The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2040-7122.htm

JRIM
15,4 Perceived authenticity of social
media influencers:
scale development and validation
822 Jung Ah Lee
Communication, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea, and
Received 4 December 2020
Revised 26 March 2021 Matthew S. Eastin
29 April 2021
20 May 2021
Stan Richards Department of Advertising and Public Relations,
Accepted 21 May 2021 The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA

Abstract
Purpose – Public perceptions of the authenticity of social media influencers (SMIs) are a key driver of the
latter’s persuasiveness as brand endorsers. Despite its importance, no measurement scale currently exists for
perceived authenticity of social media influencers (PASMIs). This prevents practitioners from effectively
assessing consumers’ perceptions of an influencer’s authenticity prior to a potential partnership. To provide
better guidance, this research develops and validates a scale of PASMI as well as examines the relationships
between the underlying dimensions of the scale and key consumer behavior variables.
Design/methodology/approach – The current research consists of two studies: the first study constructs a
scale; the second validates it. In Study 1, items were generated from existing scales as well as from qualitative
responses. These items were revised based on feedback provided by an independent group of reviewers.
Furthermore, an online survey was conducted to purify the items. In Study 2, the scale was validated with a new
sample.
Findings – Results suggest that perceived SMI authenticity is a multidimensional construct consisting of
sincerity, truthful endorsements, visibility, expertise and uniqueness. Each of the five dimensions has varying
effects on consumers’ evaluation of an SMI, willingness to follow an SMI, and intention to purchase products
that SMIs recommend.
Originality/value – This research extends theoretical work on authenticity by developing and validating a
scale as well as delving into the construct of perceived SMI authenticity. Practical implications are provided for
marketers and SMIs.
Keywords Authenticity, Social media influencers, Influencer marketing, Instagram, Consumer behavior,
Exploratory
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Brand-promoted messages delivered on social media sites used to be an effective means of
reaching consumers. However, receivers of such messages have become increasingly
irritated, often viewing them as intrusive and inauthentic (Peltier et al., 2020). Instead,
consumers are relying on fellow consumers and user-generated content (UGC) for genuine
brand information (Barreto, 2013; Peltier et al., 2020). A catalyst to this phenomenon is the
advancement of interactive marketing on social media wherein both brands and consumers
co-create value through connection, engagement, participation and interaction (Wang, 2021).
Consumers not only leave comments, show support and share brand-promoted messages, but
they also actively create branded posts, blurring the consumer-brand distinction. These user-
generated contents are embedded into the endless stream of posts that consumers engage
with in their daily lives, paving way to an organic marketing strategy (Wang, 2021).
Journal of Research in Interactive
Marketing
Furthermore, technological advancements, such as livestreaming, shoppable posts and
Vol. 15 No. 4, 2021
pp. 822-841
© Emerald Publishing Limited The authors would like to thank the dissertation committee, Dr. Bright, Dr. Devlin, Dr. Johnson, and
2040-7122
DOI 10.1108/JRIM-12-2020-0253 Dr. Oh, for their creative criticisms and guidance on developing this article.
swipe-up features, have given rise to social media influencers (SMIs) and influencer Authenticity of
marketing, which has become one of the most prominent forms of marketing today – driving social media
more than eleven times return on investment compared to other forms of digital media
marketing (Garc
ıa-de-Frutos and R
amon, 2021; Influencer Marketing Hub, 2020; Wang, 2021).
influencers
SMIs are ordinary consumers who gradually gain a large following and notoriety for their
ability to create and diffuse high quality content, as well as expertise in a specific area such as
fashion, fitness or lifestyle. They are today’s most influential digital opinion leaders who
shape consumers’ attitudes and behaviors (Freberg et al., 2011). Influencer marketing allows 823
brands to break through the growing aversion toward conventional marketing initiatives.
Referred to as product placement strategy or native advertising, in influencer marketing, the
product or service of a sponsoring brand gets featured in an influencer’s content. And, by
partnering up with SMIs, brands are able to seamlessly expose their products to a highly
involved group of consumers and also take on some of the positive image radiated by the SMI
(Knoll et al., 2017). Hence, it is often regarded as a form of branded entertainment or highly
credible word-of-mouth due to the interactive nature of the consumer-SMI relationship
(Breves et al., 2019). That is, SMIs connect with consumers at an intimate level through
interactive affordances including livestreaming, short videos and images that are
accompanied with synchronous two-way communication between SMIs and consumers.
Indeed, SMI-promoted ads elicit significantly higher engagement and more positive
sentiment than that of brand-promoted ads (Lou et al., 2019).
Much of the research that explores influencer marketing has been heavily influenced by
literature on traditional celebrity endorsers. Most noteworthy is the utilization of Ohanian’s
(1990) source credibility construct, which proposes perceived trustworthiness, expertise and
attractiveness as three main attributes of a persuasive celebrity endorser (e.g. Lou and Yuan,
2019). However, while SMIs and traditional celebrities share many similarities, fundamental
differences exist between the two. For example, compared to traditional celebrities, SMIs are
much more active on social media, as their main source of income derives from brand
partnerships on the platform. To look appealing to brand managers, they utilize various
authenticity management strategies to foster an intimate relationship with their followers
and grow their social capital (Duffy, 2017). This accessibility frames influencers as more
authentic and fosters a sense of closeness, making their brand recommendations trustworthy
(Audrezet et al., 2018; Djafarova and Rushworth, 2017). In other words, the success of
influencer marketing rests on authenticity, an attribute that has not been captured
comprehensively by the original source credibility construct.
Despite the evident importance of authenticity, both academics and marketers struggle
with assessing PASMI, which further impedes them from partnering up with an authentic
endorser (Suciu, 2020). This problem arises due to rather vague operationalization of
authenticity. The term loosely refers to the quality of being genuine, real and true (Arnould
and Price, 2001). However, literature suggests that authenticity is a multidimensional
construct, as judgments are highly context specific, subjective and dependent on the audience
(Schlegel et al., 2011). While there have been efforts to develop measurement scales of
perceived authenticity in the context of brands (Morhart et al., 2015), advertisements (e.g.,
Becker et al., 2019), celebrities (Moulard et al., 2015) and even reality show stars (Hall, 2009), a
dearth of research exist for SMIs.
There is a void in systematically defining what constitutes an authentic SMI from the
consumer perspective, as well as a way of measuring SMI authenticity. To fill such a void, the
current research seeks to develop and validate a measurement scale for PASMI. The scale will
be developed through a scientific scale development process that consists of item generation,
purification and validation (Devellis, 2016). In Study 1, items are generated from adapting
previous authenticity measures as well as collecting open-ended responses. The list of items
is revised based on feedback provided by an independent group of reviewers examining the
JRIM content validity of each item. Then, an exploratory factor analysis is performed to purify and
15,4 develop an initial scale. Study 2 further validates the scale through confirming the structure
and assessing the convergent and discriminant validity, as well as tests the relationship
between the underlying dimensions of PASMI on key consumer behavior variables as a test
of predictive validity.
This research aims to provide a baseline understanding of perceived SMI authenticity and
advance theory by delving into the structure of PASMI. To contribute to the growing
824 literature on SMI authenticity, a comprehensive measure is needed to not only examine how
authenticity perceptions are formulated by consumers but also to examine its subsequent
impact on consumers’ evaluations and behaviors. It is believed that the findings will inform
current SMIs on ways to effectively manage and display an authentic personality, as well as
provide brand managers better guidance on assessing SMIs’ authenticity prior to forming a
potential partnership.

