–11.
39.
O’ConnorCMcNamaraNO’HaraL, et al (2021) How do people with eating disorders experience the stigma associated with their condition? A mixed-methods systematic review. Journal of Mental Health30(4): 454–469.
40.
OhanianR (1990) Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers’ perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of Advertising19(3): 39–52.
41.
O’SullivanPBCarrCT (2018) Masspersonal communication: a model bridging the mass-interpersonal divide. New Media & Society20(3): 1161–1180.
42.
PornpitakpanC (2004) The persuasiveness of source credibility: a critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology34(2): 243–281.
43.
QinYChoHLiP, et al (2021) First impression formation based on valenced self- disclosure in social media profiles. Frontiers in Psychology12: 656365.
44.
RosseelY (2012) Lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software48(2): 1–36.
45.
RubinAMPerseEMPowellRA (1985) Loneliness, parasocial interaction, and local television news viewing. Human Communication Research12(2): 155–180.
SteilsNMartinATotiJF (2022) Managing the transparency paradox of social-media influencer disclosures: how to improve authenticity and engagement when disclosing influencer–sponsor relationships. Journal of Advertising Research62(2): 148–166.
51.
SundarSS (2008) The MAIN model: a heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In: MetzgerMJFlanaginAJ (eds) Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 73–100.
TukachinskyRSteverG (2019) Theorizing development of parasocial engagement. Communication Theory29(3): 297–318.
54.
TukachinskyRWalterNSaucierCJ (2020) Antecedents and effects of parasocial relationships: a meta-analysis. Journal of Communication70(6): 868–894.
55.
UtzS (2015) The function of self-disclosure on social network sites: not only intimate, but also positive and entertaining self-disclosures increase the feeling of connection. Computers in Human Behavior45: 1–10.
56.
VangelistiALCaughlinJP (1997) Revealing family secrets: the influence of topic, function, and relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships14(5): 679–705.
57.
WangESTHuFT (2022) Influence of self-disclosure of Internet celebrities on normative commitment: the mediating role of para-social interaction. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing16(2): 292–309.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
