Journal of Business Research 125 (2021) 397–415

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

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

Forty-five years of celebrity credibility and endorsement literature: Review

and learnings
Deepa Halder, Debasis Pradhan *, Himadri Roy Chaudhuri
XLRI (Xavier School of Management), C.H. Area (East), Jamshedpur 831001, Jharkhand, India

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

Keywords: Celebrity credibility constitutes a significant portion of the celebrity brand endorsement literature. While this
Celebrity credibility field of research is mature with a rich history of 45 years, it lacks a bibliometric analysis that traces its evolution.
Celebrity endorsement We address this gap by conducting a structured and bibliometric review of the literature. Through this hybrid
Source credibility
review, we highlight the most cited articles, authors, journals, theories, methodologies, and sub-research themes
Structured review
Bibliometric review
in this body of knowledge. Our findings demonstrate that this research area is inter-disciplinary and significantly
TMC framework influences research within and beyond the business context. We identify a shift in credibility literature towards
the digital media context. Further, this review indicates that a comprehensive sub-discipline of celebrity
endorsement underlies the evolved literature of brand communication. Finally, we present an antecedent-
consequence framework of source credibility. We conclude with theoretical contributions, managerial implica­
tions, and future research propositions using the Theory, Method, and Context (TMC) framework.

1. Introduction
Celebrity credibility is widely studied as the crucial pivot of celebrity
endorsement literature. A preliminary search among Scopus-indexed
journals indicates that 17.79% of the relevant literature on celebrity
endorsement (n = 2158) discusses issues related to celebrity credibility.
A structured review of this study reveals an increase in the number of
articles between 1974 and 2014, which were the two watershed years
for the celebrity credibility literature. While celebrity credibility
research in a business context commenced in 1974, the greatest number
of papers in this area got published in 2014 (see Fig. 2). Amidst growing
incidences of celebrity transgressions (Thwaites, Lowe, Monkhouse, &
Barnes, 2012; Paul & Bhakar, 2018), concerns are often raised regarding
multi-brand celebrity endorsements (Rice, Kelting, & Lutz, 2012) and
consumer skepticism towards celebrities’ intent in brand advertisements
(Eisend, 2004; Amos, Holmes, & Strutton, 2008). In this backdrop,
perceived celebrity credibility assumes significance as a precursor of
brand communication effectiveness (Schouten, Janssen, & Verspaget,
2019). This corroborates Eisend (2004) meta-analysis, which high­
lighted a net increment in the influence of source credibility over five
decades of research.
Credibility literature is inter-disciplinary in its design and has drawn
extensively from theories in communication, psychology, sociology, and
marketing. A few examples include source credibility theory (Hovland &
Weiss, 1951), source attractiveness theory (McGuire, 1985), elaboration
likelihood model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), match-up hypothesis
(Kamins, 1990), and meaning transfer model (McCracken, 1989). Extant
literature has assessed the influence of perceived credibility of multiple
sources on consumer opinions (Tormala & Petty, 2004) and actions
(Yan, Ogle, & Hyllegard, 2010). Some of these sources include corpo­
rations (Goldsmith, Lafferty, & Newell, 2000), celebrity endorsers
(Pornpitakpan, 2004a), advertisements (Choi & Rifon, 2002), and user-
generated online reviews (Filieri, 2015). Some articles, particularly
Ohanian (1990), have developed and validated the measures of celebrity
credibility. Furthermore, a few review articles (Kaikati, 1987; Erdogan,
1999; Eisend, 2006) have also been published on this topic. However,
the high number of citations of integrative articles, such as Pornpitakpan
(2004b) (653 citations) and Amos et al. (2008) (222 citations), neces­
sitates a review of the focal matter. Moreover, the call for studying the
citation characteristics of the literature through a formal application of
bibiliometry remains unanswered.
The paper aims to: (1) underline the most cited articles, authors, and
journals, leading theories and methodologies, and prevalent sub-
research domains, (2) integrate and map the evolution, interdepen­
dence, and influence of the extant literature within and beyond the
business and management context, and (3) present an antecedent-

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: fb18004@astra.xlri.ac.in (D. Halder), debasis@xlri.ac.in (D. Pradhan), himadri@xlri.ac.in (H. Roy Chaudhuri).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.12.031
Received 5 February 2020; Received in revised form 6 December 2020; Accepted 11 December 2020
Available online 5 January 2021
0148-2963/© 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
D. Halder et al.
consequence model of source credibility. We address these research
objectives through a combination of a structured and bibliometric re­
view (Vallaster, Kraus, Merigó Lindahl, & Nielsen, 2019; Paul & Criado,
2020). Following the bibliometric research tradition, we conduct cita­
tion and co-occurrence analyses using the Visualization of Similarities
(VOS) viewer software. We integrate 45 years of credibility research and
provide a comprehensive and contemporary understanding of this sub-
discipline of celebrity endorsement.
The paper is structured as follows. The next section presents a brief
overview of the theoretical background of celebrity credibility. The
research methodology segment explicates the research design adopted
for conducting the structured and bibliometric review, followed by a
detailed discussion on the research findings. The study concludes with
its theoretical contributions, managerial implications, and propositions
for future research based on the TMC framework (Kumar, Paul, &
Unnithan, 2019; Dabić et al., 2020).
2. Theoretical background
The theories on source credibility (Hovland & Weiss, 1951) and
source attractiveness (McGuire, 1985) emerge as the two major theo­
retical paradigms explaining communication effectiveness. Source
credibility theory (Hovland & Weiss, 1951) defines communicator
credibility as the extent to which a “source is perceived as possessing
expertise relevant to the communication topic and can be trusted to give
an objective opinion on the subject” (Goldsmith et al., p. 43, 2000;
Ohanian, 1990). This definition posits trustworthiness and expertise as
two crucial dimensions of source credibility of a message. Trustworthi­
ness signals the perceived honesty and reliability of a source, and
expertise indicates one’s skills and competence in delivering genuine
and accurate information (Hovland, Janis, & Kelley, 1953). Source
attractiveness theory (McGuire, 1985) proposes attractiveness as the
third characteristic of a credible source of communication. In a similar
vein, some review articles have advocated the salience of source credi­
bility and its multiple dimensions in brand promotion. Kaikati (1987) is
among the foremost to review the phenomenon of celebrity advertising
and stressed that a celebrity endorser should possess attributes like
attractiveness, trustworthiness, and expertise to influence consumer
attitude. This finding resonates with Erdogan (1999), whose review
positions attractiveness, along with trustworthiness and expertise, as
proxy of endorser credibility.
Ohanian (1990) utilizes the afore-mentioned theoretical exposition
to develop and validate a three-dimensional scale on celebrity credi­
bility, including trustworthiness, expertise, and attractiveness. The scale
provides a reliable and valid tool to measure the perceived credibility of
a celebrity endorser. The scale is often used to measure the impact of
source credibility on consumers’ ad evaluations (Winterich, Gangwar, &
Grewal, 2018), brand perceptions (Spry, Pappu, & Bettina Cornwell,
2011), and purchase behavior (Mishra, Roy, & Bailey, 2015). Similarly,
Eisend (2006) reviews the literature on credibility to develop general­
izable scales, containing factors like sincerity, competence, and dyna­
mism, with regard to salesperson, corporate and spokesperson
credibility.
Such promising developments act as impetus for the extant literature
to draw from several theories, such as meaning transfer model
(McCracken, 1989), match-up hypothesis (Kamins, 1990), and elabo­
ration likelihood model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), and further examine
the influential role of celebrity credibility in brand endorsements. The
meaning transfer model proposes three stages through which a celebrity
transfers his/her inherent cultural meanings to the endorsed brand and,
in turn, to the target audience (McCracken, 1989). The match-up hy­
pothesis suggests that celebrity credibility influences ad and brand
evaluations positively if the character of the advertised product matches
its endorser’s image (Kamins, 1990). In other words, the theory offers
celebrity-brand fit as an essential criterion for an effective brand
endorsement. The elaboration likelihood model (Petty & Cacioppo,
398
Journal of Business Research 125 (2021) 397–415
1986) hypothesizes that consumers adopt a central or cognitive route of
information processing when highly involved with an object, and that
they apply a peripheral or affective route of evaluation when the
involvement is low (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). This implies that con­
sumers tend to rely more on heuristics such as celebrity credibility for
decision-making at low involvement levels (Homer & Kahle, 1990).
Further, researchers have used diverse theories, such as social in­
fluence theory (Kelman, 1961) (n = 3), para-social relationship theory
(Horton and Richard Wohl, 1956) (n = 2), and cross-cultural model
(Hofstede, 1984) (n = 2), to explore celebrity credibility’s relationship
with identification (Inoue & Kent, 2014), para-social interaction (Gong
& Li, 2017), and power-distance beliefs (Winterich et al., 2018). How­
ever, in contrast to the celebrity endorsement literature, these inter-
disciplinary theories do not form a central part of the theoretical base
of celebrity credibility literature. Thus, we focus on explaining the most
relevant theories in the given literature.
With the rising trend of publications in this field, researchers
(Pornpitakpan, 2004b; Bergkvist & Zhou, 2016) have reviewed the
robustness of the relationship between source credibility and various
constructs in celebrity endorsement. To that end, Amos et al. (2008)
conducted a meta-analysis to ascertain the function of factors like
negative information and celebrity performance on the positive effects
of endorser credibility. Similarly, Bergkvist and Zhou (2016) argue that
the influence of celebrity credibility is maximized when complemented
by constructs like celebrity affect and celebrity-brand fit. Furthermore,
Schimmelpfennig and Hunt (2020) review the key theories and the
credibility characteristics and match them with brand value proposi­
tions in a strategic framework. Apart from the above articles, other re­
view papers have not dealt with the issue exhaustively. For instance, a
meta-analysis of Knoll and Matthes (2017) on the effectiveness of ce­
lebrity endorsements does not sufficiently discuss the effects of celebrity
credibility on consumers’ cognition, affection, and conation. Likewise,
Eisend (2009) meta-analysis briefly explains that humor in advertising
negatively impacts source credibility.
3. Research methodology
We adopt a combination of a structured and bibliometric review to
arrive at our research agenda. A structured review presents the widely
applied theories, methodologies, and concepts in a field of research
through tables and figures (Paul & Criado, 2020; Paul & Feliciano-
Cestero, 2020). A bibliometric review is a research design which origi­
nates from scientometrics (Stremersch et al., 2014). It involves the
graphical summation and mapping of the key findings in the literature.
Callon, Courtial, Turner, and Bauin (1983) initially employed this
methodology to build knowledge from the identification and investi­
gation of relationships between frequently co-occurring words. The
utility of this research design lies in its ability to extract the central
sources, articles, authors, subjects, and their intra-relations from a set of
documents based on the citations and not content (Martínez-López,
Merigó, Valenzuela-Fernández, & Nicolás, 2018). Such a “systematic,
transparent, and reproducible” analysis (Dzikowski, 2018, p. 283) offers
an understanding of the current and emerging status of an area of
research (Ferreira et al., 2016). Bibliometric analysis also supplements
other integrative formats like a systematic literature review and a
structured review, as it focuses upon the holistic inquiry of citation
networks and the correlated themes of the acquired articles (Pohlmann
& Kaartemo, 2017; Goyal & Kumar, 2020; Paul & Criado, 2020). The
marketing discipline, hence, has often adopted this method due to these
advantages (Kim & McMillan, 2008; Donthu, Kumar, & Pattnaik, 2020).
For this research, bibliometrics reflects the association strength of
prominent documents, researchers, journals, and keywords through
symmetric and asymmetric distributions under the “graph-based” and
“distance-based” maps, respectively (van Eck & Waltman, 2010, p. 525).
An examination of the annual number of publications, theoretical
foundations, research approaches, data collection methods, and data
D. Halder et al. Journal of Business Research 125 (2021) 397–415

Peer-reviewed academic journals from business, management

Keyword-
based Search and accounting discipline are searched for 8 credibility-related
terms in Scopus = 383 research articles

Criteria-based 136 papers are dropped (2019 publication year, <5 number of
Filtration citations, off topic) = 247 research articles between 1974-2018

Publication Trend, Theoretical Foundations, Research

Structured
Review Approaches, Data Collection Methodologies, and Data
Analysis Techniques

Citation Analysis, Cross-Disciplinary Reference

Bibliometric
Review Analysis, Co-Occurrence Analysis, and Structural
Framework

Fig. 1. Review procedure.

analysis techniques (Canabal & White, 2008; Paul & Singh, 2017; Mis­
hra, Singh, & Koles, 2020), split across equal periods (Kienzler &
Kowalkowski, 2017) of nine years, supplements the bibliometric anal­
ysis. We perform a citation analysis and a co-occurrence analysis on the
documents retrieved and sorted from Scopus database using VOSviewer
software. This tool maps the dominant and analogous articles into
graphical networks based on their citation counts and strength of re­
lations (Donthu et al., 2020; Paul & Criado, 2020), providing an un­
derstanding of the intellectual foundation and evolution of the research
domain. Marketing scholars (Fetscherin & Heinrich, 2014; Ferreira,
2017; Dzikowski, 2018; Danvila-del-Valle, Estévez-Mendoza, & Lara,
2019) have often relied upon this software for conducting bibliometrics
due to its effectiveness and ease of application (Vallaster et al., 2019).
In accordance with the extant bibliometric research (Randhawa,
Wilden, & Hohberger, 2016; Ferreira, 2017), we selected the relevant
articles from Scopus, which assimilates an extensive and cross-
disciplinary database of academic publications (Shen, Puig, & Paul,
2017; Martínez-López et al., 2018; Jia, Zhou, & Allaway, 2018). We
enlisted a broad set of 11 words associated with the research topic (Paul
& Benito, 2017; Kumar et al., 2019) based on our knowledge of celebrity
credibility research. Following Randhawa et al. (2016), we subjected
this list to the opinion and approval of five experts in the field, resulting
in the exclusion of ambiguous, inconsistent, and generic terms like
“speaker credibility” and “agent credibility”. We searched the final list
of eight keywords − “source credibility,” “celebrity credibility,”
“endorser credibility,” “influencer credibility,” “spokesperson credi­
bility,” “presenter credibility,” “testimonial credibility,” and “ambas­
sador credibility” − in the “title, abstract and keywords” of English peer-
reviewed academic journals under the “business, management and ac­
counting” category.
We excluded book chapters, handbooks, dissertations, conference
proceedings, and editorials from the list of sources of articles to maintain
homogeneity of the sample (Ferreira et al., 2016; Vallaster et al., 2019).
However, we could not identify any article containing the terminologies,
“presenter credibility,” “testimonial credibility,” and “ambassador
credibility,” thus, yielding an initial list of 383 publications. In the next
stage, we dropped studies with less than five citations (Gurzki and
Woisetschläger, 2017), including those published in 2019, to obtain
complete datasets from each year (Martínez-López et al., 2018). This
criterion helped us to adequately examine and represent all the relevant
articles in the network analysis. Lastly, we omitted the papers not falling
within the scope of this research from the final list. This filtration pro­
cess (see Fig. 1) resulted in the ultimate selection of 247 papers (13,200
citations) between the years 1974 and 2018. It may be noted here that
recent bibliometric studies (Kim & McMillan, 2008; Vallaster et al.,
2019) have also reviewed a similar number of articles (244.5 on an
average).
4. Results
4.1. Structured review
The segment investigates the annual publication trends, frequently
applied theories, and commonly adopted research approaches and
methodologies based on the reviewed articles.
4.1.1. Publication trends
The first article in the management discipline compares the influ­
ential role of credible and non-credible sources (Ward & McGinnies,
1974). After the publication of ten articles in subsequent years (Simpson

30
24
Number of Publications

25

20 1716
16 16 15
15 12 12
8 9 9 10 10 9
10
6 5 6 7 6
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4
5
1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1
0

Year

Fig. 2. Number of annual publications.

