Journal of Business Research 160 (2023) 113804

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

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

Does polarizing personality matter in influencer marketing? Evidence

from Instagram
Mohammadali Koorank Beheshti a, 1, *, Mahesh Gopinath b, Sama Ashouri b, Saeed Zal c
a
Marist College, Poughkeepsie, NY, USA
b
Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA
c
Southern Connecticut State University, New Haven, CT, USA

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

Keywords: Social media platforms have become more polarizing with the emergence of polarizing influencers. This research
Influencer marketing investigates how polarizing influencers can improve the effectiveness of brand-posts with the help of three ex­
Defensive motivated reasoning periments and field-data from Instagram. The results of the first experiment suggest that the polarizing nature of
Group polarization
the communication source triggers defensive motivated reasoning among fans, even when the message being
Source characteristics
communicated is non-polarizing. This, in turn, has downstream consequences on post engagement and purchase
intention. Analysis of 779 brandposts of Instagram influencers suggests that the polarization effect on post
engagement is stronger for mega (vs. macro) influencers. By exploring the role of motivated reasoning, this
research expands our understanding of the factors that drive consumers to engage with brand content on social
media. The findings suggest that marketers can take advantage of the existing polarization among online users
regarding polarizing influencers to enhance the effectiveness of their brand communication.

1. Introduction researchers have devoted considerable attention to identifying the traits

Influencer marketing is growing, and marketers are already
employing social media influencers in their online communication mix
or considering working with them in the future (Campbell & Farrell,
2020) as an important component of the firms’ digital marketing strat­
egy (Hughes, Swaminathan, & Brooks, 2019). Influencer marketing is
becoming so popular that media agencies often refer to the use of social
media influencers when asked about their vision for the future of social
media marketing (Voorveld, 2019). Social media influencers are people
known to have large social networks of followers (Abidin, 2016), with
an ability to influence (Dhanesh & Duthler, 2019) and monetize (Abidin,
2016) their followers. Social media influencers have been segmented
based on their number of followers into micro influencers (<100,000),
macro influencers (more than 100,000 and<1 million), and mega
influencers (more than 1 million) (Enke & Borchers, 2019; Voorveld,
2019). Some mega influencers are indeed well-known celebrities who
are active on social media. However, not all celebrities are active on
social media to be known as social media influencer (Taillon, Mueller,
Kowalczyk, & Jones, 2020). Regardless of their number of followers,
that influencers—as the source of communication—have, to exert in­
fluence over their followers (Ki, Cuevas, Chong, & Lim, 2020). For
example, authenticity (Audrezet, de Kerviler, & Moulard, 2020), inspi­
ration, enjoyability (Ki et al., 2020), attractiveness, intimacy (Yuan &
Lou, 2020), perceived credibility (Yuan & Lou, 2020), prestige and
informativeness (Ki & Kim, 2019) have been found to influence the
effectiveness of influencers. A recent development in social media is
group polarization. This research explores this important concept in
social media by studying how polarization—as a characteristic of the
influencer—affects their effectiveness in marketing communication.
Over the last few decades, American society has become more
biased, polarized, and sorted (Guerra, Meira, Cardie, & Kleinberg,
2013). Existing research in social sciences shows that this polarization is
not restricted only to political contexts but also to other settings such as
non-political social media conversations (Garibay, Mantzaris, Rajabi, &
Taylor, 2019). Contentious social media conversations have been fueled
by an increasing number of polarizing influencers, ranging from mega
influencers such as Kim Kardashian to less popular influencers such as
Trisha Paytas. For instance, although for a lot of people Kim Kardashian

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mohammadali.koorankbeheshti@marist.edu (M. Koorank Beheshti), mgopinat@odu.edu (M. Gopinath), sashouri@odu.edu (S. Ashouri), zals1@
southernct.edu (S. Zal).
1
Koorank Beheshti is the last name.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113804
Received 2 November 2021; Received in revised form 21 February 2023; Accepted 23 February 2023
Available online 2 March 2023
0148-2963/© 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
M. Koorank Beheshti et al.
represents the “idiocy of being famous for doing nothing” (Taylor,
2017), her fans love and appreciate her as an “ingenious marketing
mind” (Sankara, 2017). Justin Bieber is another well-known example of
a polarizing influencer. While his fans strongly support and appreciate
him for having “a heart of gold” (Na, 2019), to his opponents, he is an
egocentric person who does not follow social norms and is mean to
others (Sisodiya, 2016). These kinds of disagreements among social
media users over polarizing influencers sometimes become so intense
that they lead to online “battles” between opposing groups. As an
example, Justin Bieber’s song “Baby” posted on YouTube received 12
million “dislikes” and 18 million “likes”, which made this post the sec­
ond most “disliked” video in the history of YouTube.
Although the effect of polarization on consumers and social media
users has received considerable attention from brand love/hate litera­
ture (Ramírez, Veloutsou, & Morgan-Thomas, 2019) and political psy­
chology researchers (e.g., Guerra et al., 2013), the marketing field is yet
to examine in detail how brand communication outcomes may differ
when brand endorsement comes from an influencer with a high (vs. low)
degree of polarization. Polarizing influencers differ from controversial
celebrities who received considerable attention from marketing
scholars. Research on controversial celebrities often focuses on instances
where a celebrity is embroiled in a scandal or misconduct (Carrillat,
O’Rourke, & Plourde, 2019). However, a polarizing influencer divides
the audience into two opposing groups because of his/her specific life­
style, communication style, partisanship, or opinions. This paucity of
knowledge on the marketing effect of polarizing influencers represents
an important research gap, given the significant marketing expenditures
dedicated to influencer marketing (Campbell & Farrell, 2020) and the
increasingly polarizing nature of social media dialogues (Garibay et al.,
2019).
This research makes a number of contributions to marketing litera­
ture and practice. First, we contribute to existing research on the impact
of influencer traits on influencer marketing effectiveness. Previous
research in this area has often focused on positive influencer personality
traits such as authenticity (Audrezet et al., 2020) and inspiration (Ki
et al., 2020). The current research introduces a personality trait, po­
larization, that is not always seen as positive, but can be surprisingly
effective in brand endorsements by influencers. Second, previous
research in social psychology shows that people engage in defensive
motivated reasoning when evaluating a polarizing message (e.g., Hart,
Nisbet, & Shanahan, 2011). We extend such findings to suggest that even
when a message itself is not polarizing, the polarizing nature of the
communication source (in this case, influencers) can trigger defensive
motivated reasoning. In doing so, we enrich the motivated reasoning
literature and suggest additional factors that may be at work. Third,
previous research on social media influencers primarily focused on the
fans of the influencers when they studied the persuasiveness of influ­
encers on their followers. The followers of an influencer can like, dislike,
or be indifferent to them. This important differentiation was not made in
prior works. The effect of an influencer on supporters, opponents and
neutrals is distinctly different. The last two experiments of this research
add more nuance to the understanding of the effectiveness of influencers
with a high (vs. low) degree of polarization by studying their impact on
opponents and neutrals. Finally, the findings from this research offer
valuable insights to marketing practitioners, suggesting an opportunity
to leverage disagreements among social media users over polarizing
influencers. Our experiments show that the fans of influencers with a
high (vs. low) degree of polarization evaluate the influencers’ argument
in favor of a brand more positively. The resulting support from the fans
of polarizing influencers and the subsequent favorable behavioral out­
comes can make such influencers an effective choice for persuasive
brand communications.
2
Journal of Business Research 160 (2023) 113804
2. Literature review and hypothesis development
2.1. Group polarization
Academic marketing research on this topic has primarily focused on
studying polarizing brands (Ramírez et al., 2019), which are defined as
brands that receive a wide range of attitudes ranging from love to hate
(Jayasimha & Billore, 2015). This stream of research has found that
brand polarization leads to a clear separation between those who love
and those who hate the brand (Ramírez et al., 2019). Each group’s
members clearly separate themselves from others who have exactly the
opposite feelings toward the same brand (Popp, Germelmann, & Jung,
2016). While proponents (brand lovers) demonstrate strong positive
attitudes and behaviors such as high levels of brand recognition and
loyalty (Wolter, Brach, Cronin, & Bonn, 2016), opponents show extreme
negative attitudes and behaviors such as willingness to harm the brand
(Dalakas & Melancon, 2012).
Consistent with the literature on polarizing brands, we define
polarizing influencers as a type of influencer who instigates a wide range
of both negative and positive attitudes towards themselves (Winter,
2011) among social media users. For example, while a group of people
may extremely love a polarizing influencer, others may extremely hate
the influencer. Therefore, polarizing influencers on social media divide
their audiences into two opposing groups. This phenomenon is called
group polarization (Iyengar & Westwood, 2015). These subgroups have
conflicting and contrasting positions, goals, or viewpoints, with only a
small number holding a neutral or intermediate position (Isenberg,
1986). The presence of homogeneity within a group and heterogeneity
among groups (Clark, 2009), strong feelings such as in-group favoritism
and out-group hatred (Iyengar & Westwood, 2015), and a tendency for
in-group conformity are among the other characteristics of polarized
contexts (Ramírez et al., 2019).
The polarizing nature of social media platforms intensifies attitude
polarization among both proponents and opponents of polarizing dis­
cussions (Yarchi, Baden, & Kligler-Vilenchik, 2021). This attitude po­
larization can affect individuals’ judgments and evaluations of
information (Lau, Andersen, Ditonto, Kleinberg, & Redlawsk, 2017). In
the presence of two competing arguments, such as on polarized social
media, people tend to rate the quality and value of supporting argu­
ments more favorably than counterarguments (Asker & Dinas, 2019;
Han & Federico, 2018). Influencers are employed by marketers to
persuade their fans in favor of the brands (Ki & Kim, 2019). So, it is
important to study how this biased processing of information affects the
persuasive power of influencers who have a high degree of polarization
compared to those who have a low degree of polarization.