Theoretical foundations of SMI endorsements

SMIs construct a symbolic identity through the daily logs they share and become carriers of
cultural meaning such as status, personality, taste and lifestyle. For example, a chic fashion
influencer who often exposes her designer accessories and aspirational lifestyle may convey
prestige and sophistication, while a mom blogger sharing her parenting struggles may
convey authenticity and maturity. According to McCracken’s (1989) meaning transfer model,
derived from the celebrity endorsement literature, these symbolic meanings are passed on to
the consumer through acquiring brands the SMI endorses.
The model contends that meaning transfer occurs through a three-stage process and
delineates how the images or meanings embodied by the celebrity endorser impact key
consumer behavior, including attitude toward the endorser, advertisement, brand and
purchase intention (Knoll et al., 2017). In the first stage, celebrities acquire a variety of
symbolic meanings through their appearance in public media. During the second stage or
brand endorsement phase, these meanings get transferred to the brand as the celebrity
associates themselves with the brand. In the third stage, the meaning further shifts to those
who purchase the brand. In essence, consumers are purchasers of the transferred meaning
more than the product or service itself. Especially in influencer marketing, the transference of
meanings should be more pronounced given that brands are fused into SMIs’ daily narrative.
Branded endorsements are illustrations of how SMIs use certain products or services in their
everyday lives and get fused among much of the content they post throughout the day.
Compared to traditional celebrity endorsements, which focus on telling the brand’s story, in
SMI marketing brands become part of the SMI’s story.
Similarly, social influence theory (Kelman, 1961) suggests that individuals are able to
enhance a part of their self-image by adopting the behaviors associated with another person.
With social media, consumption is not only limited to material consumption but can refer to
acquisition of content more generally. Followers consume SMIs’ content, mimic their style
and behavior, and make use of their inspirational content in their daily lives (Ki and Kim,
2019). Previous research has demonstrated that consumers strive to enhance their self-image
through identification with SMIs. For instance, Corr^ea et al. (2020) revealed that consumers’
self-connection or identification with an SMI enhances engagement, which further elicits
intention to use SMI-endorsed brands.
The effectiveness of perceived SMI authenticity can be explained along these theoretical
vantage points. Following and adopting the behaviors of authentic SMIs and consuming
brands they endorse allows consumers to self-identify with authenticity (Arnould and Price,
2001). Indeed, research has evidenced that authenticity perceptions of an SMI induce a greater
emotional bond, which in turn leads to consumers’ willingness to purchase the SMI’s
endorsed brand (Ki et al., 2020; Kowalczyk and Pounders, 2016). Moreover, given that being Authenticity of
authentic is a critical component of consumers’ everyday lives, it stands to reason why social media
consumers are drawn to authentic SMIs (Leigh et al., 2006).
influencers
Authenticity, how it differs from source credibility
Authenticity refers to being true to oneself (Mohart et al., 2015). According to Goffman’s
(1959) social interaction framework, authenticity is the portrayal of an unpolished 825
personality, behaviors and beliefs that are practiced backstage or with trusted
companions. Similarly, self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan, 2008) conceptualizes
authentic acts as representations of one’s intrinsic motivations, whereas inauthentic actions
are motivated extrinsically or is a “performance of an activity in order to attain some
separable outcome” (Ryan and Deci, 2000, p. 71).
This notion of a match between the presented and true self is what distinguishes
authenticity from credibility, which centers on expertness and trustworthiness (Lee, 2020).
Credibility is a rather narrow concept given that it stems from traditional mass
communication research, which confines the functions of mediated communication to
information exchange and persuasion (Lee, 2020). On the other hand, authenticity integrates
the diverse facets of today’s interactive media such as perceived realism and parasocial
interaction (Lee, 2020). Social media platforms are rich with visual affordances that allow
SMIs to portray themselves in creative ways (e.g. spontaneous ephemeral content) and
engage in highly intimate and bidirectional communication with the audience. Followers
expect to connect with SMIs on an emotional level and therefore demand genuineness. Hence,
authenticity accounts for not only aspects of trustworthiness and realness but also the
relational and affective components that emerge between the recipient and source (Lee, 2020).

Domains of perceived authenticity of SMIs

When we judge the authenticity of others, various cues, both subjective and objective,
collectively influence our perception of authenticity (Grayson and Martinec, 2004). There is
wide agreement that authenticity is personally defined and socially constructed (i.e.
constructivist perspective; Beverland and Farrelly, 2010; Marwick, 2013). Interpretation of
authenticity is sensitive and dependent on one’s unique expectations rather than something
that is predefined or verified (Wang, 1999). Some scholars even describe authenticity as a
feeling underscoring its subjective nature (Schlegel et al., 2011). Contrastingly, authenticity is
also understood as an inherent and objective attribute (i.e. objectivist perspective) as it refers
to being original, “not to be a copy or an imitation” (Grayson and Martinec, 2004, p. 297), real,
and therefore unique.
Such inclusiveness and complexity have generated distinct conceptualizations going
beyond its simple definition of genuineness, reality or truth (Arnould and Price, 2001). For
example, Moulard et al. (2015) suggest that authenticity perceptions of traditional celebrities
are contingent upon the talent, discretion, originality, consistency, candidness and morality
of a celebrity. While there has not yet been an attempt to comprehensively conceptualize
perceived SMI authenticity, a review of the extant literature reveals five distinct constructs:
sincerity, truthful endorsements, visibility, expertise and uniqueness.

Sincerity
A sincere SMI is one who is domestic, honest, wholesome and cheerful (Lee and Eastin, 2020).
While it is often difficult to discern the true intentions of a person, a sincere personality acts as
a reflection of honesty and truthfulness (Beverland, 2005). Marwick and Boyd (2011) state
“fans carefully evaluate the sincerity of celebrity’s [social media] accounts in determining
JRIM whether the influencer is portraying a true, unedited persona” (p. 149). Followers examine
15,4 whether the influencer is candid (Moulard et al., 2015) and sharing true-to-life moments
(Audrezet et al., 2018), and criticize SMIs who are “staged, insincere, unethical, and
exaggerated” (McRae, 2017, p. 14). A SMI who is down-to-earth and approachable is also
perceived as authentic as it is closely intertwined with relatability (Duffy, 2017). Consumers
perceive SMIs as acting true to themselves when they see that a SMI shares a similar lifestyle,
concerns and tastes – things that resonate with consumers’ own actual selves.
826
Truthful endorsements
In influencer marketing, when SMIs endorse brands that do not coincide with their
personality and values, consumers perceive the partnership to be extrinsically motivated (i.e.
monetary reward) and therefore inauthentic (Audrezet et al., 2018; Shan et al., 2020). SMIs,
therefore, try to be transparent about their partnerships by clearly notifying their followers of
any incentivized content to prevent any confusion, and also induce a sense of truthfulness by
providing honest evaluations of products and services (Al-Emadi and Yahia, 2020; Audrezet
et al., 2018). Authentic brand endorsements cultivate the impression that brand partnerships
are not necessarily a means for influencers to profit by taking advantage of their network, but
a self-extension opportunity through associating with brands the influencer feels
enthusiastic (Audrezet et al., 2018).