399
D. Halder et al. Journal of Business Research 125 (2021) 397–415

Table 1 Table 2
Major publishing journals. Major theories
Journal name Total number of Share (%) of Total Theory Articles References
publications publications number of
Source Credibility 115 Hwang et al., 2018; Kim et al., 2017; O’Reilly
citations
Theory et al., 2016; Mishra et al., 2015; Dwivedi et al.,
Journal of advertising 13 5.28 3135 2014; Roy et al., 2013; Inoue & Kent, 2012; Spry
Journal of business 12 4.88 1011 et al., 2011; van Reijmersdal et al., 2010; Lord &
research Putrevu, 2009; Morimoto & La Ferle, 2008;
Journal of marketing 9 3.66 238 Celeste Farr, 2007; Eisend, 2006; Jo, 2005;
communications Pornpitakpan, 2004a, 2003; Choi & Rifon,
Journal of current issues 8 3.25 144 2002; Newell & Goldsmith, 2001; Buda &
and research in Zhang, 2000; Lafferty & Goldsmith, 1999;
advertising Nataraajan & Chawla, 1997; Ohanian, 1990;
Psychology & marketing 7 2.85 403 Kenton, 1989; Bush et al., 1987; Patzer, 1983
International journal of 6 2.44 292 Elaboration 60 Kim et al., 2018; Hur et al., 2017; Beneke et al.,
advertising Likelihood Model 2016; Park & Cho, 2015; Rahayu Hijrah Hati &
Journal of business ethics 6 2.44 191 Idris, 2014; Nan, 2013; Bhutada et al., 2012;
Journal of promotion 6 2.44 68 Wu & Wang, 2011; Eisend, 2009; Mehta et al.,
management 2008; Arora, 2007; Bhattacherjee & Sanford,
Journal of consumer 5 2.03 269 2006; Yoon, Pinkleton, & Ko, 2005; Tormala &
psychology Petty, 2004; Lafferty et al., 2002; Buda & Zhang,
2000; Artz & Tybout, 1999; Gotlieb et al., 1992
Source 31 Wang & Scheinbaum, 2018; Gong & Li, 2017;
& Kahler, 1981; Gupta & Wilemon, 1988), 1990 marks the inflection Attractiveness Tzoumaka et al., 2016; Lee & Koo, 2015; Suki,
Theory 2014; Martín-Santana & Beerli-Palacio, 2013;
point for growth in celebrity credibility research (see Fig. 2). That year
Patra & Datta, 2012; Spry et al., 2011; Alcañiz
witnessed two significant advancements: Ohanian (1990) development et al., 2010; Ross et al., 2009; Amos et al., 2008;
and validation of a three-dimensional celebrity credibility scale and Kim & Na, 2007; Pornpitakpan, 2004b;
Kamins (1990) proposition of a celebrity-brand fit concept under the Nataraajan & Chawla, 1997; Ohanian, 1991
match-up hypothesis. These two articles make 1990 the most influential Match-Up 29 Gong & Li, 2017; Yoon & Kim, 2016; Dwivedi
Hypothesis et al., 2015; Ilicic & Baxter, 2014; Kim & Choi,
year with the maximum number of citations (1387 citations). However,
2012; Guido et al., 2011; Wheeler, 2009; Amos
the year 2014 emerges as the most productive year as it has the highest et al., 2008; Lafferty, 2007; Lalwani et al., 2005;
number of publications (n = 24). Given these conceptual and method­ Pornpitakpan, 2004a; 2003; Choi & Rifon,
ological foundations, celebrity credibility literature has proliferated and 2002; Lynch & Schuler, 1994; Kamins, 1990
dealt with diverse issues such as the influence of the consumer-celebrity Attribution Theory 27 Fan et al., 2018; Frasca & Edwards, 2017;
Reinares-Lara et al., 2016; Park & Cho, 2015;
parasocial relationship on perceived endorser credibility (Yuan, Kim, & Chang & Wu, 2014; Eisend, 2010; Bigné-
Kim, 2016) and the impact of credible sources and recommendations on Alcañiz, Currás-Pérez, & Sánchez-García, 2009;
investors’ intention to buy market stocks (Karniouchina, Moore, & Carl, 2008; van Hoye & Lievens, 2007; Arora &
Cooney, 2009). Arora, 2006; Yoon et al., 2005; Rifon et al.,
2004; Bohner et al., 2003; Smithson, 1999;
The Journal of Advertising (hereafter, JA) (n = 13, 5.28%) and the
Haley, 1996
Journal of Business Research (hereafter, JBR) (n = 12, 4.88%) emerge as Meaning Transfer 15 Russell & Rasolofoarison, 2017; Dwivedi et al.,
the sources with the highest publication frequency, even without any Model 2016; Mishra et al., 2015; Kim et al., 2014; Roy
special issues during the last 45 years. Both journals emerge as the two et al., 2013; Patra & Datta, 2012; Lord &
most sought-after outlets for publishing research and acquiring knowl­ Putrevu, 2009; Kim & Na, 2007; Pornpitakpan,
2003; Nataraajan & Chawla, 1997
edge about celebrity credibility. While JA specializes in the domain of
celebrity brand communication, JBR emerges as a prominent publica­
tion outlet, although it has no specific editorial focus on celebrity followed by elaboration likelihood model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986),
endorsement. Some of the most cited articles of JBR include the influ­ source attractiveness theory (McGuire, 1985), match-up hypothesis
ence of cause-brand congruence on perceived corporate credibility (Kamins, 1990), and meaning transfer model (McCracken, 1989). Over
(Lafferty, 2007) and the effect of corporate credibility and celebrity time, the literature has witnessed an incremental use of these theories,
credibility on consumers’ information adoptions (Filieri, 2015) and at­ especially source credibility theory. Since the formative years of
titudes and purchase intentions (Lafferty & Goldsmith, 1999). Addi­ research on this topic in the marketing field, source credibility theory
tionally, the journal contains research on the development and from the communication literature has provided the theoretical base for
validation of a two-dimensional corporate credibility scale (Newell & conceptualizing endorser credibility (Patzer, 1983; Bush, Moncrief, &
Goldsmith, 2001). These two journals are followed by the Journal of Ziethaml, 1987). Ohanian (1990) employs source credibility model and
Marketing Communications, the Journal of Current Issues and Research source attractiveness theory to develop a robust measure of credibility.
in Advertising, and Psychology & Marketing as the most frequent pub­ Subsequently, these two fundamental theories provide an impetus for
lishing outlets (see Table 1) of credibility research. On the contrary, further pursuit of credibility research through the development of
journals like the Industrial Marketing Management, the International domain-specific postulates in marketing, such as match-up hypothesis
Journal of Research in Marketing, and the Journal of International and meaning transfer model, and the adoption of inter-disciplinary
Business Studies include only one relevant paper each, possibly due to a theories like elaboration likelihood model and attribution theory.
mismatch between the scope of the journals and the subject matter. These theories have been widely applied in the marketing domain to (1)
complement the source-related models (Hovland & Weiss, 1951;
4.1.2. Theoretical foundations McGuire, 1985), (2) add new characteristics of credibility in the form of
This section features the prominent theories utilized in celebrity congruence (Kamins, 1990) and involvement (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986),
credibility studies and the various academic fields they belong to. We and (3) offer alternate explanations for the positive effects of source
identify and rank the most applied theories (Canabal & White, 2008; credibility on the target audience (McCracken, 1989).
Rosado-Serrano, Paul, & Dikova, 2018), following the suggestions of Additionally, we classified every theory under a subject area based
Paul and Singh (2017) (see Table 2). The source credibility theory on the journal’s discipline (Kienzler & Kowalkowski, 2017). In so doing,
(Hovland & Weiss, 1951) emerges as the dominant theoretical lens,

400
D. Halder et al. Journal of Business Research 125 (2021) 397–415

Table 3 ‘Communication’ and ‘Business and Marketing’. In addition to these

Theoretical foundations from cross disciplines.
Theoretical foundation
Psychology and Sociology (e.g., elaboration likelihood model,
attribution theory, social influence theory, theory of reasoned
action)
Business and Marketing (e.g., commitment-trust theory,
meaning transfer model, service-dominant logic, brand equity
theory)
Communication (e.g., source credibility theory, discourse
theory)
Miscellaneous (e.g., traditional leadership theory, expected
utility theory)
Unknown or Not Applicable
we assumed that each article applying the theory derives theoretical aid
from that discipline. For example, source attractiveness theory
(McGuire, 1985) appears in the handbook of social psychology. Hence,
the model is categorized under the rubric of ‘Psychology and Sociology’.
Likewise, the remaining theories are divided into the areas of
three groups, the ‘Miscellaneous’ category represents theories from
Contribution other areas and the ‘Unknown/ Not Applicable’ cluster represents un­
(%) determined or unspecified theories (see Table 3). This discipline-based
42.46 categorization indicates the share of theoretical contributions that
non-management fields have made to the credibility literature in the last
45 years.
25.40 The psychology and sociology disciplines (42.46%) emerge as the
dominant sources for theories such as attribution theory (Kelley, 1973),
19.84 elaboration likelihood model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), and social in­
fluence theory (Kelman, 1961). This is followed by persuasion knowl­
11.11 edge model (Friestad & Wright, 1994) and meaning transfer model
(McCracken, 1989) from the business and marketing literature
1.19
(25.40%). Among the three disciplines, the contribution of the
communication field (19.84%) is primarily confined to source credi­
bility theory (Hovland & Weiss, 1951). A dependence over the psy­
chology literature is justified because perceived credibility influences
cognitive, affective, and conative levels of the minds of the target
audience. Similarly, a reliance over the communication literature is
plausible since celebrity endorsement is a subset of brand

PSYCHOLOGY & SOCIOLOGY BUSINESS & MARKETING COMMUNICATION MISC NA

23.02
16.67
13.49

9.92
%

5.56
5.16

4.37
3.97
3.97
2.78
2.38
2.38
1.98
1.59
0.79

0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4

0.4
0
0

0
1974-1982 1983-1991 1992-2000 2001-2009 2010-2018
TIME PERIODS

Fig. 3. Period wise trend analysis of theoretical foundations.

EMPIRICAL (n=234) CONCEPTUAL (n=13)

133
NO. OF ARTICLES

67
21
10

4
3

2
1

1974-1982 1983-1991 1992-2000 2001-2009 2010-2018

TIME PERIODS

Fig. 4. Period wise trend analysis of research approaches.

401
D. Halder et al. Journal of Business Research 125 (2021) 397–415

Table 4a
Types of data collection methodologies.
Method Articles References

Quantitative 219 Todd & Melancon, 2018; Balouchi et al., 2017; Beneke et al., 2016; Hayes & Carr, 2015; Dwivedi et al., 2014; Roy et al., 2013; Inoue & Kent, 2012; Wu &
Wang, 2011; Ross et al., 2009; Priest, 2008; Belonax et al., 2007; Clow et al., 2006; Verlegh et al., 2005; La Ferle & Choi, 2005; Kerstetter & Cho, 2004;
DeZoort et al., 2003; Jain & Posavac, 2001; Pornpitakpan & Francis, 2000; Zhang & Buda, 1999; Langan-Fox, Waycott, Morizzi, & Mcdonald, 1998; Lynch
& Schuler, 1994; Gotlieb & Sarel, 1992; Ohanian, 1991; Gupta & Wilemon, 1988; Patzer, 1983
Qualitative 8 Halliday, 2016; O’Reilly et al., 2016; Dobele & Lindgreen, 2011; Chen et al., 2008; Mehta et al., 2008; Mayzlin, 2006; Kopalle & Assunção, 2000; Haley,
1996
Mixed* 7 Boudrias et al., 2014; Olsen et al., 2014; Park & Hoy, 2013; Berry et al., 2009; Eisend, 2006; Fuellhart & Glasmeier, 2003; Sias & Wyers 2001

*NOTE: Mixed data collection methods include both, quantitative and qualitative, methods.

Table 4b
Types of quantitative data collection methodologies.
Method Articles References

Experiment 111 Winterich et al., 2018; O’Neil & Eisenmann, 2017;Reinares-Lara et al., 2016; Beneke et al., 2016; Lemanski & Villegas, 2015; Kim & Kim, 2014; Jin &
Phua, 2014; Roy et al., 2013; Spence et al., 2013; Kim & Lee, 2012; Wu & Wang, 2011; Jin & Sung, 2010; Yan et al., 2010; Westover & Randle, 2009;
Morimoto & La Ferle, 2008; Clow et al., 2006; Jo, 2005; Tormala & Petty, 2004; Roggeveen & Johar, 2002; Jain & Posavac, 2001; Pornpitakpan &
Francis, 2000; Zhang & Buda, 1999; Lynch & Schuler, 1994; Gotlieb & Sarel, 1992; Patzer, 1983
Survey 96 Todd & Melancon, 2018; Wang & Scheinbaum, 2018; Hur et al., 2017; Balouchi et al., 2017; Yuan et al., 2016; Morris et al., 2016; Hayes & Carr, 2015;
Dwivedi et al., 2014; Men & Tsai, 2013; Inoue & Kent, 2012; Avery, 2010; Carl, 2008; Belonax et al., 2007; Verlegh et al., 2005; Kerstetter & Cho, 2004;
Hachigian & Hallahan, 2003; Tse, 1999; Langan-Fox et al., 1998; Ohanian, 1991; Gupta & Wilemon, 1988
Secondary 12 Kim et al., 2018; Banerjee et al., 2017; Bronner & de Hoog, 2016; Rhee & Fiss, 2014; Lee et al., 2011; Ross et al., 2009; Karniouchina et al., 2009; Gemser
Data et al., 2008; Priest, 2008; van der Veen, 2008; Sneathen et al., 2005; DeZoort et al., 2003

communication. 4.1.3. Research approaches

The periodic graph shows that the psychology and sociology disci­
plines have consistently lent their theoretical support to the enrichment
of celebrity credibility literature since 1980s (see Fig. 3). A surge in the
use of psychology-based theories (Lafferty & Goldsmith, 1999; Buda &
Zhang, 2000) is observed in the late 1990s and early 2000s. It was only
after Ohanian (1990) celebrity credibility scale and Kamins (1990)
match-up hypothesis that the business and marketing disciplines earned
their reputation as potential sources of theories. Consequently, the use of
marketing theories (Pornpitakpan, 2003; Arora, Stoner, & Arora, 2006)
increased from the period 1992–2000 to the period 2010–2018. More­
over, the literature increasingly gleans from inter-disciplinary theories
such as expected utility theory (Schoemaker, 1982), technology accep­
tance model (Davis, 1989), and transformational leadership theory
(Burns, 1978) to address topical research questions.
Based on the research objectives and designs, we classified the arti­
cles into two categories – ‘Conceptual’ and ‘Empirical’. The periodic
distribution demonstrates that the literature remains skewed towards
empirical studies in every period (see Fig. 4). A negligible 5.3% of the
articles conduct conceptual research, including theory development
(Schum, 1989; Fugate, 1998) and integrative reviews (Eisend, 2004;
Amos et al., 2008). A convenient access to datasets and advanced
analytical tools has perhaps, encouraged researchers in this field to
undertake primarily empirical research (Yadav, 2010). Therefore,
scholars are advised to build discipline-specific theories to address
research problems in celebrity credibility.
4.1.4. Data collection methodologies
The empirical studies (n = 234) collected data using quantitative,

SURVEY EXPERIMENT SECONDARY DATA QUALITATIVE MIXED

68
56
NO. OF ARTICLES

35
19
11
7

7
6

5
4
3

3
3
2

2
1

0
0
0

0
0
0

1974-1982 1983-1991 1992-2000 2001-2009 2010-2018

TIME PERIODS

Fig. 5. Period wise trend analysis of data collection methodologies.