2.2. Group polarization and defensive motivated reasoning
According to motivated reasoning theory (Kunda, 1990), consumers
are motivated to process information and make judgments in either a
biased or unbiased manner (Einwiller, Fedorikhin, Johnson, & Kamins,
2006; Mazursky & Ganzach, 1998). The biased information processing
manner has been conceptualized as defensive motivated reasoning
(Kunda, 1990). Balcetis and Dunning (2006) showed that, as a result of
this process, people are likely to interpret an uncertain situation in a way
that is consistent with their desired outcome. Linking motivated
reasoning to consumers’ evaluation of a product, MacInnis and De Mello
(2005, p. 6) defined defensive motivated reasoning as “a desire to think
about and evaluate information in a way that supports a particular
directional conclusion.” They further concluded that the activation of
defensive motivated reasoning may prevent consumers from making an
objective evaluation of a product and lead to a biased evaluation of the
product quality. Consistent with MacInnis and De Mello (2005), we
define defensive motivated reasoning as a desire to evaluate information
in a way that supports a particular partisan stance and adherence to that
stance against opponents.
M. Koorank Beheshti et al.
Research often states that individuals’ defensive motivated
reasoning is triggered when facing a polarizing message or issue, leading
them to come up with a conclusion consistent with their commitments
including social identities, beliefs, group membership, or partisan
stances (Kahan, 2012; Levendusky, 2013) since polarized opinions are
highly biased (Mouw & Sobel, 2001). In particular, it is well established
that in the presence of a competing group (out-group), people show
strong in-group biases (Nicholson, 2012). For example, Hickman and
Ward (2013) assert that supporters of polarizing brands express strong
acceptance toward in-group members and strong rejection toward de­
tractors. According to self-categorization theory, when group polariza­
tion occurs, people tend to conform to the norms and positions of the
group to which they belong. Rather than the average position of the
group, this norm is the prototypical position of the group. This typical
position of the group can be its initial attitude, one of its extreme atti­
tudes, or a view of the influential members of the group (Abrams,
Wetherell, Cochrane, Hogg, & Turner, 1990). Self-categorization theory
further states that the influence of a view depends on interpersonal in­
fluences among group members, such that more powerful members have
a greater influence (Friedkin, 1999).
Combining the discussions above, the presence of an opponent group
should trigger fans of an influencer to engage intensely in defensive
motivated reasoning to conform to the argument of the influencer, who
is the prime member of the group, even when the message itself is not
polarizing. This biased information processing will help the supporters
of polarizing influencers to strengthen their bonds with other in-group
members and support the position of the group against the out-group.
Therefore:
H1: When evaluating an influencer’s argument, fans of influencers with a
high (vs. low) degree of polarization engage in more defensive motivated
reasoning.
2.3. Group polarization and post engagement
Our key dependent variable for the experimental studies and field
study is post engagement. Previous research shows that social media
users are more likely to engage with an influencer’s post if they have a
good reason to do so (Ki & Kim, 2019). For example, people are more
motivated to engage with a post when they perceive socialization ben­
efits (Carlson & Dreher, 2018; Jahn & Kunz, 2012). Research also sug­
gests that the strength of social ties is a good reason for consumers to
respond positively to brand communications on social media (e.g., Shan
& King, 2015; Hayes, Wesselmann, & Carr, 2018). Besides, social media
users value and enjoy connecting, interacting, and engaging with other
like-minded consumers (Hall-Phillips, Park, Chung, Anaza, & Rathod,
2016).
According to the tenets of structural anthropology (Strauss, 1974),
the inherent structure of human thought is based on binary opposites (e.
g., hot–cold, male–female) because binary opposites help organize
worldviews. For example, previous research has shown that as products
become more polarizing, they serve as greater signifiers due to the
strong and differentiated opinions they generate (Rozenkrants, Wheeler,
& Shiv, 2017). This is because polarizing products imply the presence of
two opposing camps of opinions, and as a result, they lend themselves
naturally to signifying one’s characteristics. Moreover, research in­
dicates that expressing an opinion that differentiates one from a group of
people can help individuals clarify and articulate their self-views
(Schultz, Kleine, & Kernan, 1989). For example, Rooderkerk and Pau­
wels (2016) found that LinkedIn users are more likely to comment on the
controversial contents that differentiate them from others. Similarly,
consumers have more reasons and are more motivated to engage with
the content posted by an influencer with a high (vs. low) degree of po­
larization even when the post itself is not polarizing. First, engaging with
posts from polarizing influencers provides socialization benefits for
online users, as they have the opportunity to strengthen ties and interact
with other like-minded consumers (Hall-Phillips et al., 2016; Hayes
3
Journal of Business Research 160 (2023) 113804
et al., 2018). Second, the presence of an opposing group against polar­
izing influencers motivates the influencers’ fans to express their support
by engaging with their posts on social media. This engagement helps
users differentiate themselves from the opposing group, which in turn
can help them clarify and articulate their self-views.
H2: Fans of influencers with a high (vs. low) degree of polarization engage
more with the influencer’s brand-post.
2.4. Attitude and purchase intention
Attitude towards the promoted product and purchase intention (PI)
are two important outcomes for brands collaborating with social media
influencers (Reinikainen, Tan, Luoma-aho, & Salo, 2021). As per the
ABC [Affect, Behavior, Cognition] model, attitudes have three founda­
tions: affect or emotion, behavior, and cognitions. The cognitive foun­
dation of attitudes could originate from active information processing
(Breckler, 1984). In the previous sections, we argued that fans of
influencers with a high (vs. low) degree of polarization engage in more
defensive motivated reasoning and evaluate the argument of the influ­
encer to be more valid and compelling. This suggests that fans of
influencers with a high (vs. low) degree of polarization are more
confident in the product information that the influencer is communi­
cating. This biased information processing should affect fans’ attitudes
through the cognitive foundation. Moreover, we discussed that the
presence (vs. absence) of a strong out-group motivates fans to conform
with the influencer’s recommendations and strengthen their bonds with
in-group members. Both the higher level of confidence in the influ­
encer’s suggestions and the greater tendency to conform with in-group
members can increase fans’ intention to purchase the product pro­
moted by the influencer, who is the prime member of the group.
H3: Fans of influencers with a high (vs. low) degree of polarization
generate a more favorable attitude towards the promoted product.
H4: Fans of influencers with a high (vs. low) degree of polarization
generate a higher purchase intention towards the promoted product.
2.5. The mediating role of defensive motivated reasoning
Previous research in both marketing and political psychology sug­
gests that activation of defensive motivated reasoning leads to down­
stream attitude and behavioral consequences. Bolsen and Palm (2019)
discuss that the concept of motivated reasoning has been widely used by
political science researchers to explain how people respond to infor­
mation, and to explain suboptimal behavior. Engagement in motivated
reasoning has also been shown to affect consumers’ purchase and con­
sumption. For example, de Mello and MacInnis (2005) showed that
motivated reasoning drives consumption, as consumers buy products or
services to achieve goals that they developed through the motivated
reasoning mechanism. In another study, Park, Sohi, and Marquardt
(1997) concluded that motivated reasoning plays an important role in
consumers’ consideration of a vendor. Additionally, the activation of
defensive motivated reasoning translates into approval of the influ­
encer’s argument. In the previous section, we discussed that this higher
approval through engagement in bias processing of information affects
individuals’ attitude towards the promoted product. On the other hand,
social media users show their approval of a post or content by liking and
commenting on the post. Hence, we expect that the effect of polarization
on post engagement, attitude and purchase intention will be mediated
through defensive motivated reasoning.
H5: The effect of polarization degree on (a) post engagement, (b) atti­
tude, and (c) purchase intention is mediated by defensive motivated
reasoning.
2.6. Need for closure and defensive motivated reasoning
Personal need for closure (NFC) refers to the chronic or situational
desire to hold a definite opinion (rather than uncertainty or doubt) in
M. Koorank Beheshti et al.
order to avoid confusion, ambiguity, or inconsistency (Kardes, Cronley,
Kellaris, & Posavac, 2004). Previous research has extensively identified
personal need for closure as a factor that affects individuals’ judgment
and information processing (e.g., Luttig, 2018; Nan & Daily, 2015).
Therefore, the effect of influencers with a high (vs. low) degree of po­
larization on triggering defensive motivated reasoning should depend
on individuals’ level of need for closure. People high in NFC tend not to
change their minds after forming an opinion (Lee, Lalwani, & Wang,
2020). Moreover, they tend to reach a judgment as quickly as possible
and are inclined to maintain that judgment for as long as they can
(Kardes et al., 2004) because they value certainty, predictability, and
reaffirming information (Webster & Kruglanski, 1994). In fact, in­
dividuals high in NFC tend to neglect belief-inconsistent information
and come up with a conclusion that supports their current beliefs, values
and partisanships (Kardes et al., 2004).
Prior research indicates that as individuals’ NFC increase, their
biases in favor of in-groups (Shah, Kruglanski, & Thompson, 1998) and
against out-groups increase as well (Brandt & Reyna, 2010). This sug­
gests that driven by their biases and strong ties with a particular influ­
encer, fans high in NFC are motivated to evaluate an influencer’s
argument in a biased manner to reaffirm their support for the influencer.
Individuals with high NFC will be upset by an inconsistency because it
involves “a lowering of subjective confidence,” which undermines the
certainty they crave (Kruglanski, 2004, p. 185). In contrast, those low in
NFC who do not have the motivation to seek certainty will not be con­
cerned about inconsistency. Rather, what is important to them is the
value of the outcome of the inconsistency (Kruglanski, 2004). The
presence (vs. absence) of a strong opposing group for an influencer can
attach a negative value to the inconsistency resulting from not con­
forming with the recommendations made by the prime member of the
group, jeopardizing the position of the fan as a committed in-group
member. Therefore, we expect to see a stronger effect of polarizing
influencers on triggering defensive motivated reasoning in individuals
low (vs. high) in NFC, who generally tend not to engage in biased in­
formation processing unless that there is a negative value associated
with the outcome of the inconsistency.
H6: The effect of polarization degree on defensive motivated reasoning
(H1) is negatively moderated by NFC, such that this effect is stronger for
individuals low (vs. high) in NFC.