Visibility
Visibility denotes being open and transparent. Both Marwick (2013) and Duffy (2017) agree
that SMIs are motivated to “put themselves out there” (Duffy, 2017, p. 219) to foster
perceptions of authenticity, and in turn, boost their net worth – reflected by the number of
likes, shares and followers. Hence, revealing deeply personal information has become a
common expectation by consumers (Marwick, 2013). High levels of self-disclosure blur the
frontstage and backstage distinction, framing the influencer as exhibiting his or her true self
in both the real and virtual worlds (Marwick, 2013). Content that exposes influencers’
imperfections and negative emotions suggest that the SMI is not engaging in strategic
impression management (Audrezet et al., 2018). Similarly, research shows that openness and
honest self-expression cultivate perceptions of leader authenticity (Endrissat et al., 2007).

Expertise
By demonstrating a natural ability in their field, their content comes as genuine and effortless
rather than extrinsically motivated (Deci and Ryan, 2008). SMIs whose status is achieved
from being knowledgeable in a particular topic is perceived as more authentic as talent can
denote passion, credibility and diligence. For example, brand community members are
viewed as authentic when they are able to repair their cars without any assistance (Leigh
et al., 2006). Moulard et al. (2015) also identify in their qualitative study that consumers
perceive figures such as Paris Hilton as inauthentic due to a lack of talent. As such, being
talented not only fosters perceptions of their authenticity but also validates their fame
(Moulard et al., 2015).

Uniqueness
In line with the objectivist perspective, uniqueness refers to being real and “not to be a copy or
an imitation” (Grayson and Martinec, 2004, p. 297). This coincides with perceived celebrity
authenticity where uniqueness was part of the rarity construct (Moulard et al., 2015). SMIs
who are distinct from other influencers in terms of both personality and content are the source
of one’s own action and ideas, and therefore real. Duffy (2017) states that authentic
self-expression is closely associated with influencer’s “creative individualism” (p. 135) and Authenticity of
further, “one’s creative voice is synonymous with her commoditized brand” (p. 135), alluding to social media
the importance of originality to stand out among other influencers. In an analysis of an
anti-forum of travel SMIs, McRrae (2017) identified that consumers feel that SMIs who produce
influencers
ordinary and unoriginal content are inauthentic and doing it just for the sake of updates.
On the basis of the above literature review, we define perceived SMI authenticity as the
extent to which consumers perceived SMIs to be kindhearted (sincerity), engage in
intrinsically motivated brand endorsements (truthful endorsements), reveal personal 827
information about themselves (visibility), are naturally talented in their area of expertise
(expertise), and are distinct from other SMIs (uniqueness).

Research method
Study 1. Scale development
Three stages were involved for scale development (Devellis, 2016): (1) generation of the item
pool through literature review and open-ended responses, (2) reduction of items based on
feedback provided by an independent group of Instagram users and (3) item purification
through exploratory factor analysis (see Table 1).
Item generation. Items were derived from previous studies and qualitative responses from
SMI followers. Items applicable to SMIs were adapted from the branding (e.g., Bruhn et al.,
2012), artist (e.g., Moulard et al., 2014), celebrity (e.g., Ilicic and Webster, 2016; Moulard et al.,
2015) and SMI (e.g., Audrezet et al., 2018; Duffy, 2017; Lee and Eastin, 2020) literature. For
example, items related to expertise (e.g., skilled at his/her craft), and uniqueness (e.g., has
distinctive characteristics), were derived from literature on artist and celebrity authenticity.
The brand authenticity literature also consisted of items related to uniqueness (e.g., is
unique). Literature on SMI authenticity included items on endorsement practices
(e.g., whenever it is a brand promotion, audiences are clearly informed that it is an ad),
visibility (e.g., put themselves out there) and sincerity (e.g., is down-to-earth).
For the open-ended responses, 58 college students from a large southwestern university
were invited to participate in exchange for class extra credit. College students were deemed
appropriate as they are part of the most active generation (Gen Z) of social media users
(Clement, 2019) and are knowledgeable about SMIs (Kay, 2019). The responses were collected
via an online open-ended survey. The questionnaire began with a definition of SMIs (i.e.,
“Social media influencers are those who have built a reputation for being knowledgeable on a
particular topic. . .” Lee and Eastin, 2020). Participants were asked to name an Instagram
influencer who they believe is (1) authentic, and, subsequently, (2) inauthentic, and provide
the reasons for their decisions. These two processes (i.e., literature review and open-ended
survey) yielded a total of 130 items. To reduce the items to a more manageable amount, items
were grouped into similar themes and then scrutinized for redundancy. After the initial
screening, 71 items were retained.

Study Process Method N Findings

Study 1 1. Item generation Open-ended responses and 58 71 items

Scale literature review
development 2. Item review by SMI followers Paper-pencil survey 16 41 items
3. Initial administration Online survey 473 18 items
(i.e., purification) with EFA 5 factors Table 1.
Study 2 4. Validity testing with CFA Online survey 311 Satisfactory Scale development and
Scale validation validation procedure
JRIM Item review. To maximize the face validity of the items (Devellis, 2016), a total of 16 active
15,4 Instagram users examined the items. The review was administered like a pilot test in which
reviewers wrote down the account name of an authentic Instagram SMI and indicated how
much each of the items describe the self-selected influencer (1 5 not at all descriptive,
5 5 exactly descriptive). Reviewers also provided handwritten comments regarding the
generalizability, relevancy, clarity, and redundancy of the items (DeVellis, 2016).
Subsequently, face-to-face interviews were conducted with each of the respondents in
828 which they elaborated on their comments and assessment of the scale.
This process provided several useful insights for reducing the list. Items that focus more
on consumers’ motives for following influencers rather than authentic qualities (e.g., “Their
content is full of life hacks and everyday informational content”) were eliminated. Items that
were difficult for more than half of the respondents to answer were also eliminated. For
example, items that focus specifically on the influencer’s use of texts (e.g., “Honest or relatable
captions”) seemed to lack conceptualization for most of the reviewers. The reverse-coded
items were also eliminated due to redundancy. After refining the list based on the feedback, a
total of 41 items remained.
Initial administration. To further purify the list, US-based Instagram users between ages
18 to 29 who follow at least one SMI on Instagram were recruited from the Dynata online
panel. Similar to the previous stage, participants indicated how much each of the authenticity
items describe their self-selected SMI on a seven-point Likert scale (1 5 not at all descriptive,
7 5 exactly descriptive). A total of 641 participants completed the survey. Those who
provided the names of mainstream celebrities, ordinary users with a small number of
followers (i.e., less than 1,000) or irrelevant responses (e.g., “no answer,” “I do no’t know”) were
dropped from the final sample (Ki and Kim, 2019), resulting in 473 for subsequent analysis. Of
the total respondents included in the sample, 76% were female, 22% were male, and 2% were
identified as non-binary. Participants were, on average, 24 years old (SD 5 3.61).
Principal component analysis with varimax rotation was performed. The EFA was
evaluated using the following criteria: eigenvalue (greater than 1.0; Kaiser, 1974), variance
explained by each component, and loading score for each factor (greater than or equal to
j0.60j; Pituch and Stevens, 2015). After the first round of the EFA, twenty items that had a
loading score below j0.60j or that cross-loaded on more than one component were eliminated.
Subsequent EFAs eliminated three more items, resulting in a final set of eighteen items.
A scree test further confirmed the five-factor structure as it clearly showed a substantial drop
after the fifth factor (See Figure 1).
The five-factor solution with eighteen items accounted for a total variance of 75.31%. The
Cronbach’s alpha values ranged from 0.83 to 0.90, showing good reliability (Nunnally and
Bernstein, 1994). As shown in Table 2, the first dimension, sincerity, explained 44.19% of the
variance; the second dimension, truthful endorsements, 10.81%; the third dimension, visibility,
7.35%; the fourth dimension, expertise, 6.86%; and the fifth dimension, uniqueness, 6.11%.
Each factor was labeled based on its conceptual overlap with those identified from prior
literature.