402
D. Halder et al. Journal of Business Research 125 (2021) 397–415

Table 5
Types of data analysis techniques.
Technique Articles References

Analysis of Variance 92 Fan et al., 2018; Russell & Rasolofoarison, 2017; Beneke et al., 2016; Tzoumaka et al., 2016; Park & Cho, 2015; Weisfeld-
Spolter et al., 2014; Chang & Wu, 2014; Li et al., 2013; Haigh & Brubaker, 2010; Avery, 2010; Nan, 2009; Arora & Arora, 2006,
2004; Jung & Kellaris, 2006; Yoon et al., 2005; DeZoort et al., 2003; Roggeveen & Johar, 2002; Buda & Zhang, 2000; Artz &
Tybout, 1999; Gotlieb & Sarel, 1991a, 1991b; Patzer, 1983
Factor Analysis 5 Fadel et al., 2009; Pornpitakpan, 2003; Newell & Goldsmith, 2001; Bastos & Fletcher, 1995; Ohanian, 1990
Regression 41 Sohaib et al., 2018; Kim et al., 2018; Mansour & Diab, 2016; Ivanič, Bates, & Somasundaram, 2014; Olsen et al. 2014; Kyung,
Kwon, & Sung, 2010; Lord & Putrevu, 2009; Carl, 2008; Kim & Na, 2007; Sneathen et al., 2005; Hachigian & Hallahan, 2003;
Sias & Wyers, 2001; Austin & Freeman, 1997
Structural Equation Modelling 53 Zhang et al., 2018; Kim et al., 2017; Gong & Li, 2017; Chung & Han, 2017; Salehi-Esfahani et al., 2016; Finch et al., 2015;
Rahayu Hijrah Hati & Idris, 2014; Ayeh et al., 2013; Dwivedi & Johnson, 2013; Inoue & Kent, 2012; Spry et al., 2011; Hung
et al., 2011; Bhattacherjee & Sanford, 2006
Analysis of Variance & Regression 9 Lee & Koo, 2015; Nan, 2013; van Reijmersdal, 2011; Wheeler, 2009; Guido & Peluso, 2009; van Hoye & Lievens, 2007;
Thorsteinson et al., 2004; Briñol, Petty, & Tormala, 2004; Pornpitakpan & Francis, 2000
Analysis of Variance & Structural 8 Frasca & Edwards, 2017; Reinares-Lara et al., 2016; Johnston & Warkentin, 2010; Yan et al., 2010; Clow et al., 2006; La Ferle &
Equation Modelling Choi, 2005; Ellis, 1992; Homer & Kahle, 1990
Qualitative 8 Halliday, 2016; O’Reilly et al., 2016; Dobele & Lindgreen, 2011; Chen et al., 2008; Schwarzkopf, 2006; Mayzlin, 2006;
Smithson, 1999; Haley, 1996
Mixed* 14 Morris et al., 2016; Malik & Guptha, 2014; Kim et al., 2014; Lee et al., 2011; Berry et al., 2009; Karniouchina et al., 2009; Priest,
2008; Eisend, 2006; Wickham, 2006; Fuellhart & Glasmeier, 2003; Yee-Man Siu & Wong, 2002; Arpan, 2002; Gotlieb et al.,
1992; Gupta & Wilemon, 1988

*NOTE: Mixed data analysis techniques include both, quantitative and qualitative, techniques.

qualitative, and mixed methodologies (see Table 4a). Out of the iden­
tified quantitative procedures (Rosado-Serrano et al., 2018) (see
Table 4b), lab/field experiments (n = 111, 47.4%) and offline/online
surveys (n = 96, 41.1%) were the top data collection methods, with
2.5% of the articles using a combination of experiments and surveys (La
Ferle & Choi, 2005). The temporal distribution reveals that survey-based
studies surpassed experimental papers only during the period
2010–2018 (see Fig. 5). This recent trend is attributable to the ease and
efficiency of data collection through surveys within and across
geographic boundaries (Verlegh, Steenkamp, & Meulenberg, 2005; Fan,
Shen, Wu, Mattila, & Bilgihan, 2018). While surveys are suitable for
measuring consumers’ perceptions (Balouchi et al., 2017) and intentions
(Tzoumaka, Tsiotsou, & Siomkos, 2016), experiments are relevant for
gauging their actual behavior (Inoue & Kent, 2012) in more natural
settings (Martín-Santana & Beerli-Palacio, 2013). In addition to these
two methods, 5.1% of the articles use secondary data (Sneathen, Kizir­
ian, & Mayhew, 2005; Lee, Law, & Murphy, 2011). Moreover, the last
two periods (2001–2009 and 2010–2018) mark the proliferation of
mixed data collection methods such as secondary data and questionnaire
data (Fuellhart & Glasmeier, 2003), literature reviews and surveys
(Eisend, 2006), and interviews and surveys (Boudrias, Bernaud, & Plu­
nier, 2014). Such an increasing focus upon alternate methods of inquiry
over time signals their relevance in resolving topical celebrity credibility
issues.
4.1.5. Data analysis techniques
In accordance with the data collection methodologies, the empirical
research papers (n = 234) analyzed data using quantitative, qualitative,

REGR ANOVA SEM QUAL FA ANOVA+SEM ANOVA+REG MIXED

53
47
NO. OF ARTICLES

29

24
15
8

8
6

4
3
3

3
2

2
1

1
1

1
1
1
1
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
0

1974-1982 1983-1991 1992-2000 2001-2009 2010-2018

TIME PERIODS

Fig. 6. Period wise trend analysis of data analysis techniques. NOTE: REGR: Regression; ANOVA: Analysis of Variance; SEM: Structural Equation Modelling; QUAL:
Qualitative Analysis; FA: Factor Analysis.

403
D. Halder et al. Journal of Business Research 125 (2021) 397–415

Fig. 7. Citation map for articles.

and mixed techniques. Our findings reveal that analysis of variance

Table 6 (ANOVA) (n = 92, 39.3%), structural equation modeling (SEM) (n = 57,
Cross-disciplines citing JBR and JA articles. 24.3%), and regression (n = 41, 17.5%) are the primary data analysis
Journal of Business Journal of Advertising tools (Paul & Rosado-Serrano, 2019) within the quantitative techniques
Research (see Table 5). The temporal graph depicts that while ANOVA has been
Areas Citing Number of Percentage Number of Percentage prevalent since the 1970s, regression and SEM gained prominence
Citations of Citations Citations of Citations during 2000s (see Fig. 6). A few studies also used combinations of
Marketing 365 36.10 1520 48.52 regression and ANOVA (Lee & Koo, 2015) and SEM and ANOVA (Yan
Consumer 58 5.74 218 6.96 et al., 2010) for more robust examination of causal relationships. In
Research addition to these three processes, qualitative techniques (3.4%) (Chen,
Psychology & 9 0.89 101 3.22 He, Zhao, & Griffith, 2008) and factor analyses (2.1%) (Arora et al.,
Sociology
Communication 49 4.85 248 7.92
2006) emerge as beneficial tools for analyzing non-parametric data and
Economics 18 1.78 17 0.54 conducting psychometric enquiries, respectively.
Business & 385 38.08 752 24.00
Management 4.2. Citation analysis
Mathematics & 6 0.59 14 0.45
Statistics
Operation 15 1.48 15 0.48 Based on the number of citations, a citation analysis highlights the
Research most cited articles, authors, and journals.
Banking & 14 1.38 10 0.32
Finance 4.2.1. Articles
Medicine & 10 0.99 41 1.31
Health
The VOSviewer software mapped 160 articles with a minimum of
Public Policy 11 1.09 34 1.09 two citations into a correlated network (see Fig. 7). The results highlight
Culture, 17 1.68 25 0.80 Ohanian (1990) as the most cited paper (839 citations) for presenting a
Humanities & generalizable three-dimensional scale of celebrity credibility. This is
Arts
followed by Kamins (1990) article on match-up hypothesis (507 cita­
Others 54 5.34 138 4.40
tions) and Bhattacherjee and Sanford’s (2006) research on information
technology acceptance, which was based on the elaboration likelihood
model (480 citations).
Table 7
Cross-disciplinary sources citing JBR and JA articles. 4.2.2. Authors
Areas Citing Top Journals Citing JBR Top Journals Citing JA Although Ohanian (1990) is the most cited article in the celebrity
(Number) (Number) credibility literature, the author has not been a recurrent researcher.
Marketing European Journal of Marketing Journal of Advertising (146), Sejung Marina Choi emerges as the most prolific researcher on celebrity
(17), Journal of Advertising Journal of Promotion credibility, with six publications. This is followed by the trio of Ronald E.
(13), Journal of Marketing Management (88),
Goldsmith, Barbara A. Lafferty, and Stephen J. Newell, who have five
Communication (13), International Journal of
Psychology & Marketing (10) Advertising (88), Psychology publications on dual-source credibility. Chanthika Pornpitakpan, Martin
& Marketing (79) Eisend, and Raj Arora feature next in the list of leading researchers, with
Business & Journal of Business Research Journal of Business Research four publications each. This analysis also underscores the rising trend of
Management (65), Journal of Business Ethics (32), Journal of Business collaborative research, with 78.94% co-authored articles.
(37), Information and Ethics (30), Journal of Sport
Management (5) Management (27)

404
D. Halder et al. Journal of Business Research 125 (2021) 397–415

Fig. 8. Density visualization of author keywords.

Fig. 9. Co-occurrence timeline of author keywords.

4.2.3. Journals 4.3. Cross-disciplinary citations of JBR and JA articles

The software classified the top 10 sources into three different clusters
based on their scope of publication. The first cluster contains the Journal
of Advertising, the Journal of Marketing Communications, and the
Journal of Promotion Management, which look at direct and close as­
sociations between brand communication and celebrity endorsement.
The second group includes the International Journal of Advertising, the
Journal of Consumer Psychology, and Psychology & Marketing, which
belong to the broad themes of advertising and consumer psychology.
The third sect constitutes mainstream management sources like the
Journal of Business Research and the Journal of Business Ethics. The
diversity of the journals indicates that the topic holds significance not
only for conventional business sources, but also for specialized and niche
publication outlets.
Our review places JBR as one of the prominent sources for publishing
articles on source credibility, in addition to JA, which is a specialized
outlet for research on credibility. The structured review underscores the
role of multiple disciplines as lenders of theoretical intellect, which in­
dicates the need for researchers to consider cross-disciplinary research
for advancing the extant literature. However, little is known about the
contribution of management journals to inter-disciplinary research. This
section examines the relative impact of JBR and JA in creating knowl­
edge within and across the management discipline. To achieve this
objective, we assessed journals citing the published articles of JBR
(n = 12, total citations = 1011) and JA (n = 13, total citations = 3135)
and classified them per their field of research (Leong, 1989). The

405
D. Halder et al. Journal of Business Research 125 (2021) 397–415

Table 8
Brief review of the proposed relationships with source credibility.
Construct Proposed Relationship Theories Direction References

Independent Variables
Corporate image The overall image of an organization in the market and Source credibility theory, meaning transfer þ Haigh & Brubaker, 2010; Kim
society contributes to its perceived credibility. model, and image restoration theory et al., 2014
Corporate A close identification with an organization leads to a Source credibility theory and source þ Tzoumaka et al., 2016
identification positive perception regarding the credibility of its brand’s attractiveness theory
celebrity endorser.
Corporate Organization’s philanthropic initiatives enable consumers Source credibility theory þ Walker & Kent, 2012
philanthropy to develop favorable perception about its credibility, which
in turn, impacts their behavior.
Corporate social Corporate social responsibility of a source will positively Source credibility theory, meaning transfer þ Inoue & Kent, 2012; Kim et al.,
responsibility affect its credibility. model, and schema theory 2014
Source reputation The reputation of a corporate/ celebrity positively Source credibility theory þ Lee et al., 2011; Kim & Choi,
influences perceived credibility of the source (corporate/ 2012
celebrity).
Message quality or High-quality online content, e-reviews, or brand Commitment-trust theory and source þ Filieri, 2015
strength information positively affects source credibility. credibility theory
Message framing A two-sided message frame, which indicates the pros and Attribution theory and prospect theory þ Park & Hoy, 2013
and sidedness cons of an endorsed product or cause, positively affects
perceived source credibility.
Brand familiarity Familiarity with the endorsed brand contributes to Source credibility theory and social þ Inoue & Kent, 2014
perceived credibility of the source. influence theory
Brand congruence A good fit between an endorsed brand and its celebrity Source credibility theory, source þ Kim & Na, 2007; Inoue & Kent,
endorser influences the perceived credibility of the attractiveness theory, attribution theory, 2014; Baxter et al., 2015; Park &
spokesperson positively. and match-up hypothesis Cho, 2015

Construct Proposed Relationship Theories Direction References

Dependent Variables
Ad attitude, brand
attitude, and brand
purchase intention
Brand and media trust
Brand commitment
Brand equity and self-
brand connection
Consumer satisfaction
Consumer (e-) word of
mouth
Consumer behavioral
intention
A credible source of communication has a direct and Source credibility theory, congruence þ Goldsmith et al., 2000; Wu &
positive influence on consumers’ attitude towards the ad theory, and source attractiveness Wang, 2011; Kim & Choi, 2012;
and brand attitude and purchase intention. theory Baxter et al., 2015
Perceived credibility of a communication source Commitment-trust theory, cognitive fit þ Wu & Wang, 2011; Dwivedi &
positively influences consumers to trust the brand and theory, meaning transfer model and Johnson, 2013; Filieri et al., 2015
media. source credibility theory
Source credibility is positively related to brand Heuristic systematic model þ Zhang et al., 2018
commitment.
Endorser credibility is positively related to brand equity, Source credibility theory, meaning þ Dwivedi et al., 2014, 2015, and
commitment, and self-brand connection. transfer model, and self-concept theory 2016
Source credibility positively influences customers’ Source credibility theory, agency þ Veasna et al., 2013;
satisfaction with the brand or product. theory and self-congruity theory Ngamvichaikit & Beise-zee, 2014;
Yoo et al., 2017
Credibility of communication sources leads to (e-) word Source credibility theory and self- þ van Hoye, 2012; O’Reilly et al.,
of mouth of consumers. perception theory 2016; Sohaib et al., 2018
Source credibility favorably impacts consumer behaviors, Source attractiveness theory, þ Wheeler, 2009; Inoue & Kent,
such as willingness to pay, intention to visit a destination, elaboration likelihood model, and 2012; Kim & Kim 2014; Inoue &
and pro-social and environmental behavior. social influence theory Kent, 2014