Fig. 1. Research model.
4
Journal of Business Research 160 (2023) 113804
2.7. Influencer type as a boundary condition to the effect of polarizing
influencers on post engagement
Previous research has shown that consumer response to influencer
marketing may differ based on the influencer type, categorized based on
the size of their followers. For example, Wissman (2018) findings sug­
gest that the lesser-known influencers are more effective for influencer
marketing practices than mega influencers since social media users
perceive the first group as more authentic and trustworthy. Dhanik
(2016) argues that influencers with a small group of followers can be
more effective than mega influencers in brand communication since
they have a greater personal connection with their followers and higher
engagement rates. Campbell and Farrell (2020) discussed that macro
influencers have a stronger tie with their fans than mega influencers.
The lesser-known (vs. mega) influencers connect to their audiences in
specific ways that heavily draw on intimacy (Berryman & Kavka, 2017;
Raun, 2018). The stronger tie between the lesser-known (vs. mega)
influencers and their followers suggest that, in the presence of a strong
opposing group, fans of macro influencers are more likely to provide
greater support for the influencer than fans of mega influencers. Given
that social media users often express their opinions and support through
engagement with influencers’ posts, we hypothesize that:
H7: The effect of polarization degree on post engagement (H2) is
moderated by influencer type such that this effect is stronger for the macro
(vs. mega) influencers.
Fig. 1 presents the graphical summary of the hypotheses.
2.8. Overview of the studies
We predicted that proponents of the influencers with a high (vs. low)
degree of polarization engage in more defensive motivated reasoning
when evaluating their arguments in favor of a brand and respond more
favorably to the brand-post. Study 1 examines the effect of influencer
polarization degree on the fans’ evaluations of the brand-related argu­
ment for a wide range of influencers. This study also tests the moder­
ating role of need for closure. In Study 2, brand-post information of 83
influencers from Instagram was used to examine the role of influencer
type as a boundary condition to the effect of polarization on post
engagement rate. Study 2 also tests the external validity of the findings
of Study 1. Finally, studies 3a and 3b expand on the findings of study 2
by investigating how opponents and neutrals respond differently to the
posts of influencers with a high (vs. low) degree of polarization.
M. Koorank Beheshti et al.
3. Study 1
Study 1 aims to investigate the impact of polarizing influencers on
triggering defensive motivated reasoning, and in turn, the effectiveness
of the brand-post (post engagement, attitude, and purchase intention).
This study also examines how individuals’ need for closure score may
moderate this polarization effect.
3.1. Sample and study design
Participants were recruited through Prolific.co and screened to be
active social media users from USA and fluent in English. Following the
recommendation of Arndt, Ford, Babin, and Luong (2022), multiple
attention check criteria were employed to ensure data quality (web
appendix). After removing low-quality data, the final sample consisted
of 382 participants (Mean age = 36.11, 57 % female). At the beginning of
the study, participants were asked to write the name of a social media
influencer that they strongly support and are a big fan of. The influ­
encer’s name was automatically embedded in the following scenario:
“Imagine that you are scrolling down your social media app and seeing a
promotional content posted by [influencer]. In this post, [influencer] is
sharing his/her experience about a new product he/she just tried. The
influencer explains how amazing the experience was and how this product
works better than the similar products in the market. At the end of the
post, [influencer] encourages you to try this new product.”
The scenario has been developed based on the real, common social
media posts in which influencers promote a product or a brand to their
followers. A non-polarizing message was used in the scenario, to remove
the message effect. To verify the realism of the scenario, at the end of the
survey, participants were asked to rate how realistic the scenario
appeared to them (1 = Not at all realistic to 7 = Very realistic). The
result of the one-sample t-test confirmed that the scenario was realistic,
with a mean score significantly above the scale midpoint of 4 (Mean =
5.28, t = 69.80, p < 0.001).
3.2. Measurements
Polarization degree: To avoid any confounding effect, the polariza­
tion degree was measured at the end of the questionnaire. After all other
measurement questions, participants were provided with the following
definition of polarizing influencers. “A type of social media influencer
that one group of people strongly like and support, while another group
of people strongly dislike and oppose.” Then, they answered the
following question on a seven-point scale (1 = Not polarizing at all, 7 =
Very polarizing): Based on the definition above, to what extent do you
think that [influencer] is a polarizing influencer?
Defensive motivated reasoning: Following prior research (Han &
Federico, 2018; Pyszczynski, Greenberg, & Holt, 1985; Wyer & Frey,
1983), defensive motivated reasoning was measured by asking partici­
pants to what extent they think the argument made by the influencer is
(a) valid and (b) compelling on a seven-point scale (1 = Not at all valid/
compelling, 7 = Extremely valid/compelling) (r = 0.79).
Need for closure. A 15-item scale from Roets and Van Hiel (2011)
was used to measure NFC on a 7-point scale where 1 = Strongly disagree
and 7 = Strongly agree (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.88).
Engagement: Post engagement intention was measured using the
following items adapted from Mirbagheri and Najmi (2019): 1) how
likely is it that you would comment on this post? 2) How likely is it that
you would share this post? 3) How likely is it that you would “Like” this
post? and 4) How likely is it that you would follow the posts related to
this product? These items were measured on a 7-point scale anchored at
1 = Very unlikely and 7 = Very likely. (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.88).
Attitude. Attitude toward the featured product was measured using
the following three adjective pairs (Stevenson, Bruner, & Kumar, 2000)
on a 7-point scale: 1) “good-bad”; 2) “positive–negative”, and 3)
5
Journal of Business Research 160 (2023) 113804
“favorable-non-favorable” (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.96).
Purchase intention: Following (Till & Busler, 2000), purchase
intention was measured by asking participants the following question:
“How likely is it that you would consider purchasing this product?” on a
seven-point scale (1 = Definitely would not, 7 = Definitely would).
3.3. Convergent and divergent validity of the measurements
To test divergent and convergent validity of the multi-item con­
structs, we ran CFA on need for closure, defensive motivated reasoning,
attitude and post engagement. For each construct, the average variance
extracted (AVE) was greater than the recommended threshold level of
0.5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), supporting the convergent validity of the
measures. Following Fornell and Larcker (1981), we measured
discriminant validity by examining whether the square root of the AVEs
of each construct were greater than its correlations with other con­
structs. Table 1 displays that the square root AVEs of each construct are
greater than the correlation they share with other constructs. This sup­
ports the discriminant validity of the measures.
3.4. Results and discussion
Regressing defensive motivated reasoning on polarization degree,
NFC (mean-centered), and their interaction showed a significant posi­
tive coefficient for polarization degree (b = 0.08, SE = 0.04, t = 2.15, p
= 0.03). This suggests that respondents engage in more defensive
motivated reasoning when evaluating arguments made by influencers
with a high (vs. low) degree of polarization (H1 is supported). The re­
sults also revealed a significant positive coefficient (b = 0.08, SE = 0.03,
t = 2.30, p = 0.02) for the interaction between NFC and polarization
degree. This result is in the opposite direction of our hypothesis and
suggests that the polarization effect on defensive motivated reasoning is
stronger on individuals high (vs. low) in NFC who naturally tend to
engage in defensive motivated reasoning (Fig. 2). However, this finding
can be explained by the literature on attitude strength. Leeper and
Slothuus (2014, p.143) explicate that the “goal to defend attitudes is
proportionate to the strength of those attitudes, with stronger attitu­
des—those held to be more personally important or, perhaps, held with
greater certainty—demanding need for defense and weaker attitudes
producing lower defensive motivation”. Since reaffirming judgments,
and supporting current beliefs, values, and partisanships (Kardes et al.,
2004) are strong attitudes for individuals high (vs. low) in NFC, they
engage in more defensive motivated reasoning in a polarized setting to
avoid inconsistency which is an important value for those high (vs. low)
in need for closure. Therefore, fans high (vs. low) in need for closure
engage in a more biased processing of information when evaluating the
arguments of polarizing influencers. To best of our knowledge, the
relationship between attitude strength and defensive motivations has
not been studied in the context of polarization. This could be an inter­
esting area for future research.
Table 1
Convergent and discriminant validity. Italicized diagonal elements are the
square root of AVE for each construct.
Attitude Motivated Reasoning NFC Engagement
Attitude 0.97
Motivated Reasoning 0.81 0.94
NFC 0.06 0.10 0.75
Engagement 0.61 0.59 − 0.01 0.90
To test H2, H3 and H4, we regressed post engagement, attitude, and
M. Koorank Beheshti et al.
Fig. 2. Effect of polarization on defensive motivated reasoning as a function of
need for closure.
purchase intention on polarization degree. The results supported H2 and
H4 by showing a significant positive effect of polarization on post
engagement2 (b = 0.20, SE = 0.04, t = 4.60, p < 0.01) and purchase
intention (b = 0.15, SE = 0.05, t = 2.97, p < 0.001) (H2 and H4 are
supported). H3 is not supported as polarization did not have a significant
effect on attitude (b = 0.04, SE = 0.03, t = 1.28, p = 0.20).
Support for H2 and H4 indicates that polarization has significant
effect on post engagement and purchase intention while lack of support
for H3 shows that polarization does not have an effect on attitude. Here
we are seeing behavioral changes without change in attitude. An
explanation could be that under conditions of polarization, the sup­
porters of the polarizing influencers engage in behavior consistent with
their partisanship even without attitude change. The relationship be­
tween attitude and behavior is conditional and has been questioned
from very early on (Fazio & Zanna, 1978; Regan & Fazio, 1977). Our
finding is consistent with research in cognitive psychology that has
demonstrated the existence of two fundamentally different motivational
goals that structure how individuals respond to information (Kunda,
1990). These are accuracy-oriented and goal-oriented motivations.
Goal-oriented motivations prompt people to respond to information in a
way that supports their preexisting commitments to particular beliefs,
groups, or outcomes. The findings of this study suggest that the higher
intention to engage with the influencer post and to purchase the pro­
moted product is occurring through goal-oriented motivations. This
could be an interesting area for future research.