Study 2. Validation
The purpose of Study 2 is to validate the scale with a new sample. Specifically, the construct
validity of the measurement scale is assessed with confirmatory factor analysis and the
predictive validity is tested by regressing the five dimensions on key dependent variables.
US-based Instagram users between the ages of 18 and 29 who follow at least one SMI on
Instagram were recruited from the Qualtrics panel. After reading the definition of SMIs,
participants selected one of the four influencer categories with which they were most
involved (i.e., fashion, beauty, entertainment, and fitness) and were randomly assigned to an
SMI who specializes in the category (selected from Forbes’ list of top influencers; Forbes,
 Authenticity of
social media
influencers

829

Figure 1.
Scree test

2017). Twenty of the SMI’s most recent posts were embedded in the survey so that
participants could interact with the post as they would on the actual platform (e.g., swipe-
through posts, play videos). After participants browsed through the embedded posts, they
wrote down all the information they could recall about the posts. This served as the
instructional manipulation check. Participants were then directed to a post-questionnaire that
included queries about the influencer and demographic questions.
The initial sample consisted of 317 participants. Respondents who failed the instructional
manipulation check (e.g., “nothing,” “not sure”) were identified and excluded from the final
sample (n 5 6), resulting in 311 for subsequent analysis. There was no missing data.
Participants were, on average, 23 years old (SD 5 3.58). Eighty one percent identified as
female, 17% identified as male, and 2% identified as non-binary.
Construct validity. A CFA was performed using AMOS (version 21). AMOS is considered a
rigorous software to validate a factor model derived from an EFA (J€oreskog, 1979). It is also
one of the most widely used and user-friendly statistical software for performing CFA (Guo
et al., 2009; Shek and Yu, 2014). Maximum likelihood estimation was used because the data
were normally distributed as the skewness and kurtosis values were smaller than 2 and 7,
respectively (Chou and Bentler, 1995). Although the correlated model was statistically
significant – χ 2 (125) 5 285.17, p < 0.001 χ 2 /df 5 2.28 – the various fit indices suggest a good
fit between the model and the observed data (Bollen, 1989; Pituch and Stevens, 2015):
Comparative fit index (CFI) 5 0.97, Tucker–Lewis fit index (TLI) 5 0.96, goodness of fit index
(GFI) 5 0.90, adjusted GFI 5 0.87, parsimony CFI 5 0.79, Normed Fit Index (NFI) 5 0.94,
Standardized Root Mean-Square Residual (SRMR) 5 0.04, Root Mean-Square Error of
Approximation (RMSEA) 5 0.06. The results of the CFA validated that the data fit well into a
five-factor structure. As a result, no post-hoc modifications were conducted.
JRIM 1 2 3 4 5 M SD
15,4
Sincerity (α 5 0.90) 5.99 1.02
Seems kind and good hearted 0.82 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.09
Is sincere 0.79 0.30 0.22 0.17 0.13
Comes off as very genuine 0.77 0.22 0.23 0.17 0.21
Is down-to-earth 0.73 0.22 0.14 0.17 0.23
830 Truthful endorsements (α 5 0.86) 5.53 1.12
Although they post ads, they give meaningful 0.16 0.79 0.17 0.14 0.11
insights into the products
Gives very honest reviews on brands 0.18 0.77 0.21 0.21 0.19
The products and brands they endorse vibe well 0.28 0.74 0.10 0.18 0.19
with their personality
Promotes products they would actually use 0.27 0.72 0.18 0.21 0.20
Visibility (α 5 0.83) 5.22 1.23
Not only posts about the good in their life but also 0.21 0.08 0.84 0.08 0.15
about hardships
Talks about real-life issues going on in their life 0.22 0.17 0.82 0.03 0.00
Talks about their flaws and is not ashamed for 0.21 0.11 0.73 0.10 0.29
showing them to the public
Reveals a lot of their personal life to the public 0.04 0.20 0.71 0.08 0.03
Expertise (α 5 0.90) 5.81 1.10
Is skilled in their field 0.15 0.20 0.12 0.87 0.20
Is very knowledgeable in their field 0.21 0.21 0.07 0.84 0.16
Demonstrates a natural ability in their field 0.24 0.22 0.08 0.81 0.18
Uniqueness (α 5 0.84) 5.89 1.10
Is unique 0.37 0.18 0.13 0.23 0.72
Has distinctive characteristics 0.34 0.20 0.07 0.18 0.71
Their content is original and not a copy of someone 0.30 0.14 0.10 0.17 0.70
else’s
Eigenvalue 7.95 1.95 1.32 1.24 1.10
% of variance 44.19 10.81 7.35 6.86 6.11
Table 2. Cumulative % 44.19 55.00 62.35 69.21 75.31
Initial EFA results Note(s): Loadings that were 0.60 or larger are set in italic

Composite reliability (CR), Cronbach’s alpha (α), and average extracted variance (AVE) scores
were examined to assess the convergent validity of the scale. The composite reliability (CR)
and Cronbach’s alpha (α) scores exceed 0.70 showing adequate construct reliability of the
scale items (Hair et al., 2014; Nunally and Bernstein, 1994). The average variance extracted
(AVE) for all five dimensions are above 0.5 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981) and the factor loadings
are above 0.6 (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994), providing support for convergent validity.
Discriminant validity amongst each dimension is also supported as the AVE for each
dimension is greater than the squared correlation between the dimensions (Hair et al., 2014).
The results are summarized in Tables 3 and 4.
Predictive validity. Predictive validity was further examined to assess whether the
developed scale can predict other variables. The positive role of authenticity on consumers’
evaluations and behaviors has been examined in numerous marketing fields (e.g., Kowalczyk
and Pounders, 2016; Morhart et al., 2015; Moulard et al., 2014; P€oyry et al., 2019; Shoenberger
et al., 2020). The relationship between each dimension on consumers’ attitude towards an SMI,
follow intention, and purchase intention were investigated. Attitude towards an SMI is
defined as the overall evaluation of the influencer along a dimension ranging from positive to
negative (Petty et al., 1997). Intention to follow an SMI refers to one’s willingness to begin
Latent construct Observed variable β B SE
Authenticity of
social media
Sincerity Seems kind and good hearted 0.90 1.00 influencers
(α 5 0.93, CR 5 0.94) Is sincere 0.91 1.07 0.04
Comes off as very genuine 0.93 1.20 0.05
Is down-to-earth 0.81 1.06 0.05
Truthful endorsements Although they post ads, they give meaningful insights into 0.85 1.00
(α 5 0.90, CR 5 0.89) the products 831
Gives very honest reviews on brands 0.88 1.01 0.05
The products and brands they endorse vibe well with their 0.74 0.78 0.05
personality
Promotes products they would actually use 0.79 0.87 0.05
Visibility Not only posts about the good in their life but also about 0.83 1.00
(α 5 0.89, CR 5 0.89) hardships
Talks about real-life issues going on in their life 0.89 1.08 0.06
Talks about their flaws and ins not ashamed for showing 0.88 1.09 0.06
them to the public
Reveals a lot of their personal life to the public 0.67 0.75 0.06
Expertise Is skilled in their field 0.94 1.00
(α 5 0.94, CR 5 0.94) Is very knowledgeable in their field 0.95 1.00 0.03
Demonstrates a natural ability in their field 0.86 0.85 0.04
Uniqueness Is unique 0.86 1.00 Table 3.
(α 5 0.86, CR 5 0.86) Has distinctive characteristics 0.76 0.74 0.05 Standardized and
Their content is original and not a copy of someone else’s 0.84 0.86 0.05 unstandardized
Note(s): CR 5 composite reliability coefficients for CFA