Table 9
Brief review of the proposed moderating relationships with source credibility.
Construct Proposed Relationship Theories Direction References

Moderating Variables
Message The perceived credibility of corporate or celebrity is influenced by message Elaboration likelihood model, social – Wheeler, 2009
involvement involvement such that the positive relationship is greater (lower) when adaptation theory, and source
information is processed peripherally (cognitively) under low (high) credibility theory
involvement.
Consumer The formation of perceived credibility is moderated by consumer gender. þ/-
gender
Product The favorable effect of source credibility on brand evaluations and consumer Elaboration likelihood model and þ Wu & Wang, 2011
involvement responses is accentuated as the degree of product involvement increases. source credibility theory
Consumer The perception of source credibility is moderated by consumer cross-cultural Elaboration likelihood model and þ/- Pornpitakpan &
culture differences. source credibility theory Francis, 2000

cumulative percentages exhibit that JBR is the dominant source for
credibility research in marketing and business domains (JBR = 74.18%,
JA = 72.52%). Moreover, JBR impacts non-management fields more
prominently than JA, with the exception of psychology and sociology
(JBR = 0.89%, JA = 3.22%), communication (JBR = 4.85%,
JA = 7.92%), and medicine and health (JBR = 0.99%, JA = 1.31%) (see
Table 6). Table 7 presents a few examples of the sources that cite these
25 articles. JBR may be in a better position than JA to spur inter-
disciplinary research due to its broad ambit of applied research in
management.
4.4. Co-occurrence analysis
A co-occurrence analysis shows the frequency and association
strength of those keywords which appear jointly in an academic piece of
work (Jia et al., 2018). With a threshold of 5 recurrences, we identified