Moderated mediation test. Following Hayes and Preacher (2014),
three moderated mediation tests were conducted [PROCESS Model 7
with 5000 iterations] with polarization degree as the independent var­
iable, NFC as the moderator, defensive motivated reasoning as the
mediator, and attitude, post engagement and purchase intention as the
dependent variables. The procedure developed by Hayes and Preacher
(2014) generates a sampling distribution from an existent sample to
conduct a rigorous bootstrap test. Conditional process analysis is
required for this study as the effect of the independent variable (degree
of polarization) on the mediator (defensive motivated reasoning) is
conditional on the level of the moderator (need for closure). Conditional
process analysis is superior to conventional tests of moderated media­
tion (Baron & Kenny, 1986), as the procedure developed by Hayes and
Preacher (2014) utilizes the bootstrapping technique to calculate “path”
effects and offers a confidence interval for that effect. The path effect is
considered statistically significant when 0 is not included in the confi­
dence interval. This procedure has been widely used in marketing
2 Need for closure = low
We also ran two similar regressions of “liking” and “commenting” on degree
of polarization. The regression produced similar results as the main analysis
using engagement as the dependent variable.
6
Journal of Business Research 160 (2023) 113804
research (e.g., Leal-Rodríguez, Ariza-Montes, Roldán, & Leal-Millán,
2014; Sheehan, Jin, & Gottlieb, 2020).
The analyses confirmed H5a, H5b and H5c by revealing a significant
indirect effect of polarization degree on post engagement (b = 0.05, SE
= 0.02; CI95 = [0.003, 0.099]), attitude (b = 0.05, SE = 0.03; CI95 =
[0.003, 0.101]) and purchase intention (b = 0.06, SE = 0.03; CI95 =
[0.002, 0.126]) through defensive motivated reasoning. The results also
suggested that need for closure positively moderates the observed in­
direct effect of defensive motivated reasoning such that the indirect
effect of polarization on consumer responses is significant for the par­
ticipants with high (=7) NFC score (post engagement: b = 0.17, SE =
0.07; CI95 = [0.03, 0.30]; attitude: b = 0.18, SE = 0.07; CI95 = [0.05,
0.30]; purchase intention: b = 0.22, SE = 0.08; CI95 = [0.06, 0.38]),
while this effect is not significant for the participants with low (=1) NFC
score (post engagement: b = − 0.13, SE = 0.10; CI95 = [− 0.33, 0.07];
attitude: b = − 0.14, SE = 0.01; CI95 = [− 0.34, 0.08]; Purchase inten­
tion: b = − 0.17, SE = 0.13; CI95 = [− 0.41, 0.10]) (see Table 2).
The findings of this study support the argument that polarizing
influencers can trigger defensive motivated reasoning in their followers,
even when communicating a non-polarizing message. This, in turn,
encourages them to engage more with the brand-post and generates a
higher purchase intention.
4. Study 2
The purpose of Study 2 is twofold: (1) to address the limitations of
the previous experimental design study and (2) to examine whether the
polarization effect on post engagement varies based on the number of
followers of an influencer. In the first study, the respondents were
restricted to the fans of influencers. Study 2 addresses this limitation by
studying the engagement rate of the actual Instagram posts that all
Instagram users are able to engage with. Besides, this study tests the
robustness and external validity of our findings in study 1 by comparing
the social media users’ responses to brand-posts of a wide array of
polarizing and non-polarizing influencers.
4.1. Pretest and sample
In a pretest, 209 undergraduate students (Mean age = 23.68, 64 %
female) from a public university in the United States were asked to write
the name of either a polarizing or a non-polarizing Instagram influencer
(participants were randomly assigned to one of the conditions). This
gave us 141 influencers. Using Phantombuster.com, we extracted in­
formation from Instagram posts, including the number of likes and
comments for the publicly visible posts of the 141 influencers from 10/
10/2021 to 01/10/2022. Two of the authors carefully reviewed the
extracted posts and identified 819 brand-posts from 88 influencers as
relevant for the analysis [53 of the influencers did not have any publicly
available brand-posts in that period].
Using the Instagram direct message tool, another pretest was con­
ducted to categorize influencers as polarizing or non-polarizing. We
Table 2
The effect of polarization on post engagement and purchase intention through
defensive motivated reasoning as a mediator on different values of moderator.
Direct effect Indirect effect Total effect
Outcome: Post engagement (Y)
Need for closure = low 0.15 (0.04)* − 0.13 (0.10) 0.02 (0.11)
Need for closure = high 0.15 (0.04)* 0.17 (0.07)* 0.32 (0.08)*
Outcome: Purchase intention (Y)
Need for closure = low 0.09 (0.04)* − 0.17 (0.13) − 0.08 (0.13)
Need for closure = high 0.09 (0.04)* 0.22 (0.08)* 0.31 (0.10)*
Outcome: attitude (Y)
− 0.01 (0.02) − 0.14 (0.11) − 0.15 (0.11)
Need for closure = high − 0.01 (0.02) 0.18 (0.07)* 0.17 (0.07)*
*Statistically significant under 95 % confidence interval.
M. Koorank Beheshti et al.
asked 10 followers of each of the influencers to answer the following
question. “In your opinion, among the people who know [influencer
name], what percentage of them support (vs. oppose vs. are indifferent
towards) her/him”. The respondents were instructed that the sum of the
allocated points should be 100 for each influencer. From each respon­
dent, we obtained an estimate of the percentage of people who support
and oppose the influencers. We calculated the supporter (S) to opponent
(O) ratio [S/O]3 for each influencer for each participant. The ratio of the
supporters to opponents was averaged across the sample for each of the
influencers. Then, the median (2.17) of this ratio was calculated for all
88 influencers. Influencers with an S to O ratio greater than 2.17 were
labeled as non-polarizing influencers, and those with a ratio lower than
2.17 were coded as polarizing influencers.
To examine the influencer type as a boundary condition to the
observed effect of the polarizing (vs. non-polarizing) influencers on post
engagement rate, the influencers were categorized based on their
number of followers. The first group includes 5 micro influencers with
more than 10,000 and <100,000 followers. The second group includes
24 influencers with more than 100,000 and <1 million followers (macro
influencers). The last group includes 59 influencers with 1 million or
more followers (mega influencers). Since only a few micro influencers
were included in the sample, the analysis was limited to the comparison
of macro and mega influencers. This gave us a final sample size of 779
posts from 83 influencers. Following Hughes et al. (2019), engagement
was operationalized with two variables: like and comment. The like rate
was calculated as (# of likes) * 100/(# of the influencer’s followers),
and the comment rate was calculated as (# of comments) * 100/(# of
the influencer’s followers).
4.2. Results and discussion
Two analyses of covariances (ANCOVA) were performed, controlling
for influencer effect. The first ANCOVA was conducted with like rate as
the dependent variable and polarization condition, influencer type, and
their interaction as the independent variables. As expected, the results
showed that the like rate was significantly higher (F = 37.18, p < 0.001)
for polarizing influencers (mean = 3. 80 %) than for non-polarizing ones
(mean = 1.92 %) (H2 is supported). Consistent with the previous liter­
ature, the results showed that the like rate is significantly (F = 9.62, p <
0.001) higher for the macro (mean = 3.38) influencers than the mega
influencers (mean = 2.33) (Fig. 3). The interaction effect was not sig­
nificant suggesting that the effect of polarization on like rate does not
significantly differ between the polarizing and non-polarizing
Fig. 3. Like rate as the function of polarization and influencer type.
3
In order to get infinite numbers, denominators equal to 0 were changed to
1.
7
Journal of Business Research 160 (2023) 113804
influencers.
The second ANCOVA, which controlled for influencer effect, used
comment rate as the dependent variable and polarization condition,
influencer type, and their interaction as independent variables. The re­
sults indicated a significant interaction effect on the comment rate (F =
3.89, p = 0.049). In contrast with what we expected, this significant
interaction effect suggests that the polarization effect on comment rate is
significantly stronger for mega influencers than for macro influencers
(H7 is not supported). A potential explanation for the stronger effect of
polarization on mega (vs. macro) influencers’ comment rates is that the
disagreements over polarizing mega influencers among online users are
more serious and intense than the disagreements over the macro influ­
encers. Moreover, as implied in their name, a larger group of social
media users follow mega influencers and interact with their content.
This means that engaging with polarizing mega (vs. macro) influencers
offers a higher opportunity for social media users to interact with other
like-minded users and to separate themselves from the opposing group,
which provides them with a socialization benefit. As discussed in the
hypothesis development section, social media users are more motivated
to engage with a post when they see socialization benefits (Carlson &
Dreher, 2018; Jahn & Kunz, 2012). Future research is recommended to
further explore the link between polarization and socialization benefit.
Finally, the analysis suggested that for macro influencers, the
comment rate of polarizing influencers is 22 % less than the comment
rate of non-polarizing influencers. However, among mega influencers,
the comment rate of the polarizing influencers is 173 % greater than the
non-polarizing influencers (Fig. 4). This is an important finding indi­
cating the strong effect of polarization on boosting the comment rate of
mega influencers.
5. Study 3
Study 1 showed that fans of influencers with a high (vs. low) degree
of polarization are more likely to engage with the influencer. Study 2
provided evidence from Instagram that polarizing influencers enjoy a
higher engagement rate than non-polarizing influencers. One may argue
that the additional comments on the polarizing influencers’ post might
have come from the opponents or neutrals. To address this concern,
studies 3a (opponents) and 3b (neutrals) were designed to examine how
these two groups respond to the brand-posts of influencers with a high
(vs. low) degree of polarization.
Previous research asserts that the opposing groups (supporters and
opponents) tend to clearly differentiate themselves from each other in a
polarized setting (Popp et al., 2016). We also know from previous
research that individuals tend to evaluate information in a way that is
consistent with their partisanship and group adherence (MacInnis & De
Mello, 2005). Thus, we expect that opponents of influencers with a high
(vs. low) degree of polarization engage in more defensive motivated
reasoning in the opposite direction of the supporters. This suggests that
Fig. 4. Comment rate as the function of polarization and influencer type.