Factors 1 2 3 4 5

1. Sincerity 0.79
2. Truthful endorsements 0.61 0.68
3. Visibility 0.42 0.35 0.67
4. Expertise 0.34 0.57 0.22 0.84
5. Uniqueness 0.46 0.66 0.32 0.61 0.68 Table 4.
Note(s): The italic, diagonal values are AVE (average variance extracted), and the half-diagonal values are Reliability test results:
2
MSV (maximum shared variance, r ). The AVE should be greater that the MSV within its respective factors to Comparisons of AVE
support discriminant validity and MSV

following an SMI (Casal
o et al., 2018). Purchase intention refers to the likelihood an individual
is to buy products or services recommended by an SMI in the future (Bearden et al., 1984).
Sincerity. Media personalities with a sincere image are not only perceived as more
attractive but also foster emotional attachment, leading to positive attitudinal responses
(Knoll et al., 2015; Tsai and Men, 2017). Previous studies have illustrated the positive effect of
perceived SMI sincerity on SMI attitude, brand attitude, and purchase intention (Lee and
Eastin, 2020). Research has also noted that SMIs’ honesty, benevolence and integrity –
elements that closely coincide with the concept of sincerity – motivate consumers to engage
with SMIs (Al-Emadi and Yahia, 2020).
H1. Sincerity will have a positive effect on (a) attitude towards an SMI, (b) follow
intention and (c) purchase intention.
Truthful endorsements. SMI endorsements are effective when the endorser seems
altruistically motivated to sponsor the product and is not self-serving (Shan et al., 2020).
When a post is perceived as being commercially oriented and controlled by the brand, it leads
JRIM to lower trust of the SMI, lower interest towards the post, and lower willingness to search for
15,4 more information regarding the endorsed brand (Mart
ınez-L
opez et al., 2020). Not only do
untruthful endorsement practices reduce consumers’ trust and interest, but SMIs who post
too many advertisements cause consumers to unfollow SMIs due to fatigue and ad avoidance
(Djafarova and Trofimenko, 2019).
H2. Truthful endorsements will have a positive effect on (a) attitude towards an SMI,
832 (b) follow intention and (c) purchase intention.
Visibility. The benefits of visibility on social media or voluntarily revealing personal
information about oneself have been noted in various contexts from brand CEOs, to
politicians, to SMIs (Chung and Cho, 2017; Kim and Kim, 2020; Kim and Sung, 2020; Lee et al.,
2018). Studies have illustrated that disclosure by well-known personalities on social media
induces likability and even enhances consumers’ life quality due to the heightened sense of
friendship and relationship closeness (Kim and Kim, 2020; Lee et al., 2018). Such positive
affective response further promotes perceptions of trustworthiness and lead to a willingness
to purchase SMI’s brand endorsement (Chung and Cho, 2017).
H3. Visibility will have a positive effect on (a) attitude towards an SMI, (b) follow
intention (c) and purchase intention.
Expertise. An abundance of research evidences the importance of expertise in shaping the
attitude and behaviors of consumers. Expertise of SMI enhances perceptions of opinion
leadership, attitude towards the SMI, brand attitude, product attitude, purchase intention and
drive engagement with sponsored posts (Akdevelioglu and Kara, 2020; Ki and Kim, 2019;
Hughes et al., 2019; Todd and Melancon, 2018; Trivedi and Sama, 2020). Al-Emadi and Yahia
(2020) further identify expertise as a key reason why consumers follow SMIs as they are
perceived as useful sources of information.
H4. Expertise will have a positive effect on (a) attitude towards an SMI, (b) follow
intention (c) and purchase intention.
Uniqueness. Perceived uniqueness of an SMI’s content has proved to increase consumers’
intention to interact with the influencer, follow her/his published advice and recommend the
SMIs to others (Casal
o et al., 2018). This may be due to people’s social desires to maintain a
sense of uniqueness, which functions as a motivating source behind consumption (Belk et al.,
2003). Consumers desire diverse types of information, including brand information, and
hence are in search for distinctive SMIs (Al-Emadi and Yahia, 2020).
H5. Uniqueness will have a positive effect on (a) attitude towards an SMI, (b) follow
intention and (c) purchase intention.
Measures. Perceived authenticity of SMIs was measured using the purified list of items
developed in Study 1. Subjects were asked to indicate how much each of the items described
the influencer they viewed on a seven-point scale (1 5 not at all descriptive, 7 5 exactly
descriptive). All five dimensions had high reliability scores ranging from 0.89 to 0.94.
Attitude towards the SMI was measured using the items “interesting/uninteresting,”
“pleasant/unpleasant,” “likeable/not likeable” and “good/bad” on a seven-point semantic
differential scale (Silvera and Austad, 2004; M 5 5.01, SD 5 1.62, α 5 0.94).
Intention to follow the SMI measures were adapted from Casalό et al. (2018) and Johnson
et al. (2015). Example items included, “I intend to follow this social media influencer in the near
future.” Subjects indicated their level of agreement on a 7-point Likert scale (1 5 strongly
disagree, 7 5 strongly agree; M 5 3.75, SD 5 2.00, α 5 0.96).
Purchase intention was measured using an established scale by Bearden et al. (1984).
Participants were asked how likely or unlikely they were to purchase products or brands
recommended by the influencer and indicated their intention regarding four items using a Authenticity of
seven-point semantic differential scale (e.g., unlikely/likely, definitely not/definitely; social media
M 5 3.60, SD 5 1.99, α 5 0.96).
Results. The five PASMI dimensions were formed by computing the average scores for the
influencers
individual items comprising each factor. Each factor was then regressed onto each of the
dependent variables while controlling for familiarity of the influencer (one item measured on
a seven-point scale; M 5 4.25, SD 5 2.41), gender, and influencer categories (i.e., fashion,
beauty, entertainment, and fitness). 833
H1 was supported as sincerity positively predicted attitude toward the SMI (β 5 0.38,
t 5 6.92, p < 0.001), follow intention (β 5 0.27, t 5 4.63, p < 0.001) and purchase intention
(β 5 0.24, t 5 3.44, p < 0.01). Truthful endorsements also positively predicted all three
outcome variables, supporting H2: attitude (β 5 0.20, t 5 3.27, p < 0.01), follow intention
(β 5 0.23, t 5 3.47, p < 0.01), and purchase intention (β 5 0.26, t 5 3.25, p < 0.01). H3 was not
supported as visibility did not have a significant effect on attitude (β 5 0.08, t 5 1.71, p 5 0.09),
follow intention (β 5 0.07, t 5 1.38, p 5 0.17), nor purchase intention (β 5 0.01, t 5 0.14,
p 5 0.89). Expertise had a positive effect on attitude (β 5 0.17, t 5 2.96, p < 0.01) and follow
intention (β 5 0.14, t 5 2.34, p < 0.05) but not purchase intention (β 5 0.04, t 5 0.55,
p 5 0.59), partially supporting H4. Uniqueness had a significant effect on follow intention
(β 5 0.13, t 5 2.24, p < 0.05), but not attitude (β 5 0.10, t 5 1.77, p 5 0.08), and purchase
intention (β 5 0.13, t 5 1.75, p 5 0.08), thereby partially supporting H5. Table 5 summarizes
the results.

