Received: 21 August 2020 | Revised: 18 December 2020 | Accepted: 21 December 2020

DOI: 10.1111/ijcs.12647

SPECIAL ISSUE
bs_bs_banner

Social media influencer marketing: A systematic review,

integrative framework and future research agenda

Demetris Vrontis | Anna Makrides | Michael Christofi | Alkis Thrassou

Department of Marketing, School of

Business, University of Nicosia, Nicosia,
Cyprus
Correspondence
Michael Christofi, University of Nicosia, 46
Makedonitissas Avenue, CY-2417, P.O.Box
24005, CY-1700, Nicosia, Cyprus.
Email: christofi.mi@unic.ac.cy
research objectives
Abstract
Over the past few years, the popularity of social media influencers (SMIs) has been
growing exponentially, making influencer marketing (IM) prevalent in firm strate-
gies. Despite the mounting interest of researchers and practitioners, the resulting
scholarly work remains divergent, partial and fragmented. In light of the pivotal role
of SMIs on the consumer decision journey and as this research domain is still de-
veloping, a comprehensive and critical overview of extant research on this topic is
sorely needed. In response, this paper is the first to consolidate the present state
of research on IM within social media settings. More specifically, a systematic re-
view of relevant studies published in peer-reviewed academic journals across diverse
fields was conducted in order to identify key themes and dominant concepts. The
analysis of 68 articles from 29 Chartered Association of Business Schools-ranked
journals forges a robust understanding of this phenomenon, shedding light on the
mechanisms underlying the appeal of SMIs and their influential power in shaping
consumer attitudes and behaviour. Based on the analysis, an integrative multidimen-
sional framework is presented that considers antecedents, mediators and modera-
tors of potential outcomes, as well as contextual factors that translate into consumer
behaviour. In so doing, various research gaps are identified and avenues for future
research are proposed that reflect important emerging areas and unexplored realms
with reference to theory, context and methodology. Conclusively, implications of this
study for theory and practice are discussed.

KEYWORDS

consumer behaviour, influencer marketing, social media, social media influencers, social media
platform, systematic literature review

1 | I NTRO D U C TI O N
The rapid adoption of social media has resulted in a de facto om-
nipresence of content created, spread and consumed by users (Ho
& Ito, 2019), generating new communication dynamics (Melumad
et al., 2019; Peng et al., 2018). This interaction that occurs naturally
between peers on social media has contributed to knowledge sharing
and the dissemination of important information. Interestingly, em-
pirical evidence reveals that consumers are likely to invest blind faith
in the content shared on social media groups (Shareef et al., 2020).
Arguably, the ubiquitous connectivity enabled by the proliferation of
social media has fundamentally transformed consumers’ position in
traditional power structures (Evans, 2019) and completely changed
the relationship between consumers and brands (Lamberton &
Stephen, 2016). In these computer-mediated environments, con-
sumers are voicing their opinions about products and services and
have the power to control the decision process of the masses. Thus,
people are not just passive recipients of marketing communications

Int J Consum Stud. 2021;00:1–28. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ijcs© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd | 1
 2 | bs_bs_banner
anymore. Instead, social media allows them to act as both consumer
and promoter for a brand (Lamberton & Stephen, 2016).
Given the internet's scalability and speed of diffusion, some
contributors attract a mass audience, build a fan base and become
a source of advice for their followers, thus, developing into social
media influencers (SMIs). For some of them, being an influencer has
become a career choice (Makrides et al., 2020). For instance, Chiara
Ferragni launched her blog The Blond Salad in 2009 just for fun. Now
she has more than 20 million Instagram followers, has collaborated
with various global brands and has launched her own shoe line
which has expanded into clothing and accessories (O’Connor, 2017).
Increasingly, many brands are realizing the benefits of collaborating
with SMIs, whom they stimulate (e.g., by offering free products or
paying them) to endorse and promote their products and services,
a practice called influencer marketing (IM). In particular, brands use
SMIs to foster beneficial consumer responses regarding their inter-
ests, allowing both the SMIs and their followers to participate in the
co-creation of the brand image on social media (Martínez-López
et al., 2020).
The idea of using opinion leaders to influence consumers’ de-
cision making is not new. Opinion leaders can be defined as indi-
viduals who exert a strong influence on consumers’ attitudes and
behaviours (Godey et al., 2016), usually via word of mouth (Moldovan
et al., 2017), because of their superior status, social prestige, personal
appeal or expertise (Lin et al., 2018; Xiong et al., 2018). The root of
this concept is a study of voters in the 1940 American Presidential
Election conducted by Lazarsfeld et al. (1948). The findings of this
study revealed that mass media did not affect the audience directly
findings
but worked through opinion leaders who acted on the more passive
segments of the population to influence their behaviour patterns.
This process was called the two-step flow model. The theory was
further developed by Katz and Lazarsfeld (1955), who asserted that
consumers’ responses to messages disseminated by mass media are
mediated by opinion leaders who pass on their own interpretation
of information through many group interactions. Thus, consumers’
final purchase decision is a combination of these two influences,
with interpersonal communication being more powerful in affect-
ing decision-making processes and behaviour compared with mass
media (Casaló et al., 2018).
For the past several decades, using celebrities, like movie stars
and Hollywood personalities, as a means to enhance marketing
communications is a well-established marketing strategy (Knoll &
Matthes, 2017). However, due to the omnipresence of social media,
the accessibility and appeal of influencer endorsements have been
tremendously increased (Appel et al., 2020). According to the latest
statistics (Digital Marketing Institute, 2019; Young, 2017), approxi-
mately 50% of internet users follow some sort of influencer account
on social media and rely on influencer recommendations, whereas
40% bought a product after seeing it on Instagram or YouTube. In
2018, 19% of all U.S. consumers made a purchase because an in-
fluencer recommended it (Audrezet & Charry, 2019). It comes as
no surprise, therefore, that brands increasingly favour SMIs, con-
sidering also that brands seldom manage to meaningfully engage
VRONTIS et al.
consumers on social media by themselves (Kapitan & Silvera, 2016).
Specifically, in 2018, 86% of marketers incorporated IM into their
overall outreach strategy; a trend that is expected to surge in the
new decade (Rahal, 2020).
Parallel to the growing usage of social media influencer market-
ing among practitioners, the rise and emergence of SMIs as an im-
portant marketing tool has motivated a growing body of literature
(e.g., De Jans et al., 2018; Hughes et al., 2019; Torres et al., 2019)
and has also become the subject of increasing research interest in
business press outlets (e.g., Audrezet & Charry, 2019; Hosie, 2019).
Who are these SMIs and how do they influence consumer behaviour
is now a significant and inevitable topic for both academics and prac-
titioners. Thus, a more grounded and comprehensive understanding
of this phenomenon is clearly needed in the interests of academic
knowledge and marketing practice.
In particular, the present systematic review of research on so-
cial media influencer marketing has been motivated by the following
rationales. First, although prior work illustrates a diverse range of
influencer variables (e.g., perceived credibility, attractiveness and
expertise) and other mechanisms (e.g., endorser-brand fit, desire to
mimic and emotional attachment) that impact on consumer outcome
variables (e.g., engagement, brand attitude and purchase intention),
there is no systematic assessment or integrative analysis of the rap-
idly increasing research that focuses on the phenomenon of SMIs.
Thus, we still lack strategic and academic insight on how marketers
can capitalize on this new tool (Campbell & Farrell, 2020). Second,
relevant contributions are coming from various research fields and
the corpus of SMI literature is rapidly expanding. This has resulted in
a rather disjointed body of knowledge that needs some structure to
further its development. The marketing field, therefore, would bene-
fit from an integrative framework that synthesizes available evidence
from existing research from various disciplines, while addressing the
effects of various influencer variables on attitudinal and behavioural
consumer responses as well as identifying underlying components
that permit more precision in understanding the effectiveness of this
marketing tool. Third, IM is a trending topic among scholars because
it is increasingly being acknowledged as an important paradigm on
social media (Ge & Gretzel, 2018), which will shape the future of so-
cial media marketing (Appel et al., 2020). Thus, a systematic review
of high-quality research evidence from articles published in premier
academic peer-reviewed outlets is both timely and important.
Our review contributes in several ways to marketing research
and practice. First, we present an overview of relevant research
and map the key themes that have been examined to date by re-
searchers. Second, we provide the first systematic review of extant
literature on the topic. Third, we consolidate and extend a suite of
conceptual frameworks and research findings into an integrative,
multidimensional and multidisciplinary framework, thereby provid-
ing structure to the SMI phenomenon and its impact on consumer
behaviour. The proposed framework can serve as a theoretical basis
to guide future scholars in a more constructive manner, as well as
practitioners when developing their social media influencer market-
ing strategy. Fourth, through the identification of several research
VRONTIS et al.
bs_bs_banner
gaps, we offer a promising agenda for future research with reference
to theory, context and methodology.
The structure of this article is as follows. We begin by elaborating
on our review methodology, followed by a descriptive and thematic
overview and classification of the findings. Next, we synthesize the
findings of extant work into an integrative framework of the SMI
phenomenon. We subsequently propose avenues for future re-
search and conclude by discussing the implications of this study for
both research and practice.
2 | M E TH O D O LO G Y
A systematic literature review approach is deemed as most appropri-
ate for the purposes of this study, namely to offer a high-quality syn-
thesis and organization of the SMI literature (Wang & Chugh, 2014),
provide academics and practitioners with an integrative frame-
work of the extant knowledge (Mihalache & Michalache, 2016) and
identify research gaps and opportunities for future research (Hao
et al., 2019; Mishra et al., 2020; Paul & Rosado-Serrano, 2019). In
doing so, we followed the guidelines outlined by Paul and Criado
(2020) and Tranfield et al. (2003) and adopted a domain-based ap-
proach (Paul & Criado, 2020).
2.1 | Data selection
We searched for relevant literature in three major electronic data-
bases: EBSCOhost Business Source Ultimate, Science Direct and
Emerald. These databases were chosen because they provide the
greatest coverage (Christofi et al., 2017; Christofi, Vrontis, et al.,
2019) and are frequently used by state-of-the-art systematic reviews
(Christofi, Vrontis, Thrassou, et al., 2019; Leonidou et al., 2018;
Pittaway et al., 2004; Vrontis & Christofi, 2019).
To be consistent with previous systematic reviews within the
field of marketing (Christofi et al., 2017) and consumer behaviour
(Rimkute et al., 2016), we limited our search to peer-reviewed jour-
nal articles written in English, omitting books, book chapters, con-
ference proceedings, editorials and other nonrefereed publications.
The reason is that peer-reviewed journal articles are considered vali-
dated knowledge and occupy a leading position in terms of influence
(Mihalache & Michalache, 2016; Ordanini et al., 2008). In addition,
to ensure article quality, the review was restricted to articles pub-
lished in journals included in the Chartered Association of Business
Schools (CABS) Journal Guide (Rosado-Serrano et al., 2018; Vrontis,
Christofi, et al., 2020; Vrontis, Leonidou, et al., 2020), that is, a
benchmark database of journals of international standard (Paul &
Benito, 2018). According to Furrer et al. (2008), established peer-re-
viewed academic journals shape ongoing research on both theoreti-
cal and empirical issues by setting new horizons for enquiry.
No previous similar attempt to synthesize this particular litera-
ture in a systematic manner was found, and the literature reviews on
the general topic of celebrity endorsements are narrative (Bergkvist
| 3
& Zhou, 2016; Erdogan, 1999). Thus, we sought to identify a pattern
of keyword occurrence in the academic research on SMIs through
an initial scoping search of papers directly related to our topic in
order to select the most appropriate search terms. As a first step,
we conducted a pilot search using the query string “influencer mar-
keting” OR “social media influencer” so as to broadly cover the topic.
Then, we scanned titles, keywords provided by the authors and sub-
sequently abstracts of potentially relevant articles because the au-
thors’ choices of words or phrases in these parts capture the essence
and core of their articles. Each time an alternative keyword was
found, relevant to the base query string, it was noted and included
in the next search. The keyword formula was iteratively developed
adding search terms to the formula in a process of refinement and
enrichment to produce the final one. Note that based on this survey,
we identified a set of pertinent keywords which were frequently
used, thus, revealing a pattern. Using the Boolean OR operator, the
search formula used was: “influencer marketing” OR “social media
influencer marketing” OR “social media influencer” OR “digital influ-
encer” OR “online influencer” OR “online opinion leader” OR “insta-
famous” OR “vlogger” OR “blogger” OR “influencer endorsement”.
While this search algorithm is not exhaustive, we are confident that
it has captured most of the relevant articles.
As frequently done in systematic literature reviews (e.g.,
Macpherson & Holt, 2007; Pisani et al., 2017), titles, keywords/sub-
ject terms and abstracts were searched. Given our intention to re-
view the entire literature on SMIs, the search was not restricted by
date (Rebouças & Soares, 2020). This initial step yielded 6,146 hits in
EBSCOhost Business Source Ultimate, 333 hits in Science Direct and
216 hits in Emerald. Initial counts of hits from all three databases to-
talled 6,695. Once we excluded nonacademic peer-reviewed articles
(5,738), non-CABS-ranked journals (375) and articles not written in
English language (39), we found 543 potentially relevant articles.
We manually read the titles and abstracts of all articles identified
through this process and removed unrelated and duplicate articles,
leaving us with a total of 232 journal articles. For the remaining ar-
ticles, whereas the relevance and eligibility was not clear within the
title or abstract, we conducted full-text screening. After this screen-
ing process, 166 studies were disqualified. Next, we reviewed the
reference lists of the articles selected so far to identify additional
manuscripts that may have been disregarded by the search engines
(Rana & Paul, 2017). This further step provided two additional stud-
ies. In all 68 articles were selected as pertaining to the SMI literature
(for the full list of articles included in our review see Appendix).
2.2 | Data coding
After paper selection, we read the full text of each paper in order
to retrieve information relevant to our topic (Danese et al., 2018).
For the purpose of recording and summarizing important data col-
lected from each article, a data extraction form was devised because
it eliminates human error and documents the procedure in a repli-
cable and transparent way (Tranfield et al., 2003). Each article was
4 | bs_bs_banner
FIGURE 1 Search strategy
coded according to (1) author(s), (2) citations, (3) year of publication,
(4) journal title, (5) research field, (6) type of article (theoretical, em-
pirical and review), (7) method (quantitative, qualitative and mixed
methods), (8) sample characteristics, (9) social media platform, (10)
unit of analysis, (11) key findings and (12) future research agenda
provided by the author(s). The coding categorization using the data
extraction form enabled us to descriptively and thematically analyse
the reviewed field. The overall strategy of the review methodology
is illustrated in Figure 1.
3 | D E S C R I P TI V E A N A LYS I S
Mapping the literature on SMIs by means of descriptive analysis
is critical to capturing trends, strengths and weaknesses of ex-
tant work. In this section, we report observations on the technical
VRONTIS et al.
characteristics of the reviewed studies (e.g., year of publication, ar-
ticle type, methods applied and publication outlets) and contextual
features (e.g., social media platforms studied and study location)
which provide an important preliminary step in understanding the
nature of this research domain and in identifying possible gaps that
deserve more attention.
3.1 | Year of publication
Considering that this research stream is still in an initial stage of in-
vestigation (Hu et al., 2020), it comes as no surprise that the oldest
study included in our systematic review was published in 2007. In
the 9-year period, between 2007 and 2015, the pace of knowledge
creation relevant to our topic was far too slow: only 8.8% of all arti-
cles included in our review. As Figure 2 shows, the number of articles
VRONTIS et al.
bs_bs_banner
with SMI as the topic grew the last 3 years. In particular, 11 articles
were published in 2018, 17 articles in 2019 and 26 articles in 2020,
collectively representing approximately 80% of our pool of selected
articles. This recent explosion of academic interest mirrors the pro-
liferation of IM in practice and the mounting media attention. It is
important to note that, although academic knowledge production
has peaked in 2020, data for this particular year is incomplete be-
cause we have included papers published before the writing of this
study (July 2020). It therefore seems plausible to assume that more
research will be published by the end of 2020.
3.2 | Paper type and methods used
Among the 68 papers reviewed, the largest share was captured by
empirical studies (94%; n = 64), whereas theoretical articles rep-
resented 6% (n = 4). This finding reveals that the present state of
research on IM lacks conceptual contributions (e.g., integrated per-
spectives, new theories and propositional inventories), which are
critical to knowledge development (MacInnis, 2011). Thus, future
research should focus on expanding the theoretical boundaries of
this research stream. Continuing, as Figure 3 illustrates, 81% of the
empirical studies relied on quantitative research methods (n = 52),
purely qualitative research methods were deployed by 17% (n = 11)
and the remaining 2% used a mixed-methods approach (n = 1). It is evi-
dent that researchers place emphasis on theory testing (quantitative
26
Number of Articles
17
11
4 4
1 1 1
2
1
0 0 0 0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Year of Publication
FIGURE 2 Number of articles per year
F I G U R E 3 Articles per type and
research methods applied
| 5
studies) rather than theory building (qualitative studies). Empirical
studies employing qualitative means are thus warranted in order to
provide more in-depth understanding of the phenomena under in-
vestigation and facilitate the evolution of the domain.
3.3 | Research fields and publication outlets
Based on the subject categories determined by the CABS jour-
nal guide, the majority of papers belong to the fields of Marketing
(n = 38; 56%) and Information Management (n = 18; 26%). The
remaining 18% is published in journals in the fields of General
Management, Ethics, Gender and Social Responsibility (n = 9;
13.5%), Social Sciences (n = 1; 1.5%), Sector Studies (n = 1; 1.5%)
and Psychology (n = 1; 1.5%). Thus, it is obvious that this research
domain is interdisciplinary in nature. A closer look revealed that re-
search is published in a wide variety of journals in the aforemen-
tioned research fields. As noted in Table 1, Computers in Human
Behaviour is the journal that contains the highest number of arti-
cles relevant to our topic (n = 12), followed by Journal of Business
Research (n = 7), Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services (n = 5),
Psychology & Marketing (n = 4), Journal of Marketing Management
(n = 4) and International Journal of Information Management (n = 4).
Journal of Marketing, Journal of Interactive Marketing and International
Journal of Advertising published three papers. The remaining journals
that appear in the review published either one or two papers. Table 1
shows the full list of 29 journals and the number of articles in each
included in our study.
3.4 | Citation analysis
In order to assess the influence of extant work, we collected article
citation data using Scopus. Table 2 lists the top 26 articles in terms of
total number of citations. The top 10 most cited articles accounted
for 83% of total citations of all 68 articles. These were (in decreas-
ing order): Watts and Dodds (2007); Hinz et al. (2011); McQuarrie
et al. (2013); De Veirman et al. (2017); Uzunoğlu and Kip (2014);
Djafarova and Rushworth (2017); Lee and Watkins (2016); Lu et al.
(2014); Hwang and Jeong (2016); and Kapitan and Silvera (2016).
These studies are coming from various research fields, illustrating
6 | bs_bs_banner
VRONTIS et al.