M. Koorank Beheshti et al.
opponents of the highly polarizing influencers will evaluate the influ­
encer’s argument less valid and compelling than opponents of influ­
encers with a lower degree of polarization. Thus, we expect that
opponents respond less favorably to the brand-posts of the influencers
with a high (vs. low) degree of polarization as a result of evaluating the
influencer’s argument to be less valid and compelling. However, we do
not expect to see a meaningful effect of polarization on neutrals as they
are indifferent towards the influencer. As the name implies, the neutrals
align neither with the supporters nor the opponents.
5.1. Study 3a
5.1.1. Study design and procedure
Study 3a investigates the effect of influencer polarization degree on
the opponents’ engagement in defensive motivated reasoning and the
consequent outcome variables. Similar to study 1, participants were
recruited from Prolific.co. After removing low-quality responses, the
final sample for Study 3a included 210 participants (Mean age = 31.82;
45 % female). At the beginning of the study, participants were instructed
to provide the name of an influencer that they strongly dislike and
oppose. The influencer name was automatically embedded in the
scenario.
The scenario and measurements used in Study 3a were identical to
those used in Study 1, with the exception that Study 3a did not include a
measurement for need for closure. Similar to Study 1, the result of the
one-sample t-test confirmed the realism of the scenario by showing that
the mean of the realism item is significantly above the scale midpoint of
4, mean = 5.12, t = 45.09, p < 0.001.
5.1.2. Results and discussion
Consistent with our expectation, a regression of defensive motivated
reasoning on degree of polarization revealed a significant negative co­
efficient of polarization (b = − 0.11, SE = 0.05, t = − 2.25, P = 0.03).
This suggests that —similar to the supporters of the polarizing influen­
cers—opponents of influencers with a high (vs. low) degree of polari­
zation engage in more defensive motivated reasoning and evaluate their
arguments as less valid and compelling. We conducted similar analyses
with post engagement, attitude and PI as the dependent variables to
compare the behavioral responses of the opponents to the influencers
with a high (vs. low) degree of polarization. The results showed that
opponents of the influencers with a higher (vs. lower) degree of polar­
ization significantly engage4 less with the brand-post (b = − 0.04, SE =
0.02, t = − 2. 07, P = 0.04) and have a significantly lower intention to
purchase the promoted product (b = − 0.09, SE = 0.03, t = − 2.66, P <
0.01). Similar to study 1, the effect of degree of polarization on attitude
was not significant (b = − 0.08, SE = 0.05, t = − 1.54, P = 0.12). These
results shed light on the findings of Study 2 by disclosing that influencers
with a high (vs. low) degree of polarization do not receive significantly
more comments from their opponents when they use a non-polarizing
message to promote a brand. We will elaborate on this finding in Sec­
tion 6.1.
Mediation test. The following test of indirect effect was conducted to
test the indirect effect of polarization through defensive motivated
reasoning on post engagement, attitude, and purchase intention: po­
larization degree → defensive motivated reasoning → dependent vari­
able (PROCESS Model 4 with 5000 iterations). The analyses showed that
the observed polarization effect on post engagement and purchase
intention was mediated by participants’ engagement in defensive
motivated reasoning (post engagement: b = − 0.02, SE = 0.01; CI95 % =
4
Similar to Study 1, we ran two similar regressions of “liking” and “com­
menting” on degree of polarization. The regression produced similar results as
the main analysis. This suggests that opponents of the influencers with a high
(vs. low) degree of polarization are not motivated to comment more on the
influencer brand post.
8
Journal of Business Research 160 (2023) 113804
[− 0.040, − 0.001]; Purchase intention: b = − 0.03, SE = 0.02; CI95 % =
[− 0.073, − 0.002]). Besides, the results suggested a significant negative
indirect effect of polarization on attitude through defensive motivated
reasoning (b = − 0.06, SE = 0.03; CI95 % = [− 0.13, − 0.007]).
5.2. Study 3b
5.2.1. Study design and procedure
Study 3b replicated the previous study with neutrals. After removing
low quality data, the final sample consisted of 116 participants (Mean
age = 33.09, 47 % female) recruited from Prolific. Participants were
asked to write the name of a social media influencer that they are
indifferent towards. Similar to the previous experiments, the influencer
name was automatically embedded in the scenario. As in studies 1 and
3a, the result of the one-sample t-test on the realism question
acknowledged the realism of the scenario (Mean = 5.54, t = 40.43, p <
0.001).
5.2.2. Results and discussion
We conducted similar analyses as previous study to test the effect of
polarization on neutral social media users. As expected, no significant
effect of polarization was observed. The results shed additional light on
the findings of our previous studies by showing that, similar to the op­
ponents, neutrals do not tend to comment more on the brand-posts of
influencers with a high (vs. low) degree of polarization. This suggests
that the additional comments posted on the polarizing (vs. non-
polarizing) influencers’ brand-posts on Instagram (Study 2) are com­
ing from the supporters of the polarizing influencers.
6. General discussion
To briefly review our results, Study 1 showed that fans of influencers
with a high (vs. low) degree of polarization engage in more defensive
motivated reasoning when evaluating an influencer’s argument in favor
of a brand. This, in turn, leads to a higher intention to purchase the
promoted product and to engage with the brand-post. However, we did
not observe a significant effect of polarization degree on attitude toward
the promoted product. The results also suggested that the effect of po­
larization on defensive motivated reasoning is stronger for those high
(vs. low) in need for closure. Study 2 validated the external validity of
these findings by showing that polarizing (vs. non-polarizing) Instagram
influencers enjoy a higher engagement rate. The polarization effect was
stronger for mega (vs. macro) influencers. Consistent with previous
research on influencer marketing (e.g., Jin, Muqaddam, & Ryu, 2019),
our results showed that Instagram users engage more with the brand-
posts of macro (vs. mega) influencers. Studies 3a and 3b revealed that
although the opponents of the influencers with a high (vs. low) degree of
polarization respond less favorably to the influencer brand-post, neutral
social media users do not respond differently to the promotional content
of influencers with a high (vs. low) degree of polarization.
6.1. Theoretical contribution
This research makes several contributions to marketing literature.
First, by introducing polarizing personality as an important source
characteristic of influencer effectiveness in brand communication, this
work contributes to the research on the effect of influencer traits on
influencer marketing effectiveness (e.g., Audrezet et al., 2020; Ki et al.,
2020; Yuan & Lou, 2020). This is an important source characteristic
needed to be studied because, although social media platforms are
intensely polarized (Garibay et al., 2019), no research has examined yet
how group polarization on social media affects influencer effectiveness
in brand communication.
This research focused on understanding how and why fans of influ­
encers with a high (vs. low) degree of polarization may respond differ­
ently to influencer brand-post. The first experiment showed that fans of
M. Koorank Beheshti et al.
influencers with a high (vs. low) degree of polarization respond more
favorably to their brand-posts by expressing a higher intention to engage
with the brand-post and a higher purchase intention. This finding is in
line with the research on polarizing brands indicating that polarizing
brands help their supporters to find like-minded individuals and to fulfill
their desires to be considered as an in-group member and interact with
other supporters (Badrinarayanan & Sierra, 2018; Ramírez et al., 2019).
Rozenkrants et al. (2017) declared that choosing polarizing products is
considered to be self-expressive and helps individuals to better express
their taste and personality. Engaging with a brand-post of polarizing
influencers and purchasing the product promoted by them might be
another way for social media users to connect with other like-minded
individuals and to express their social identity. It is well-established
that we, as human beings, tend to use binary opposites (here sup­
porters vs. opponents) to organize the world around us (Strauss, 1974).
This categorization based on binary opposites can become so extreme
that consumers think of the polarizing brand as “a part of their real self”
(Ramírez et al., 2019, p. 624). The higher level of support for polarizing
influencers through liking and commenting, as well as the higher pur­
chase intention toward the products promoted by influencers with a
high (vs. low) degree of polarization, are consistent with research on
self-categorization theory that group polarization happens on the basis
of a person’s conformity with the group (Abrams et al., 1990). In this
case, the influencer has a prime position in the group, and when po­
larization happens, he/she can have an undue influence on the members
of the group.
Using motivated reasoning theory, we were able to explain the
higher persuasive power of the influencers with a high (vs. low) degree
of polarization. We showed that presence (vs. absence) of an opposing
group motivates fans of the influencer to engage in biased information
processing, when exposed to an argument of the influencer. Although
individuals’ engagement in defensive motivated reasoning when eval­
uating a polarizing message has been widely confirmed in a broad array
of polarizing contexts, such as climate change (Hart et al., 2011) and
political discussions (Baum & Groeling, 2008), this research showed that
the polarizing nature of the communication sources (in this case,
influencers) triggers defensive motivated reasoning even when
communicating a message which itself is not at all polarizing.
Using field-data from Instagram, the second study contributes
directly to our knowledge about factors driving social media users’
engagement with brand-posts of influencers. A stream of research on
social media influencers focused on the role of the audience on influ­
encer effectiveness and acknowledged the effect of positive comments of
followers on influencer effectiveness (e.g., Reinikainen, Munnukka,
Maity, & Luoma-aho, 2020; Rihl & Wegener, 2019). Reinikainen et al.
(2020) studied the role of audience comments in the effectiveness of
YouTube influencers and found that influencers with active followers
are perceived as more credible. This work makes a contribution by
suggesting that opposition of a group of audience—which normally is
considered negative—will, in fact, benefit the influencer by making the
fans more active through liking and commenting. Study 2′ s findings also
contribute to the emerging body of research on the effectiveness of
influencers based on their number of followers. Previous research em­
phasizes the higher effectiveness and engagement rate of the lesser-
known influencers compared to mega influencers (e.g., Jin et al.,
2019). Our analysis of 779 brand-posts of 83 Instagram influencers in­
troduces polarization as an important boundary condition to the effect of
influencer type on engagement rate by suggesting that, on average,
polarizing mega influencers enjoy a higher engagement rate than macro
influencers.