Discussion
As the impact of SMIs continues to proliferate along with the demand for authenticity, the
current research sought to develop and validate a scale of perceived authenticity of social
media influencer (PASMI) by which it provided a comprehensive understanding of what it
means to be an authentic SMI in the eyes of consumers. SMI authenticity was conceptualized
as a five-factor construct consisting of: having a warm personality, engaging in genuine
endorsement activities, revealing personal life matters, being talented in their area of
expertise, and being distinct from others. Findings further revealed that the five factors have
varying effects on consumers’ evaluations and behavioral intentions.
Sincerity emerged as the most dominant factor, explaining the greatest amount of
variance. Sincerity had a consistent impact on all three dependent variables and was the
strongest predictor for attitude towards the SMI and intention to follow the SMI. Sincerity
seems to be a key antecedent to the formation of a parasocial relationship, which is a vital
mechanism underlying the success of SMI marketing (Lee and Eastin, 2020). Our findings
corroborate those of Lee and Eastin (2020), which demonstrate that consumers tend to hold
more favorable attitudes toward a high-sincerity influencer as compared to a low-sincerity
influencer.
Regarding the second dimension, truthful endorsements, SMIs are thought to engage in
authentic behavior when their brand endorsements seem truthful, as suggested by Audrezet
et al. (2018), – i.e., they are not only selective in endorsing brands that strongly associate with
their own personality but promote products they would actually use. The dimension had a
consistent impact on all three consumer variables and was the dimension that had the greater
impact on purchase intention. While inauthentic branding practices poison the credibility of
SMIs (Audrezet et al., 2018), the current findings indicate that when done right, brand
endorsements can have multiplicative benefits. Not only does it lead to better attitudes
towards SMIs, but it encourages consumers to consider following SMIs and try their product
recommendations.
Contrary to our prediction, the visibility dimension fell short in influencing the three
dependent variables despite its conceptual importance. This may be the case because
 15,4

834
JRIM

Table 5.
Hypothesis testing
Attitude toward the SMI Intention to follow the SMI Purchase intention
β SE t p β SE t p β SE t p

Control variables
Familiarity 0.04 0.03 0.94 0.35 0.13** 0.04 2.87 0.004 0.16** 0.05 2.99 0.003
Male vs. Female 0.05 0.16 1.37 0.17 0.11** 0.21 2.93 0.004 0.13** 0.25 2.73 0.007
Non-binary vs. Female 0.01 0.43 0.14 0.89 0.04 0.55 0.99 0.33 0.03 0.66 0.69 0.49
Beauty vs. Entertainment 0.06 0.16 1.22 0.22 0.03 0.20 0.60 0.55 0.09 0.25 1.59 0.11
Fashion vs. Entertainment 0.04 0.20 0.98 0.33 0.07 0.26 1.78 0.08 0.16** 0.32 3.15 0.002
Fitness vs. Entertainment 0.03 0.22 0.83 0.41 0.01 0.28 0.24 0.82 0.02 0.34 0.41 0.68
PASMI dimensions
Sincerity 0.38*** 0.06 6.92 0.000 0.27*** 0.08 4.63 0.000 0.24** 0.09 3.44 0.001
Truthful endorsements 0.20** 0.08 3.27 0.001 0.23** 0.10 3.47 0.001 0.26** 0.12 3.25 0.001
Visibility 0.08 0.05 1.71 0.09 0.07 0.07 1.38 0.17 0.01 0.08 0.14 0.89
Expertise 0.17** 0.07 2.96 0.003 0.14* 0.09 2.34 0.03 0.04 0.10 0.55 0.59
Uniqueness 0.10 0.06 1.77 0.08 0.13* 0.08 2.24 0.03 0.13 0.9 1.75 0.08
2
R 0.65 0.61 0.42
Adjusted R2 0.63 0.60 0.40
F 49.90*** 42.92*** 19.63***
Note(s): *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
individuals differ as to how they view certain communication practices on social media. For Authenticity of
example, Ledbetter and Redd (2016) illustrate that one’s attitude towards self-disclosure social media
practices on social media significantly moderate the relationship between celebrities’ posting
frequency and perceptions of their credibility. Extending this line of inquiry, future research
influencers
should examine whether consumers’ self-disclosure attitude moderate the relationship
between SMIs’ self-disclosure tendencies on the effectiveness of their brand endorsements.
Another notable finding is the impact of expertise. While it significantly predicted attitude
towards the SMI and follow intention, it did not have a significant impact on purchase 835
intention. Its impact on attitude and follow intention suggests that being an expert in their
respective fields enhances consumers’ evaluation and further, increases their credibility as an
opinion leader (Breves et al., 2019; Lou and Yuan, 2019). Its weak association with purchase
intention is consistent with findings by Gong and Li’s (2017) where expertise did not have a
significant association with intention to purchase micro bloggers’ clothes and mobile phone
endorsements. Perhaps this is because while expertise conceptually resonates with being
authentic, it speaks to the influencer identity more generally and has become a prerequisite.
Lastly, uniqueness significantly predicted consumers’ intention to follow an SMI, while it
did not have a significant influence on attitude nor purchase intention. It is interesting to note
the sole effect on follow intention suggesting that consumers may have distinct motives for
following an SMI regardless of their evaluation of the SMI. For example, a consumer may
hate-follow an SMI due to envy or simply because the SMI is the center of gossip within the
consumer’s social network. The current research serves as a guidepost for future research to
further delve into the role of uniqueness in SMI marketing by examining whether uniqueness
is a more prominent factor for consumers high in need for uniqueness and openness to
experience.
This study contributes to the literature on SMI authenticity in several ways. First, a
theoretical contribution of this research lies in revealing that SMI authenticity is an
amalgamation of subjective, objective, and observational cues, thereby confirming the
multidimensionality of authenticity. Another contribution lies in substantiating our
understanding of how SMIs differ from traditional celebrity endorsers. Dimensions such
as truthful endorsements, visibility, and sincerity are unique to SMI authenticity and do not
pertain to celebrity authenticity (Moulard et al., 2015). These dimensions suggests that a key
difference between traditional celebrities and SMIs is that SMIs are regarded as fellow
consumers while traditional celebrities are not. Being attainable by showcasing a friendly
personality (i.e., sincerity), demonstrating that the SMI and followers go through similar life
issues (i.e., visibility), and providing genuine product suggestions (i.e., truthful endorsements)
allow consumers to draw connections with an influencer.