406
D. Halder et al.
Fig. 10. Structural model of source credibility.
the 14 most commonly co-occurring terminologies out of total 637
keywords. Per our expectations, ‘source credibility,’ which forms the
conceptual groundwork of every credibility-based research, emerges as
the most co-cited phrase (n = 59). This term is accompanied by key­
words related to celebrity brand promotion such as ‘advertising’
(n = 21), ‘credibility’ (n = 14), ‘social media’ (n = 13), ‘elaboration
likelihood model’ (n = 11), and ‘celebrity endorsement’ (n = 10) (see
Fig. 8). The simultaneous occurrence of these keywords signifies the
influential role of source (celebrity) credibility in brand advertisements
(Amos et al., 2008). Moreover, extensive research involving phenomena
like (e-) word-of-mouth (Gunawan & Huarng, 2015) in the social media
context (Yuan et al., 2016) in recent times (see Fig. 9) suggest a shift in
academic interest towards the perceived credibility of digital influ­
encers, media, and viewers.
4.5. Antecedents, consequences, and moderators of source credibility
In this section, we use a bibliometrics and structured review to
identify the predictors, outcomes, and moderators in source credibility
research and present them in a theoretically grounded framework. At a
count of two co-citations, we identified the 103 most jointly cited key­
words. We filtered these words to yield 32 unique and measurable
constructs having conceptual relation with source credibility. A few
examples include ‘message framing’ (n = 3), ‘brand congruence’ (n = 4),
‘brand equity’ (n = 3), and ‘corporate philanthropy’ (n = 2). Subse­
quently, we reviewed the articles to determine the nature (independent,
dependent, or moderating) and direction (positive, negative, or mixed)
of relationship between these variables and source credibility (see Ta­
bles 8 and 9). This examination reveals that corporate credibility
(Lafferty, 2007) and celebrity credibility (Lee & Koo, 2015) – measured
through trustworthiness, expertise, and attractiveness (Ohanian, 1990)
– are the most studied sources in the extant literature based on source
credibility theory (Hovland & Weiss, 1951) and source attractiveness
theory (McGuire, 1985). Furthermore, taking a cue from Pornpitakpan
(2004b), we classified the terms under specific sources based on their
origins (see Fig. 10). For instance, the term ‘argument strength’ is
categorized as a message-related factor since it is closely associated with
the communicated message (Pornpitakpan, 2004a), including (e-) word-
of-mouth (van Hoye, 2012).
4.5.1. Antecedents
The independent variables present a range of elements that
contribute to perceived source credibility. Drawing from source credi­
bility theory (Hovland & Weiss, 1951), our model indicates that char­
acteristics like corporate image (Kim, Lee, & Prideaux, 2014), celebrity
407
Journal of Business Research 125 (2021) 397–415
reputation (Lee et al., 2011), message quality (Filieri, 2015), corporate
philanthropy (Walker & Kent, 2012), and corporate social responsibility
(Inoue & Kent, 2012) enable the target audience to perceive a source as
believable and competent. Likewise, the model posits brand familiarity
(Inoue & Kent, 2014) and organizational identification (Tzoumaka et al.,
2016) as predictors of source attractiveness. This finding is consistent
with source attractiveness theory (McGuire, 1985), which suggests that
attractiveness does not merely imply physical attractiveness but also
includes qualities like “likeableness, pleasantness, beauty, familiarity,
and similarity” (McGuire, Rice, & Atkin, 2001, p. 24). The model con­
firms the findings of Joseph (1982), which highlights the effectiveness of
attractive communicators in marketing literature.
Attribution theory (Kelley, 1973) advocates that consumers assign
value to features like message frame (Arora & Arora, 2004) and message
sidedness (Park & Hoy, 2013) while developing favorable perceptions
about the credibility of a source. Furthermore, match-up hypothesis
(Kamins, 1990) lends theoretical support to the positive relationship
between endorser-brand congruence and source credibility. For
instance, Park and Cho (2015) shows that similarity between the image
of a celebrity and an endorsed cause has a favorable influence on
perceived endorser credibility. Additionally, the extant literature relies
upon multiple theories like image restoration theory (Benoit, 1995),
commitment-trust theory (Morgan & Hunt, 1994), schema theory
(Rumelhart, 1984), and prospect theory (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979) to
establish a causal relationship between source credibility and its ante­
cedents, such as corporate image (Haigh & Brubaker, 2010), message
quality (Filieri, 2015), corporate social responsibility (Kim et al., 2014),
and message sidedness (Park & Hoy, 2013).
4.5.2. Consequences
Based on the source credibility models, the focal construct is hy­
pothesized to positively impact consumers’ attitudes towards ad (Lal­
wani, Lwin, & Li, 2005), brand attitudes (Bhattacherjee and Sanford,
2006), purchase intentions (Suki, 2014), and behavioral intentions
(Wheeler, 2009). Past research also emphasizes the enduring positive
effects of source credibility on brand equity (Dwivedi & Johnson, 2013),
self-brand connection (Dwivedi, McDonald, & Johnson, 2014), con­
sumer satisfaction (Yoo, Goo, Huang, Nam, & Woo, 2017), and brand
commitment (Zhang, Barnes, Zhao, & Zhang, 2018). The meaning
transfer model (McCracken, 1989) offers a compelling argument that
celebrity endorsers evoke a favorable brand response by transferring
their credibility to the associated product.
4.5.3. Moderators
The elaboration likelihood model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) provides
D. Halder et al.
the theoretical mechanism for the moderating role of message involve­
ment (Wheeler, 2009) and product involvement (Wu & Wang, 2011).
Elaboration refers to the degree of importance or relevance (Petty &
Cacioppo, 1986) which individuals attach to an event or object. Ac­
cording to the theory, consumers’ level of involvement influences
perceived source credibility and its subsequent outcomes (Artz & Tyb­
out, 1999; Tormala & Petty, 2004). Wheeler (2009) shows that con­
sumers’ low involvement with a communicated message enables them to
focus on peripheral cues like endorser credibility, thus, forming positive
perceptions about the credibility of the source. Additionally, Wheeler
(2009) suggests that perceived credibility differs among male and fe­
male consumers (Todd & Melancon, 2018). On the other hand, Wu and
Wang (2011) demonstrates that the favorable effects of source credi­
bility accentuate with increasing levels of product involvement. In other
words, the perceived credibility of the celebrity endorser enhances the
overall ad effectiveness for the target audience at high degree of product
involvement. Moreover, past research indicates a moderated mediation
effect of respondents’ cross-cultural diversities (Fan et al., 2018) on the
positive relation between source credibility and outcome variables
(Pornpitakpan & Francis, 2000).
5. Discussion and conclusion
The current study integrates the entire body of celebrity credibility
literature, which spans 45 years, by mapping its critical articles, authors,
sources, theories, methodologies, and research themes. In combining a
structured and bibliometric review, this paper presents a comprehensive
understanding of the interpretive and objective aspects (Gurzki and
Woisetschläger, 2017) of the extant literature with insights into its
history, current state of affairs, and future scope.
5.1. Theoretical contributions
Celebrity credibility research has evolved significantly since its first
appearance (Ward & McGinnies, 1974). The subject gained prominence
in 1990 when Ohanian and Kamins proposed the celebrity credibility
scale and the match-up hypothesis, respectively. Our review of the
critical theoretical foundations shows that although source credibility
theory dominates the extant literature, theories from multiple disci­
plines also contribute significantly towards endorser credibility
research. This implies that the scope of celebrity credibility literature
stretches beyond a single theory or one discipline. This finding corre­
sponds with Schimmelpfennig and Hunt (2020) review article, which
suggests that a single theory lacks in explaining the celebrity endorse­
ment phenomenon holistically. Furthermore, the structured review re­
veals a successful application of mixed data collection methods and
analysis techniques in the past decades (Boudrias et al., 2014; Lee & Koo,
2015). These results indicate the existence of an inclusive and sophis­
ticated sub-discipline of celebrity endorsement under the broader
paradigm of brand communication.
The citation analysis identifies that in celebrity credibility research:
(1) Choi, Goldsmith, Lafferty, and Newell are the most cited authors, (2)
Ohanian (1990) scale development and Kamins (1990) match-up hy­
pothesis are the key articles, and (3) JA and JBR are the leading publi­
cation outlets. This indicates that the seminal contributions of these
authors, articles, and journals have laid the foundation of celebrity
credibility literature. Additionally, we conducted a co-citation analysis
to identify the documents, researchers, and sources that are commonly
cited together, given their intellectual fit. The nine most co-cited articles
either: (1) form the foundation of source credibility (Hovland & Weiss,
1951; Goldsmith et al., 2000), (2) apply credibility to celebrity
endorsement (McCracken, 1989; Ohanian, 1990), or (3) study the focal
construct in inter-disciplinary context (Chaiken, 1980; Sussman & Sie­
gal, 2003). Our analysis discerns that authors who have laid the theo­
retical foundation of the literature, most notably Richard Petty and John
Cacioppo (254 citations) and Carl Hovland and Walter Weiss (101
408
Journal of Business Research 125 (2021) 397–415
citations), are predominantly co-cited. Moreover, our inquiry ascertains
that specialized marketing journals such as the Journal of Consumer
Research (650 citations), the Journal of Advertising (531 citations), and
the Journal of Marketing Research (378 citations) are more frequently
co-cited than mainstream management journals like the Journal of
Business Research (198 citations) and Management Science (71 cita­
tions). The limited co-citations of management journals in celebrity
credibility studies may be due to their broad ambit of research and re­
sponsibility to advance knowledge in multiple constituencies.
Our analysis of the sources citing JBR and JA articles reveals that
business research has a greater influence on inter-disciplinary research
than advertising research. The focus of JBR articles (Newell & Gold­
smith, 2001; Tseng & Wang, 2016) on applied management research
(Donthu et al., 2020) explains the former’s relevance across disciplines.
Therefore, business researchers may aim to generalize their findings for
wider applicability and acceptance within and across disciplines.
The co-occurrence analysis reveals a clear shift in research from the
credibility assessment of traditional celebrities to that of digital influ­
encers and micro-celebrities. This emerging trend is attributable to the
rapid digitalization of the marketplace, wherein consumers often seek
an influential position as opinion leaders (Keel & Nataraajan, 2012).
Such a market transformation further leads consumers to prefer the
opinions of relatable social media influencers (Jin & Phua, 2014) and
fellow customers (Mahapatra & Mishra, 2017) over distant celebrity
endorsers. In a similar vein, Schouten et al. (2019) demonstrates that
consumers’ higher perceived identification and similarity with Serena
Verbon, a beauty influencer, than Kate Moss, a supermodel, developed
more favorable attitudes and purchase intentions towards the brands
endorsed by the former. Additionally, the co-application of source
credibility theory (Hovland & Weiss, 1951) and elaboration likelihood
model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) from the communication and psy­
chology and sociology disciplines, respectively reaffirms the reliance of
credibility research on cross-disciplinary theories.
Based on the key theoretical foundations (Hovland & Weiss, 1951;
McGuire, 1985; Kamins, 1990), we present a structural framework of
source credibility that reviews and postulates its causal relationship with
brand promotion variables. The proposed correlation between source
credibility and the diverse attributes resonates with past research
(Ohanian, 1990; Goldsmith et al., 2000; Amos et al., 2008) and posits
credibility as a multi-dimensional construct. The antecedent-
consequence model positions source credibility as a crucial link be­
tween the independent and dependent variables, thus, highlighting its
significance with regard to brand endorsement. Further, a classification
of these variables under specific factors identifies the major sources of
effective brand communication.
5.2. Managerial implications
Our findings offer several insights to practitioners. Consumers’ easy
access to digital platforms and preferences for social media content in
current times has offered brand managers new and efficient opportu­
nities to reach their target customers. Doritos’s collaboration with
micro-celebrities on Instagram to create a buzz around its name with
#NachoEmoji is a glaring example of the kind of promotional campaigns
that will become the next competing ground for brands. Our conceptual
framework presents an amalgamation of traditional characteristics like
trustworthiness (Pornpitakpan, 2004a) and attractiveness (Ohanian,
1991), and contemporary qualities such as corporate philanthropy
(Walker & Kent, 2012) and celebrity reputation (Lee et al., 2011). This
amalgamation yields a favorable perception of source credibility. Mar­
keters should consider these factors while designing brand commercials
to establish endorser credibility (Winterich et al., 2018) and in turn,
positive consumer attitudes (Choi & Rifon, 2002) and intentions (Guido,
Peluso, & Moffa, 2011).
The structural model highlights that celebrity credibility affects
consumers’ immediate responses, such as ad attitudes (Mishra et al.,
D. Halder et al.
2015) and brand purchase intentions (Malik & Guptha, 2014), and long-
term outcomes, such as brand commitment (Zhang et al., 2018) and
brand equity (Beneke, De Sousa, Mbuyu, & Wickham, 2016). Moreover,
the moderating roles of message involvement and product involvement
suggest that while a positive perception of an endorser is formed when
message involvement is low, the favorable effects of source credibility
are accentuated with increasing product involvement. This implies that
advertisers should convey simple and easy-to-interpret messages when
the intention of communication is to facilitate a positive perception of a
source. Conversely, marketers should draw audience’s attention towards
the key features and benefits of a brand to intensify the desirable effects
of source credibility. Given a target group’s demographics (Todd &
Melancon, 2018) and ethnicity (Fan et al., 2018), such promotional
strategies may enhance the efficacy of celebrity endorsements. In sum,
this upgraded knowledge enables managers to review, alter, or maintain
existing brand communication practices.
5.3. Directions for future research
Following Kumar et al. (2019), we discuss the scope of future
research in subsequent sections using the TMC framework.
5.3.1. Theory
Past research has widely accepted and applied the three dimensions
of celebrity credibility (Ohanian, 1990). However, in some cases, the
literature reveals that the celebrity endorser credibility measure has
insignificant effects on consumer attitudes and intentions. For instance,
Wei and Lu (2013) and Till and Busler (2000) find no evidence of the
positive influence of trustworthiness and attractiveness on respondents’
brand affect and purchase intent, respectively. Additionally, the iden­
tification of diverse antecedents in our structural model questions the
sufficiency and relevance of the existing structure and dimensions of
source credibility. Thus, we recommend that future researchers explore
and validate novel constructs like moral virtues (Martin and Tao-Peng,
2017), authenticity (Kernis & Goldman, 2006), and conscientiousness
(Davies, Chun, Da Silva, & Roper, 2004) as constituents of credibility.
The inclusion of such unexplored attributes will complement and
broaden the current dimensions of credibility. Thus, following the sug­
gestions of Paul and Mas (2019), we advance proposition 1.
Proposition 1 – Celebrity credibility is a broad and multi-dimensional
construct and encompasses facets beyond trustworthiness, expertise,
and attractiveness.
Culture is a concept that warrants academic scrutiny, as it shapes
individuals’ characters and behaviors (Hofstede, 1984; McCracken,
1989). While past research sporadically recognizes the role of consumer
culture (Pornpitakpan & Francis, 2000; Fan et al., 2018), it does not
advance any proposition on the relation between source culture and
credibility. Drawing from meaning transfer model (McCracken, 1989)
and attribution theory (Kelley, 1973), we argue that a celebrity’s
ethnicity and an organization’s country of origin may affect or moderate
consumers’ perceptions of celebrity credibility. Therefore, we derive
proposition 2.
Proposition 2 – The cultural background of a source of communi­
cation influences one’s perceived credibility.
Credibility theory classifies the factors of persuasive communication
into four groups: source, message, recipient, and channel (Hovland
et al., 1953; Bagozzi, Gurhan-Canli, & Priester, 2002). However, our
review reveals that past research has primarily assessed the measures
and effects of corporate credibility (Goldsmith et al., 2000; Lafferty,
2007) and celebrity credibility (Pornpitakpan, 2004a; Spry et al., 2011).
Researchers should therefore adequately address the credibility of
existing communication sources such as brands, social media influ­
encers, brand mascots, political personalities, media, and users. More­
over, researchers should incorporate contemporary concepts that may
have a relationship with celebrity credibility, like brand passion (Gilal,
Paul, Gilal, & Gilal, 2019), media interactivity (Saffer, Sommerfeldt, &
409
Journal of Business Research 125 (2021) 397–415
Taylor, 2013), celebrity-user personality congruity (Pradhan, Kapoor, &
Moharana, 2017), and brand coolness (Warren, Batra, Loureiro, &
Bagozzi, 2019). As marketization includes more institutions under its
expanding purview (Tadjewski, 2020), the credibility of multiple sour­
ces of communication emerges as an important paradigm. Thus, we
present proposition 3.
Proposition 3 – The criterion of credibility applies to diverse sources
of communication and has consequences for marketers and marketing.
Our review highlights the ubiquitous application of a few theories in
past research. However, researchers should explore the relevance of
other theories such as regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997), para-
social relationship theory (Horton and Richard Wohl, 1956), and ser­
vice dominant logic (Vargo & Lusch, 2004). Such theories, which are
prevalent in celebrity endorsement literature, may better explain the
role of celebrity credibility in the modern context. For example, Pavlov
(1906) classical conditioning theory may offer alternate explanations for
the causal relationship between endorser-brand fit and influencer
credibility (Keel & Nataraajan, 2012). Similarly, Sirgy (1982) self-
congruity theory may lend theoretical support to the favorable impact
of user-brand image congruence (Pradhan, Duraipandian, & Sethi,
2016) on celebrity credibility. A marginal focus on theory development
and review articles has partially impaired the ability of this field to (1)
challenge the existing theoretical paradigms, (2) generate topical
research ideas (Yadav, 2010), (3) explain the established causal re­
lationships with area-specific theories (Belk, 2017), (4) integrate the
extant literature, and (5) introduce and advance appropriate research
methodologies based on the nature of inquiry. Therefore, upcoming
scholars should strengthen the theoretical base of this research domain.
5.3.2. Method
The structured review underlines an abundance of empirical studies
in the existing literature. Within the empirical approaches, previous
research relies heavily on quantitative methodologies (Haigh & Bru­
baker, 2010; Beneke et al., 2016). More robust quantitative techniques
may be adopted in the future to examine the effects of influencer cred­
ibility in real time. Further, future researchers should focus on qualita­
tive research designs to develop a holistic understanding of consumer
subjectivities which may not be captured by quantitative tools. The
current consumption scenario is marked by temporality, speedy access,
context-specificity, and flux (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2017). Qualitative
techniques as novel as photo-voicing (Saunders & Eaton, 2018) would
effectively unpack multiple subjectivities as consumers intersect with
celebrity figures in the competitive market setting. The efficacy of such
qualitative techniques would be contingent on the successful problem­
atization of realties and hence, the questions asked. Thus, we advance
the following proposition.
Proposition 4 – The application of a multiplicity of methods can
effectively unpack celebrity credibility under the conditions of emerging
consumer realities.
Future bibliometric reviews may encompass credibility-related arti­
cles irrespective of their disciplines, thus, broadening the relevance of
the research topic. Such studies may be complemented by novel meth­
odologies like hierarchical cluster analysis and multi-dimensional
scaling (Samiee & Chabowski, 2012) to encourage the application of
bibliometric analysis techniques in marketing discipline. The present
study may be extended to map the evolution of credibility research in
prominent sources like JBR or JA, thus, attaining journal-specific in­
sights. A systematic literature review may be conducted to gain more
insights into the subject matter (Paul & Criado, 2020). Finally, future