Studies 3a and 3b widen the scope of the research by studying
whether and how opponents and neutrals respond differently to the
brand-posts of influencers with a high (vs. low) degree of polarization.
We observed that opponents of the influencers with a high (vs. low)
degree of polarization engaged in more defensive motivated reasoning
in the opposite direction of the fans. This is consistent with previous
9
Journal of Business Research 160 (2023) 113804
research suggesting that when a brand becomes polarizing, the oppo­
nents become more intense in their opposition (Ramírez et al., 2019).
Indeed, group polarization drives individuals to automatically reject
messages made by the out-groups (Lodge & Taber, 2005). One important
finding of Study 3a is that opponents of polarizing influencers are not
motivated to comment on the influencer post when the message is not
polarizing. This finding contributes to the research on polarizing brands
and polarization on social media. Previous research states that oppo­
nents are motivated to express their negative comments on social media
when the topic of the discussion is polarizing, such as polarizing brands
or political discussions. However, we found that opponents of polarizing
influencers are not motivated to express negative opinions when the
influencer communicates a non-polarizing message to promote a brand.
A possible explanation is that if the opponents want to attack non-
polarizing posts of polarizing influencers consistently, they need to
put a lot of effort and time into their opposition. Study 3b indicated that
neutrals are not influenced by the polarized setting and do not respond
differently to the arguments made by influencers with a high (vs. low)
degree of polarization. Research on group polarization often studies the
effect of polarization on one of the two opposing groups. Results of Study
3b contribute to this line of research by exploring how polarization af­
fects behavioral responses of the moderate group. The important take­
away from studies 3a and 3b is that opponents and neutrals do not tend
to engage with the posts of influencers with a high (vs. low) degree of
polarization when the content is not polarizing. These findings suggest
that the higher comment rate of the polarizing influencers on Instagram
(study 2) is coming from the supporters of the polarizing influencers.
6.2. Managerial implication
Our findings offer valuable insights to marketing practitioners on
how to utilize polarizing influencers in a positive way. First, marketers
can achieve a higher engagement rate on social media by including
polarizing influencers in their brand communication mix. The results of
Study 1 suggest that fans of influencers with a high degree of polariza­
tion (vs. low) are more motivated to support and conform to the influ­
encers’ recommended brands. As we discussed earlier, supporters of
polarizing influencers tend to be demonstrative of their support for the
influencer to strengthen their bonds with the in-group members. This
can help increase the effectiveness of the marketing campaigns aiming at
creating buzz and gaining publicity on social media.
Marketers are often concerned with the low engagement rates of
mega influencers who are known to charge over $250,000 per Instagram
post (Santora, 2021). However, our field-data results offer valuable in­
sights for marketers about the value of mega influencers who are
polarizing. Findings of this study showed that the comment rate of
polarizing mega influencers is 171 % greater than the comment rate of
non-polarizing mega influencers. This suggests that marketers interested
in working with well-known influencers will benefit more by including
polarizing influencers in their promotional strategy.
The first experiment showed that fans of influencers with a high (vs.
low) degree of polarization evaluate the influencer’s argument more
positively, when encouraged to try a new product. As a result, fans of
polarizing influencers generated a higher purchase intention towards
the promoted product. Therefore, influencer with a high (vs. low) degree
of polarization can be more effective in advertisements to persuade their
fans to try a product. Brands aiming to promote a recently launched
product or hoping to attract a new customer base can benefit from this
finding.
Although there are important advantages to utilizing polarizing
influencers in brand communications, marketers should be aware of a
possible downside of utilizing polarizing influencers to promote a brand
or a product. Although our findings showed that the opponents are not
motivated to comment on the brand-posts of polarizing influencers
when the message itself is not polarizing, brands should be aware
that—similar to the case of polarizing brands (Ramírez et al., 2019)—
M. Koorank Beheshti et al.
there is a presence of a strong base of opponents, who are ready to attack
and criticize the influencer and probably everything associated with that
influencer. Hence, it is even more important for brands working with
polarizing influencers to deliver what they promised because they are
perpetually under the watchful eyes of the opponents.
The findings of this research have implications for social media
influencers. The results suggested that the presence of an opponent
group energizes the fans of the influencer. Fans of influencers with a
high (vs. low) degree of polarization are (1) more receptive to their
suggestions, (2) evaluate their arguments more positively, and (3)
engage more with their brand-posts on social media. Therefore, instead
of trying to satisfy the opponent group, polarizing influencers may
consider strengthening their ties with their fans to benefit more from the
advantages of group polarization on social media.
Influencers should note that being polarizing is different from pro­
moting hateful toxic content, a technique that is used by some social
media platforms to generate a higher engagement rate and thus increase
the time users spend on the platform. The Whistleblower Frances Hau­
gen disclosed “how Facebook’s algorithm fosters anger to drive
engagement, how it favors high-profile users, and how Instagram made
nearly one-third of teenage girls who use it feel worse about their
bodies” (De Guzman, 2021). She added that this was done with the
intention to create “division, extremism, and polarization” in order to
increase the engagement rate of Facebook users. This research ac­
knowledges the benefits of polarization for both influencers and brands.
However, distributing hateful content that leads to division and
extremism creates serious negative consequences on social media users
including anxiety, self-rejection, depression, and eating-related medical
disorders (Leets, 2002). This is a practice that is to be highly discouraged
to both protect the vulnerable social media users and to preserve the
credibility of influencers.
6.3. Limitation and future research
This work has a few limitations that could be avenues for future
research. We studied one psychological path, defensive motivated
reasoning, to explore the effect of polarization on influencer marketing
outcomes. Although the total effect of polarization degree on attitude
was not significant, our results suggested the presence of a significant
positive indirect effect of polarization on attitude. This implies that the
indirect effect of polarization degree through other potential mediators
on attitude may be in the negative direction, resulting in a non-
significant total effect. Future research is recommended to investigate
other cognitive and/or emotional routes such as self-categorization
tendency, self-concept clarity and empathy toward favorite influencers
to further explore the indirect effect of polarization degree on attitude
and other marketing outcomes through other potential mediators.
This research investigated the effect of polarizing influencers on
three important communication outcome variables, namely post
engagement, attitude, and purchase intention. It would be worthwhile to
explore the effect of polarization on other outcome variables such as
attitude towards the brand and brand loyalty, as long-term relationships
with influencers are becoming more common (Reinikainen et al., 2021).
Future research is needed to investigate the possibility of an alter­
native explanation for the observed polarization effect. There is a pos­
sibility that fans of influencers with a high (vs. low) degree of
polarization are people who in general are more receptive to influ­
encers’ suggestions. This means that social media users, who in general
engage more with influencers’ posts and are more willing to purchase
their recommended products, prefer to support influencers with a high
(vs. low) degree of polarization. Conversely, it is possible that in­
dividuals, who do not like to conform completely to the influencers’
opinions, prefer influencers with a low (vs. high) degree of polarization.
Therefore, the causality could be reversed, as those who like to accept
and conform to influencers’ opinions prefer to support polarizing
influencers.
10
Journal of Business Research 160 (2023) 113804
Current literature on group polarization effect in social psychology
suggests that supporters of politicians who are polarizing (vs. non-
polarizing) express more intense emotions (Asker & Dinas, 2019).
Future research may investigate if this is the same for the influencers
with a high (vs. low) degree of polarization. It may be worthwhile to
explore whether the possible intense emotion towards the polarizing
influencer will transfer to the promoted brand.
In the conceptual part, we discussed how polarization can affect the
tendency of individuals to conform to the prototypical idea of the group
and to strengthen their bonds with other members of the in-group,
which will lead to a higher engagement in defensive motivated
reasoning. Future research is encouraged to elaborate more on this
psychological process by measuring the intensity of variables such as
level of attachment and social identity.
This work used a non-polarizing message with a general product for
the experiments. It will be interesting to study how supporters, oppo­
nents and neutrals respond to the brand-post of the influencers with a
high (vs. low) degree of polarization, when promoting a polarizing (vs.
non-polarizing) product/brand or using a polarizing (vs. non-polarizing)
message. Field-data was obtained for this study only from one social
media platform, Instagram. Further research can explore the effective­
ness of polarizing influencers on other social media platforms such as
TikTok, Twitch, Twitter, and Facebook so as to examine the generaliz­
ability of the findings, given the demographic differences among these
platforms. Another limitation of Study 2 is that we limited our analysis
to macro and mega influencers. Future research is encouraged to extend
this study to micro and nano influencers.
An interesting topic for future research is to categorize polarizing
influencers based on the reason for polarization and explore how it could
affect the likelihood of followers to engage with the influencer’s post on
social media. For example, an influencer could be polarizing because of
competing with another athlete (Cristiano Ronaldo), initiating cam­
paigns against global warming (Greta Gutenberg), or engaging in social/
political discussions (Ellen DeGeneres).
Research on group polarization suggests that exposure to opinions of
other social media users may affect the polarization effect on defensive
motivated reasoning. For example, prior research suggests that in­
dividuals will be more biased about the polarizing topic when exposing
to the same side opinions (e.g., Sia, Tan, & Wei, 2002). However, other
studies suggest that exposure to the opponents’ opinion makes in­
dividuals more polarized and biased in their primary attitude and belief
(e.g., Bail et al., 2018). Usually, Instagram and other social media
platforms show one or two comments posted by others to the users,
when they see the post. Future research is encouraged to study how
exposure to comments of other users on the influencers’ post affects the
observed polarization effects.
This research can have cross-cultural implications. When polariza­
tion happens in social media, people are motivated to conform to the
policies ideas and arguments made by members of their own in-group­
—and oppose ideas generated by out-groups. Three of the Hofstede’s
cultural dimensions (Hofstede, 2011) may have an effect on this phe­
nomenon. In the context of individualism/collectivism, the support for
in-group members is usually stronger in collectivistic cultures. However,
differentiating the self through supporting a divisive idea is more
encouraged in an individualistic culture. If we consider power distance
dimension, it is conceivable that cultures having high power distance
will hesitate to publicly oppose influencers. As a result, the opposition to
polarizing influencers is expected to be attenuated. Uncertainty avoid­
ance dimension can be expected to have an effect on need for closure.