TA B L E 1 List of journals included in our study TA B L E 2 Citation counts as on 20 July 2020

No. of Citation
Research field Journal articles Authors count Journal

Information Computers in Human Behaviour 12 Watts and Dodds (2007) 998 Journal of Consumer
Management Research
General Management, Journal of Business Research 7 Hinz et al. (2011) 292 Journal of Marketing
Ethics, Gender and McQuarrie et al. (2013) 160 Journal of Consumer
Social Responsibility Research
Marketing Journal of Retailing and 5 De Veirman et al. (2017) 121 International Journal of
Consumer Services Advertising
Marketing Psychology & Marketing 4 Uzunoğlu and Kip (2014) 99 International Journal
Marketing Journal of Marketing 4 of Information
Management Management
Information International Journal of 4 Djafarova and 99 Computers in Human
Management Information Management Rushworth (2017) Behaviour
Marketing Journal of Marketing 3 Lee and Watkins (2016) 91 Journal of Business
Marketing Journal of Interactive Marketing 3 Research

Marketing International Journal of 3 Lu et al. (2014) 90 Computers in Human

Advertising Behaviour

Marketing Journal of Consumer Research 2 Hwang and Jeong (2016) 45 Computers in Human
Behaviour
Marketing Journal of Advertising 2
Kapitan and Silvera 34 Marketing Letters
General Management, Business Horizons 2 (2016)
Ethics, Gender and
Social Responsibility Casaló et al. (2018) 33 Journal of Business
Research
Marketing Journal of the Academy of 1
Marketing Science Colliander and 32 Journal of Marketing
Erlandsson (2015) Communications
Marketing Journal of Marketing Research 1
Thakur et al. (2016) 30 Journal of Business
Marketing Marketing Letters 1 Research
Marketing Journal of Advertising Research 1 Audrezet et al. (2018) 27 Journal of Business
Marketing Journal of Brand Management 1 Research
Marketing Journal of Communication 1 Lin et al. (2018) 20 Business Horizons
Management Jin et al. (2019) 17 Marketing Intelligence &
Marketing Journal of Relationship 1 Planning
Marketing Sokolova and Kefi (2020) 17 Journal of Retailing and
Marketing Marketing Intelligence & 1 Consumer Services
Planning Ge and Gretzel (2018) 16 Journal of Marketing
Marketing Journal of Research in 1 Management
Interactive Marketing Hughes et al. (2019) 15 Journal of Marketing
Marketing Journal of Product and Brand 1 De Jans et al. (2018) 15 Journal of Advertising
Management
Kupfer et al. (2018) 13 Journal of Marketing
Marketing Young Consumers 1
Xiao et al. (2018) 13 Journal of Media
Marketing Journal of Marketing 1 Business Studies
Communications
Xiong et al. (2018) 11 Computers in Human
Information Journal of Computer 1 Behaviour
Management Information Systems
Magno (2017) 11 International Journal
Information Journal of Internet Commerce 1 of Information
Management Management
Social Sciences Information, Communication & 1 Stubb and Colliander 10 Computers in Human
Society (2019) Behaviour
Sector Studies Journal of Media Business 1 Djafarova and 10 Information,
Studies Trofimenko (2019) Communication &
Psychology Organizational Behaviour and 1 Society
(Organisational) Human Decision Processes
Note: Articles with less than 10 citations were not included.
VRONTIS et al.
bs_bs_banner
| 7

WeChat Twitter Sina Weibo USA

1% 1% 3% No indication
Facebook Not applicable
3% Multiple locations
Netherlands
China
Blog Spain
Instagram 13% UK
32% Australia
Belgium
France
Germany
Italy
Multiple Russia
platforms Portugal
13% Austria
South Korea
India
Taiwan
Brazil
YouTube No indication Turkey
19% 15% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

FIGURE 5 Studied populations by empirical studies

FIGURE 4 Social media platforms studied

by SMIs were investigated and countries were not considered. As

the promise of this research stream to bring out novel possibilities of
synergizing and fusing different disciplines.
3.5 | Social media platforms studied
The results of our review indicate that Instagram has been the most
examined social media platform (32%; n = 21). This is not surpris-
ing, since Instagram is the most popular and important social media
platform for influencer marketing (Breves et al., 2019; Reinikainen
et al., 2020). As shown in Figure 4, the second most studied plat-
form was YouTube (19%, n = 13), followed by research of multiple
platforms (13%, n = 9) and blogs (13%, n = 9). Facebook, Sina Weibo,
Twitter and WeChat have received less interest and account for the
remainder of the articles (two or one article each). Ten studies took
a more general approach and gave no information with regard to
the social media networks studied. Although Instagram is the most
strategically important channel for influencer marketing campaigns,
more research is needed to examine other social media networks
since consumer behaviour and/or influencers’ actions may vary de-
pending on the nature of each platform.
3.6 | Countries studied
In terms of geographic coverage by the empirical studies, the United
States (USA) was the most commonly examined country (n = 20).
Among the remaining 24 single country studies, the Netherlands
and China were examined thrice, Spain, the United Kingdom (UK)
and Australia twice, whereas 12 other countries were examined only
once (see Figure 5). Moreover, 3 studies drew sample from multiple
countries and 11 gave no information. Finally, in six studies posts
the results show, overreliance on the USA and single country stud-
ies are major research shortcomings as they could possibly lead to
false generalizations for other countries. Therefore, future schol-
ars should expand to new geographic regions and engage in cross-
cultural studies to provide more reliable information and in-depth
analysis, and capture cross-cultural differences in the ways consum-
ers respond to IM.
4 | TH E M ATI C A N A LYS I S
The thematic analysis led to the integrated overview of scholarly
work on SMIs. Towards this direction, we sought to find the key re-
search focus of the reviewed articles in order to categorize them into
broader research themes. Rather than adopting a priori coding sys-
tem, we followed an inductive approach to categorization allowing
for themes to emerge direct from the data (Cooke et al., 2019; Yang
& Gabrielsson, 2018). Reasons for this approach include the rela-
tive newness of this research area and the gradual development of
a vocabulary describing IM strategies. At first, the 68 articles in the
pool were content analysed, taking into account the stated purpose,
research questions/hypotheses, key arguments and main constructs
to determine the phenomena with which each article is concerned.
Then, a descriptive statement was assigned to each article outlining
its focus and initial thematic names for each article were derived
from these descriptive statements (Jones et al., 2011). Subsequently,
articles were iteratively sorted and compared in order to be grouped
into thematic names. These thematic names were then grouped by
similarity to form major research themes, thus, forming a taxonomic
hierarchy (Jones et al., 2011). Finally, the research themes were re-
viewed for redundancy and revised as necessary. This process re-
vealed five research themes: (1) source characteristics and consumer
8 | bs_bs_banner
VRONTIS et al.

TA B L E 3 Research themes in the reviewed scholarly work

Adjusted no.
Research themes References of articles Weight (%)

Source characteristics
and consumer
outcomes
Psychological-related
influential factors and
consumer outcomes
Content attributes and
consumer outcomes
Sponsorship disclosure
and consumer
outcomes
Strategic assessment of
SMIs as a marketing
tool
Al-Emadi and Yahia (2020); Balabanis and Chatzopoulou (2019); Breves et al. (2019); 16.98 25%
Campbell and Farrell (2020); De Veirman et al. (2017); Djafarova and Rushworth
(2017); Djafarova and Trofimenko (2019); Fink et al. (2020); Hill et al. (2017);
Hughes et al., (2019); Jiménez-Castillo and Sánchez-Fernández (2019); Jin
et al. (2019); Jin and Ryu (2020); Kapitan and Silvera (2016); Ki and Kim (2019); Ki
et al. (2020); Ladhari et al. (2020); Lee and Watkins (2016); Munnukka et al. (2019);
Reinikainen et al. (2020); Sakib et al. (2020); Schouten et al. (2020); Sokolova and
Kefi (2020); Su et al. (2020); Torres et al. (2019); Thakur et al. (2016); Trivedi and
Sama (2020); Uzunoğlu and Kip (2014); Xiao et al. (2018)
Al-Emadi and Yahia (2020); Balabanis and Chatzopoulou (2019); Breves et al. (2019); 14.98 22%
Casaló et al. (2018); Colliander and Erlandsson (2015); Folkvord et al. (2019); Hu
et al. (2020); Jin and Muqaddam (2019); Jin et al. (2019); Jin and Ryu (2020); Kapitan
and Silvera (2016); Ki and Kim (2019); Ki et al. (2020); Kim and Kim (2020a); Kim
and Kim (2020b); Ladhari et al. (2020); Lee and Watkins (2016); Magno (2017);
Martínez-López et al. (2020); Munnukka et al. (2019); Reinikainen et al. (2020);
Sakib et al. (2020); Schouten et al. (2020); Silva et al. (2020); Sokolova and Kefi
(2020); Torres et al. (2019); Xiong et al. (2018)
Al-Emadi and Yahia (2020); Aleti et al. (2019); Audrezet et al. (2018); Argyris 13.98 20
et al. (2020); Balabanis and Chatzopoulou (2019); Casaló et al. (2018); De Veirman
et al. (2017); Djafarova and Trofimenko (2019); Fink et al. (2020); Hill et al. (2017);
Hughes et al. (2019); Jin and Muqaddam (2019); Jin and Ryu (2019); Jin and Ryu
(2020); Kapitan and Silvera (2016); Ki et al. (2020); Ki and Kim (2019); Kupfer
et al. (2018); Lu et al. (2014); Magno (2017); Martínez-López et al. (2020); Stubb
(2018); Stubb and Colliander (2019); Su et al. (2020)
Audrezetet al. (2018); Boerman (2020); Colliander and Erlandsson (2015); De Jans 12 18
et al. (2018); De Jans and Hudders (2020); De Jans, van de Sompel, De Veirman and
Hudders (2020); De Veirman and Hudders (2020); Hwang and Jeong (2016); Kay
et al. (2020); Kim and Kim (2020a); Sah et al. (2018); Stubb and Colliander (2019);
Stubb et al., (2019); Van Reijmersdal et al. (2020)
Appel et al. (2020); Erz et al. (2018); Ge and Gretzel (2018); Hinz et al. (2011); Lanz 10 15
et al. (2019); Lin et al. (2018); McQuarrie et al. (2013); Singh et al. (2020); Voorveld
(2019); Watts and Dodds (2007)