Managerial implications
This research provides evidence that authenticity does in fact have a positive impact on
important return on investment (ROI) variables such as purchase intention. The scale
developed in the current study allows marketers to measure SMI authenticity and could be
useful in the influencer selection process. With the current scale, marketers can compare the
authenticity levels of several different influencers using a sample of real followers. Indeed,
one of the biggest challenges brand marketers face in influencer marketing is selecting the
right influencer who can help achieve the desired ROI (Suciu, 2020).
Of noteworthy insight was that the truthful endorsements dimension had the greatest
impact on purchase intention. In support of this finding, established brands that wish to drive
sales from influencer campaigns should partner with influencers known to be truthful in their
brand endorsements and are consistent with the brand’s image (Kim and Kim, 2020). The
dimension also positively influenced attitude towards the SMI and intention to follow the
JRIM SMI, suggesting that influencers should also be mindful when it comes to brand partnerships.
15,4 Even when it is a brand that fits their personality, SMIs should be cautious in increasing the
number of brand sponsorships to prevent followers from questioning the overall motivation
of their brand endorsements. In summary, SMIs and brands should carefully think about
managing the authenticity of brand partnerships through exploring more creative tactics
such as gifting, promotion codes, and giveaways to cultivate the impression that brand
partnerships are not necessarily a means for influencers to profit by taking advantage of their
836 network, but a self-extension opportunity through associating with brands about which the
influencer feels enthusiastic (Audrezet et al., 2018).
The findings of this study also provide strategic insight into relationship management
strategies for influencers. Influencers who wish to grow their audience or attract new
followers should focus on differentiating themselves from other influencers as suggested by
the positive impact the uniqueness dimension had on follow intention. For influencers who
wish to focus on maintaining ongoing relationships with current followers, constantly
displaying a sincere personality and informational content (i.e., expertise) should induce
positive impressions.

Limitations and future research

Although the current study took an important step in examining perceived SMI authenticity,
it is not without limitations. First, behavioral intention was measured instead of actual
behavior due to the shortcomings of self-report surveys. To overcome this limitation, future
research should combine actual behavioral data taken from real influencer campaigns with
followers’ assessment of an influencer’s authenticity using the scale developed in the current
study. Additionally, to provide a more robust understanding of the effects of SMI authenticity
in influencer marketing, a comprehensive list of outcome variables should be examined,
including engagement (e.g., likes, comments and shares) and key performance indicators (e.g.,
click-through rate, Website traffic leads). Second, future research should investigate how
each of the dimensions interact with key variables such as consumers’ individual differences
in the formation of impression towards SMIs. For example, individuals vary in how much
their evaluations are driven by affective and cognitive information (Maio and Haddock, 2015).
Individuals high in need for affect are more influenced by affective information, while those
high in need for cognition are more motivated to attain cognitive information (Aquino et al.,
2016). The relationships between the five dimensions may well depend on these factors,
where SMI’s sincerity may be more impactful for consumers with high need for affect and
expertise may be more important for consumers with high need for cognition. In addition to
exploring moderation effects, using more stringent methodological approaches such as
obtaining measures of predictors and dependent variables from different sources at different
time periods, varying the scale properties (i.e., scale type, scale points, anchor labels), and
eliminating ambiguity within scale items should improve potential issues with common
method variance which may have been partly responsible for the observed relationships of
the current study (Podsakoff et al., 2012). Last, despite the fact that participants were
assigned with relatively well-known influencers in the last data collection, as indicated by the
high familiarity scores (M 5 4.25, SD 5 2.41), those who did not have an ongoing relationship
with the assigned influencer might have had insufficient information to thoroughly assess
authenticity. Thus, future research should replicate the findings using actual followers who
have an ongoing relationship with an influencer and are knowledgeable about the influencer.