Therefore, the level of uncertainty avoidance may have an effect similar
to the need for closure on polarization, as discussed in Study 1. These are
interesting future directions for cross-cultural studies.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Mohammadali Koorank Beheshti: Visualization, Validation,
M. Koorank Beheshti et al.
Supervision, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation,
Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization, Writing – original
draft, Writing – review & editing. Mahesh Gopinath: Supervision,
Project administration, Methodology, Data curation, Conceptualization,
Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Sama Ashouri:
Methodology, Formal analysis, Data curation, Writing – original draft,
Writing – review & editing. Saeed Zal: Formal analysis, Writing –
original draft.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgment
We would like to express our special thanks to Dr. Yuping Liu-
Thompkins for her invaluable feedback and comments on this
research. We also thank the Associate Editor Dr. Yogesh Dwivedi and
four anonymous reviewers for their support of this research and their
constructive comments and suggestions.
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113804.
References
Abidin, C. (2016). Visibility labour: Engaging with Influencers’ fashion brands and#
OOTD advertorial campaigns on Instagram. Media International Australia, 161(1),
86–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X16665177
Abrams, D., Wetherell, M., Cochrane, S., Hogg, M. A., & Turner, J. C. (1990). Knowing
what to think by knowing who you are: Self-categorization and the nature of norm
formation, conformity and group polarization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29
(2), 97–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1990.tb00892.x
Arndt, A. D., Ford, J. B., Babin, B. J., & Luong, V. (2022). Collecting samples from online
services: How to use screeners to improve data quality. International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 39(1), 117–133.
Asker, D., & Dinas, E. (2019). Thinking fast and furious: Emotional intensity and opinion
polarization in online media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 83(3), 487–509. https://doi.
org/10.1093/poq/nfz042
Audrezet, A., de Kerviler, G., & Moulard, J. G. (2020). Authenticity under threat: When
social media influencers need to go beyond self-presentation. Journal of Business
Research, 117, 557–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.008
Badrinarayanan, V., & Sierra, J. J. (2018). Inferred social approval and brand tribalism: A
tale of two communities. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 27(4), 363–374.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-10-2017-1597
Bail, C. A., Argyle, L. P., Brown, T. W., Bumpus, J. P., Chen, H., Hunzaker, M. F., …
Volfovsky, A. (2018). Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase
political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(37),
9216–9221. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1804840115
Balcetis, E., & Dunning, D. (2006). See what you want to see: Motivational influences on
visual perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4), 612–625.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.612
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173.
Baum, M. A., & Groeling, T. (2008). New media and the polarization of American
political discourse. Political Communication, 25(4), 345–365. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10584600802426965
Berryman, R., & Kavka, M. (2017). ‘I guess a lot of people see me as a big sister or a
friend’: The role of intimacy in the celebrification of beauty vloggers. Journal of
Gender Studies, 26(3), 307–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2017.1288611
Bolsen, T., & Palm, R. (2019). Motivated reasoning and political decision making. In
Oxford research encyclopedia of politics. doi: 10.1093/acrefore/
9780190228637.013.923.
11
Journal of Business Research 160 (2023) 113804
Brandt, M. J., & Reyna, C. (2010). The role of prejudice and the need for closure in
religious fundamentalism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(5), 715–725.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210366306
Breckler, S. J. (1984). Empirical validation of affect, behavior, and cognition as distinct
components of attitude. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(6),
1191–1205. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.47.6.1191
Campbell, C., & Farrell, J. R. (2020). More than meets the eye: The functional
components underlying influencer marketing. Business Horizons, 63(4), 469–479.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2020.03.003
Carlson, B., & Dreher, T. (2018). Introduction: Indigenous innovation in social media.
Media International Australia, 169(1), 16–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1329878X18803798
Carrillat, F. A., O’Rourke, A. M., & Plourde, C. (2019). Celebrity endorsement in the
world of luxury fashion–when controversy can be beneficial. Journal of Marketing
Management, 35(13–14), 1193–1213. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0267257X.2019.1634632
Clark, T. S. (2009). Measuring ideological polarization on the united states supreme
court. Political Research Quarterly, 62(1), 146–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1065912908314652
Dalakas, V., & Melancon, J. P. (2012). Fan identification, Schadenfreude toward hated
rivals, and the mediating effects of Importance of Winning Index (IWIN). Journal of
Services Marketing, 26(1), 51–59. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876041211199724
De Guzman, C. (2021). The Facebook whistleblower revealed herself on 60 minutes. Here’s
what you need to know. Retrieved from https://time.com/6103645/facebook-whistle
blower-frances-haugen/. Accessed April 12, 2022.
de Mello, G. E., & MacInnis, D. J. (2005). Why and how consumers hope: Motivated
reasoning and the marketplace. In Inside consumption (pp. 66–88). Routledge.
Dhanesh, G. S., & Duthler, G. (2019). Relationship management through social media
influencers: Effects of followers’ awareness of paid endorsement. Public Relations
Review, 45(3), Article 101765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.03.002
Dhanik, T. (2016). Micro, not macro: Rethinking influencer marketing. Retrieved from htt
ps://adage.com/article/digitalnext/micro-macro-influencer-marketing-kim-karda
shian/307118. Accessed September 10, 2021.
Einwiller, S. A., Fedorikhin, A., Johnson, A. R., & Kamins, M. A. (2006). Enough is
enough! When identification no longer prevents negative corporate associations.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 185–194. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0092070305284983
Enke, N., & Borchers, N. S. (2019). Social media influencers in strategic communication:
A conceptual framework of strategic social media influencer communication.
International Journal of Strategic Communication, 13(4), 261–277. https://doi.org/
10.1080/1553118X.2019.1620234
Fazio, R. H., & Zanna, M. P. (1978). Attitudinal qualities relating to the strength of the
attitude-behavior relationship. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14(4),
398–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(78)90035-5
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Algebra and Statistics, 18(3), 382–388. https://doi.
org/10.1177/002224378101800313
Friedkin, N. E. (1999). Choice shift and group polarization. American Sociological Review,
64(6), 856–875. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657407
Garibay, I., Mantzaris, A. V., Rajabi, A., & Taylor, C. E. (2019). Polarization in social
media assists influencers to become more influential: Analysis and two inoculation
strategies. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-55178-
8
Guerra, P. C., Meira Jr, W., Cardie, C., & Kleinberg, R. (2013, June). A measure of
polarization on social media networks based on community boundaries. In Seventh
international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media, 7(1), 215–224. Retrieved
from https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/14421.
Hall-Phillips, A., Park, J., Chung, T. L., Anaza, N. A., & Rathod, S. R. (2016). I (heart)
social ventures: Identification and social media engagement. Journal of Business
Research, 69(2), 484–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.05.005
Han, J., & Federico, C. M. (2018). The polarizing effect of news framing: Comparing the
mediating roles of motivated reasoning, self-stereotyping, and intergroup animus.
Journal of Communication, 68(4), 685–711. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqy025
Hart, P. S., Nisbet, E. C., & Shanahan, J. E. (2011). Environmental values and the social
amplification of risk: An examination of how environmental values and media use
influence predispositions for public engagement in wildlife management decision
making. Society and Natural Resources, 24(3), 276–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/
08941920802676464
Hayes, R. A., Wesselmann, E. D., & Carr, C. T. (2018). When nobody “likes” you:
Perceived ostracism through paralinguistic digital affordances within social media.
Social Media+ Society, 4(3), 1–12. doi: 10.1177/2056305118800309.
Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a
multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical
Psychology, 67(3), 451–470. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12028
Hickman, T. M., & Ward, J. C. (2013). Implications of brand communities for rival
brands: Negative brand ratings, negative stereotyping of their consumers and
negative word-of-mouth. Journal of Brand Management, 20(6), 501–517. https://doi.
org/10.1057/bm.2012.57
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online
readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 2307-0919. doi: 10.9707/2307-0919.1014.
Hughes, C., Swaminathan, V., & Brooks, G. (2019). Driving brand engagement through
online social influencers: An empirical investigation of sponsored blogging
campaigns. Journal of Marketing, 83(5), 78-96. doi: 10.1177 %
2F0022242919854374.
M. Koorank Beheshti et al.
Isenberg, D. J. (1986). Group polarization: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 50(6), 1141–1151. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.50.6.1141
Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence
on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 690–707. https://
doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12152
Jahn, B., & Kunz, W. (2012). How to transform consumers into fans of your brand.
Journal of Service Management., 23(3), 344–361. https://doi.org/10.1108/
09564231211248444
Jayasimha, K. R., & Billore, A. (2015, June). Polarizing brands: An investigation in
tourism context. In 5th AHTMM conference (pp. 105–108).
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-09-2018-0375
Kahan, D. M. (2012). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection: An
experimental study. Judgment and Decision making, 8, 407–424. https://doi.org/
10.2139/ssrn.2182588
Kardes, F. R., Cronley, M. L., Kellaris, J. J., & Posavac, S. S. (2004). The role of selective
information processing in price-quality inference. Journal of Consumer Research, 31
(2), 368–374. https://doi.org/10.1086/422115
Ki, C. W. C., 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,
102–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102133
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
Kruglanski, A. W. (2004). The quest for the gist: On challenges of going abstract in social
and personality psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(2), 156–163.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0802_9
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3),
480–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480
Lau, R. R., Andersen, D. J., Ditonto, T. M., Kleinberg, M. S., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2017).
Effect of media environment diversity and advertising tone on information search,
selective exposure, and affective polarization. Political Behavior, 39(1), 231–255.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-016-9354-8
Leal-Rodríguez, A. L., Ariza-Montes, J. A., Roldán, J. L., & Leal-Millán, A. G. (2014).