outcomes; (2) psychological-related influential factors and consumer
outcomes; (3) content attributes and consumer outcomes; (4) spon-
sorship disclosure and consumer outcomes; and (5) strategic assess-
ment of SMIs as a marketing tool.
Following Christofi et al. (2017) and Hao et al. (2019), we do not
provide a meticulous account of each article; rather, we focus on
key findings. Table 3 lists the identified research themes, the arti-
cles included in each theme and the weight of each theme among
our consideration set. Note that some papers investigated multiple
topics, and thus, were classified into more than one theme. Thus,
research themes were weighted by adjusted citations. For example,
if an article was included in two themes, adjusted citation would be
0.5 for each theme.
4.1 | Source characteristics and consumer outcomes
The first and most common research theme in the extant literature
deals with the characteristics of SMIs and how they impact on con-
sumer outcomes. Many scholars consider the success of IM within so-
cial media settings as a result of high perceived credibility (e.g., Al-Emadi
& Yahia, 2020; Munnukka et al., 2019; Reinikainen et al., 2020; Sakib
et al., 2020; Sokolova & Kefi, 2020). Most notably, Fink et al. (2020)
provided evidence that the influencer's perceived credibility enhances
purchase intention and this effect endures over a 4-year period, proving
to be a long-lasting investment. Researchers (e.g., Breves et al., 2019;
Djafarova & Trofimenko, 2019; Schouten et al., 2020) have commonly
described influencer credibility as consisting of trustworthiness, at-
tractiveness and expertise, applying the source credibility model
(Ohanian, 1990) in the social media context. Xiao et al. (2018), however,
went further to investigate dimensions that constitute source credibil-
ity pertaining specifically to SMIs. They found that trustworthiness,
argument quality, social influence and issue involvement (relevancy of
issue to consumer interests) are key factors in credibility evaluations.
Related research has examined the interactive communication process
of brands through SMIs and unveiled that influencers’ power to impact
on consumers’ perceptions, attitudes and even purchase behaviours is
mainly attributed to trustworthiness, as they personally try the prod-
ucts (Uzunoğlu & Kip, 2014).
Moreover, the literature has established that the attractiveness
of the influencer, which is not necessarily related to her/his physical
characteristics but rather encompasses familiarity and likeability, is
VRONTIS et al.
bs_bs_banner
a vital determinant of consumers’ responses including their attitude
towards the endorsement and brand, and their purchase intention
(e.g., Torres et al., 2019). According to De Veirman et al. (2017), like-
ability is determined by the numbers of followers, and this is mainly
explained by perceptions of popularity. High levels of popularity
were also found to enhance credibility perceptions and to be more
effective in influencing purchase intentions for experience goods
than search goods (Hill et al., 2017). However, when the promoted
product has a divergent design, high numbers of followers may turn
negative, lowering their perceptions of a brand's uniqueness and
consequently their attitudes towards it (De Veirman et al., 2017).
In the context of consumer electronics products, a definite advan-
tage of an expert influencer vis-à-vis an attractive influencer is ev-
ident (Trivedi & Sama, 2020). Moreover, perceived similarity is an
important explanation for the effectiveness of influencer endorse-
ments, depending on the type of products endorsed (Schouten
et al., 2020). Consequently, a consistent pattern is revealed; differ-
ent contexts and products require influencers that exhibit different
characteristics.
Other studies, though few in number, have examined the ef-
fectiveness of influencer endorsements over traditional, celebrity
endorsements. Specifically, the stronger influence of influencer
endorsements upon consumer purchase behaviour and attitude to-
wards the endorsed brand is attributed to higher perceived credibil-
ity, trustworthiness and similarity as well as stronger social presence
(Djafarova & Rushworth, 2017; Jin et al., 2019; Schouten et al., 2020).
However, this could also translate into stronger emotions of envy to-
wards SMIs than mainstream celebrities (Jin et al., 2019).
4.2 | Psychological-related influential factors and
consumer outcomes
The second conspicuous research theme stemming from the sys-
tematic review has to do with salient influential variables related to
consumers’ deeper psychological processes when exposed to SMIs
that impact on their responses and behaviour. Ki et al. (2020) dem-
onstrated that the influential power of SMIs comes from the emo-
tional bond they build with their followers by satisfying their needs
for ideality (via displaying inspiration), relatedness (via showcasing
similarity and enjoyability) and competence (via curating informative
content). According to a study by Ladhari et al. (2020) that focused
on beauty vloggers, emotional attachment to a vlogger as well as
three dimensions of homophily (i.e., attitude, values and appearance)
seem to influence the perceived popularity of the vlogger, which has
a significant effect on the purchase of the recommended product.
Drawing also upon a psychological perspective, Hu et al. (2020)
showed that wishful identification (desire to be or act like another
person) and parasocial interaction (PSI) (illusory friendship) with the
SMI are instrumental in the formation of followers’ stickiness to the
influencer.
Investigating the persuasion cues related to SMIs on social media,
Sokolova and Kefi (2020) highlighted the positive relationships
| 9
between homophily, PSI and purchase intention. That notion was
also supported by the work of Lee and Watkins (2016) in the lux-
ury fashion endorsement context, which revealed a strong positive
effect of PSI, which is determined by attitude homophily, on lux-
ury brand perceptions (i.e., luxury brand value, brand-user-imag-
ery fit and brand luxury) and subsequently on purchase intentions.
Similarly, Sakib et al. (2020) highlighted the positive PSI-compliance
intention relationship in a weight loss context but ruled out any as-
sociation of ethnic homophily with PSI. It is noteworthy to mention
that several researchers have agreed that PSI is also predicated on
physical attractiveness (Lee & Watkins, 2016; Sakib et al., 2020), al-
though Sokolova and Kefi (2020) suggested a negative relationship.
Considering the literature, the congruence between the endorser
and the product or brand being endorsed is key to understanding
SMIs’ endorsement effectiveness. High endorser-brand-product fit
can lead to greater engagement and favourable attitudes towards
the advertisement, the product and the brand, as well as to enhance
purchase intentions (Kapitan & Silvera, 2016; Kim & Kim, 2020a;
Silva et al., 2020; Torres et al., 2019). In the same vein, Martínez-
López et al. (2020) provided evidence that high influencer-product
congruence leads to increased influencer's trustworthiness and post
credibility, as well as to greater follower interest in post content and
higher intention to search for more information. According to Breves
et al. (2019), persuasive effectiveness of influencer-brand fit is espe-
cially true for individuals with low levels of parasocial relationships.
Casaló et al. (2018) extended our understanding of the construct of
congruence by showing that the perceived fit of the influencer with
the consumer's personality strengthens the intention to follow the
advice.
4.3 | Content attributes and consumer outcomes
The third prominent research theme revolves around the aspects
and qualities of influencer content and the resulting consequences.
Ki and Kim (2019) argued that when the content posted by an SMI
is visually appealing, conveys prestige, showcases expertise and is
considered informative and interactive, consumers exhibit posi-
tive attitudes towards the influencer as a taste and opinion leader.
Further, they display positive behavioural outcomes (eWOM and
purchase intention) through their desire to mimic the influencer (Ki
& Kim, 2019). Argyris et al. (2020) demonstrated that visual con-
gruence, that is, a match between influencers and their followers’
posts, harnesses followers’ engagement. Casaló et al. (2018) found
that perceived originality and uniqueness of the content increase
consumers’ intention to interact with the influencer, follow her/his
published advice and recommend others to follow the influencer. It
comes as no surprise, therefore, that in conditions of a high level
of brand control over the influencer's message and high commer-
cial orientation of the post, post credibility, interestingness of the
post content and willingness to search for more related information
are reduced (Martínez-López et al., 2020). Source trustworthiness
is also lessened as a result of a high level of commercial orientation
10 | bs_bs_banner
of the post (Martínez-López et al., 2020). In fact, people tend to un-
follow influencers who post too many advertisements (Djafarova &
Trofimenko, 2019).
Apart from the general qualities of effective influencer-gener-
ated content, an increasing body of work pertains to specific techni-
cal characteristics of the posts that contribute to the endorsement
effectiveness. For example, Jin and Muqaddam (2019) highlighted
consumers’ negative reactance to product-only posts by influenc-
ers because such posts indicate clear financial motives on behalf of
the influencer and are considered intrusive. Influencer-with-product
photos, however, result in higher corporate credibility perception
with PSI mediating this relationship (Jin & Muqaddam, 2019). In a
similar attempt to identify effective methods of showcasing branded
content in the context of influencer-based social commerce, Jin and
Ryu (2020) provided evidence that the positive relationship between
envy and intention to purchase the products the SMIs are wearing
is stronger when consumers, especially males who are exposed to
same-sex influencers, see influencers’ self-promotional selfies or
photos taken by others than when they see group photos. Based
on Hughes et al. (2019), a post featuring high hedonic value con-
tent and campaign giveaways increase social media engagement (i.e.,
comments), but these relationships are moderated by campaign ad-
vertising intent (awareness vs. trial) and social media platform type
(blog vs. Facebook). In particular, in a blog environment, high hedonic
value, awareness campaigns and campaign giveaways are key drivers
of consumer engagement. On Facebook, on the contrary, posts high
in hedonic content are more beneficial when paired with trial cam-
paigns, and campaign giveaways exert a negative impact due to the
potential cannibalizing effect of one platform on the other (Hughes
et al., 2019). In a study about consumers’ evaluation process when
exposed to a sponsored recommendation, Lu et al. (2014) reported
that when the recommended product is a search good (vs. experi-
ence good) and brand awareness is high (vs. low), attitude towards
the sponsored recommendation post tends to be positive, increasing
consumers’ willingness to purchase the product.
4.4 | Sponsorship disclosure and
consumer outcomes
The fourth research theme assesses the effects of sponsorship
disclosures in social media influencer marketing on consumers’
responses. There is strong evidence that the most important ef-
fect of an advertising disclosure is the enhancement of advertis-
ing recognition (Boerman, 2020; De Jans et al., 2018; De Jans &
Hudders, 2020; Kim & Kim, 2020a). Previous studies, however,
revealed mixed results with regard to consumer behavioural
outcomes. Some studies submitted that there are positive ef-
fects. Indicatively, positive outcomes of sponsorship disclosures
include increased brand recall and intention to engage with the
post (Boerman, 2020), higher brand liking (De Jans et al., 2020)
and enhanced purchase likelihood (Kay et al., 2020). Other studies
VRONTIS et al.
have found negative consequences. For example, De Veirman and
Hudders (2020) argued that a sponsorship disclosure negatively
affects brand attitude through increased ad recognition, which in-
duces ad scepticism, which, in turn, lowers influencer's credibility.
According to Van Reijmersdal et al. (2020), a disclosure prior to a
video triggers critical attitudes regarding the sponsored content,
which results in more negative attitudes towards the brand, the
content and the influencer. Sah et al. (2018) helped reconcile the
disparate outcomes of disclosure pointed out in extant research.
Specifically, they argued that disclosures (when processed auto-
matically) can lead to greater trust in the influencer's expertise
and consequently lead to positive effects on persuasion outcomes
(e.g., share post and take the advice), whereas when consumers
deliberate on the disclosure, the effects are mitigated and some-
times reversed. Stubb and Colliander (2019) extended this line of
research by demonstrating the positive effects of impartiality dis-
closures (stating that the content is not sponsored) on source and
message credibility. However, a decline is evident in brand attitude
and purchase intention when consumers are directed to a product
page focused on selling the reviewed product instead of a start
page, because consumers question the influencer's impartiality
(Stubb & Colliander, 2019). In a similar vein, De Jans and Hudders
(2020) showed that exposure to a disclosure of no commercial in-
terference (stating that the content is voluntarily created provid-
ing honest opinion about a product) decreases scepticism towards
the ad. Additional research under this theme has shown that the
effects on consumers’ responses vary by sponsorship disclosure
type (e.g., Colliander & Erlandsson, 2015; Hwang & Jeong, 2016;
Stubb et al., 2019).
4.5 | Strategic assessment of SMIs as a
marketing tool
The fifth and last research theme focuses on the strategic assess-
ment of SMIs as a marketing tool. Some researchers have exam-
ined marketing techniques implemented by SMIs. For example,
Ge and Gretzel (2018) examined SMIs’ use of emojis in their at-
tempts to elicit engagement. Erz et al. (2018) addressed the mo-
tives behind consumers’ hashtagging behaviour in the context of
Instagram and showed that SMIs are primarily driven by motives
of self-presentation. Other researchers have provided guidance
about forming and carrying out effective partnerships with influ-
encers in the social media context. Lin et al. (2018), for instance,
presented a five-stage strategy for using SMIs to promote prod-
ucts and services of hedonic and utilitarian value. Specific steps
in the strategy include: planning (setting the objectives of the
campaign and the role of SMIs), recognition (identifying relevant
SMIs), alignment (matching SMIs with the products or services
promoted), motivation (rewarding SMIs in a way that aligns with
their social role) and coordination (negotiating, monitoring and
supporting the influence of SMIs). Other topics discussed include
VRONTIS et al.
bs_bs_banner
| 11

F I G U R E 6 Integrative framework of
SMI derived from thematic analysis of the
Moderators Mediators
literature (e.g., product type, (e.g., brand
brand attitude, desire to
differentiation, mimic, consumer
Antecedents skepticism) readiness)
- Source characteristics
(e.g., credibility,
attractiveness, expertise,
Underlying popularity) Consequences
Mechanisms SOCIAL
- Psychological-related (e.g., engagement,
(e.g., homophily, influential factors MEDIA brand attitude,
language similarity, (e.g., inspiration, INFLUENCER purchase intention,
emotional attachment) enjoyability, PSI) well-being)
- Content attributes
(e.g., quality, hedonic
value, product
divergence) Contextual
Variables
(e.g., sponsorship
disclosure, third-
party revelation of
sponsorship)

the role of influencers in seeding strategies (Hinz et al., 2011; Lanz

et al., 2019), in corporate crisis communications (Singh et al., 2020)
and as part of a holistic approach to social media marketing (Appel
et al., 2020; Voorveld, 2019).
5 | FR A M E WO R K D E V E LO PM E NT
The integrative framework in Figure 6 is derived from a synthesis of
the findings of this systematic review and explicates the phenom-
enon of influencers and influencer marketing on social media. Our
thematic analysis reveals the multidimensional nature of the topic.
Thus, in an attempt to make the framework as clear and straight-
forward as possible, supplementary tables are provided for more
detailed information pertaining to dynamics in relationships and
interactions. Note that the tables do not provide exhaustive lists.
Rather, they point out key insights.
We follow the antecedents-consequences logic (see Table 4).
Antecedents of being perceived as an influencer are categorized into
three groups: (1) source characteristics; (2) psychological-related in-
fluential factors; and (3) content attributes. Consequences are con-
sumer attitudinal and behavioural outcomes at various levels. We
extend the antecedents-consequences model to illustrate underly-
ing mechanisms that explain the antecedents of SMI (see Table 5).
As a comprehensive framework able to map the effects of SMIs on
consumer responses, mediators (see Table 6) and moderators (see
Table 7) are also considered. Finally, contextual factors that translate
into, and influence, consumer responses are included (see Table 8).
Taken together, an analysis of these complex interactions allows a
depiction of SMIs’ influential power in shaping consumer attitudes
and behaviour. This framework is not static, but rather a dynamic
one that can serve as a theoretical basis to guide future work in a
more constructive manner. Moreover, such an integration is of great
value to marketers because it provides them with a clear picture of
SMIs as a marketing tool. Another practical utility of this framework
is that it can serve as a stimulus to marketers to consider a wider
range of issues before developing their IM strategy.
6 | FU T U R E R E S E A RC H AG E N DA
Although our systematic review yields important insights into
various aspects related to social media influencer marketing,
we still have a limited understanding of which types of influenc-
ers are effective in which situations and for what purpose. IM
within social media settings encompasses ubiquitous, dynamic
and evolving processes, depending on various factors, includ-
ing influencer type, endorsed brand/product and social media
platform. More research on potentially important interactions is
thus needed to understand this complex phenomenon, thereby
further amplifying marketing implications and external validity.
Following the approach of previous systematic reviews (Christofi
et al., 2017; Hao et al., 2019; Paul et al., 2017), we explore three
areas, namely theory, context and methodology, in which extant
scholarly work is sparse and insufficient, and suggest key issues
that need to be addressed in future research (summarized in
Table 9).
6.1 | Theory
6.1.1 | Theoretical extensions
From our review, we observe that research on SMIs has drawn on
multiple theories, including theory of reasoned action, social ex-
change theory, two-step flow of communication and megaphone
effect. Some researchers have even employed a multitheoretical
perspective to examine and understand the topic (e.g., De Veirman
& Hudders, 2020; Djafarova & Trofimenko, 2019; Ki & Kim, 2019).
However, many studies lack coherent theoretical underpinning.
The atheoretical nature of these studies is a major concern as they
hamper the development of the domain. The four most employed
theories are source credibility theory, persuasion knowledge model,
social comparison theory and attribution theory. Given their impor-
tance to IM research, we briefly comment on each.
12 | bs_bs_banner
VRONTIS et al.

TA B L E 4 Key antecedents and consequences of SMI

Antecedents Consequences Effect Key citations

Source Credibility Post attitude, brand attitude, brand image (long + Breves et al. (2019); Fink
characteristics term), brand trust, PSI, purchase intention et al. (2020); Reinikainen
et al. (2020); Sakib et al. (2020)
Physical attractiveness PSI + Lee and Watkins (2016); Sakib
et al. (2020)
Attractiveness (familiarity Brand attitude, influencer-brand congruence, + Torres et al. (2019); Trivedi and Sama
and likeability) attitude towards the endorsement, purchase (2020)
intention
Expertise Brand attitude, attitude towards the influencer + Hughes et al. (2019); Ki and Kim
(taste & opinion leader), blog post engagement (2019); Trivedi and Sama (2020
Trustworthiness Attitude towards the ad, product attitude, + Schouten et al. (2020)
purchase intention
Popularity Purchase intention, trustworthiness, expertise + Hill et al. (2017); Ladhari et al. (2020)
Prestige Attitude towards the influencer (taste leader) + Ki and Kim (2019)
High influential power Brand engagement, expected brand value, + Jiménez-Castillo and Sánchez-
purchase intention Fernández (2019)
Psychological- PSI Luxury brand perceptions, stickiness to + Hu et al. (2020); Jin and Ryu (2020);
related influencer, wishful identification, compliance Lee and Watkins (2016); Sokolova
influential intention, purchase intention and Kefi (2020)
factors Self-congruency with the Perception of quality of life, perception of + Kim and Kim (2020b)
influencer well-being
Inspiration Ideality need fulfilment + Ki et al. (2020)
Enjoyability Relatedness need fulfilment, engagement + Ki et al. (2020); Magno (2017)
Sense of friendship Perception of quality of life + Kim and Kim (2020b)
Homophily/similarity Engagement, intention to consume, attitude + Ki et al. (2020); Magno (2017);
towards the ad, product attitude, purchase Schouten et al. (2020)
intention, relatedness need fulfilment
Wishful identification Stickiness to influencer + Hu et al. (2020)
Influencer-fan bond Time spent on viewing the videos + Folkvord et al. (2019)
Endorser-product-brand fit Influencers’ trustworthiness, post credibility, + Breves et al.(2019); Martínez-López
interestingness about the content, willingness et al. (2020); Torres et al. (2019)
to search for more info, engagement, attitude
towards the endorsement/brand/product,
purchase intention
Content Product divergence Brand attitude + De Veirman et al. (2017)
attributes Visual congruence Engagement with influencer post + Argyris et al. (2020)
Visually attractive Attitude towards the influencer (taste leader) + Ki and Kim (2019)
Influencer-with product posts Corporate credibility, brand attitude + Jin and Muqaddam (2019)
Informative content Competence need fulfilment, attitude towards + Ki and Kim (2019); Ki et al. (2020)
the influencer (opinion leader)
Interactive content Attitude towards the influencer (opinion leader) + Ki and Kim (2019)
Post's commercial orientation Influencers’ trustworthiness, post credibility, _ Martínez-López et al. (2020)
interestingness about the content, willingness
to search for more information
Hedonic value content Engagement + Hughes et al. (2019)
Search good as the Attitude towards sponsored recommendation + Lu et al. (2014
recommended product post
Quality content Engagement, intention to consume + Casaló et al. (2018); Magno (2017)
Originality Intention to interact, recommend the account + Casaló et al. (2018)
and follow the advice
Uniqueness Intention to interact, recommend the account + Casaló et al. (2018)
and follow the advice
Conspicuous muscle display Trustworthiness, purchase intention _ Su et al. (2020)
VRONTIS et al.
bs_bs_banner
| 13

TA B L E 5 Key underlying mechanisms explaining the characteristics attributed to SMIs