research may also determine the net effect of consumer involvement on
the relationship between credibility and its predictors and outcomes
(Wheeler, 2009; Wu & Wang, 2011) through a meta-analysis.
5.3.3. Context
Our bibliometrics depicts academicians’ rising interest in studying
the evolving function of endorser credibility on virtual platforms,
D. Halder et al.
implying that the future research will occur primarily in the digital
media context. Social media permits ordinary individuals to become
‘web-based stars’ (Keel & Nataraajan, 2012), thus, blurring the line of
difference between celebrities and audiences. It is plausible that a
change in the communication format alters the meaning, function, and
measures of celebrity credibility. Therefore, we derive the final
proposition.
Proposition 5 – The conceptualization and operationalization of ce­
lebrity credibility varies amongst traditional and digital media.
Future research should develop and validate a comprehensive
theoretical model that correlates the antecedents and consequences of
source credibility in an online context. This will offer a complete un­
derstanding of the new dimensions of perceived credibility and their
association with contemporary constructs such as website reputation
(Kim & Choi, 2012) and (e-) word of mouth quality (Beneke et al., 2016).
Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge Justin Paul, Managing Guest Editor of
the Special Issue and the five anonymous reviewers for their helpful
comments. We thank Pankaj Vishwakarma for his support.
Declaration of Competing Interest
None.
References
Alcañiz, E. B., Cáceres, R. C., & Pérez, R. C. (2010). Alliances between brands and social
causes: The influence of company credibility on social responsibility image. Journal
of Business Ethics, 96(2), 169–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0461-x.
Amos, C., Holmes, G., & Strutton, D. (2008). Exploring the relationship between celebrity
endorser effects and advertising effectiveness. International Journal of Advertising, 27
(2), 209–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2008.11073052.
Arora, R. (2007). Message framing strategies for new and mature products. Journal of
Product & Brand Management, 16(6), 377–385. https://doi.org/10.1108/
10610420710823744.
Arora, R., & Arora, A. (2004). The impact of message framing and credibility. Services
Marketing Quarterly, 26(1), 35–53. https://doi.org/10.1300/j396v26n01_03.
Arora, R., & Arora, A. (2006). Effectiveness of message sidedness and credibility on
healthy eating to prevent cancer. Services Marketing Quarterly, 27(3), 35–52. https://
doi.org/10.1300/J396v27n03_03.
Arora, R., Stoner, C., & Arora, A. (2006). Using framing and credibility to incorporate
exercise and fitness in individuals’ lifestyle. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23(4),
199–207. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760610674329.
Arpan, L. M. (2002). When in Rome? The effects of spokesperson ethnicity on audience
evaluation of crisis communication. Journal of Business Communication, 39(3),
314–339. https://doi.org/10.1177/002194360203900302.
Artz, N., & Tybout, A. M. (1999). The moderating impact of quantitative information on
the relationship between source credibility and persuasion: A persuasion knowledge
model interpretation. Marketing Letters, 10(1), 51–63. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:
1008035107314.
Austin, E. W., & Freeman, C. (1997). Effects of media, parents, and peers on African
American adolescents’ efficacy toward the media and the future. Howard Journal of
Communications, 8(3), 275–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/10646179709361759.
Avery, E. J. (2010). The role of source and the factors audiences rely on in evaluating
credibility of health information. Public Relations Review, 36(1), 81–83. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.10.015.
Ayeh, J. K., Au, N., & Law, R. (2013). “Do We Believe in TripAdvisor?” Examining
credibility perceptions and online travelers’ attitude toward using user-generated
content. Journal of Travel Research, 52(4), 437–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0047287512475217.
Bagozzi, R., Gurhan-Canli, Z., & Priester, J. (2002). The social psychology of consumer
behaviour. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
Balouchi, M., Aziz, Y. A., Hasangholipour, T., Khanlari, A., Abd Rahman, A., & Raja-
Yusof, R. N. (2017). Explaining and predicting online tourists’ behavioural intention
in accepting consumer generated contents. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Technology, 8(2), 168–189. https://doi.org/10.1108/jhtt-09-2016-0059.
Banerjee, S., Bhattacharyya, S., & Bose, I. (2017). Whose online reviews to trust?
Understanding reviewer trustworthiness and its impact on business. Decision Support
Systems, 96, 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2017.01.006.
Bardhi, F., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2017). Liquid consumption. Journal of Consumer Research,
44(3), 582–597. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx050.
Bastos, M. W., & Fletcher, C. (1995). Exploring the Individual’s Perception of Sources
and Credibility of Feedback in the Work Environment. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 3(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.1995.
tb00004.x.
410
Journal of Business Research 125 (2021) 397–415
Baxter, S., Ilicic, J., & Kulczynski, A. (2015). What’s in a name? Examining the effect of
phonetic fit between spokesperson name and product attributes on source
credibility. Marketing Letters, 26(4), 525–534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-014-
9287-0.
Belk, R. W. (2017). Qualitative research in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 46(1),
36–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2016.1201025.
Belonax, J. J., Jr., Newell, S. J., & Plank, R. E. (2007). The Role of Purchase Importance
on Buyer Perceptions of the Trust and Expertise Components of Supplier and
Salesperson Credibility in Business-To-Business Relationships. Journal of Personal
Selling & Sales Management, 27(3), 247–258. https://doi.org/10.2753/PSS0885-
3134270304.
Beneke, J., De Sousa, S., Mbuyu, M., & Wickham, B. (2016). The effect of negative online
customer reviews on brand equity and purchase intention of consumer electronics in
South Africa. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 26
(2), 171–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593969.2015.1068828.
Benoit, W. L. (1995). Accounts, excuses, and apologies: A theory of image restoration
strategies. SUNY Press.
Bergkvist, L., & Zhou, K. Q. (2016). Celebrity endorsements: A literature review and
research agenda. International Journal of Advertising, 35(4), 642–663. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02650487.2015.1137537.
Berry, T. R., Spence, J. C., Plotnikoff, R. C., Bauman, A., McCargar, L., Witcher, C.,
Clark, M., & Stolp, S. (2009). A mixed methods evaluation of televised health
promotion advertisements targeted at older adults. Evaluation and Program Planning,
32(3), 278–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.05.001.
Bhattacherjee, & Sanford. (2006). Influence processes for information technology
acceptance: An elaboration likelihood model. MIS Quarterly, 30(4), 805–825.
https://doi.org/10.2307/25148755.
Bhutada, N. S., Menon, A. M., Deshpande, A. D., & Perri, M., III (2012). Impact of
celebrity pitch in direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs. Health
Marketing Quarterly, 29(1), 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/
07359683.2012.652576.
Bigné-Alcañiz, E., Currás-Pérez, R., & Sánchez-García, I. (2009). Brand credibility in
cause-related marketing: The moderating role of consumer values. Journal of Product
& Brand Management, 18(6), 437–447. https://doi.org/10.1108/
10610420910989758.
Bohner, G., Einwiller, S., Erb, H.-P., & Siebler, F. (2003). When small means comfortable:
relations between product attributes in two-sided advertising. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 13(4), 454–463. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327663JCP1304_12.
Boudrias, J., Bernaud, J., & Plunier, P. (2014). Candidates’ integration of individual
psychological assessment feedback. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(3),
341–359. https://doi.org/10.1037/e518332013-287.
Briñol, P., Petty, R. E., & Tormala, Z. L. (2004). Self-validation of cognitive responses to
advertisements. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(4), 559–573. https://doi.org/
10.1086/380289.
Bronner, F., & de Hoog, R. (2016). Travel websites: Changing visits, evaluations and
posts. Annals of Tourism Research, 57, 94–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
annals.2015.12.012.
Buda, R., & Zhang, Y. (2000). Consumer product evaluation: The interactive effect of
message framing, presentation order, and source credibility. Journal of Product &
Brand Management, 9(4), 229–242. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420010344022.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row.
Bush, A. J., Moncrief, W. C., & Ziethaml, V. A. (1987). Source effects in professional
services advertising. Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 10, 153–171.
Callon, M., Courtial, J., Turner, W. A., & Bauin, S. (1983). From translations to
problematic networks: An introduction to Co-word analysis. Social Science
Information, 22(2), 191–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901883022002003.
Canabal, A., & White, G. O. (2008). Entry mode research: Past and future. International
Business Review, 17(3), 267–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2008.01.003.
Carl, W. J. (2008). The role of disclosure in organized word-of-mouth marketing
programs. Journal of Marketing Communications, 14(3), 225–241. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13527260701833839.
Celeste Farr, A. (2007). The effect of race and expertise on source credibility ratings
while considering resumes. Howard Journal of Communications, 18(3), 239–258.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10646170701490823.
Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of
source versus message cues in persuasion. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 39(5), 752–766.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752.
Chang, H. H., & Wu, L. H. (2014). An examination of negative e-WOM adoption: Brand
commitment as a moderator. Decision Support Systems, 59, 206–218. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.dss.2013.11.008.
Chen, Q., He, Y., Zhao, X., & Griffith, D. (2008). Sources of product information for
Chinese rural consumers. International Journal of Advertising, 27(1), 67–97. https://
doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2008.11073041.
Choi, S. M., & Rifon, N. J. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of web advertising
credibility. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 3(1), 12–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15252019.2002.10722064.
Chung, N., & Han, H. (2017). The relationship among tourists’ persuasion, attachment
and behavioral changes in social media. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
123, 370–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.09.005.
Clow, K. E., James, K. E., Kranenburg, K. E., & Berry, C. T. (2006). The relationship of the
visual element of an advertisement to service quality expectations and source
credibility. Journal of Services Marketing, 20(6), 404–411. https://doi.org/10.1108/
08876040610691293.
Dabić, M., Vlačić, B., Paul, J., Dana, L., Sahasranamam, S., & Glinka, B. (2020).
Immigrant entrepreneurship: A review and research agenda. Journal of Business
Research, 113, 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.03.013.
D. Halder et al.
Danvila-del-Valle, I., Estévez-Mendoza, C., & Lara, F. J. (2019). Human resources
training: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Business Research, 101, 627–636. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.02.026.
Davies, G., Chun, R., Da Silva, R. V., & Roper, S. (2004). A corporate character scale to
assess employee and customer views of organization reputation. Corporate Reputation
Review, 7(2), 125–146. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540216.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/
249008.
DeZoort, F. T., Houston, R. W., & Hermanson, D. R. (2003). Audit committee member
support for proposed audit adjustments: A source credibility perspective. Auditing: A
Journal of Practice & Theory, 22(2), 189–205. https://doi.org/10.2308/
aud.2003.22.2.189.
Dobele, A., & Lindgreen, A. (2011). Exploring the nature of value in the word-of-mouth
referral equation for health care. Journal of Marketing Management, 27(3-4),
269–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2011.545677.
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., & Pattnaik, D. (2020). Forty-five years of Journal of business
research: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Business Research, 109, 1–14. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.10.039.
Dwivedi, A., Johnson, L. W., & McDonald, R. E. (2015). Celebrity endorsement, self-
brand connection and consumer-based brand equity. Journal of Product & Brand
Management, 24(5), 449-461. https://doi.org/10.1108/jpbm-10-2014-0722.
Dwivedi, A., & Johnson, L. W. (2013). Trust–commitment as a mediator of the celebrity
endorser–brand equity relationship in a service context. Australasian Marketing
Journal (AMJ), 21(1), 36–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2012.10.001.
Dwivedi, A., Johnson, L. W., & McDonald, R. (2016). Celebrity endorsements, self-brand
connection and relationship quality. International Journal of Advertising, 35(3),
486–503. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2015.1041632.
Dwivedi, A., McDonald, R. E., & Johnson, L. W. (2014). The impact of a celebrity
endorser’s credibility on consumer self-brand connection and brand evaluation.
Journal of Brand Management, 21(7–8), 559–578. https://doi.org/10.1057/
bm.2014.37.
Dzikowski, P. (2018). A bibliometric analysis of born global firms. Journal of Business
Research, 85, 281–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.054.
Eisend, M. (2004). Is it still worth to be credible? A meta-analysis of temporal patterns of
source credibility effects in marketing. Advances in Consumer Research, 31, 352–357.
Eisend, M. (2006). Source credibility in marketing communication - A generalized
solution. Journal of Empirical Generalisations in Marketing, 28(JRM 1), 43–62.
Eisend, M. (2009). A meta-analysis of humor in advertising. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 37(2), 191–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-008-0096-y.
Eisend, M. (2010). Explaining the joint effect of source credibility and negativity of
information in two-sided messages: Source and negativity effects in two-sided
messages. Psychology & Marketing, 27(11), 1032–1049. https://doi.org/10.1002/
mar.20372.
Ellis, B. H. (1992). The effects of uncertainty and source credibility on attitudes about
organizational change. Management Communication Quarterly, 6(1), 34–57. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0893318992006001002.
Erdogan, B. Z. (1999). Celebrity endorsement: A literature review. Journal of Marketing
Management, 15(4), 291–314. https://doi.org/10.1362/026725799784870379.
Fadel, K. J., Durcikova, A., & Cha, H. S. (2009). Information influence in mediated
knowledge transfer. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(4), 26-42.
https://doi.org/10.4018/jkm.2009062902.
Fan, A., Shen, H., Wu, L., Mattila, A. S., & Bilgihan, A. (2018). Whom do we trust?
Cultural differences in consumer responses to online recommendations. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(3), 1508–1525. https://doi.org/
10.1108/ijchm-01-2017-0050.
Ferreira, F. A. (2017). Mapping the field of arts-based management: Bibliographic
coupling and Co-citation analyses. Journal of Business Research, 85, 348–357. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.03.026.
Ferreira, J., Ferreira, F., Fernandes, C., Jalali, M., Raposo, M., & Marques, C. S. (2016).
What do we (not) know about technology entrepreneurship research? International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(3), 713–733. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11365-015-0359-2.
Fetscherin, M., & Heinrich, D. (2014). Consumer brand relationships research: A
bibliometric citation meta-analysis. Journal of Business Research, 68(2), 380–390.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.06.010.
Filieri, R. (2015). What makes online reviews helpful? A diagnosticity-adoption
framework to explain informational and normative influences in e-WOM. Journal of
Business Research, 68(6), 1261–1270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2014.11.006.
Filieri, R., Alguezaui, S., & McLeay, F. (2015). Why do travelers trust TripAdvisor?
Antecedents of trust towards consumer-generated media and its influence on
recommendation adoption and word of mouth. Tourism Management, 51, 174–185.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.05.007.
Finch, D., Deephouse, D., & Varella, P. (2015). Examining an individual’s legitimacy
judgment using the value–attitude system: The role of environmental and economic
values and source credibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(2), 265–281. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-2031-5.
Frasca, K. J., & Edwards, M. R. (2017). Web-based corporate, social and video
recruitment media: Effects of media richness and source credibility on organizational
attraction: FRASCA and EDWARDS. International Journal of Selection and Assessment,
25(2), 125–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa:12165.
Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope
with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1–31. https://doi.
org/10.1086/209380.
411
Journal of Business Research 125 (2021) 397–415
Fuellhart, K. G., & Glasmeier, A. K. (2003). Acquisition, assessment and use of business
information by small- and medium-sized businesses: A demand perspective.
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 15(3), 229–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0898562021000011197.
Fugate, Douglas L. (1998). The advertising of services: what is an appropriate role for
humor? Journal of Services Marketing, 12(6), 453–472. https://doi.org/10.1108/
08876049810242731.
Gemser, G., Leenders, M. A. A. M., & Wijnberg, N. M. (2008). Why some awards are more
effective signals of quality than others: A study of movie awards†. Journal of
Management, 34(1), 25–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307309258.
Gilal, F. G., Paul, J., Gilal, N. G., & Gilal, R. G. (2019). Celebrity endorsement and brand
passion among air travelers: Theory and evidence. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 85, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.102347.
Goldsmith, R. E., Lafferty, B. A., & Newell, S. J. (2000). The impact of corporate
credibility and celebrity credibility on consumer reaction to advertisements and
brands. Journal of Advertising, 29(3), 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00913367.2000.10673616.
Gong, W., & Li, X. (2017). Engaging fans on microblog: The synthetic influence of
parasocial interaction and source characteristics on celebrity endorsement.
Psychology & Marketing, 34(7), 720–732. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21018.
Gotlieb, J. B., & Sarel, D. (1991a). Comparative advertising effectiveness: The role of
involvement and source credibility. Journal of Advertising, 20(1), 38–45. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00913367.1991.10673205.
Gotlieb, J. B., & Sarel, D. (1991b). Effects of price advertisements on perceived quality
and purchase intentions. Journal of Business Research, 22(3), 195–210. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0148-2963(91)90001-E.
Gotlieb, J. B., & Sarel, D. (1992). The influence of type of advertisement, price, and
source credibility on perceived quality. JAMS, 20(3), 253–260. https://doi.org/
10.1007/BF02723412.
Gotlieb, J. B., Schlacter, J. L., & Louis, R. D. S. (1992). Consumer decision making: A
model of the effects of involvement, source credibility, and location on the size of the
price difference required to induce consumers to change suppliers. Psychology and
Marketing, 9(3), 191–208. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.4220090303.
Goyal, K., & Kumar, S. (2020). Financial Literacy: A Systematic Review and Bibliometric
Analysis. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/
ijcs.12605.
Guido, G., & Peluso, A. M. (2009). When are baby-faced endorsers appropriate? Testing
effects on credibility and purchase intention. Journal of Current Issues & Research in
Advertising, 31(2), 67–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2009.10505266.
Guido, G., Peluso, A. M., & Moffa, V. (2011). Beardedness in advertising: Effects on
endorsers’ credibility and purchase intention. Journal of Marketing Communications,
17(1), 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527260903157383.
Gunawan, D. D., & Huarng, K. (2015). Viral effects of social network and media on
consumers’ purchase intention. Journal of Business Research, 68(11), 2237–2241.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.06.004.
Gupta, A. K., & Wilemon, D. (1988). The credibility-cooperation connection at the R&D-
marketing interface. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 5(1), 20–31. https://
doi.org/10.1111/1540-5885.510020.
Gurzki, H., & Woisetschläger, D. M. (2017). Mapping the luxury research landscape: A
bibliometric citation analysis. Journal of Business Research, 77, 147–166. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.11.009.
Hachigian, D., & Hallahan, K. (2003). Perceptions of public relations web sites by
computer industry journalists. Public Relations Review, 29(1), 43–62. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0363-8111(02)00195-9.
Haigh, M. M., & Brubaker, P. (2010). Examining how image restoration strategy impacts