Absorptive capacity, innovation and cultural barriers: A conditional mediation
model. Journal of Business Research, 67(5), 763–768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2013.11.041
Lee, H., Lalwani, A. K., & Wang, J. J. (2020). Price no object!: The impact of power
distance belief on consumers’ price sensitivity. Journal of Marketing, 84(6), 113–129.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242920929718
Leeper, T. J., & Slothuus, R. (2014). Political parties, motivated reasoning, and public
opinion formation. Political Psychology, 35, 129–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/
pops.12164
Leets, L. (2002). Experiencing hate speech: Perceptions and responses to anti-semitism
and antigay speech. Journal of social issues, 58(2), 341–361. https://doi.org/
10.1111/1540-4560.00264
Levendusky, M. S. (2013). Why do partisan media polarize viewers? American Journal of
Political Science, 57(3), 611–623. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12008
Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2005). The automaticity of affect for political leaders, groups,
and issues: An experimental test of the hot cognition hypothesis. Political Psychology,
26(3), 455–482. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00426.x
Luttig, M. D. (2018). The “Prejudiced Personality” and the origins of partisan strength,
affective polarization, and partisan sorting. Political Psychology, 39, 239–256.
https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12484
MacInnis, D. J., & De Mello, G. E. (2005). The concept of hope and its relevance to
product evaluation and choice. Journal of Marketing, 69(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/
10.1509/jmkg.69.1.1.55513
Mazursky, D., & Ganzach, Y. (1998). Does involvement moderate time-dependent biases
in consumer multiattribute judgment? Journal of Business Research, 41(2), 95–103.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(97)00016-7
Mirbagheri, S., & Najmi, M. (2019). Consumers’ engagement with social media
activation campaigns: Construct conceptualization and scale development.
Psychology & marketing, 36(4), 376–394. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21185
Mouw, T., & Sobel, M. E. (2001). Culture wars and opinion polarization: The case of
abortion. American Journal of Sociology, 106(4), 913–943. https://doi.org/10.1086/
320294
Na, Y. (2019). Do you like Justin Bieber? Why/Why not? Retrieved from https://www.quor
a.com/Do-you-like-Justin-Bieber-Why-Why-not/answer/Yu-Na-71. Accessed
September 10, 2021.
Nan, X., & Daily, K. (2015). Biased assimilation and need for closure: Examining the
effects of mixed blogs on vaccine-related beliefs. Journal of Health Communication, 20
(4), 462–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2014.989343
Nicholson, S. P. (2012). Polarizing cues. American Journal of Political Science, 56(1),
52–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00541.x
Park, J. Y., Sohi, R. S., & Marquardt, R. (1997). The role of motivated reasoning in
vendor consideration. Psychology & Marketing, 14(6), 585–600. https://doi.org/
10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(199709)14:6<585::AID-MAR4>3.0.CO;2-3
Popp, B., Germelmann, C. C., & Jung, B. (2016). We love to hate them! Social media-
based anti-brand communities in professional football. International Journal of Sports
Marketing and Sponsorship, 17(4), 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSMS-11-
2016-018
12
Journal of Business Research 160 (2023) 113804
Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., & Holt, K. (1985). Maintaining consistency between self-
serving beliefs and available data: A bias in information evaluation. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 11(2), 179–190. doi: 10.1177 %2F0146167285112006.
Ramírez, S. A. O., Veloutsou, C., & Morgan-Thomas, A. (2019). I hate what you love:
Brand polarization and negativity towards brands as an opportunity for brand
management. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 28(5), 614–632. https://doi.
org/10.1108/JPBM-03-2018-1811
Raun, T. (2018). Capitalizing intimacy: New subcultural forms of micro-celebrity
strategies and affective labour on YouTube. Convergence, 24(1), 99–113. doi:
10.1177 %2F1354856517736983.
Regan, D. T., & Fazio, R. (1977). On the consistency between attitudes and behavior:
Look to the method of attitude formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
13(1), 28–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(77)90011-7
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/10.1080/0267257X.2019.1708781
Reinikainen, H., Tan, T. M., Luoma-aho, V., & Salo, J. (2021). Making and breaking
relationships on social media: The impacts of brand and influencer betrayals.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 171, Article 120990. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120990
Rihl, A., & Wegener, C. (2019). YouTube celebrities and parasocial interaction: Using
feedback channels in mediatized relationships. Convergence, 25(3), 554–566. doi:
10.1177 %2F1354856517736976.
Roets, A., & Van Hiel, A. (2011). Item selection and validation of a brief, 15-item version
of the Need for Closure Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(1), 90–94.
https://doi.org/10.1348/014466610X491567
Rooderkerk, R. P., & Pauwels, K. H. (2016). No comment?! The drivers of reactions to
online posts in professional groups. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 35, 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2015.12.003
Rozenkrants, B., Wheeler, S. C., & Shiv, B. (2017). Self-expression cues in product rating
distributions: When people prefer polarizing products. Journal of Consumer Research,
44(4), 759–777. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx067
Sankara, P. (2017). Why do people hate Kim Kardashian so much? Retrieved from https://
www.quora.com/Why-do-people-hate-Kim-Kardashian-so-much/answer/Puga-Sa
nkara. Accessed September 10, 2021.
Santora, J. (2021). 100 Influencer marketing statistics for 2021. Retrieved from https://in
fluencermarketinghub.com/influencer-marketing-statistics. Accessed September 10,
2021.
Schultz, S. E., Kleine, R. E., & Kernan, J. B. (1989). ‘These are a few of my favorite
things’: Toward an explication of attachment as a consumer behavior construct.
Advances in Consumer Research, 16(1), 359–366.
Shah, J. Y., Kruglanski, A. W., & Thompson, E. P. (1998). Membership has its (epistemic)
rewards: Need for closure effects on in-group bias. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 75(2), 383–393. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.75.2.383
Shan, Y., & King, K. W. (2015). The effects of interpersonal tie strength and subjective
norms on consumers’ brand-related eWOM referral intentions. Journal of Interactive
Advertising, 15(1), 16–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2015.1016636
Sheehan, B., Jin, H. S., & Gottlieb, U. (2020). Customer service chatbots:
Anthropomorphism and adoption. Journal of Business Research, 115, 14–24. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.04.030
Sia, C. L., Tan, B. C., & Wei, K. K. (2002). Group polarization and computer-mediated
communication: Effects of communication cues, social presence, and anonymity.
Information Systems Research, 13(1), 70–90. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.13.1.70.92
Sisodiya, A. (2016). Do you like Justin Bieber? Why/Why not? Retrieved from https:
//www.quora.com/Do-you-like-Justin-Bieber-Why-Why-not/answer/Yu-Na-71.
Accessed September 10, 2021.
Stevenson, J. S., Bruner, G. C., & Kumar, A. (2000). Webpage background and viewer
attitudes. Journal of Advertising Research, 40(1–2), 29–34. https://doi.org/10.2501/
JAR-40-1-2-29-34
Strauss, C. L. (1974). Structural anthropology. Person & Law, 1, 571.
Taillon, B. J., Mueller, S. M., Kowalczyk, C. M., & Jones, D. N. (2020). Understanding the
relationships between social media influencers and their followers: The moderating
role of closeness. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 26(6), 767–782. https://
doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-03-2019-2292
Taylor, J. (2017). Why do people hate Kim Kardashian so much? Retrieved from https
://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-hate-Kim-Kardashian-so-much/answer/Jordan
-Taylor-5. Accessed September 10, 2021.
Till, B. D., & Busler, M. (2000). The match-up hypothesis: Physical attractiveness,
expertise, and the role of fit on brand attitude, purchase intent and brand beliefs.
Journal of Advertising, 29(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00913367.2000.10673613
Voorveld, H. A. (2019). Brand communication in social media: A research agenda.
Journal of Advertising, 48(1), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00913367.2019.1588808
Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive
closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 1049–1062. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022- 3514.67.6.1049
Winter, D. G. (2011). Philosopher-king or polarizing politician? A personality profile of
Barack Obama. Political Psychology, 32(6), 1059–1081. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467- 9221.2011.00852.x
Wissman, B. (2018). Micro-influencers: The marketing force of the future. Retrieved from htt
ps://www.forbes.com/sites/barrettwissman/2018/03/02/micro-influencers-th
e-marketing-force- of-the-future. Accessed September 10, 2021.
M. Koorank Beheshti et al. Journal of Business Research 160 (2023) 113804

Wolter, J. S., Brach, S., Cronin, J. J., Jr, & Bonn, M. (2016). Symbolic drivers of include social media and digital marketing, consumer to consumer interaction, brand to
consumer–brand identification and disidentification. Journal of Business Research, 69 consumer interaction, and cross-cultural advertising.
(2), 785–793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.07.011
Wyer, R. S., Jr, & Frey, D. (1983). The effects of feedback about self and others on the
Mahesh Gopinath is an associate professor of marketing at Old Dominion University. He
recall and judgments of feedback-relevant information. Journal of Experimental Social
earned his PhD in marketing from University of Michigan. His research interests include
Psychology, 19(6), 540–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(83)90015-X
Consumer behavior, effects of emotions on decision making, persuasive communication,
Yarchi, M., Baden, C., & Kligler-Vilenchik, N. (2021). Political polarization on the digital
advertising and cognitive elaboration.
sphere: A cross-platform, over-time analysis of interactional, positional, and affective
polarization on social media. Political Communication, 38(1–2), 98–139. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1785067 Sama Ashouri is a PhD student in marketing at Old Dominion University. Her research
Yuan, S., & Lou, C. (2020). How social media influencers foster relationships with interests include digital marketing, advertising and brand communication.
followers: The roles of source credibility and fairness in parasocial relationship and
product interest. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 20(2), 133–147. https://doi.org/
Saeed Zal is an assistant professor of marketing at Southern Connecticut State University.
10.1080/15252019.2020.1769514
He earned his PhD in marketing from Old Dominion University. His research interests
include service marketing and retailing.
Mohammadali Koorank Beheshti is an assistant professor of marketing at Marist Col­
lege. He earned his PhD in marketing from Old Dominion University. His research interests

13