Underlying mechanisms

Credibility Trustworthiness, expertise, social influence, argument quality, information involvement, PSI, physical
attractiveness, attitude homophily
Trustworthiness Popularity, influencer-brand fit, PSI
Attractiveness Familiarity, likeability, similarity
Expertise Popularity, influencer-brand fit
Popularity Three dimensions of homophily (attitude, values, appearance), emotional attachment to the influencer
PSI Social attractiveness, attitude homophily, audience participation (e.g., likes, shares, comments), credibility,
physical attractiveness
Sense of friendship with the language similarity, interest similarity and self-disclosure
influencer
Self-congruency with the language similarity, interest similarity and interaction frequency
influencer

Researchers apply source credibility theory to explain how the
perceived level of an influencer's credibility impacts the effective-
ness of an influencer endorsement on consumer attitudes and be-
havioural intentions (e.g., Djafarova & Rushworth, 2017). Studies
adopting the persuasion knowledge model explore the impact of
followers’ persuasion knowledge upon viewing sponsorship disclo-
sures on their subsequent responses to the sponsored posts (e.g.,
Hwang & Jeong, 2016). From the lens of social comparison theory,
research focuses on the role of upward social comparison exerted
by influencers in affecting brand perceptions and guiding consumer
behaviour (e.g., Lee & Watkins, 2016). Attribution theory is used as
a theoretical background to explicate consumers’ causal explanation
of influencers’ actions and promotion strategies and subsequently
their responses to influencers’ persuasive messages (e.g., Singh
et al., 2020). Evidently, research on SMIs has relied heavily on mod-
els and theories that are widely applied in marketing, advertising and
celebrity endorsement literature in an attempt to explain the effi-
cacy of influencer marketing strategies. These theories can also be
utilized to examine the emotional reactions of consumers and the
public expressions of those reactions during persuasion episodes
(e.g., expressions of admiration through comments to influencer's
posts or insults for doing something that is recognized as a tactic).
Some theories appear rarely in our systematic review. Examples
include social contagion theory, social identity theory, elaboration
likelihood model, heuristic-systematic model and naïve theories.
The aforementioned theoretical perspectives have potential value in
revealing consumers’ emotional and attitudinal responses when ex-
posed to influencer marketing as well as mechanisms underlying the
success of influencer marketing strategies. More attention should,
therefore, be devoted to them in future studies.
Moreover, more cross-fertilization of theories and ideas from var-
ious disciplines, including psychology, social sciences and informa-
tion management from the communication technology perspective
could bring a new understanding of how SMIs impact on consum-
ers and how they can be effectively utilized by companies, thereby
redefining their role outside of existing knowledge boundaries. For
instance, culture theory, in particular Hofstede's (2001) dimensional
model of national culture, can be used to examine whether con-
sumers from diverse cultures react differently to IM strategies.
Advertising is not a universal technique and success in marketing
means adapting to cultural values (De Mooij & Hofstede, 2002).
Thus, such research can generate practice-relevant insights as it can
help marketers segment consumers from various countries in a more
meaningful way and, in turn, develop more effective IM campaigns.
Furthermore, future studies might extend cognitive dissonance
theory (Festinger, 1957) to the context of SMIs and examine how
consumption of information provided by SMIs affects consumers’
emotional state and subsequently behavioural outcomes.
Overall, future research should sharpen the theoretical tools,
introduce new theoretical approaches and integrate knowledge
bases, potentially introducing new, more dynamic frameworks ap-
plicable to the social media setting, and thus, able to introduce more
generalization.
6.1.2 | Social media influencer type
The use of previous theories and insights from the related research
areas of celebrity endorsements and opinion leadership makes a co-
gent and reasoned argument for the introduction of new theoreti-
cal approaches applicable to the social media setting. This has also
been verified by several researchers. In particular, Martínez-López
et al. (2020) acknowledged the limitations of their study in relying
on the classic advertising endorsement literature to define the study
variables. Similarly, Kay et al. (2020) and Ladhari et al. (2020) argued
that although the effect of celebrity endorsements, as a market-
ing communications tool, has been extensively examined, findings
and theories are potentially not generalizable to SMIs. This may
be because there are different types of SMIs based upon, among
other things, follower counts (i.e., celebrity influencer, mega-influ-
encer, macro-influencer, micro-influencer and nano-influencer) (for
an overview, see Campbell & Farrell, 2020). In fact, scholars have
highlighted the need to address potential differences among differ-
ent SMI types, as well as to examine whether they yield different
14 | bs_bs_banner
VRONTIS et al.

TA B L E 6 Key mediators in the SMI literature

Independent Mediators Dependent Relationship Citations

Expertise and Brand attitude; Purchase intention The positive effect of expertise and attractiveness Trivedi and
attractiveness brand admiration (i.e., likeability, familiarity and similarity) on purchase Sama (2020)
intention is sequentially mediated by brand attitude
and brand admiration.
High number of Perceived Influencer likeability The positive effect of number of followers on influencer De Veirman
followers popularity; likeability is sequentially mediated by perceived et al. (2017)
ascribed opinion popularity and ascribed opinion leadership.
leadership
Product divergence Perceived brand Brand attitude The positive effect of product divergence on brand De Veirman
uniqueness attitude is mediated by perceived brand uniqueness. et al. (2017)
Followers’ ideality, Followers’ Purchase intention The positive effect of followers’ ideality, relatedness Ki et al. (2020)
relatedness and attachment and competence needs fulfilment on purchase
competence needs towards SMIs intention is mediated by followers’ attachment
fulfilment towards SMIs.
PSI Influencer Brand trust The positive effect of PSI on brand trust is mediated by Reinikainen
credibility influencer credibility. et al. (2020)
PSI Consumer Compliance The positive effect of PSI on compliance intention Sakib
readiness intention (in a weight loss context) is mediated by consumer et al. (2020)
readiness.
PSI Luxury brand Purchase intention The positive effect of PSI on purchase intention is Lee and
perceptions mediated by luxury brand perceptions (i.e., brand Watkins
luxury; brand-user-imagery fit; luxury brand value). (2016)
Influencer-brand fit Perceived Behavioural The positive effect of influencer-brand fit on Breves
credibility; brand intentions behavioural intentions is mediated by perceived et al. (2019)
attitude credibility and brand attitude.
Sponsored influencer Source admiration Brand awareness; The positive effect of sponsored posts on brand De Jans
posts brand liking awareness and brand liking is mediated by source et al. (2020)
admiration.
Influencer's brand Social presence Trustworthiness, The positive effect of influencer's brand posts on Jin et al. (2019)
posts brand attitude, source trustworthiness, brand attitude and envy is
envy mediated by social presence.
Influencer's perceived Sponsor's brand Purchase intention The positive effect of influencer credibility on purchase Fink
credibility image intention is mediated by sponsor's brand image. et al. (2020)
Positive attitudes Desire to mimic Behavioural The positive effect of positive attitudes towards the Ki and Kim
towards influencer outcomes influencer (i.e., viewing them as taste and opinion (2019)
leaders) on behavioural outcomes (i.e., social media
word of mouth and purchase intention) is mediated by
consumers’ desire to mimic them.
Influencer-product Affective motive Product attitude; The positive (negative) effect of influencer-product Kim and Kim
congruence inference advertising congruence on product attitude (advertising (2020a)
recognition recognition) is mediated by affective motive inference.
Audience participation PSI Influencer's The positive effect of audience participation on Munnukka
perceived influencer's perceived credibility is mediated by PSI. et al. (2019)
credibility
Attractiveness; Attitude Purchase intention The positive effect of attractiveness (i.e., likeability, Torres
influencer-brand towards the familiarity) and influencer-brand congruence on et al. (2019)
congruence endorsement; purchase intention is sequentially mediated by attitude
brand attitude towards the endorsement and brand attitude.
language similarity; Self-congruency Quality of life; The positive effect of language similarity, interest Kim and Kim
interest similarity; with the well-being similarity and interaction frequency on fans’ (2020b)
interaction frequency influencer perception of quality of life and well-being is mediated
by self-congruity.
language similarity; Sense of Quality of life The positive effect of language similarity, interest Kim and Kim
interest similarity; friendship similarity and self-disclosure on fans’ perception of (2020b)
self-disclosure quality of life is mediated by sense of friendship.

(Continues)
VRONTIS et al.
bs_bs_banner
| 15

TA B L E 6 (Continued)

Independent Mediators Dependent Relationship Citations

Sense of friendship; Quality of life Well-being; The positive effect of sense of friendship and self- Kim and Kim
self-congruency with commitment congruency with the influencer on fans’ perception (2020b)
the influencer of well-being and commitment to the influencer is
mediated by fans’ perception of quality of life.
Quality of life, Commitment Loyalty The positive effect of fans’ perception of quality of life Kim and Kim
well-being and well-being on loyalty is mediated by commitment (2020b)
to the influencer.
Identity similarity; PSI Wishful The positive effect of identity similarity, identity Hu et al. (2020)
identity identification distinctiveness and identity prestige on wishful
distinctiveness; identification is mediated by PSI.
identity prestige
Influencer–follower Engagement with Engagement with The positive effect of influencer–follower visual Argyris
visual congruence the influencer's the brand's posts congruence on engagement with the brand's posts et al., 2020)
posts is mediated by engagement with the influencers’ posts.
Perceived enjoyment; Engagement Intention to The positive effect of perceived enjoyment, quality Magno (2017)
quality content; consume content and homophily on intention to consume is
homophily mediated by engagement.
Sponsorship Ad recognition; Brand attitude The negative effect of sponsorship disclosure on De Veirman
disclosure ad scepticism; brand attitude is sequentially mediated by enhanced and Hudders
influencer ad recognition, ad scepticism activation and lower (2020)
credibility perceptions of influencer credibility.
Sponsorship Affective Purchase intention The negative effect of sponsorship disclosure on De Jans
disclosure advertising purchase intention is sequentially mediated by higher et al. (2018)
literacy; level of affective advertising literacy, decreased
influencer influencer trustworthiness and decreased PSI.
trustworthiness;
PSI
Standardized Ad recognition Brand recall The positive effect of standardized disclosure on brand Boerman
disclosure recall is mediated by ad recognition. (2020)
Sponsorship Calculative motive Advertising The positive (negative) effect of sponsorship disclosure Kim and Kim
disclosure inference recognition; on advertising recognition (product attitude) is (2020a)
product attitude mediated by calculative motive inference.
Deliberation on Perceptions of Persuasiveness The negative effect of deliberation on persuasiveness Sah et al. (2018)
conflict of interest bias; expertise; (i.e., intent to share; evaluations of the recommended
(COI) disclosure influencer company; taking the advice) is sequentially mediated
evaluations by increased perceptions of bias, decreased trust in
the influencer's expertise and decreased positive
evaluations of the influencer.
Third-party revelation PSI Attitude towards The negative effect of a third-party revelation of Colliander and
of sponsorship the blog; perceived sponsorship on blog attitude and its perceived Erlandsson
credibility of the credibility is mediated by lower levels of PSI. (2015)
blog

consumer responses and what underlying mechanisms explain such
effects (Al-Emadi & Yahia, 2020; Boerman, 2020; De Veirman
et al., 2017; Voorveld, 2019; Xiao et al., 2018). Given that most of
extant research has focused on the broader construct of SMI, a more
refined understanding is warranted of the concept of IM by analys-
ing specific SMI types that can inform marketing practice.
Apart from the aforementioned five distinct influencer catego-
ries, the past few years have seen the rise of virtual influencers (i.e.,
CGI influencers that look human but are not) who seem to be accu-
mulating a large number of followers. Lil Miquela is one of the most
popular virtual influencers with 2.5 million followers on Instagram,
despite the fact that she is clearly nonhuman (Appel et al., 2020).
Closer attention to virtual influencers is required in order to under-
stand their appeal and the probable boundary conditions of their
success (Appel et al., 2020). In addition, work is needed to clarify
whether the antecedents and consequences of SMI apply to both
real and virtual influencers, and if not, probe the differences. Such
research is of great value to marketing practitioners.
6.1.3 | Antecedents and outcomes
Scholarly work has mainly focused on perceived credibility, trustwor-
thiness, attractiveness and homophily to explain the effectiveness
16 | bs_bs_banner
VRONTIS et al.

TA B L E 7 Key moderators in the SMI literature

Independent Moderators Dependent Relationship Citations

Expertise Message process Brand attitude Message process involvement positively strengthens the Trivedi and
involvement relationship between influencer expertise and brand Sama (2020)
attitude.
Attractiveness Message process Brand attitude Message process involvement positively strengthens Trivedi and
involvement the relationship between influencer attractiveness (i.e., Sama (2020)
likeability, familiarity, similarity) and brand attitude.
Number of Number of followers Influencer Influencer's number of followers has a negative effect on De Veirman
followers likeability the influencer's likeability when the influencer follows few et al. (2017)
accounts.
Product Number of followers Brand Number of followers acts as a moderator such that with a high De Veirman
divergence uniqueness; number of followers, perceptions of uniqueness and brand et al. (2017)
brand attitude attitude are lower compared to when the influencer has a
moderate number of followers.
Sponsorship Message sidedness Source Source's credibility and brand attitude are negatively affected De Veirman
disclosure credibility; by sponsorship disclosure when the influencer uses a one- and Hudders
brand attitude sided (positive aspects of products) message and not when (2020)
the message is two-sided (positive and negative aspects).
Popularity Product type Credibility; The positive effect of popularity on influencer's perceived Hill et al. (2017)
purchase credibility and purchase intention is greater for experience
intention products than for search products.
Envy; PSI Photo type; gender Purchase The effects of envy and PSI on purchase intention are Jin and Ryu
intention stronger when consumers, especially males who are exposed (2020)
to same-sex influencers, see influencers’ self-promotional
selfies or photos taken by others than when they see group
photos.
PSI Audience comments Influencer Reading comments made by audience strengthens the Reinikainen
credibility positive relationship between PSI and influencer credibility. et al. (2020)
Influencer-brand PSI Credibility High levels of PSI diminish the importance of influencer-brand Breves
fit fit on source credibility and vice versa. et al. (2019)
Opinion Perceived fit with Intention to The perceived fit of the account with the consumer's Casaló
leadership personal interests follow the personality strengthens the influence of opinion leadership et al. (2018)
advice on intention to follow the advice.
Credibility Brand differentiation Brand image Brand differentiation moderates the relationship between Fink
endorser credibility and brand image such that the stronger et al. (2020)
the brand differentiation, the weaker the relationship.
Brand image Brand differentiation Purchase Brand differentiation moderates the relationship between Fink
intention brand image and purchase intention such that the stronger et al. (2020)
the brand differentiation, the stronger the relationship.
Impartiality Landing page content Brand attitude; Brand attitude and purchase intention are reduced when they Stubb and
disclosure purchase are directed to a product page instead of a start page. Colliander
intention (2019)
Honest opinions Scepticism towards Credibility; The positive effect of disclosing honest opinions about source Hwang and
disclosure product review posts message credibility and message attitudes is stronger among those Jeong (2016)
attitudes who have high (versus. low) scepticism.
Wishful Revenue model genres Stickiness The positive effect of wishful identification on followers’ Hu et al. (2020)
identification stickiness is stronger when the influencer is following the
self-brand selling model rather than the third-party-brand
advertising model.
PSI Revenue model genres Stickiness The positive effect of PSI on followers’ stickiness is stronger Hu et al. (2020)
when the influencer is following the third-party-brand
advertising model rather than the self-brand selling model.
High hedonic Campaign advertising Engagement In a blog, high hedonic value, awareness campaigns Hughes
value content; intent (awareness vs. and campaign giveaways are key drivers of consumer et al. (2019)
campaign trial); platform type engagement (e.g., comments), whereas on Facebook, posts
giveaways (blog vs. Facebook) high in hedonic content are more beneficial when paired
with trial campaigns, and campaign giveaways exert a
negative impact.
VRONTIS et al.
bs_bs_banner
| 17