perceptions of corporate social responsibility, organization-public relationships, and
source credibility. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 15(4),
453–468. https://doi.org/10.1108/13563281011085538.
Haley, E. (1996). Exploring the construct of organization as source: consumers’
understandings of organizational sponsorship of advocacy advertising. Journal of
Advertising, 25(2), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1996.10673497.
Halliday, S. V. (2016). User-generated content about brands: Understanding its creators
and consumers. Journal of Business Research, 69(1), 137–144. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.07.027.
Hayes, R. A., & Carr, C. T. (2015). Does being social matter? Effects of enabled
commenting on credibility and brand attitude in social media. Journal of Promotion
Management, 21(3), 371–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2015.1039178.
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12),
1280–1300. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.52.12.1280.
Hofstede, G. (1984). Cultural dimensions in management and planning. Asia Pacific
Journal of Management, 1(2), 81–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01733682.
Homer, P. M., & Kahle, L. R. (1990). Source expertise, time of source identification, and
involvement in persuasion: An elaborative processing perspective. Journal of
Advertising, 19(1), 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1990.10673178.
Horton, D., & Richard Wohl, R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction.
Psychiatry, 19(3), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049.
Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion:
Psychological studies of opinion change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication
effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15(4), 635–650. https://doi.org/10.1086/
266350.
Hung, K., Li, S. Y., & Tse, D. K. (2011). Interpersonal trust and platform credibility in a
Chinese multibrand online community. Journal of Advertising, 40(3), 99–112.
https://doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367400308.
Hur, K., Kim, T. T., Karatepe, O. M., & Lee, G. (2017). An exploration of the factors
influencing social media continuance usage and information sharing intentions
D. Halder et al.
among Korean travellers. Tourism Management, 63, 170–178. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tourman.2017.06.013.
Hwang, J., Park, S., & Woo, M. (2018). Understanding user experiences of online travel
review websites for hotel booking behaviours: An investigation of a dual motivation
theory. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 23(4), 359–372. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10941665.2018.1444648.
Ilicic, J., & Baxter, S. (2014). Fit in celebrity-charity alliances: When perceived
celanthropy benefits nonprofit organisations: Influence on attitudes and donation
intentions. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 19(3),
200–208. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1497.
Inoue, Y., & Kent, A. (2012). Investigating the role of corporate credibility in corporate
social marketing: A case study of environmental initiatives by professional sport
organizations. Sport Management Review, 15(3), 330–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
smr.2011.12.002.
Inoue, Y., & Kent, A. (2014). A conceptual framework for understanding the effects of
corporate social marketing on consumer behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 121(4),
621–633. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1742-y.
Ivanič, A. S., Bates, K., & Somasundaram, T. (2014). The role of the accent in radio
advertisements to ethnic audiences: Does emphasizing ethnic stereotypes affect
spokesperson credibility and purchase intention? JAR, 54(4), 407–419. https://doi.
org/10.2501/JAR-54-4-407-419.
Jain, S. P., & Posavac, S. S. (2001). Prepurchase attribute verifiability, source credibility,
and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 10(3), 169–180. https://doi.org/
10.1207/S15327663JCP1003_03.
Jia, H., Zhou, S., & Allaway, A. W. (2018). Understanding the evolution of consumer
psychology research: A bibliometric and network analysis. Journal of Consumer
Behaviour, 17(5), 491–502. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1734.
Jin, S. A., & Phua, J. (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
Advertising, 43(2), 181–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2013.827606.
Jin, S. A., & Sung, Y. (2010). The roles of spokes-avatars’ personalities in brand
communication in 3D virtual environments. Journal of Brand Management. https://
doi.org/10.1057/bm200918.
Jo, S. (2005). The effect of online media credibility on trust relationships. Journal of
Website Promotion, 1(2), 57–78. https://doi.org/10.1300/J238v01n02_04.
Johnston, A., & Warkentin, M. (2010). The influence of perceived source credibility on
end user attitudes and intentions to comply with recommended IT actions. Journal of
Organizational and End User Computing, 22(3), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.4018/
joeuc.2010070101.
Joseph, W. B. (1982). The credibility of physically attractive communicators: A review.
Journal of Advertising, 11(3), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00913367.1982.10672807.
Jung, J. M., & Kellaris, J. J. (2006). Responsiveness to authority appeals among young
French and American consumers. Journal of Business Research, 59(6), 735–744.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.01.011.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory. An analysis of decision making
under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–292. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada045771.
Kaikati, J. G. (1987). Celebrity advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 6(2),
93–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.1987.11107007.
Kamins, M. 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.
Karniouchina, E. V., Moore, W. L., & Cooney, K. J. (2009). Impact of Mad Money Stock
recommendations: Merging financial and marketing perspectives. Journal of
Marketing, 73(6), 244–266. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.6.244.
Keel, A., & Nataraajan, R. (2012). Celebrity endorsements and beyond: New avenues for
celebrity branding. Psychology & Marketing, 29(9), 690–703. https://doi.org/
10.1002/mar.20555.
Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28(2),
107–128. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034225.
Kelman, H. C. (1961). Processes of opinion change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25(1),
57–78. https://doi.org/10.1086/266996.
Kenton, S. B. (1989). Speaker credibility in persuasive business communication: A model
which explains gender differences 1. Journal of Business Communication, 26(2),
143–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/002194368902600204.
Kernis, M. H., & Goldman, B. M. (2006). A Multicomponent conceptualization of
authenticity: Theory and research. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38,
283–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(06)38006-9.
Kerstetter, D., & Cho, M.-H. (2004). Prior knowledge, credibility and information search.
Annals of Tourism Research, 31(4), 961–985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
annals.2004.04.002.
Kienzler, M., & Kowalkowski, C. (2017). Pricing strategy: A review of 22 years of
marketing research. Journal of Business Research, 78, 101–110. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.05.005.
Kim, M. J., Bonn, M., & Lee, C.-K. (2017). Seniors’ dual route of persuasive
communications in mobile social media and the moderating role of discretionary
time. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 22(8), 799–818. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10941665.2017.1331925.
Kim, S., & Choi, S. M. (2012). Credibility cues in online shopping: An examination of
corporate credibility, retailer reputation, and product review credibility.
International Journal of Internet Marketing and Advertising, 7(3), 217–236. https://doi.
org/10.1504/ijima.2012.047425.
Kim, S.-B., & Kim, D.-Y. (2014). The effects of message framing and source credibility on
green messages in hotels. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 55(1), 64–75. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1938965513503400.
412
Journal of Business Research 125 (2021) 397–415
Kim, H., & Lee, C. (2012). Differential effects of fear-eliciting DTCA on elaboration,
perceived endorser credibility, and attitudes. International Journal of Pharmaceutical
and Healthcare Marketing, 6(1), 4–22. https://doi.org/10.1108/
17506121211216860.
Kim, S. S., Lee, J., & Prideaux, B. (2014). Effect of celebrity endorsement on tourists’
perception of corporate image, corporate credibility and corporate loyalty.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 37, 131–145. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.11.003.
Kim, S. J., Maslowska, E., & Malthouse, E. C. (2018). Understanding the effects of
different review features on purchase probability. International Journal of Advertising,
37(1), 29–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2017.1340928.
Kim, J., & McMillan, S. J. (2008). Evaluation of internet advertising research: A
bibliometric analysis of citations from key sources. Journal of Advertising, 37(1),
99–112. https://doi.org/10.2753/joa0091-3367370108.
Kim, Y.-J., & Na, J.-H. (2007). Effects of celebrity athlete endorsement on attitude
towards the product: The role of credibility, attractiveness and the concept of
congruence. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 8(4), 23–33.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSMS-08-04-2007-B004.
Knoll, J., & Matthes, J. (2017). The effectiveness of celebrity endorsements: A meta-
analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(1), 55–75. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11747-016-0503-8.
Kopalle, P. K., & Assunção, J. L. (2000). When (not) to indulge in ‘puffery’: The role of
consumer expectations and brand goodwill in determining advertised and actual
product quality: WHEN (NOT) TO INDULGE IN ‘PUFFERY’. Managerial and Decision
Economics, 21(6), 223–241. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.985.
Kumar, A., Paul, J., & Unnithan, A. B. (2019). ‘Masstige’ marketing: A review, synthesis
and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 113, 384–398. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.030.
Kyung, H., Kwon, O., & Sung, Y. (2010). The Effects of Spokes-Characters’ Personalities
of Food Products on Source Credibility. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 17(1),
65–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2011.532402.
La Ferle, C., & Choi, S. M. (2005). The importance of perceived endorser credibility in
South Korean advertising. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 27(2),
67–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2005.10505182.
Lafferty, B. A. (2007). The relevance of fit in a cause–brand alliance when consumers
evaluate corporate credibility. Journal of Business Research, 60(5), 447–453. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.09.030.
Lafferty, B. A., & Goldsmith, R. E. (1999). Corporate credibility’s role in consumers’
attitudes and purchase intentions when a high versus a low credibility endorser is
used in the ad. Journal of Business Research, 44(2), 109–116. https://doi.org/
10.1016/s0148-2963(98)00002-2.
Lafferty, B. A., Goldsmith, R. E., & Newell, S. J. (2002). The dual credibility model: The
influence of corporate and endorser credibility on attitudes and purchase intentions.
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 10(3), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10696679.2002.11501916.
Lalwani, A. K., Lwin, M., & Li, K. L. (2005). Consumer responses to English accent
variations in advertising. Journal of Global Marketing, 18(3–4), 143–165. https://doi.
org/10.1300/j042v18n03_07.
Langan-Fox, J., Waycott, J., Morizzi, M., & Mcdonald, L. (1998). Predictors of
participation in performance appraisal: A voluntary system in a blue-collar work
environment. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 6(4), 249–260.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00096.
Lee, Y., & Koo, J. (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. https://doi.org/10.1123/
jsm.2014-0195.
Lee, H., Law, R., & Murphy, J. (2011). Helpful reviewers in Tripadvisor, an online travel
community. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 28(7), 675–688. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10548408.2011.611739.
Lemanski, J. L., & Villegas, J. (2015). Selling health to the distracted: Consumer
responses to source credibility and ad appeal type in a direct-to-consumer
advertisement. Health Marketing Quarterly, 32(3), 217–233. https://doi.org/
10.1080/07359683.2015.1061847.
Leong, S. M. (1989). A citation analysis of the Journal of consumer research. Journal of
Consumer Research, 15(4), 492–497. https://doi.org/10.1086/209188.
Li, M., Huang, L., Tan, C.-H., & Wei, K.-K. (2013). Helpfulness of online product reviews
as seen by consumers: Source and content features. International Journal of Electronic
Commerce, 17(4), 101–136. https://doi.org/10.2753/JEC1086-4415170404.
Lord, K. R., & Putrevu, S. (2009). Informational and Transformational Responses to
Celebrity Endorsements. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 31(1),
1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2009.10505253.
Lynch, J., & Schuler, D. (1994). The matchup effect of spokesperson and product
congruency: A schema theory interpretation. Psychol. Mark., 11(5), 417–445.
https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.4220110502.
Mahapatra, S., & Mishra, A. (2017). Acceptance and forwarding of electronic word of
mouth. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 35(5), 594–610. https://doi.org/10.1108/
mip-01-2017-0007.
Malik, G., & Guptha, A. (2014). Impact of celebrity endorsements and brand mascots on
consumer buying behavior. Journal of Global Marketing, 27(2), 128–143. https://doi.
org/10.1080/08911762.2013.864374.
Mansour, I. H., & Diab, D. M. (2016). The relationship between celebrities’ credibility
and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Islamic Marketing, 7(2), 148-166. https://
doi.org/10.1108/jima-05-2013-0036.
Martin, F., & Tao-Peng, F. (2017). Morality matters? Consumer identification with
celebrity endorsers in China. Asian Business & Management, 16(4–5), 272–289.
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41291-017-0022-6.
D. Halder et al.
Martínez-López, F. J., Merigó, J. M., Valenzuela-Fernández, L., & Nicolás, C. (2018). Fifty
years of the European Journal of marketing: A bibliometric analysis. European
Journal of Marketing, 52(1/2), 439–468. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejm-11-2017-
0853.
Martín-Santana, J. D., & Beerli-Palacio, A. (2013). Magazine advertising: Factors
influencing the effectiveness of celebrity advertising. Journal of Promotion
Management, 19(2), 139–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2013.769471.
Mayzlin, D. (2006). Promotional chat on the internet. Marketing Science, 25(2), 155–163.
https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1050.0137.
McCracken, G. (1989). Who is the celebrity endorser? Cultural foundations of the
endorsement process. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(3), 310–321. https://doi.
org/10.1086/209217.
McGuire, W. J. (1985). Attitudes and Attitude Change. In G. Lindzey, & E. Aronson
(Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 233–346). New York: Random House.
McGuire, W. J., Rice, R. E., & Atkin, C. K. (2001). Input and output variables currently
promising for constructing persuasive communications. Public Communication
Campaigns, 22–48. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452233260.n2.
Mehta, N., Chen, X. J., & Narasimhan, O.m. (2008). Informing, transforming, and
persuading: Disentangling the multiple effects of advertising on brand choice
decisions. Marketing Science, 27(3), 334–355. https://doi.org/10.1287/
mksc.1070.0310.
Men, L. R., & Tsai, W.-H. (2013). Beyond liking or following: Understanding public
engagement on social networking sites in China. Public Relations Review, 39(1),
13–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.09.013.
Mishra, A. S., Roy, S., & Bailey, A. A. (2015). Exploring brand personality-celebrity
endorser personality congruence in celebrity endorsements in the Indian context.
Psychology & Marketing, 32(12), 1158–1174. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20846.
Mishra, R., Singh, R. K., & Koles, B. (2020). Consumer decision-making in Omnichannel
retailing: Literature review and future research agenda. International Journal of
Consumer Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12617.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship
marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20. https://doi.org/10.2307/1252308.
Morimoto, M., & La Ferle, C. (2008). Examining the influence of culture on perceived
source credibility of Asian Americans & the mediating role of similarity. Journal of
Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 30(1), 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10641734.2008.10505237.
Morris, J. D., Choi, Y., & Ju, I. (2016). Are social marketing and advertising
communications (SMACs) meaningful?: A survey of facebook user emotional
responses, source credibility, personal relevance, and perceived intrusiveness.
Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 37(2), 165–182. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10641734.2016.1171182.
Nan, X. (2009). The influence of source credibility on attitude certainty: Exploring the
moderating effects of timing of source identification and individual need for
cognition. Psychology and Marketing, 26(4), 321–332. https://doi.org/10.1002/
mar.20275.
Nan, X. (2013). Perceived source credibility and advertising persuasiveness: An
investigation of moderators and psychological processes. Journal of Current Issues &
Research in Advertising, 34(2), 195–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10641734.2013.787579.
Nataraajan, R., & Chawla, S. K. (1997). “Fitness” marketing: Celebrity or non-celebrity
endorsement? Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 15(2), 119–129. https://doi.
org/10.1300/J090v15n02_09.
Newell, S. J., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2001). The development of a scale to measure
perceived corporate credibility. Journal of Business Research, 52(3), 235–247.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0148-2963(99)00104-6.
Ngamvichaikit, A., & Beise-Zee, R. (2014). Customer preference for decision authority in
credence services: The moderating effects of source credibility and persuasion
knowledge. Managing Service Quality, 24(3), 274–299. https://doi.org/10.1108/
MSQ-03-2013-0033.
O’Neil, J., & Eisenmann, M. (2017). An examination of how source classification impacts
credibility and consumer behavior. Public Relations Review, 43(2), 278–292. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.02.011.
O’Reilly, K., MacMillan, A., Mumuni, A. G., & Lancendorfer, K. M. (2016). Extending our
understanding of eWOM impact: The role of source credibility and message
relevance. Journal of Internet Commerce, 15(2), 77–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15332861.2016.1143215.
Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity
endorsers’ perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of
Advertising, 19(3), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1990.10673191.
Ohanian, R. (1991). The impact of celebrity spokespersons’ perceived image on
consumers’ intention to purchase. Journal of Advertising Research, 31(1), 46–54.
Olsen, M. C., Slotegraaf, R. J., & Chandukala, S. R. (2014). Green claims and message
frames: How green new products change brand attitude. Journal of Marketing, 78(5),
119–137. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.13.0387.
Park, S., & Cho, M. (2015). Celebrity endorsement for nonprofit organizations: The role
of celebrity motive attribution and spontaneous judgment of celebrity-cause
incongruence. Journal of Promotion Management, 21(2), 224–245. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10496491.2014.996802.
Park, J. S., & Hoy, M. G. (2013). But it’s doctor recommended and I read the fine print:
Antecedents to drug companies’ perceived credibility. Health Mark. Q., 30(1), 63–79.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07359683.2013.758016.
Patra, S., & Datta, S. K. (2012). Celebrity Selection & Role of Celebrities in creating Brand
Awareness and Brand Preference - A Literature Review. Journal of Marketing &
Communication, 8(2), 48–57.
413
Journal of Business Research 125 (2021) 397–415
Patzer, G. L. (1983). Source credibility as a function of communicator physical
attractiveness. Journal of Business Research, 11(2), 229–241. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0148-2963(83)90030-9.
Paul, J., & Benito, G. R. (2017). A review of research on outward foreign direct
investment from emerging countries, including China: What do we know, how do we
know and where should we be heading? Asia Pacific Business Review, 24(1), 90–115.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13602381.2017.1357316.
Paul, J., & Bhakar, S. (2018). Does celebrity image congruence influences brand attitude
and purchase intention? Journal of Promotion Management, 24(2), 153–177. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2017.1360826.
Paul, J., & Criado, A. R. (2020). The art of writing literature review: What do we know
and what do we need to know? International Business Review, 29(4), 1–7. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2020.101717.
Paul, J., & Feliciano-Cestero, M. M. (2020). Five decades of research on foreign direct
investment by MNEs: An overview and research agenda. Journal of Business Research,
1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.04.017.
Paul, J., & Mas, E. (2019). Toward a 7-P framework for international marketing. Journal