TA B L E 8 Key contextual variables in the SMI literature

Contextual variables Outcomes Effect Key citations

Sponsorship disclosure Source admiration; purchase + Boerman (2020); De Jans and

intention; advertising recognition; Hudders (2020); De Jans
affective advertising literacy; et al. (2018); De Jans et al., 2020);
brand liking, brand attitude Kim and Kim (2020a)
Sponsorship compensation justification Attitude towards influencers + Stubb et al. (2019)
receiving compensation for
sponsored content; source and
message credibility
Impartiality product posts Source and message credibility + Stubb and Colliander (2019)
Honest opinions sponsorship disclosure Source credibility and message + Hwang and Jeong (2016)
attitude
Commercial interference disclosure (i.e., influencer Sceptical attitude towards the ad + De Jans and Hudders (2020)
states that he/she was instructed to make the vlog and to
clearly show the products)
Conflict of interest disclosure Trust in the influencer; evaluations + Sah et al. (2018)
of the influencer, influencer's
recommendations and the
sponsoring firm
Simple disclosure condition Source credibility and message - Hwang and Jeong (2016)
attitude
Platform-generated disclosure for a vlog Influencer admiration; PSI - De Jans and Hudders (2020)
Third-party revelation of sponsorship PSI; attitude towards the blog; blog - Colliander and Erlandsson (2015
credibility

of SMIs. Future research should more closely examine other con-
structs that could have a strong impact on persuasion outcomes
such as reciprocity, knowledge contribution of the influencer (Xiong
et al., 2018), reputation (Thakur et al., 2016), kindness, sensitivity,
authenticity, accessibility, sense of intimacy, humour and cultural
capital. Other consumer behavioural outcomes besides engage-
ment, brand attitude and purchase intention, such as brand equity
(Fink et al., 2020), brand recall, brand loyalty (Trivedi & Sama, 2020)
and actual behaviours (e.g., purchase) (Casaló et al., 2018) could also
be examined in future studies. As an extension of this, it would be
interesting to investigate the effectiveness of influencer market-
ing campaigns in terms of firm financial performance through a
set of outcomes, including sales and return on investment (Hughes
et al., 2019). Academic research into the effectiveness of such cam-
paigns and their impact on firm performance is sorely needed.
6.1.4 | Moderators and mediators
Studying mediating and moderating effects allows us to obtain more
comprehensive understandings of phenomena. Thus, we encourage
future researchers to extend this line of investigation and examine
additional variables that may act as mediators or moderators between
influencer marketing tactics and desired outcomes such as engage-
ment, purchase intention and sales. Significant mediators examined
in the past are brand attitude, brand uniqueness, consumer readiness,
desire to mimic and ad recognition. Further research might examine
loyalty to the influencer as a potential mediating factor in the analysis
of effects of sponsorship disclosures. Moreover, both intrinsic (e.g.,
fantasy fulfilment and escapism) and extrinsic (e.g., social pressure and
usefulness of the product) motivations could also mediate the effects
of influencer endorsement's characteristics on consumer behavioural
outcomes. Future research may focus on this. In reference to mod-
erators, extant research explored, among other things, product type,
gender, platform type, brand differentiation and consumer scepticism.
Future research should incorporate psychological variables such as
levels of consumer happiness and self-esteem as potential moderating
variables when examining consumer responses to influencer endorse-
ments. Product characteristics (e.g., familiar vs. unfamiliar, popular vs.
unpopular, widely accepted vs. controversial, noninnovative vs. inno-
vative) might also moderate the effectiveness of influencer marketing
strategies, and thus, would be an interesting avenue for future work.
Furthermore, it would be worth investigating whether various con-
sumer characteristics (e.g., lifestyle, culture, internet experience and
price consciousness) can act as moderators. Most of the proposed
mediators and moderators have been shown to play a key role in ex-
plaining differential effects in other similar settings including adver-
tising (e.g., Raj, 1982), online reviews (e.g., Zhu & Zhang, 2010) and
online environments (e.g., Nysveen & Pedersen, 2004) and may play
an important role in influencer marketing as well.
6.1.5 | Message strategies
An opportunity researchers should engage with in the future is the
investigation of message strategies, as research on how a sponsored
18 | bs_bs_banner
VRONTIS et al.

TA B L E 9 A summary of future research directions

Future research direction

Theory • Use source credibility theory, persuasion knowledge model, social comparison theory and attribution theory to examine
the emotional reactions of consumers and the public expressions of those reactions during persuasion episodes
• More use of social contagion theory, social identity theory, elaboration likelihood model, heuristic-systematic model and
naïve theories
• Use Hofstede's cultural dimensions to examine whether consumers from diverse cultures react differently to IM strategies
• Use cognitive dissonance theory to examine how consumption of information provided by SMIs affects consumers’
emotional state and subsequently behavioural outcomes
• Address potential differences among different SMI types (e.g., mega-influencer, macro-influencer) and examine whether
they yield different consumer responses and what underlying mechanisms explain such effects
• Investigate the appeal of virtual influencers and probable boundary conditions of their success
• Extend existing research pertaining to antecedents (e.g., reciprocity, reputation, humour), outcomes (e.g., brand equity,
brand recall, purchase), mediators (e.g., loyalty to the influencer, fantasy fulfilment, social pressure) and moderators (e.g.,
consumer happiness, product characteristics, internet experience) of IM
• Investigate the effectiveness of IM in terms of firm financial performance (e.g., sales, return on investment)
• Investigate attributes of successful message strategies
• Investigate negative brand endorsement situations
• Study consumer well-being outcomes when exposed to social media influencer campaigns
Context • Examine various product categories (e.g., wearables, fast-moving consumer goods, food, jewellery)
• Take a comparative approach and tap into various search and experience goods.
• Extend the classification experience/search goods to include utilitarian/hedonic goods or tangible/intangible goods
• Investigate differences between familiar and unfamiliar brands
• Explore the impact of product type on the effectiveness of sponsorship disclosures
• Expand geographical coverage in both developed and emerging countries
• Focus on cross-cultural studies, especially between developed and emerging countries to uncover international
characteristics in consumer behaviour and influencer marketing strategies and reveal dissimilarities
• Examine in more detail social media platforms other than Instagram (e.g., Facebook, Twitter)
• Focus on Snapchat and TikTok as they are growing platforms of IM
• Focus on cross-platform comparisons to disentangle similarities and differences in terms of influencers’ qualities and traits,
content-specific elements, consumer behaviour and promotional tactics
Methodology • Conduct more qualitative studies
• Conduct mixed-method research
• Sample consumers from multiple sources
• Use random sampling procedures
• Adopt longitudinal research designs
• Utilize more sophisticated experimental apparatus (e.g., real-world influencers, live content posted by SMIs, participants’
actual behaviour)

influencer post should be designed is quite limited (De Veirman &
Hudders, 2020). Furthermore, the bulk of research has dealt with
positive social media influencer endorsements. However, in the case
of negative brand endorsements, the effects of the constructs may
change asymmetrically. Therefore, it would be worth investigating
negative brand endorsement situations in the future.
6.1.6 | Consumer well-being outcomes
Another area of focus for future research would be to investigate
consumers’ emotional responses and reactions to social media in-
fluencer marketing and, in general, assess its impact on consumer
well-being. With few exceptions (Jin et al., 2019; Jin & Ryu, 2020;
Kim & Kim, 2020b), this research path has been largely ignored in
the existing literature. For example, Kim and Kim (2020b) showed
that a sense of friendship and self-congruency with the favour-
ite influencer on social media increase fans’ perception of quality
of life, which in turn increases their perception of well-being and
commitment to the influencer. In contrast, Jin and Ryu (2020) ar-
gued that SMIs induce materialistic envy and compulsive buying that
serves hedonic motives.
Seen from a broad perspective, several scholars (e.g., Jang
et al., 2016; Lee, 2014) have shown that upward social comparison on
social media has a negative impact on mental health. Haferkamp and
Krämer (2011) argued that exposure to attractive users on Facebook
can impair a person's well-being. Importantly, these upward social
comparison tendencies are even more pronounced in conditions of
passive social media usage—that is to say, monitoring others without
direct engagement (Clark et al., 2018). Following this logic, SMIs who
exhibit their luxurious lifestyles and are usually considered attractive
and likeable mainly because of their popularity may trigger damag-
ing social comparisons (Jin & Ryu, 2020). Moreover, given that users
to a large extent passively view influencers’ profiles several times a
day without direct exchanges, a consumer's repeated exposure to
the stimuli of endorsement by an influencer may lead to negative
contrast effects and self-feelings. Consumer well-being certainly
warrants attention since there is a severe lack of empirical evidence
VRONTIS et al.
bs_bs_banner
available about consumers’ emotional and psychological outcomes
when exposed to social media influencer campaigns.
6.2 | Context
6.2.1 | Product focus
First, although the majority of articles do not examine SMIs from a
specific industry context, the existing literature clearly favours fash-
ion and beauty sectors. This comes as no surprise, since social media
networks and particularly Instagram, which is the leading platform
for influencer marketing (Reinikainen et al., 2020), constitute a suit-
able ecosystem for advertising beauty products and advocating
luxurious lifestyles and luxury brands, due to visual aesthetics and
filters (Jin et al., 2019). As a result, caution should be exercised in
making generalizations to other product types and sectors. Further
research is needed to examine a wide variety of product categories
like wearables, jewellery (Trivedi & Sama, 2020), alcoholic bever-
ages (Xiao et al., 2018), fast-moving consumer goods and food (Fink
et al., 2020) in order to look for differences between product types
(De Veirman et al., 2017), thereby reflecting the potentialities of
such campaigns across various sectors. Second, prior research has
examined the influences of search (e.g., mobile phones) versus ex-
perience goods (e.g., packaged tours) on consumer behavioural out-
comes (Hill et al., 2017; Lu et al., 2014). Yet, comparative studies of
this kind remain relatively absent. Thus, researchers are encouraged
to use the comparative approach and tap into various search and
experience goods. Third, the classification experience versus search
goods could be extended to include utilitarian/hedonic goods or
tangible/intangible goods in an attempt to examine consumer atti-
tudes and behaviours towards goods recommended by influencers
(Ladhari et al., 2020; Lu et al., 2014). Fourth, potential differences
between familiar and unfamiliar brands might offer interesting in-
sights as well. Finally, another avenue for future research would be
to explore the impact of product type on the effectiveness of spon-
sorship disclosures (De Veirman & Hudders, 2020).
6.2.2 | Geographical reach
As highlighted, research has focused on consumers within the mar-
ket context of the United States. Given the rapid growth of social
media influencer marketing in various countries around the world,
an important consideration for future research is the expansion of
the geographic coverage to assess the effectiveness of this mar-
keting tool in both developed and emerging countries. We found a
few studies in the context of emerging countries (e.g., Djafarova &
Trofimenko, 2019; Silva et al., 2020; Trivedi & Sama, 2020) despite
the fact that, over the last few years, a significant proportion of the
growth of social media usage has come from emerging economies.
Americans, for instance, are the largest Instagram audience (110 mil-
lion); however, 89% of Instagram users are outside the United States,
| 19
with Brazil ranked second with 70 million Instagram users, followed
by India with 69 million, Indonesia with 59 million and Russia with 40
million (Newberry, 2019). Thus, carrying out more studies in the con-
text of emerging countries is warranted. Comparison of influencer
effectiveness in different countries specifically between developed
and emerging countries is another rather unexplored topic. Cross-
cultural studies could shed light on international characteristics in
consumer behaviour and influencer marketing communication as
well as reveal potential dissimilarities in the interactions between
influencers and followers based on cultural differences between
countries.
6.2.3 | Social media platform focus
Attention has been brought to the increased use of Instagram as
the contextual setting in the relevant literature. More research is,
therefore, necessary to examine separately other popular social
media platforms like Facebook and Twitter considering their content
specificity. Furthermore, no research to date has specifically investi-
gated Snapchat or TikTok, which are specializing in more ephemeral
interactions (Sokolova & Kefi, 2020) and are growing platforms for
influencer marketing (Tobin, 2020). Thus, these social media sites
appear to be promising enough to warrant in-depth investigation.
Cross-platform comparisons could also offer rich potential for fu-
ture studies (Jin et al., 2019). Such research might very well help to
reveal whether insights pertaining to IM hold true among different
social media platforms and, if not, how they differ. Several areas can
benefit from a sharper focus on social media influencer marketing.
Do the qualities and traits of influencers differ depending on the
social media setting? What are the common characteristics that
influencers share across social media platforms? What are the key
content-specific elements that predict influencer marketing effec-
tiveness for each platform? Do consumers who follow influencers
react and behave differently depending on the social media venue?
How should influencers who are active across platforms adjust their
tactics? How can influencers best disclose ads depending on the
platform? Hopefully, future research will reflect on these issues and
disentangle similarities and differences between social media net-
works, thereby informing marketing practice aimed at utilizing this
marketing tool across a variety of different social media platforms.
6.3 | Methodology
As mentioned earlier, the majority of scholarly research on SMIs is
empirical in nature, using mainly quantitative methods. Given the
relative newness of IM as a research topic and the complex interrela-
tionships between variables within this research domain, we suggest
that more qualitative enquiries are needed in order to gain a deeper
understanding of emergent phenomena and advance knowledge
development through theory extension or theory building. Scholars
are also encouraged to conduct mixed-methods studies, which are
20 | bs_bs_banner
rare to date, to address the need for more nuanced insights and
generalizations.
As for the quantitative research, several methodological prob-
lems have been identified. First, most studies have sampled a sin-
gle-source of consumers (e.g., MTurk users). In order to overcome
single-source bias, follow-up studies need to sample consumers
from multiple sources. Second, studies have often relied on conve-
nience sampling, which often leads to biases in the selection of re-
spondents and prohibits the generalizability of the findings. It is thus
recommended that, in order to resolve the limitations inherent to
convenience sampling, future studies should use random sampling
procedures. Third, apart from Fink et al. (2020), no longitudinal stud-
ies exist pertaining to our topic. Longitudinal studies are essential
since they can track consumer behaviour when exposed to influ-
encer marketing at different points in time as well as trace the differ-
ent phases that the relationship between influencers and audiences
goes through over long periods. Fourth, the field would benefit from
more sophisticated experimental apparatus (e.g., using real-world
digital influencers and their active, live content, and prompting par-
ticipants’ actual engagement and buying behaviour). Having more
interactive stimuli will enable researchers to objectively measure
actual consumer interactions with the influencer rather than dealing
with consumers’ retrospective evaluations, thereby producing more
valid results.
6.4 | Limitations
This study is not free of limitations. First, as with other systematic re-
views in the marketing research field, this review was conducted on
English-language articles published only in peer-reviewed academic
journals included in the CABS journal quality guide. Thus, work that
might be relevant, such as book chapters, conference proceedings,
dissertations and other grey literature were excluded. Second, three
electronic databases, EBSCOhost Business Source Ultimate, Science
Direct and Emerald, were used. Although they are the most recog-
nized and represent the most complete scientific databases, they
might have missed articles relevant to our topic. Third, the search
terms used and the filtering process adopted might not have located
all potentially relevant studies. Nonetheless, we are confident that
the thorough reference checks and the overall meticulous proce-
dure of our systematic review have provided us with a representa-
tive pool of articles and reduced the probability that omitted articles
would have substantially altered our conclusions.
7 | I M PLI C ATI O N S
7.1 | Theoretical implications
Despite its caveats, the current study has important implications
for researchers. First, to our knowledge, this study is the first to
provide a systematic overview and evaluation of extant literature
VRONTIS et al.
on SMIs. Specifically, this review maps extant research from a mul-
tidisciplinary perspective, structures the various sub-areas identi-
fied within this research stream and provides unique and general
insights, allowing for a more complete and unifying picture of the
topic.
Second, by applying a rigorous and scientific review method-
ology, this review summarizes existing contributions, and synthe-
sizes and extends a suite of conceptual frameworks in relation to
the effectiveness of social media influencer marketing, thus, inte-
grating the fragmented literature into a comprehensive and multi-
dimensional framework. The proposed framework incorporates key
antecedents, mediators and moderators of potential outcomes, as
well as contextual factors, thereby enhancing our understanding of
underlying mechanisms and conditions under which SMIs emerge
and factors that lead to different consumer outcomes upon expo-
sure to influencer endorsements. Such an integration provides new
insights that can guide future research in this area that merits fur-
ther investigation.
Third, this review indicates that research on SMI is rapidly emerg-
ing. With this in mind, our review provides an important contribution
to the literature since it provides a sound evidence base upon which
researchers can further advance research on SMI.
Fourth, the review sheds light on several research gaps that
provide fruitful avenues for future research. In particular, we reveal
promising areas of research with regard to the following aims: stron-
ger and more coherent theoretical underpinning and development,
better contextually situated understandings and enhanced method-
ological rigour. These arguments may provide a foundation on which
future research efforts can build and make substantial contributions
to enriching and extending this research domain as well as the mar-
keting field as a whole.
7.2 | Practical implications
Further to the theoretical implications, this study also provides sev-
eral implications for practice. By synthesizing the current body of
literature, we lay the foundations for marketers to understand the
complexity of IM within social media settings. Moreover, our inte-
grative framework not only helps marketing practitioners to assume
a more holistic view while utilizing SMIs for their benefit, but also
guides them in formulating persuasive IM campaigns as well as maxi-
mizing influencers’ marketing effectiveness.
The results highlight that whenever an influencer endorse-
ment approach is applied, it is of paramount importance to choose
the appropriate influencer, that is, the one that would be the most
effective in appealing to a particular target group. For example, a
health and wellness retailer that targets teenagers should rather
choose a young influencer, who is perceived as credible, physically
attractive and shares the same values, attitudes and language. For
this reason, a deep understanding of the topics an influencer posts,
influencer's audience and the influencer–audience relationship is
key (De Veirman et al., 2017; Munnukka et al., 2019; Reinikainen
VRONTIS et al.
bs_bs_banner
et al., 2020). Many studies recommend marketing practitioners to
work with SMIs who have formed intense relational bonds with their
followers (Ki et al., 2020) or are considered experts in the object of
the campaign (Martínez-López et al., 2020; Trivedi & Sama, 2020),
rather with those who have a celebrity status and millions of follow-
ers, as popularity may not translate necessarily into influence over
consumer behaviour (Ki & Kim, 2019). However, relational bonding
and expertise are not sufficient to obtain the desired outcomes. In
contrast to traditional marketing campaigns in which celebrities are
featured with the aim of demonstrating the superiority and unique-
ness of the brand, successful IM campaigns require influencers who
demonstrate familiarity and authenticity and maintain visual con-
gruence with their followers (Argyris et al., 2020). Congruency be-
tween the influencer and the brand/product should also factor into
the implementation of the campaign (De Veirman et al., 2017; Kim &
Kim, 2020a; Martínez-López et al., 2020; Torres et al., 2019). In par-
ticular, the endorsement of a product must emerge as an extension
of the influencer's lifestyle choices and usual consumption practices
in order to achieve communicative efficiency and generate engage-
ment (Silva et al., 2020).
Moreover, marketing practitioners should partner with different
influencers that have a good fit (e.g., the qualities of the influenc-
ers or the nature of content published by the influencer) with the
specific goals of each campaign. For example, if a fashion firm aims
to maximize the adoption of a new product, it should partner with
a SMI who showcases expertise and posts visually appealing con-
tent. On the contrary, if the goal is to increase coverage of corpo-
rate initiatives, the fashion firm should collaborate with an SMI who
posts interactive, informative and quality content that showcases
expertise. Allowing SMIs to craft brand-related content on their own
terms, leaving room for authenticity, originality and realism so that
the content resonates with the audience and at the same time is in
line with company objectives, is another important determinant of
the effectiveness of the endorsement as well as the collaboration
between the influencer and the brand (Casaló et al., 2018; Munnukka
et al., 2019; Stubb, 2018).
The abundance of advertising and the emergence of influenc-
ers who regularly promote products and services for payment led
consumers to lose trust in SMIs as a marketing tool (Djafarova &
Trofimenko, 2019). However, despite the fact that sponsorship dis-
closures can negatively affect influencer's perceived credibility and
brand attitude, they also help the consumers to recognize influ-
encers’ sponsored posts as advertising. This transparency might be
appreciated in the long run, softening consumer resistance. Indeed,
consumers dislike the feeling of being misled. Thus, firms should aim
to advertise in an ethical and transparent yet also effective manner.
For example, adding a note that the opinions in the post are honest
although it is a sponsored post can mitigate the negative impact on
source credibility and message attitudes (Hwang & Jeong, 2016). In
addition, marketers should carefully decide on the type of remuner-
ation for influencers, since there is evidence that disclosing material
compensation leads to lower brand attitudes than disclosing financial
compensation (De Veirman & Hudders, 2020). Importantly, marketing
| 21
managers should make sure that clear guidelines are in place and the
central role of the brand is not neglected as involving influencers may
dilute brand meaning and lead to divergence from corporate goals.
As SMIs have evolved into an exponentially growing marketing
tool, which can no longer be disregarded by marketers when devel-
oping online promotion and communication strategies, we hope that
this study encourages marketers to evaluate a partnership with an
influencer more holistically and not to adopt a one-size-fits-all ap-
proach as it does not deliver the desired consumer outcomes. We
are confident that our theoretical synthesis informs practice towards
designing IM campaigns that result in positive consumer behavioural
outcomes, which is the ultimate goal of managers who devise mar-
keting strategies.
C O N FL I C T O F I N T E R E S T
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
DATA AVA I L A B I L I T Y S TAT E M E N T
The data that support the findings of this study are available upon re-
quest from the corresponding author.
ORCID
Michael Christofi https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7457-2701
REFERENCES
Al-Emadi, F. A., & Yahia, I. B. (2020). Ordinary celebrities related criteria
to harvest fame and influence on social media. Journal of Research
in Interactive Marketing, 14(2), 195–213. https://doi.org/10.1108/
JRIM-02-2018-0031
Aleti, T., Pallant, J. I., Tuan, A., & van Laer, T. (2019). Tweeting with the
stars: Automated text analysis of the effect of celebrity social media
communications on consumer word of mouth. Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 48, 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2019.03.003
Appel, G., Grewal, L., Hadi, R., & Stephen, A. T. (2020). The future of so-
cial media in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
48(1), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1174​7-019-00695​-1
Argyris, Y. A., Wang, Z., Kim, Y., & Yin, Z. (2020). The effects of visual con-
gruence on increasing consumers’ brand engagement: An empirical
investigation of influencer marketing on instagram using deep-learn-
ing algorithms for automatic image classification. Computers in Human
Behavior, 112, 106443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106443
Audrezet, A., & Charry, K. (2019, August 29). Do influencers need to tell
audiences they’re getting paid. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.
org/2019/08/do-influ​e ncer ​s-need-to-tell-audie​n ces-theyr​e -getti​
ng-paid
Audrezet, A., De Kerviler, G., & Moulard, J. G. (2018). Authenticity under
threat: When social media influencers need to go beyond self-pre-
sentation. Journal of Business Research, 117, 557–569. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbusr​es.2018.07.008
Balabanis, G., & Chatzopoulou, E. (2019). Under the influence of a blog-
ger: The role of information-seeking goals and issue involvement.
Psychology & Marketing, 36(4), 342–353. https://doi.org/10.1002/
mar.21182
Bergkvist, L., & Zhou, K. Q. (2016). Celebrity endorsements: A litera-
ture review and research agenda. International Journal of Advertising,
35(4), 642–663. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650​487.2015.1137537
Boerman, S. C. (2020). The effects of the standardized Instagram disclo-
sure for micro-and meso-influencers. Computers in Human Behavior,
103, 199–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.09.015
22 | bs_bs_banner
Breves, P. L., Liebers, N., Abt, M., & Kunze, A. (2019). The perceived fit
between Instagram influencers and the endorsed brand: How influ-
encer-brand fit affects source credibility and persuasive effective-
ness. Journal of Advertising Research, 59(4), 440–454. https://doi.
org/10.2501/JAR-2019-030
Campbell, C., & Farrell, J. R. (2020). More than meets the eye: The func-
tional components underlying influencer marketing. Business Horizons,
63(4), 469–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2020.03.003
Casaló, L. V., Flavián, C., & Ibáñez-Sánchez, S. (2018). Influencers on
Instagram: Antecedents and consequences of opinion leadership.
Journal of Business Research, 117, 510–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusr​es.2018.07.005
Christofi, M., Leonidou, E., & Vrontis, D. (2017). Marketing research on
mergers and acquisitions: A systematic review and future direc-
tions. International Marketing Review, 34(5), 629–651. https://doi.
org/10.1108/IMR-03-2015-0100
Christofi, M., Vrontis, D., & Cadogan, J. W. (2019). Micro-foundational
ambidexterity and multinational enterprises: A systematic review
and a conceptual framework. International Business Review, 30(1),
101625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusr​ev.2019.101625
Christofi, M., Vrontis, D., Thrassou, A., & Shams, S. R. (2019). Triggering
technological innovation through cross-border mergers and acqui-
sitions: A micro-foundational perspective. Technological Forecasting
and Social Change, 146, 148–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techf​
ore.2019.05.026
Clark, J. L., Algoe, S. B., & Green, M. C. (2018). Social network sites
and well-being: The role of social connection. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 27(1), 32–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637​
21417​730833
Colliander, J., & Erlandsson, S. (2015). The blog and the bountiful:
Exploring the effects of disguised product placement on blogs that
are revealed by a third party. Journal of Marketing Communications,
21(2), 110–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527​266.2012.730543
Cooke, F. L., Wood, G., Wang, M., & Veen, A. (2019). How far has inter-
national HRM travelled? A systematic review of literature on mul-
tinational corporations (2000–2014). Human Resource Management
Review, 29(1), 59–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.05.001
Danese, P., Manfè, V., & Romano, P. (2018). A systematic literature re-
view on recent lean research: State-of-the-art and future directions.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(2), 579–605. https://
doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12156
De Jans, S., Cauberghe, V., & Hudders, L. (2018). How an advertising dis-
closure alerts young adolescents to sponsored vlogs: The moderat-
ing role of a peer-based advertising literacy intervention through an