of Strategic Marketing, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.04.017.
Paul, J., & Rosado-Serrano, A. (2019). Gradual internationalization vs born-global/
International new venture models. International Marketing Review, 36(6), 830–858.
https://doi.org/10.1108/imr-10-2018-0280.
Paul, J., & Singh, G. (2017). The 45 years of foreign direct investment research:
Approaches, advances and analytical areas. The World Economy, 40(11), 2512–2527.
https://doi.org/10.1111/twec.12502.
Pavlov, I. P. (1906). The scientific investigation of the psychical faculties or processes in
the higher animals. Science, 24, 613–619. https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.24.620.613.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion.
Communication and Persuasion, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4964-1_
1.
Pohlmann, A., & Kaartemo, V. (2017). Research trajectories of service-dominant logic:
Emergent themes of a unifying paradigm in business and management. Industrial
Marketing Management, 63, 53–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
indmarman.2017.01.001.
Pornpitakpan, C. (2003). Validation of the celebrity endorsers’ credibility scale: Evidence
from asians. Journal of Marketing Management, 19(1), 179–195. https://doi.org/
10.1362/026725703763772015.
Pornpitakpan, C. (2004a). The effect of celebrity endorsers’ perceived credibility on
product purchase intention. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 16(2),
55–74. https://doi.org/10.1300/j046v16n02_04.
Pornpitakpan, C. (2004b). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of
five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 243–281. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02547.x.
Pornpitakpan, C., & Francis, J. N. (2000). The effect of cultural differences, source
expertise, and argument strength on persuasion. Journal of International Consumer
Marketing, 13(1), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1300/j046v13n01_06.
Pradhan, D., Duraipandian, I., & Sethi, D. (2016). Celebrity endorsement: How
celebrity–brand–user personality congruence affects brand attitude and purchase
intention. Journal of Marketing Communications, 22(5), 456–473. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13527266.2014.914561.
Pradhan, D., Kapoor, V., & Moharana, T. R. (2017). One step deeper: Gender and
congruity in celebrity endorsement. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 35(6),
774–788. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-02-2017-0034.
Priest, S. H. (2008). North American audiences for news of emerging technologies:
Canadian and US responses to bio- and nanotechnologies. Journal of Risk Research,
11(7), 877–889. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870802056904.
Rahayu Hijrah Hati, S., & Idris, A. (2014). Antecedents of customers’ intention to support
Islamic social enterprises in Indonesia. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics,
26(5), 707–737. https://doi.org/10.1108/apjml-08-2014-0126.
Randhawa, K., Wilden, R., & Hohberger, J. (2016). A bibliometric review of open
innovation: Setting a research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33
(6), 750–772. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12312.
Reinares-Lara, E., Martín-Santana, J. D., & Muela-Molina, C. (2016). The effects of
accent, differentiation, and stigmatization on spokesperson credibility in radio
advertising. Journal of Global Marketing, 29(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/
08911762.2015.1119919.
Rhee, E. Y., & Fiss, P. C. (2014). Framing Controversial actions: Regulatory focus, source
credibility, and stock market reaction to poison pill adoption. AMJ, 57(6),
1734–1758. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0686.
Rice, D. H., Kelting, K., & Lutz, R. J. (2012). Multiple endorsers and multiple
endorsements: The influence of message repetition, source congruence and
involvement on brand attitudes. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(2), 249–259.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.06.002.
Rifon, N. J., Choi, S. M., Trimble, C. S., & Li, H. (2004). CONGRUENCE EFFECTS IN
SPONSORSHIP: The Mediating Role of Sponsor Credibility and Consumer
Attributions of Sponsor Motive. Journal of Advertising, 33(1), 30–42. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00913367.2004.10639151.
Roggeveen, A. L., & Johar, G. V. (2002). Perceived source variability versus familiarity:
Testing competing explanations for the truth effect. Journal of Consumer Psychology,
12(2), 81–91. https://doi.org/10.1207/153276602760078622.
Rosado-Serrano, A., Paul, J., & Dikova, D. (2018). International franchising: A literature
review and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 85, 238–257. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.049.
Ross, S. R., Ridinger, L. L., & Cuneen, J. (2009). Drivers to divas: Advertising images of
women in motorsport. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 10
(3), 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSMS-10-03-2009-B003.
D. Halder et al.
Roy, S., Jain, V., & Rana, P. (2013). The moderating role of consumer personality and
source credibility in celebrity endorsements. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business
Administration, 5(1), 72–88. https://doi.org/10.1108/17574321311304549.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1984). Schemata and the cognitive system.
Russell, C. A., & Rasolofoarison, D. (2017). Uncovering the power of natural
endorsements: A comparison with celebrity-endorsed advertising and product
placements. International Journal of Advertising, 36(5), 761–778. https://doi.org/
10.1080/02650487.2017.1348033.
Saffer, A. J., Sommerfeldt, E. J., & Taylor, M. (2013). The effects of organizational
Twitter interactivity on organization–public relationships. Public Relations Review, 39
(3), 213–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.02.005.
Salehi-Esfahani, S., Ravichandran, S., Israeli, A., & Bolden, E., III (2016). Investigating
information adoption tendencies based on restaurants’ user-generated content
utilizing a modified information adoption model. Journal of Hospitality Marketing &
Management, 25(8), 925–953. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2016.1171190.
Samiee, S., & Chabowski, B. R. (2012). Knowledge structure in international marketing:
A multi-method bibliometric analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40
(2), 364–386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0296-8.
Saunders, J. F., & Eaton, A. A. (2018). Social comparisons in eating disorder recovery:
Using PhotoVoice to capture the sociocultural influences on women’s recovery.
International Journal of Eating Disorders, 51(12), 1361–1366. https://doi.org/
10.1002/eat.22978.
Schimmelpfennig, C., & Hunt, J. B. (2020). Fifty years of celebrity endorser research:
Support for a comprehensive celebrity endorsement strategy framework. Psychology
& Marketing, 37(3), 488–505. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21315.
Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1982). The expected utility model: Its variants, purposes, evidence
and limitations. Journal of Economic Literature, 20(2), 529–563.
Schouten, A. P., Janssen, L., & Verspaget, M. (2019). Celebrity vs. influencer
endorsements in advertising: The role of identification, credibility, and product-
endorser fit. International Journal of Advertising, 39(2), 258–281. https://doi.org/
10.1080/02650487.2019.1634898.
Schum, D. A. (1989). Knowledge, probability, and credibility. Journal of Behavioral
Decision Making, 2(1), 39–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.3960020104.
Schwarzkopf, D. L. (2006). Investors’ attitudes toward source credibility. Managerial
Auditing Journal, 22(1), 18–33. https://doi.org/10.1108/02686900710715620.
Shen, Z., Puig, F., & Paul, J. (2017). Foreign market entry mode research: A review and
research agenda. The International Trade Journal, 31(5), 429–456. https://doi.org/
10.1080/08853908.2017.1361368.
Sias, P. M., & Wyers, T. D. (2001). Employee uncertainty and information-seeking in
newly formed expansion organizations. Management Communication Quarterly, 14(4),
549–573. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318901144001.
Simpson, E. K., & Kahler, R. C. (1981). A Scale for Source Credibility; Validated in the
Selling Context. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 1(1), 17–25. https://
doi.org/10.1080/08853134.1981.10754191.
Sirgy, M. J. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: A critical review. Journal of
Consumer Research, 9(3), 287–300. https://doi.org/10.1086/208924.
Smithson, M. (1999). Conflict aversion: Preference for ambiguity vs conflict in sources
and evidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79(3), 179–198.
https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1999.2844.
Sneathen, D. L., Kizirian, T., & Mayhew, B. W. (2005). The Impact of Management
Integrity on Audit Planning and Evidence. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 24
(2), 49–67. https://doi.org/10.2308/aud.2005.24.2.49.
Sohaib, M., Hui, P., & Akram, U. (2018). Impact of eWOM and risk-taking in gender on
purchase intentions: Evidence from Chinese social media. IJISCM, 10(2), 101.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJISCM.2018.094602.
Spence, P. R., Lachlan, K. A., Westerman, D., & Spates, S. A. (2013). Where the gates
matter less: Ethnicity and perceived source credibility in social media health
messages. Howard Journal of Communications, 24(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10646175.2013.748593.
Spry, A., Pappu, R., & Bettina Cornwell, T. (2011). Celebrity endorsement, brand
credibility and brand equity. European Journal of Marketing, 45(6), 882–909. https://
doi.org/10.1108/03090561111119958.
Stremersch, S., Camacho, N. M., Vanneste, S., & Verniers, I. (2014). Unraveling scientific
impact: Citation types in marketing journals. SSRN Electronic Journal, 32, 64–77.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2511364.
Suki, N. M. (2014). Does celebrity credibility influence Muslim and non-Muslim
consumers’ attitudes toward brands and purchase intention? Journal of Islamic
Marketing, 5(2), 227–240. https://doi.org/10.1108/jima-04-2013-0024.
Sussman, S. W., & Siegal, W. S. (2003). Informational influence in organizations: An
integrated approach to knowledge adoption. Information Systems Research, 14(1),
47–65. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.14.1.47.14767.
Tadjewski, M. (2020). Marketization: Exploring the Geographic Expansion of Market
Ideology. In Marketization: Theory and Evidence from Emerging Economies (pp. 3–20).
Springer (Singapore).
Thorsteinson, T. J., Palmer, E. M., Wulff, C., & Anderson, A. (2004). Too good to be true?
Using realism to enhance applicant attraction. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19
(1), 125–137. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOBU.0000040276.75748.b9.
Thwaites, D., Lowe, B., Monkhouse, L. L., & Barnes, B. R. (2012). The impact of negative
publicity on celebrity ad endorsements. Psychology & Marketing, 29(9), 663–673.
https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20552.
Till, B. D., & Busler, M. (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), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00913367.2000.10673613.
414
Journal of Business Research 125 (2021) 397–415
Todd, P. R., & Melancon, J. (2018). Gender and live-streaming: Source credibility and
motivation. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 12(1), 79–93. https://doi.
org/10.1108/jrim-05-2017-0035.
Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2004). Source credibility and attitude certainty: A
Metacognitive analysis of resistance to persuasion. Journal of Consumer Psychology,
14(4), 427–442. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1404_11.
Tse, A. C. B. (1999). Factors affecting consumer perceptions on product safety-the case of
nondurables. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 12(1), 39–55. https://doi.
org/10.1300/J046v12n01_04.
Tseng, S., & Wang, C. (2016). Perceived risk influence on dual-route information
adoption processes on travel websites. Journal of Business Research, 69(6),
2289–2296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.044.
Tzoumaka, E., Tsiotsou, R. H., & Siomkos, G. (2016). Delineating the role of endorser’s
perceived qualities and consumer characteristics on celebrity endorsement
effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Communications, 22(3), 307–326. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13527266.2014.894931.
Vallaster, C., Kraus, S., Merigó Lindahl, J. M., & Nielsen, A. (2019). Ethics and
entrepreneurship: A bibliometric study and literature review. Journal of Business
Research, 99, 226–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.02.050.
van der Veen, R. (2008). Analysis of the implementation of celebrity endorsement as a
destination marketing instrument. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 24(2-3),
213–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548400802092841.
van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program
for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11192-009-0146-3.
van Hoye, G. (2012). Recruitment sources and organizational attraction: A field study of
Belgian nurses. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 21(3),
376–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2011.573146.
Van Hoye, G., & Lievens, F. (2007). Investigating web-based recruitment sources:
Employee testimonials vs word-of-mouse. Int J Selection & Assessment, 15(4),
372–382. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2007.00396.x.
van Reijmersdal, E. A. (2011). Mixing advertising and editorial content in radio
programmes: Appreciation and recall of brand placements versus commercials.
International Journal of Advertising, 30(3), 425–446. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJA-30-
3-425-446.
van Reijmersdal, E. A., Neijens, P. C., & Smit, E. G. (2010). Customer magazines: Effects
of commerciality on readers’ reactions. Journal of Current Issues & Research in
Advertising, 32(1), 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2010.10505275.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing.
Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036.
Veasna, S., Wu, W.-Y., & Huang, C.-H. (2013). The impact of destination source
credibility on destination satisfaction: The mediating effects of destination
attachment and destination image. Tourism Management, 36, 511–526. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.09.007.
Verlegh, P. W., Steenkamp, J. E., & Meulenberg, M. T. (2005). Country-of-origin effects
in consumer processing of advertising claims. International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 22(2), 127–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2004.05.003.
Walker, M., & Kent, A. (2012). The roles of credibility and social consciousness in the
corporate philanthropy-consumer behavior relationship. Journal of Business Ethics,
116(2), 341–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1472-6.
Wang, S. W., & Scheinbaum, A. C. (2018). Enhancing brand credibility via celebrity
endorsement: Trustworthiness trumps attractiveness and expertise. JAR, 58(1),
16–32. https://doi.org/10.2501/JAR-2017-042.
Ward, C. D., & McGinnies, E. (1974). Persuasive effects of early and late mention of
credible and Noncredible sources. The Journal of Psychology, 86(1), 17–23. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1974.9923879.
Warren, C., Batra, R., Loureiro, S. M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2019). Brand coolness. Journal of
Marketing, 83(5), 36–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242919857698.
Wei, P., & Lu, H. (2013). An examination of the celebrity endorsements and online
customer reviews influence female consumers’ shopping behavior. Computers in
Human Behavior, 29(1), 193–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.08.005.
Weisfeld-Spolter, S., Sussan, F., & Gould, S. (2014). An integrative approach to eWOM
and marketing communications. Corporate Communications: An International Journal,
19(3), 260–274. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-03-2013-0015.
Westover, M. L., & Randle, Q. (2009). Endorser weight and perceptions of brand attitude
and intent to purchase. Journal of Promotion Management, 15(1-2), 57–73. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10496490902908717.
Wheeler, R. T. (2009). Nonprofit advertising: Impact of celebrity connection,
involvement and gender on source credibility and intention to volunteer time or
donate money. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 21(1), 80–107. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10495140802111984.
Wickham, P. A. (2006). Overconfidence in new start-up success probability judgement.
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 12(4), 210–227. https://
doi.org/10.1108/13552550610679168.
Winterich, K. P., Gangwar, M., & Grewal, R. (2018). When celebrities count: Power
distance beliefs and celebrity endorsements. Journal of Marketing, 82(3), 70–86.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.16.0169.
Wu, P. C., & Wang, Y. (2011). The influences of electronic word-of-mouth message
appeal and message source credibility on brand attitude. Asia Pacific Journal of
Marketing and Logistics, 23(4), 448–472. https://doi.org/10.1108/
13555851111165020.
Yadav, M. S. (2010). The decline of conceptual articles and implications for knowledge
development. Journal of Marketing, 74(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1509/
jmkg.74.1.1.
Yan, R., Ogle, J. P., & Hyllegard, K. H. (2010). The impact of message appeal and
message source on Gen Y consumers’ attitudes and purchase intentions toward
D. Halder et al.
American apparel. Journal of Marketing Communications, 16(4), 203–224. https://
doi.org/10.1080/13527260902863221.
Yee-Man Siu, N., & Wong, H.-Y. (2002). The impact of product-related factors on
perceived product safety. Mrkting Intelligence & Plan, 20(3), 185–194. https://doi.
org/10.1108/02634500210428049.
Yoo, Chul Woo, Goo, Jahyun, Huang, C. Derrick, Nam, Kichan, Woo, Mina, et al. (2017).
Improving travel decision support satisfaction with smart tourism technologies: A
framework of tourist elaboration likelihood and self-efficacy. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 123, 330–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techfore.2016.10.071.
Yoon, D., & Kim, Y.-K. (2016). Effects of self-congruity and source credibility on
consumer responses to coffeehouse advertising. Journal of Hospitality Marketing &
Management, 25(2), 167–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2014.1001932.
Yoon, K., Pinkleton, B. E., & Ko, W. (2005). Effects of negative political advertising on
voting intention: An exploration of the roles of involvement and source credibility in
the development of voter cynicism. Journal of Marketing Communications, 11(2),
95–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/1352726042000315423.
Yuan, C. L., Kim, J., & Kim, S. J. (2016). Parasocial relationship effects on customer
equity in the social media context. Journal of Business Research, 69(9), 3795–3803.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.071.
Zhang, K. Z., Barnes, S. J., Zhao, S. J., & Zhang, H. (2018). Can consumers be persuaded
on brand microblogs? An empirical study. Information & Management, 55(1), 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2017.03.005.
Zhang, Y., & Buda, R. (1999). Moderating effects of need for cognition on responses to
positively versus negatively framed advertising messages. Journal of Advertising, 28
(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1999.10673580.
Deepa Halder is pursuing her Ph.D. (Marketing) at XLRI Jamshedpur, India. She holds a
master’s degree (Marketing) from the University of Delhi. Her research interests include
415
Journal of Business Research 125 (2021) 397–415
celebrity endorsement and credibility, integrated marketing communications and
emerging markets. She has presented papers in international marketing conferences.
Debasis Pradhan is currently a Professor of Marketing at XLRI Jamshedpur, India. His
academic interests include congruence research in celebrity endorsement and sports
sponsorship, retail brand equity measurement, anti-consumption research, consumer well-
being, and implementation intention research in impulse buying. His research has been
published/forthcoming in Psychology & Marketing, Journal of Brand Management, Journal of
Consumer Behaviour, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Journal of Marketing Communica­
tions, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Asian Case Research Journal, Interna­
tional Journal of Rural Management, among others. He has served as a regular session chair
for prestigious global conferences such INFORMS Marketing Science and others. He is
currently a Co-Editor of a Special Issue of Journal of Consumer Affairs on “Pandemics and
Well-being”. He can be reached at debasis@xlri.ac.in.
Himadri Roy Chaudhuri is currently a Professor of Marketing at XLRI Jamshedpur. He
has over 13 years of experience in the corporate world and academia. His current research
interest lies in culture consumption theory, endorsement research, subaltern consumer
issues, market violence, macro marketing, consumer well-being and transformative con­
sumer research. His research has been published in leading publication outlets, such as
Journal of Business Ethics, Psychology & Marketing, Journal of Adverting Research, European
Journal of Marketing, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Journal of Consumer Behav­
iour, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Service, Advances in Consumer Research,
Academy of Marketing Science Review. He is currently the Associate Editor (Marketing) of
the Global Business Review and is on the Editorial Board of the Journal of Marketing
Communication. He is a reviewer for journals and books published by Sage, Taylor-
Francis, Pearson. He is currently an Editor of a Special Issue of Journal of Consumer Af­
fairs on “Pandemics and Well-being”.