informational vlog. Journal of Advertising, 47(4), 309–325. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00913​367.2018.1539363
De Jans, S., & Hudders, L. (2020). Disclosure of Vlog advertising targeted
to children. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 52, 1–19. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.intmar.2020.03.003
De Jans, S., Van de Sompel, D., De Veirman, M., & Hudders, L. (2020).
# Sponsored! How the recognition of sponsoring on Instagram
posts affects adolescents’ brand evaluations through source eval-
uations. Computers in Human Behavior, 109, 106342. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106342
De Mooij, M., & Hofstede, G. (2002). Convergence and divergence
in consumer behavior: Implications for international retailing.
Journal of Retailing, 78(1), 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022​
-4359(01)00067​-7
De Veirman, M., Cauberghe, V., & Hudders, L. (2017). Marketing through
Instagram influencers: The impact of number of followers and prod-
uct divergence on brand attitude. International Journal of Advertising,
36(5), 798–828. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650​487.2017.1348035
De Veirman, M., & Hudders, L. (2020). Disclosing sponsored Instagram
posts: The role of material connection with the brand and
VRONTIS et al.
message-sidedness when disclosing covert advertising. International
Journal of Advertising, 39(1), 94–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650​
487.2019.1575108
Digital Marketing Institute. (2019). 20 Influencer marketing statistics
that will surprise you. https://digit​almar​ketin​ginst​itute.com/en-eu/
blog/20-influ​encer​-marke​ting-stati​stics​-that-will-surpr​ise-you
Djafarova, E., & Rushworth, C. (2017). Exploring the credibility of online
celebrities' Instagram profiles in influencing the purchase decisions
of young female users. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 1–7. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.009
Djafarova, E., & Trofimenko, O. (2019). ‘Instafamous’–credibility and
self-presentation of micro-celebrities on social media. Information,
Communication & Society, 22(10), 1432–1446. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13691​18X.2018.1438491
Erdogan, B. Z. (1999). Celebrity endorsement: A literature review.
Journal of Marketing Management, 15(4), 291–314. https://doi.
org/10.1362/02672​57997​8 4870379
Erz, A., Marder, B., & Osadchaya, E. (2018). Hashtags: Motivational driv-
ers, their use, and differences between influencers and followers.
Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2018.07.030
Evans, M. (2019, September 23). Five key traits defining connected con-
sumers in 2019. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/​miche​lleev​
ans1/2019/09/23/five-key-trait ​s-defin​i ng-conne​c ted-consu​m ers-
in-2019/#6b1b9​7e622df
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University
Press.
Fink, M., Koller, M., Gartner, J., Floh, A., & Harms, R. (2020). Effective en-
trepreneurial marketing on Facebook—A longitudinal study. Journal
of Business Research, 113, 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusr​
es.2018.10.005
Folkvord, F., Bevelander, K. E., Rozendaal, E., & Hermans, R. (2019).
Children’s bonding with popular YouTube vloggers and their atti-
tudes toward brand and product endorsements in vlogs: An explor-
ative study. Young Consumers, 20(2), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1108/
YC-12-2018-0896
Furrer, O., Thomas, H., & Goussevskaia, A. (2008). The structure and
evolution of the strategic management field: A content analy-
sis of 26 years of strategic management research. International
Journal of Management Reviews, 10(1), 1–23. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00217.x
Ge, J., & Gretzel, U. (2018). Emoji rhetoric: A social media influencer per-
spective. Journal of Marketing Management, 34(15–16), 1272–1295.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02672​57X.2018.1483960
Godey, B., Manthiou, A., Pederzoli, D., Rokka, J., Aiello, G., Donvito,
R., & Singh, R. (2016). Social media marketing efforts of luxury
brands: Influence on brand equity and consumer behavior. Journal
of Business Research, 69(12), 5833–5841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusr​es.2016.04.181
Haferkamp, N., & Krämer, N. C. (2011). Social comparison 2.0:
Examining the effects of online profiles on social-networking sites.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(5), 309–314.
https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2010.0120
Hao, A. W., Paul, J., Trott, S., Guo, C., & Wu, H. H. (2019). Two decades of
research on nation branding: A review and future research agenda.
International Marketing Review. [Epub ahead of print]. https://doi.
org/10.1108/IMR-01-2019-0028
Hill, S. R., Troshani, I., & Chandrasekar, D. (2017). Signalling effects
of vlogger popularity on online consumers. Journal of Computer
Information Systems, 60(1), 76–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874​
417.2017.1400929
Hinz, O., Skiera, B., Barrot, C., & Becker, J. U. (2011). Seeding strategies
for viral marketing: An empirical comparison. Journal of Marketing,
75(6), 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.10.0088
VRONTIS et al.
bs_bs_banner
Ho, H., & Ito, K. (2019). Consumption-oriented engagement in social net-
work sites. European Journal of Marketing, 53(7), 1355–1377. https://
doi.org/10.1108/EJM-11-2017-0809
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences, comparing values, behaviors,
institutions, and organizations across nations. Sage.
Hosie, R. (2019, April 9). Why brands are turning away from big Instagram
influencers to work with people who have small followings instead.
Business Insider. https://www.busin​essin​sider.com/brand​s-turni​ng-
to-micro​-influ​encer​s-inste​ad-of-insta​gram-stars​-2019-4
Hu, L., Min, Q., Han, S., & Liu, Z. (2020). Understanding followers’ stick-
iness to digital influencers: The effect of psychological responses.
International Journal of Information Management, 54, 102169. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinf​omgt.2020.102169
Hughes, C., Swaminathan, V., & Brooks, G. (2019). Driving brand engage-
ment through online social influencers: An empirical investigation of
sponsored blogging campaigns. Journal of Marketing, 83(5), 78–96.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00222​42919​854374
Hwang, Y., & Jeong, S. H. (2016). “This is a sponsored blog post, but all
opinions are my own”: The effects of sponsorship disclosure on re-
sponses to sponsored blog posts. Computers in Human Behavior, 62,
528–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.026
Jang, K., Park, N., & Song, H. (2016). Social comparison on Facebook:
Its antecedents and psychological outcomes. Computers in Human
Behavior, 62, 147–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.082
Jiménez-Castillo, D., & Sánchez-Fernández, R. (2019). The role of digi-
tal influencers in brand recommendation: Examining their impact on
engagement, expected value and purchase intention. International
Journal of Information Management, 49, 366–376. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijinf​omgt.2019.07.009
Jin, S. V., & Muqaddam, A. (2019). Product placement 2.0:“Do brands
need influencers, or do influencers need brands?”. Journal of Brand
Management, 26(5), 522–537. https://doi.org/10.1057/s4126​2-019-
00151​-z
Jin, S. V., Muqaddam, A., & Ryu, E. (2019). Instafamous and social media
influencer marketing. Marketing Intelligence & Planning., 37(5), 567–
579. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-09-2018-037
Jin, S. V., & Ryu, E. (2019). Instagram fashionistas, luxury visual image
strategies and vanity. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 29(3),
355–368. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-08-2018-1987
Jin, S. V., & Ryu, E. (2020). “I'll buy what she's wearing”: The roles
of envy toward and parasocial interaction with influencers in
Instagram celebrity-based brand endorsement and social commerce.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 55, 102121. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jretc​onser.2020.102121
Jones, M. V., Coviello, N., & Tang, Y. K. (2011). International entrepre-
neurship research (1989–2009): A domain ontology and thematic
analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(6), 632–659. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbusv​ent.2011.04.001
Kapitan, S., & Silvera, D. H. (2016). From digital media influencers to
celebrity endorsers: Attributions drive endorser effectiveness.
Marketing Letters, 27(3), 553–567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1100​
2-015-9363-0
Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1955). Personal influence: The part played by
people in the flow of mass communications. The Free Press.
Kay, S., Mulcahy, R., & Parkinson, J. (2020). When less is more: The
impact of macro and micro social media influencers’ disclosure.
Journal of Marketing Management, 36(3–4), 248–278. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02672​57X.2020.1718740
Ki, C. W., Cuevas, L. M., Chong, S. M., & Lim, H. (2020). Influencer mar-
keting: Social media influencers as human brands attaching to fol-
lowers and yielding positive marketing results by fulfilling needs.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 55, 102133. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jretc​onser.2020.102133
Ki, C. W. C., & Kim, Y. K. (2019). The mechanism by which social media
influencers persuade consumers: The role of consumers’ desire
| 23
to mimic. Psychology & Marketing, 36(10), 905–922. https://doi.
org/10.1002/mar.21244
Kim, D. Y., & Kim, H. Y. (2020a). Influencer advertising on social media:
The multiple inference model on influencer-product congruence and
sponsorship disclosure. Journal of Business Research. In press. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusr​es.2020.02.02.0
Kim, M., & Kim, J. (2020b). How does a celebrity make fans happy?
Interaction between celebrities and fans in the social media context.
Computers in Human Behavior, 111, 106419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2020.106419
Knoll, J., & Matthes, J. (2017). The effectiveness of celebrity endorse-
ments: A meta-analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
45(1), 55–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1174​7-016-0503-8
Kupfer, A.-K., Pähler vor der Holte, N., Kübler, R. V., & Hennig-Thurau, T.
(2018). The role of the partner brand's social media power in brand al-
liances. Journal of Marketing, 82(3), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.1509/
jm.15.0536
Ladhari, R., Massa, E., & Skandrani, H. (2020). YouTube vloggers’ popu-
larity and influence: The roles of homophily, emotional attachment,
and expertise. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 54, 102027.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretc​onser.2019.102027
Lamberton, C., & Stephen, A. T. (2016). A thematic exploration of digital,
social media, and mobile marketing: Research evolution from 2000
to 2015 and an agenda for future inquiry. Journal of Marketing, 80(6),
146–172. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.15.0415
Lanz, A., Goldenberg, J., Shapira, D., & Stahl, F. (2019). Climb or jump:
Status-based seeding in user-generated content networks. Journal of
Marketing Research, 56(3), 361–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222​
43718​824081
Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1948). The people's choice:
How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. Columbia
University Press.
Lee, J. E., & Watkins, B. (2016). YouTube vloggers' influence on con-
sumer luxury brand perceptions and intentions. Journal of Business
Research, 69(12), 5753–5760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusr​
es.2016.04.171
Lee, S. Y. (2014). How do people compare themselves with others on
social network sites?: The case of Facebook. Computers in Human
Behavior, 32, 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.12.009
Leonidou, E., Christofi, M., Vrontis, D., & Thrassou, A. (2018). An in-
tegrative framework of stakeholder engagement for innova-
tion management and entrepreneurship development. Journal of
Business Research, 119, 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusr​
es.2018.11.054
Lin, H. C., Bruning, P. F., & Swarna, H. (2018). Using online opinion leaders
to promote the hedonic and utilitarian value of products and ser-
vices. Business Horizons, 61(3), 431–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
bushor.2018.01.010
Lu, L. C., Chang, W. P., & Chang, H. H. (2014). Consumer attitudes to-
ward blogger’s sponsored recommendations and purchase in-
tention: The effect of sponsorship type, product type, and brand
awareness. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 258–266. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.007
MacInnis, D. J. (2011). A framework for conceptual contributions in mar-
keting. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 136–154. https://doi.org/10.1509/
jmkg.75.4.136
Macpherson, A., & Holt, R. (2007). Knowledge, learning and small firm
growth: A systematic review of the evidence. Research Policy, 36(2),
172–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.10.001
Magno, F. (2017). The influence of cultural blogs on their readers’ cultural
product choices. International Journal of Information Management,
37(3), 142–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinf​omgt.2017.01.007
Makrides, A., Vrontis, D., & Christofi, M. (2020). An empirical study on
the importance of electronic word of mouth in the concierge indus-
try: The case of Cyprus. In S. M. Correia Loureiro & H. R. Kaufmann
24 | bs_bs_banner
(Eds.), Exploring the power of electronic word-of-mouth in the services
industry (pp. 265–287). IGI Global.
Martínez-López, F. J., Anaya-Sánchez, R., Fernández Giordano, M.,
& Lopez-Lopez, D. (2020). Behind influencer marketing: Key
marketing decisions and their effects on followers’ responses.
Journal of Marketing Management, 36(7–8), 579–607. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02672​57X.2020.1738525
McQuarrie, E. F., Miller, J., & Phillips, B. J. (2013). The megaphone effect:
Taste and audience in fashion blogging. Journal of Consumer Research,
40(1), 136–158. https://doi.org/10.1086/669042
Melumad, S., Inman, J. J., & Pham, M. T. (2019). Selectively emotional:
How smartphone use changes user-generated content. Journal of
Marketing Research, 56(2), 259–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222​
43718​815429
Mihalache, M., & Mihalache, O. R. (2016). A decisional framework of
offshoring: Integrating insights from 25 years of research to provide
direction for future. Decision Sciences, 47(6), 1103–1149. https://doi.
org/10.1111/deci.12206
Mishra, R., Singh, R., & Koles, B. (2020). Consumer decision-making
in Omnichannel retailing: Literature review and future research
agenda. International Journal of Consumer Studies. In press. https://
doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12617
Moldovan, S., Muller, E., Richter, Y., & Yom-Tov, E. (2017). Opinion lead-
ership in small groups. International Journal of Research in Marketing,
34(2), 536–552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijres​mar.2016.11.004
Munnukka, J., Maity, D., Reinikainen, H., & Luoma-aho, V. (2019).
“Thanks for watching”. The effectiveness of YouTube vlog endorse-
ments. Computers in Human Behavior, 93, 226–234. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.12.014
Newberry, C. (2019, October 22). 37 Instagram Stats That Matter to
Marketers in 2020. Hootsuite. https://blog.hoots​uite.com/insta​gram-
stati​stics/
Nysveen, H., & Pedersen, P. E. (2004). An exploratory study of custom-
ers' perception of company web sites offering various interactive
applications: Moderating effects of customers' Internet experience.
Decision Support Systems, 37(1), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0167​-9236(02)00212​-9
O'Connor, C. (2017, September 26). Forbes top influencers: Instagram
‘it’ girl Chiara Ferragni on building a fashion empire. Forbes. https://
www.forbes.com/sites/​clare​o conn​or/2017/09/26/forbe​s-top-influ​
encer​s-insta​gram-it-girl-chiar​a-ferra​gni-on-build​ing-a-fashi​on-empir​
e/#4f56c​b2c3001
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/10.1080/00913​367.1990.10673191
Ordanini, A., Rubera, G., & DeFillippi, R. (2008). The many moods
of inter-organizational imitation: A critical review. International
Journal of Management Reviews, 10(4), 375–398. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2008.00233.x
Paul, J., & Benito, G. R. (2018). A review of research on outward for-
eign 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/10.1080/13602​381.2017.1357316
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), 101717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusr​ev.2020.101717
Paul, J., Parthasarathy, S., & Gupta, P. (2017). Exporting challenges
of SMEs: A review and future research agenda. Journal of World
Business, 52(3), 327–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2017.01.003
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
VRONTIS et al.
Peng, J., Agarwal, A., Hosanagar, K., & Iyengar, R. (2018). Network overlap
and content sharing on social media platforms. Journal of Marketing
Research, 55(4), 571–585. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.14.0643
Pisani, N., Kourula, A., Kolk, A., & Meijer, R. (2017). How global is inter-
national CSR research? Insights and recommendations from a sys-
tematic review. Journal of World Business, 52(5), 591–614. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jwb.2017.05.003
Pittaway, L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denyer, D., & Neely, A. (2004).
Networking and innovation: A systematic review of the evidence.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 5(3–4), 137–168.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-8545.2004.00101.x
Rahal, A. (2020, January 10). Is influencer marketing worth it in 2020?
Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/​theye​c/2020/01/10/is-influ​
encer​-marke​ting-worth​-it-in-2020/#4d26e​ebf31c5
Raj, S. P. (1982). The effects of advertising on high and low loyalty con-
sumer segments. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(1), 77–89. https://
doi.org/10.1086/208898
Rana, J., & Paul, J. (2017). Consumer behavior and purchase intention
for organic food: A review and research agenda. Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, 38, 157–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretc​
onser.2017.06.004
Rebouças, R., & Soares, A. M. (2020). Voluntary simplicity: A litera-
ture review and research agenda. International Journal of Consumer
Studies. In press. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12621
Reinikainen, H., Munnukka, J., Maity, D., & Luoma-aho, V. (2020). ‘You
really are a great big sister’—Parasocial relationships, credibility, and
the moderating role of audience comments in influencer marketing.
Journal of Marketing Management, 36(3–4), 279–298. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02672​57X.2019.1708781
Rimkute, J., Moraes, C., & Ferreira, C. (2016). The effects of scent on
consumer behaviour. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 40(1),
24–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12206
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.jbusr​es.2017.12.049
Sah, S., Malaviya, P., & Thompson, D. (2018). Conflict of interest dis-
closure as an expertise cue: Differential effects due to auto-
matic versus deliberative processing. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 147, 127–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
obhdp.2018.05.008
Sakib, M. N., Zolfagharian, M., & Yazdanparast, A. (2020). Does para-
social interaction with weight loss vloggers affect compliance? The
role of vlogger characteristics, consumer readiness, and health con-
sciousness. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 52, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jretc​onser.2019.01.002
Schouten, A. P., Janssen, L., & Verspaget, M. (2020). 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/10.1080/02650​487.2019.1634898
Shareef, M. A., Kapoor, K. K., Mukerji, B., Dwivedi, R., & Dwivedi, Y. K.
(2020). Group behavior in social media: Antecedents of initial trust
formation. Computers in Human Behavior, 105, 106225. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106225
Silva, M. J. D. B., Farias, S. A. D., Grigg, M. K., & Barbosa, M. D. L. D. A.
(2020). Online engagement and the role of digital influencers in prod-
uct endorsement on Instagram. Journal of Relationship Marketing,
19(2), 133–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332​667.2019.1664872
Singh, J., Crisafulli, B., Quamina, L. T., & Xue, M. T. (2020). “To trust or not
to trust”: The impact of social media influencers on the reputation of
corporate brands in crisis. Journal of Business Research, 119, 464–480.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusr​es.2020.03.039
Sokolova, K., & Kefi, H. (2020). Instagram and YouTube bloggers promote
it, why should I buy? How credibility and parasocial interaction influ-
ence purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
53, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretc​onser.2019.01.011
VRONTIS et al.
bs_bs_banner
Stubb, C. (2018). Story versus info: Tracking blog readers’ online viewing
time of sponsored blog posts based on content-specific elements.
Computers in Human Behavior, 82, 54–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2018.01.001
Stubb, C., & Colliander, J. (2019). “This is not sponsored content”—The ef-
fects of impartiality disclosure and e-commerce landing pages on con-
sumer responses to social media influencer posts. Computers in Human
Behavior, 98, 210–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.04.024
Stubb, C., Nyström, A. G., & Colliander, J. (2019). Influencer marketing: The
impact of disclosing sponsorship compensation justification on spon-
sored content effectiveness. Journal of Communication Management,
23(2), 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-11-2018-0119
Su, Y., Kunkel, T., & Ye, N. (2020). When abs do not sell: The impact of
male influencers conspicuously displaying a muscular body on female
followers. Psychology & Marketing, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/
mar.21322
Thakur, R., Angriawan, A., & Summey, J. H. (2016). Technological opin-
ion leadership: The role of personal innovativeness, gadget love,
and technological innovativeness. Journal of Business Research, 69(8),
2764–2773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusr​es.2015.11.012
Tobin, J. (2020, June 3). How much should brands invest in TikTok
right now? Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/​forbe​sagen​c ycou​
ncil/2020/06/03/how-much-shoul​d-brand​s-inves ​t-in-tikto​k-right​
-now/#5e8da​15921f1
Torres, P., Augusto, M., & Matos, M. (2019). Antecedents and outcomes
of digital influencer endorsement: An exploratory study. Psychology
& Marketing, 36(12), 1267–1276. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21274
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for
developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means
of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375
Trivedi, J., & Sama, R. (2020). The effect of influencer marketing on con-
sumers’ brand admiration and online purchase intentions: An emerg-
ing market perspective. Journal of Internet Commerce, 19(1), 103–124.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15332​861.2019.1700741
Uzunoğlu, E., & Kip, S. M. (2014). Brand communication through digital
influencers: Leveraging blogger engagement. International Journal of
Information Management, 34(5), 592–602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijinf​omgt.2014.04.007
van Reijmersdal, E. A., Rozendaal, E., Hudders, L., Vanwesenbeeck, I.,
Cauberghe, V., & van Berlo, Z. M. (2020). Effects of disclosing in-
fluencer marketing in videos: An eye tracking study among children
in early adolescence. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 49, 94–106.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2019.09.001
Voorveld, H. A. (2019). Brand communication in social media: A re-
search agenda. Journal of Advertising, 48(1), 14–26. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00913​367.2019.1588808
Vrontis, D., & Christofi, M. (2019). R&D internationalization and inno-
vation: A systematic review, integrative framework and future re-
search directions. Journal of Business Research. In Press. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbusr​es.2019.03.031
Vrontis, D., Christofi, M., & Katsikeas, C. S. (2020). An assessment of
the literature on cause-related marketing: Implications for inter-
national competitiveness and marketing research. International
Marketing Review, 37(5), 977–1012. https://doi.org/10.1108/
IMR-07-2019-0202
Vrontis, D., Leonidou, E., Christofi, M., Hans, R. K., & Kitchen, P. J. (2020).
Intercultural service encounters: A systematic review and a concep-
tual framework on trust development. EuroMed Journal of Business. In
Press. https://doi.org/10.1108/EMJB-03-2019-0044
Wang, C. L., & Chugh, H. (2014). Entrepreneurial learning: Past research
and future challenges. International Journal of Management Reviews,
16(1), 24–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12007
Watts, D. J., & Dodds, P. S. (2007). Influentials, networks, and public
opinion formation. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4), 441–458.
https://doi.org/10.1086/518527
| 25
Xiao, M., Wang, R., & Chan-Olmsted, S. (2018). Factors affecting
YouTube influencer marketing credibility: A heuristic-systematic
model. Journal of Media Business Studies, 15(3), 188–213. https://doi.
org/10.1080/16522​354.2018.1501146
Xiong, Y., Cheng, Z., Liang, E., & Wu, Y. (2018). Accumulation mechanism
of opinion leaders' social interaction ties in virtual communities:
Empirical evidence from China. Computers in Human Behavior, 82,
81–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.005
Yang, M., & Gabrielsson, P. (2018). The interface of international mar-
keting and entrepreneurship research: Review, synthesis, and future
directions. Journal of International Marketing, 26(4), 18–37. https://
doi.org/10.1177/10690​31X18​8 09988
Young, K. (2017, June 20). How celebrity endorsements influence
young consumers. Global WebIndex. https://blog.globa​lwebi​n dex.
com/chart​- of-the-day/how-celeb​- endor​s emen​t s-influ​e nce-young​
-consu​m ers/
Zhu, F., & Zhang, X. (2010). Impact of online consumer reviews on sales:
The moderating role of product and consumer characteristics. Journal
of Marketing, 74(2), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.74.2.133
AU T H O R B I O G R A P H I E S
Demetris Vrontis is the Vice Rector for Faculty and Research and
a Professor of Strategic Marketing Management at the University
of Nicosia, Cyprus. He is the Founder and Editor in Chief of
the EuroMed Journal of Business, an Associate Editor of the
International Marketing Review and an Associate Editor of the
Journal of Business Research. He has widely published in 250 ref-
ereed journal articles, 45 books and 60 chapters in books and has
presented papers to over 80 conferences around the globe. He is a
fellow member and certified Chartered Marketer of the Chartered
Institute of Marketing and a Chartered Business Consultant.
Anna Makrides is a PhD student at the University of Nicosia,
Nicosia, Cyprus. Previously, she served in various senior roles
in sales and marketing with large organizations. Her research
spans across the fields of consumer well-being, digital market-
ing, international marketing, word-of-mouth and brand aware-
ness. Ms Anna Makrides has a Bachelor Degree in Byzantine and
Modern Greek Language and Literature, a Master of Business
Administration (MBA), a Master of Science in Management and
a Professional Diploma in Digital Marketing.
Michael Christofi is a faculty member at the Department of
Marketing, School of Business, at the University of Nicosia. His
research spans across the fields of technological innovation, mar-
keting innovation, stakeholder engagement, strategic manage-
ment and corporate social responsibility, well-being, entrepre-
neurial marketing and organizational ambidexterity. Dr. Christofi
has published several articles in premier publication outlets, such
as British Journal of Management, International Business Review,
Journal of Business Research, International Marketing Review and
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, among others. He has
authored several book chapters and won various awards for his
research work and academic service.
26 | bs_bs_banner
Alkis Thrassou is a Professor at the School of Business,
University of Nicosia (Cyprus, EU). He holds a Ph.D. from the
University of Leeds (UK) and is also a Chartered Marketer
(FCIM), a Chartered Construction Manager (FCIOB), a
Chartered Management Consultancy Surveyor (MRICS) and a
Senior Research Fellow of the EuroMed Academy of Business
(SFEMAB/EMRBI). His works have been published in and he
has edited for numerous esteemed peer-reviewed scientific
journals and books, he holds positions in journals’ editorial
boards and he retains strong ties with the industry, acting also
as a consultant.
How to cite this article: Vrontis D, Makrides A, Christofi M,
Thrassou A. Social media influencer marketing: A systematic
review, integrative framework and future research agenda.
Int J Consum Stud. 2021;00:1–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/
ijcs.12647
APPENDIX A
Al-Emadi, F. A., & Yahia, I. B. (2020). Ordinary celebrities related criteria
to harvest fame and influence on social media. Journal of Research
in Interactive Marketing, 14(2), 195–213. https://doi.org/10.1108/
JRIM-02-2018-0031.
Aleti, T., Pallant, J. I., Tuan, A., & van Laer, T. (2019). Tweeting with
the stars: Automated text analysis of the effect of celebrity so-
cial media communications on consumer word of mouth. Journal
of Interactive Marketing, 48, 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
intmar.2019.03.003.
Appel, G., Grewal, L., Hadi, R., & Stephen, A. T. (2020). The future
of social media in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 48(1), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1174​7-019-00695​
-1.
Argyris, Y. A., Wang, Z., Kim, Y., & Yin, Z. (2020). The effects of visual con-
gruence on increasing consumers’ brand engagement: An empirical
investigation of influencer marketing on instagram using deep-learn-
ing algorithms for automatic image classification. Computers in Human
Behavior, 106443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106443.
Audrezet, A., De Kerviler, G., & Moulard, J. G. (2018). Authenticity under
threat: When social media influencers need to go beyond self-pre-
sentation. Journal of Business Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusr​es.2018.07.008.
Balabanis, G., & Chatzopoulou, E. (2019). Under the influence of
a blogger: The role of information-seeking goals and issue in-
volvement. Psychology & Marketing, 36(4), 342–353. https://doi.
org/10.1002/mar.21182.
Boerman, S. C. (2020). The effects of the standardized Instagram dis-
closure for micro-and meso-influencers. Computers in Human
Behavior, 103, 199–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.09.015.
Breves, P. L., Liebers, N., Abt, M., & Kunze, A. (2019). The perceived fit
between Instagram influencers and the endorsed brand: How influ-
encer–brand fit affects source credibility and persuasive effective-
ness. Journal of Advertising Research, 59(4), 440–454. https://doi.
org/10.2501/JAR-2019-030.
Campbell, C., & Farrell, J. R. (2020). More than meets the eye: The
functional components underlying influencer marketing. Business
Horizons. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2020.03.003.
Casaló, L. V., Flavián, C., & Ibáñez-Sánchez, S. (2018). Influencers
on Instagram: Antecedents and consequences of opinion
VRONTIS et al.
leadership. Journal of Business Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusr​es.2018.07.005.
Colliander, J., & Erlandsson, S. (2015). The blog and the bountiful:
Exploring the effects of disguised product placement on blogs that are
revealed by a third party. Journal of Marketing Communications, 21(2),
110–124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527​266.2012.730543.
De Jans, S., & Hudders, L. (2020). Disclosure of Vlog Advertising Targeted
to Children. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 52, 1–19. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.intmar.2020.03.003.
De Jans, S., Cauberghe, V., & Hudders, L. (2018). How an advertising dis-
closure alerts young adolescents to sponsored vlogs: The moderat-
ing role of a peer-based advertising literacy intervention through an
informational vlog. Journal of Advertising, 47(4), 309–325. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00913​367.2018.1539363.
De Jans, S., Van de Sompel, D., De Veirman, M., & Hudders, L. (2020).
# Sponsored! How the recognition of sponsoring on Instagram
posts affects adolescents’ brand evaluations through source
evaluations. Computers in Human Behavior, 106342. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106342.
De Veirman, M., & Hudders, L. (2020). Disclosing sponsored Instagram
posts: The role of material connection with the brand and mes-
sage-sidedness when disclosing covert advertising. International
Journal of Advertising, 39(1), 94–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650​
487.2019.1575108.
De Veirman, M., Cauberghe, V., & Hudders, L. (2017). Marketing
through Instagram influencers: The impact of number of follow-
ers and product divergence on brand attitude. International Journal
of Advertising, 36(5), 798–828. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650​
487.2017.1348035.
Djafarova, E., & Rushworth, C. (2017). Exploring the credibility of online
celebrities’ Instagram profiles in influencing the purchase decisions
of young female users. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 1–7. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.009.
Djafarova, E., & Trofimenko, O. (2019). “Instafamous”–credibility and
self-presentation of micro-celebrities on social media. Information,
Communication & Society, 22(10), 1432–1446. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13691​18X.2018.1438491.
Erz, A., Marder, B., & Osadchaya, E. (2018). Hashtags: Motivational
drivers, their use, and differences between influencers and fol-
lowers. Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 48–60. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.07.030.
Fink, M., Koller, M., Gartner, J., Floh, A., & Harms, R. (2020). Effective
entrepreneurial marketing on Facebook–A longitudinal study. Journal
of Business Research, 113, 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusr​
es.2018.10.005.
Folkvord, F., Bevelander, K. E., Rozendaal, E., & Hermans, R. (2019).
Children's bonding with popular YouTube vloggers and their atti-
tudes toward brand and product endorsements in vlogs: An explor-
ative study. Young Consumers, 20(2), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1108/
YC-12-2018-0896.
Ge, J., & Gretzel, U. (2018). Emoji rhetoric: A social media influencer per-
spective. Journal of Marketing Management, 34(15–16), 1272–1295.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02672​57X.2018.1483960.
Hill, S. R., Troshani, I., & Chandrasekar, D. (2017). Signalling effects of vlog-
ger popularity on online consumers. Journal of Computer Information
Systems. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874​417.2017.1400929.
Hinz, O., Skiera, B., Barrot, C., & Becker, J. U. (2011). Seeding strategies for
viral marketing: An empirical comparison. Journal of Marketing, 75(6),
55–71. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.10.0088.
Hu, L., Min, Q., Han, S., & Liu, Z. (2020). Understanding followers’
stickiness to digital influencers: The effect of psychological re-
sponses. International Journal of Information Management, 54,
102,169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinf​omgt.2020.102169.
Hughes, C., Swaminathan, V., & Brooks, G. (2019). Driving brand engage-
ment through online social influencers: An empirical investigation
VRONTIS et al.
bs_bs_banner
of sponsored blogging campaigns. Journal of Marketing, 83(5), 78–
96. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222​42919​854374.
Hwang, Y., & Jeong, S. H. (2016). “This is a sponsored blog post, but all
opinions are my own”: The effects of sponsorship disclosure on re-
sponses to sponsored blog posts. Computers in Human Behavior, 62,
528–535. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.026.
Jiménez-Castillo, D., & Sánchez-Fernández, R. (2019). The role of digi-
tal influencers in brand recommendation: Examining their impact on
engagement, expected value and purchase intention. International
Journal of Information Management, 49, 366–376. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijinf​omgt.2019.07.009.
Jin, S. V., & Muqaddam, A. (2019). Product placement 2.0:“Do brands
need influencers, or do influencers need brands?”. Journal of Brand
Management, 26(5), 522–537. https://doi.org/10.1057/s4126​2-019-
00151​-z.
Jin, S. V., & Ryu, E. (2019). Instagram fashionistas, luxury visual image
strategies and vanity. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 29(3),
355–368. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-08-2018-1987.
Jin, S. V., & Ryu, E. (2020). “I'll buy what she's# wearing”: The roles of
envy toward and parasocial interaction with influencers in Instagram
celebrity-based brand endorsement and social commerce. Journal
of Retailing and Consumer Services, 55, 102121. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jretc​onser.2020.102121.
Jin, S. V., Muqaddam, A., & Ryu, E. (2019). Instafamous and social media
influencer marketing. Marketing Intelligence & Planning. 37(5), 567–
579. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-09-2018-037.
Kapitan, S., & Silvera, D. H. (2016). From digital media influencers
to celebrity endorsers: Attributions drive endorser effective-
ness. Marketing Letters, 27(3), 553–567. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s1100​2-015-9363-0.
Kay, S., Mulcahy, R., & Parkinson, J. (2020). When less is more: The
impact of macro and micro social media influencers’ disclo-
sure. Journal of Marketing Management, 36(3–4), 248–278. https://
doi.org/10.1080/02672​57X.2020.1718740.
Ki, C. W. C., & Kim, Y. K. (2019). The mechanism by which social media
influencers persuade consumers: The role of consumers’ desire
to mimic. Psychology & Marketing, 36(10), 905–922. https://doi.
org/10.1002/mar.21244.
Ki, C. W., Cuevas, L. M., Chong, S. M., & Lim, H. (2020). Influencer
marketing: Social media influencers as human brands attaching
to followers and yielding positive marketing results by fulfilling
needs. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 55, 102133. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jretc​onser.2020.102133.
Kim, D. Y., & Kim, H. Y. (2020). Influencer advertising on social media:
The multiple inference model on influencer-product congruence
and sponsorship disclosure. Journal of Business Research. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbusr​es.2020.02.020.
Kim, M., & Kim, J. (2020a). How does a celebrity make fans happy?
Interaction between celebrities and fans in the social media
context. Computers in Human Behavior, 106419. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106419.
Kupfer, A. K., Pähler vor der Holte, N., Kübler, R. V., & Hennig-Thurau,
T. (2018). The role of the partner brand's social media power in
brand alliances. Journal of Marketing, 82(3), 25–44. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1509/jm.15.0536.
Ladhari, R., Massa, E., & Skandrani, H. (2020). YouTube vloggers’ popu-
larity and influence: The roles of homophily, emotional attachment,
and expertise. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 54, 102,027.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretc​onser.2019.102027.
Lanz, A., Goldenberg, J., Shapira, D., & Stahl, F. (2019). Climb or jump:
Status-based seeding in user-generated content networks. Journal of
Marketing Research, 56(3), 361–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222​
43718​824081.
Lee, J. E., & Watkins, B. (2016). YouTube vloggers’ influence on con-
sumer luxury brand perceptions and intentions. Journal of Business
| 27
Research, 69(12), 5753–5760. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusr​
es.2016.04.171.
Lin, H. C., Bruning, P. F., & Swarna, H. (2018). Using online opinion leaders
to promote the hedonic and utilitarian value of products and ser-
vices. Business Horizons, 61(3), 431–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
bushor.2018.01.010.
Lu, L. C., Chang, W. P., & Chang, H. H. (2014). Consumer attitudes to-
ward blogger's sponsored recommendations and purchase intention:
The effect of sponsorship type, product type, and brand aware-
ness. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 258–266. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.007.
Magno, F. (2017). The influence of cultural blogs on their read-
ers’ cultural product choices. International Journal of Information
Management, 37(3), 142–149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinf​
omgt.2017.01.007.
Martínez-López, F. J., Anaya-Sánchez, R., Fernández Giordano, M., &
Lopez-Lopez, D. (2020). Behind influencer marketing: Key mar-
keting decisions and their effects on followers’ responses. Journal
of Marketing Management, 36(7–8), 579–607. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02672​57X.2020.1738525.
McQuarrie, E. F., Miller, J., & Phillips, B. J. (2013). The megaphone ef-
fect: Taste and audience in fashion blogging. Journal of Consumer
Research, 40(1), 136–158. https://doi.org/10.1086/669042.
Munnukka, J., Maity, D., Reinikainen, H., & Luoma-aho, V. (2019).
“Thanks for watching”. The effectiveness of YouTube vlog endorse-
ments. Computers in Human Behavior, 93, 226–234. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.12.014.
Reinikainen, H., Munnukka, J., Maity, D., & Luoma-aho, V. (2020). ‘You
really are a great big sister’–parasocial relationships, credibility, and
the moderating role of audience comments in influencer market-
ing. Journal of Marketing Management, 36(3–4), 279–298. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02672​57X.2019.1708781.
Sah, S., Malaviya, P., & Thompson, D. (2018). Conflict of interest dis-
closure as an expertise cue: Differential effects due to auto-
matic versus deliberative processing. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 147, 127–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
obhdp.2018.05.008.
Sakib, M. N., Zolfagharian, M., & Yazdanparast, A. (2020). Does para-
social interaction with weight loss vloggers affect compliance? The
role of vlogger characteristics, consumer readiness, and health con-
sciousness. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 52. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jretc​onser.2019.01.002.
Schouten, A. P., Janssen, L., & Verspaget, M. (2020). Celebrity vs.
Influencer endorsements in advertising: The role of identifica-
tion, credibility, and Product-Endorser fit. International journal
of advertising, 39(2), 258–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650​
487.2019.1634898.
Silva, M. J. D. B., Farias, S. A. D., Grigg, M. K., & Barbosa, M. D. L. D. A.
(2020). Online engagement and the role of digital influencers in prod-
uct endorsement on Instagram. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 19(2),
133–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332​667.2019.1664872.
Singh, J., Crisafulli, B., Quamina, L. T., & Xue, M. T. (2020). ‘To trust or not
to trust’: The impact of social media influencers on the reputation of
corporate brands in crisis. Journal of Business Research. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbusr​es.2020.03.039.
Sokolova, K., & Kefi, H. (2020). Instagram and YouTube bloggers pro-
mote it, why should I buy? How credibility and parasocial interac-
tion influence purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, 53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretc​onser.2019.01.011.
Stubb, C. (2018). Story versus info: Tracking blog readers’ online view-
ing time of sponsored blog posts based on content-specific el-
ements. Computers in Human Behavior, 82, 54–62. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.001.
Stubb, C., & Colliander, J. (2019). “This is not sponsored content”–The
effects of impartiality disclosure and e-commerce landing pages on
28 | bs_bs_banner
consumer responses to social media influencer posts. Computers
in Human Behavior, 98, 210–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2019.04.024.
Stubb, C., Nyström, A. G., & Colliander, J. (2019). Influencer market-
ing: The impact of disclosing sponsorship compensation justifica-
tion on sponsored content effectiveness. Journal of Communication
Management, 23(2), 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-11-
2018-0119.
Su, Y., Kunkel, T., & Ye, N. (2020). When abs do not sell: The impact of
male influencers conspicuously displaying a muscular body on fe-
male followers. Psychology & Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1002/
mar.21322.
Thakur, R., Angriawan, A., & Summey, J. H. (2016). Technological opin-
ion leadership: The role of personal innovativeness, gadget love,
and technological innovativeness. Journal of Business Research, 69(8),
2764–2773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusr​es.2015.11.012.
Torres, P., Augusto, M., & Matos, M. (2019). Antecedents and outcomes
of digital influencer endorsement: An exploratory study. Psychology
& Marketing, 36(12), 1267–1276. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21274.
Trivedi, J., & Sama, R. (2020). The Effect of Influencer Marketing on
Consumers’ Brand Admiration and Online Purchase Intentions: An
Emerging Market Perspective. Journal of Internet Commerce, 19(1),
103–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332​861.2019.1700741.
VRONTIS et al.
Uzunoğlu, E., & Kip, S. M. (2014). Brand communication through digi-
tal influencers: Leveraging blogger engagement. International
Journal of Information Management, 34(5), 592–602. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijinf​omgt.2014.04.007.
van Reijmersdal, E. A., Rozendaal, E., Hudders, L., Vanwesenbeeck, I.,
Cauberghe, V., & van Berlo, Z. M. (2020). Effects of disclosing in-
fluencer marketing in videos: An eye tracking study among children
in early adolescence. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 49, 94–106.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2019.09.001.
Voorveld, H. A. (2019). Brand communication in social media: A re-
search agenda. Journal of Advertising, 48(1), 14–26. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/00913​367.2019.1588808.
Watts, D. J., & Dodds, P. S. (2007). Influentials, networks, and public
opinion formation. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4), 441–458.
https://doi.org/10.1086/518527.
Xiao, M., Wang, R., & Chan-Olmsted, S. (2018). Factors affecting
YouTube influencer marketing credibility: A heuristic-systematic
model. Journal of Media Business Studies, 15(3), 188–213. https://doi.
org/10.1080/16522​354.2018.1501146.
Xiong, Y., Cheng, Z., Liang, E., & Wu, Y. (2018). Accumulation mechanism
of opinion leaders' social interaction ties in virtual communities:
Empirical evidence from China. Computers in Human Behavior, 82,
81–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.005.