References
Akdevelioglu, D. and Kara, S. (2020), “An international investigation of opinion leadership and social
media”, Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 71-88.
Al-Emadi, F.A. and Yahia, I.B. (2020), “Ordinary celebrities related criteria to harvest fame and influence Authenticity of
on social media”, Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 195-213.
social media
Aquino, A., Haddock, G., Maio, G.R., Wolf, L.J. and Alparone, F.R. (2016), “The role of affective and
cognitive individual differences in social perception”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
influencers
Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 798-810.
Arnould, E.J. and Price, L.L. (2001), Authenticating Acts and Authoritative Performances: Questing for
Self and Community. The Why of Consumption: Contemporary Perspectives on Consumer
Motives, Goals, and Desires, 1st ed., Routledge, London, New York, pp. 140-163. 837
Audrezet, A., De Kerviler, G. and Moulard, J.G. (2018), “Authenticity under threat: when social media
influencers need to go beyond self-presentation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 117,
pp. 557-569.
Barreto, A.M. (2013), “Do users look at banner ads on Facebook?”, Journal of Research in Interactive
Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 22, pp. 119-139.
Bearden, W.O., Lichtenstein, D.R. and Teel, J.E. (1984), “Comparison price, coupon, and brand effects
on consumer reactions to retail newspaper advertisements”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 60 No. 2,
pp. 11-34.
Becker, M., Wiegand, N. and Reinartz, W.J. (2019), “Does it pay to be real? Understanding authenticity
in TV advertising”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 83 No. 1, pp. 24-50.
Belk, R.W., Ger, G. and Askegaard, S. (2003), “The fire of desire: a multisited inquiry into consumer
passion”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 30, pp. 311-325.
Beverland, M.B. (2005), “Crafting brand authenticity: the case of luxury wines”, Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 1003-1029.
Beverland, M.B. and Farrelly, F.J. (2010), “The quest for authenticity in consumption: consumers’
purposive choice of authentic cues to shape experienced outcomes”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 838-856.
Bollen, K.A. (1989), Structural Equations with Latent Variables, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Breves, P.L., Liebers, N., Abt, M. and Kunze, A. (2019), “The perceived fit between Instagram
influencers and the endorsed brand: how influencer–brand fit affects source credibility and
persuasive effectiveness”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. 440-454.
Bruhn, M., Schoenm€ uller, V., Sch€afer, D. and Heinrich, D. (2012), “Brand authenticity: towards a deeper
understanding of its conceptualization and measurement”, Advances in Consumer Research,
Vol. 40, pp. 567-576.
Casal
o, L.V., Flavi
an, C. and Ib
an ~ez-S
anchez, S. (2018), “Influencers on Instagram: antecedents and
consequences of opinion leadership”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 117, pp. 510-519.
Chou, C.P. and Bentler, P.M. (1995), “Estimates and tests in structural equation modeling”, in Hoyle,
R.H. (Ed.), Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications, Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Chung, S. and Cho, H. (2017), “Fostering parasocial relationships with celebrities on social media:
implications for celebrity endorsement”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 481-495.
Clement, J. (2019), “Number of monthly active Instagram users from January 2013 to June 2018 (in
millions)”, available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/253577/number-of-monthly-active-
instagram-users/.
Corr^ea, S.C.H., Soares, J.L., Christino, J.M.M., Gosling, M.d.S. and Gonçalves, C.A. (2020), “The influence
of YouTubers on followers’ use intention”, Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 14
No. 2, pp. 173-194, doi: 10.1108/JRIM-09-2019-0154.
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2008), “Self-determination theory: a macrotheory of human motivation,
development, and health”, Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, Vol. 49 No. 3, p. 182.
DeVellis, R.F. (2016), Scale Development: Theory and Applications, Sage Publications, Los Angeles,
CA, Vol. 26.
JRIM Djafarova, E. and Rushworth, C. (2017), “Exploring the credibility of online celebrities’ Instagram
profiles in influencing the purchase decisions of young female users”, Computers in Human
15,4 Behavior, Vol. 68, pp. 1-7.
Djafarova, E. and Trofimenko, O. (2019), “‘Instafamous’–credibility and self-presentation of micro-
celebrities on social media”, Information, Communication and Society, Vol. 22 No. 10,
pp. 1432-1446.
Duffy, B.E. (2017), (Not) Getting Paid to Do What You Love: Gender, Social Media, and Aspirational
838 Work, Kindle ed., Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, London.
Endrissat, N., M€uller, W.R. and Kaudela-Baum, S. (2007), “En route to an empirically-based
understanding of authentic leadership”, European Management Journal, Vol. 3 No. 25,
pp. 207-220.
Forbes (2017), “Top influencers: meet the power players who’ve turned social media platforms into
fortunes and empires”, available at: https://www.forbes.com/top-influencers/#2bfd25ec72dd.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error: algebra and statistics”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 382-388.
Freberg, K., Graham, K., McGaughey, K. and Freberg, L.A. (2011), “Who are the social media
influencers? A study of public perceptions of personality”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 37 No. 1,
pp. 90-92.
Garc
ıa-de-Frutos, N. and Estrella-Ram
on, A. (2021), “You absolutely (don’t) need this! examining
differences on customer engagement components for (anti) haul youtubers’ videos”, Journal of
Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 86-103, doi: 10.1108/JRIM-11-2019-0181.
Goffman, E. (1959), The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Anchor Books, New York, NY.
Gong, W. and Li, X. (2017), “Engaging fans on microblog: the synthetic influence of parasocial
interaction and source characteristics on celebrity endorsement”, Psychology and Marketing,
Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 720-732.
Grayson, K. and Martinec, R. (2004), “Consumer perceptions of iconicity and indexicality and their
influence on assessments of authentic market offerings”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31
No. 2, pp. 296-312.
Guo, B., Perron, B.E. and Gillespie, D.F. (2009), “A systematic review of structural equation modelling
in social work research”, British Journal of Social Work, Vol. 39 No. 8, pp. 1556-1574.
Hair, J.F., Jr, Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L. and Kuppelwieser, V.G. (2014), “Partial least squares structural
equation modeling (PLS-SEM)”, European Business Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 106-121.
Hall, A. (2009), “Perceptions of the authenticity of reality programs and their relationships to audience
involvement, enjoyment, and perceived learning”, Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media,
Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 515-531.
Hughes, C., Swaminathan, V. and Brooks, G. (2019), “Driving brand engagement through online social
influencers: an empirical investigation of sponsored blogging campaigns”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 83 No. 5, pp. 78-96.
Ilicic, J. and Webster, C.M. (2016), “Being true to oneself: investigating celebrity brand authenticity”,
Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 410-420.
Influencer Marketing Hub (2020), “Influencer marketing ROI”, available at: https://
influencermarketinghub.com/influencer-marketing-roi/.
J€oreskog, K.G. (1979), “Basic ideas of factor and component analysis”, Advances in Factor Analysis and
Structural Equation Models, pp. 5-20.
Johnson, A.R., Thomson, M. and Jeffrey, J. (2015), “What does brand authenticity mean? Causes and
consequences of consumer scrutiny toward a brand narrative”, Brand Meaning Management,
Vol. 12, pp. 1-27.
Kaiser, H. (1974), “An index of factor simplicity”, Psychometrika, Vol. 39, pp. 31-36.
Kay, G. (2019), “College campuses: a hot spot for social media influencers”, available at: https://www. Authenticity of
forbes.com/sites/gracekay/2019/07/29/college-campuses-a-hot-spot-for-social-media-influencers/
#43abe48b445a. social media
Kelman, H. (1961), “Process of opinion change”, Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 57-78.
influencers
Ki, C.W.C. and Kim, Y.K. (2019), “The mechanism by which social media influencers persuade
consumers: the role of consumers’ desire to mimic”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 36 No. 10,
pp. 905-922.
839
Ki, C.W.C., Cuevas, L.M., Chong, S.M. and 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, Vol. 55, 102133.
Kim, M. and Kim, J. (2020), “How does a celebrity make fans happy? Interaction between
celebrities and fans in the social media context”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 111,
106419.
Kim, T. and Sung, Y. (2020), “CEOs’ self-disclosure on Instagram and consumer-brand relationships:
the moderating effect of relationship norms”, International Journal of Advertising, pp. 1-25.
Knoll, J., Schramm, H., Schallhorn, C. and Wynistorf, S. (2015), “Good guy vs bad guy: the influence of
parasocial interactions with media characters on brand placement effects”, International Journal
of Advertising, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 720-743.
unch, A. and Ostermann, M. (2017), “How long does celebrity meaning transfer
Knoll, J., Matthes, J., M€
last? Delayed effects and the moderating roles of brand experience, celebrity liking, and age”,
International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 588-612.
Kowalczyk, C.M. and Pounders, K.R. (2016), “Transforming celebrities through social media: the role
of authenticity and emotional attachment”, The Journal of Product and Brand Management,
Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 345-356.
Ledbetter, A.M. and Redd, S.M. (2016), “Celebrity credibility on social media: a conditional process
analysis of online self-disclosure attitude as a moderator of posting frequency and parasocial
interaction”, Western Journal of Communication, Vol. 80 No. 5, pp. 601-618.
Lee, E.J. (2020), “Authenticity model of (mass-oriented) computer-mediated communication: conceptual
explorations and testable propositions”, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 25
No. 1, pp. 60-73.
Lee, J.A. and Eastin, M.S. (2020), “I like what she’s# endorsing: the impact of female social media
influencers’ perceived sincerity, consumer envy, and product type”, Journal of Interactive
Advertising, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 76-91.
Lee, E.J., Oh, S.Y., Lee, J. and Kim, H.S. (2018), “Up close and personal on social media: when do
politicians’ personal disclosures enhance vote intention?”, Journalism and Mass Communication
Quarterly, Vol. 95 No. 2, pp. 381-403.
Leigh, T.W., Peters, C. and Shelton, J. (2006), “The consumer quest for authenticity: the multiplicity of
meanings within the MG subculture of consumption”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 481-493.
Lou, C. and Yuan, S. (2019), “Influencer marketing: how message value and credibility affect consumer
trust of branded content on social media”, Journal of Interactive Advertising, Vol. 19 No. 1,
pp. 58-73.
Lou, C., Tan, S.S. and Chen, X. (2019), “Investigating consumer engagement with influencer-vs. brand-
promoted ads: the roles of source and disclosure”, Journal of Interactive Advertising, Vol. 19
No. 3, pp. 169-186.
Maio, G.R. and Haddock, G. (2015), The Psychology of Attitudes and Attitude Change, 2nd ed., SAGE,
London.
Mart
ınez-L
opez, F.J., Anaya-S
anchez, R., Fern
andez Giordano, M. and Lopez-Lopez, D. (2020), “Behind
influencer marketing: key marketing decisions and their effects on followers’ responses”,
Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 36 Nos 7-8, pp. 579-607.
JRIM Marwick, A.E. (2013), Status Update: Celebrity, Publicity, and Branding in the Social Media Age, Yale
University Press, New Haven, CT.
15,4
Marwick, A.E. and Boyd, D. (2011), “I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: twitter users, context
collapse, and the imagined audience”, New Media and Society, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 114-133.
McCracken, G. (1989), “Who is the celebrity endorser? Cultural foundations of the endorsement
process”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 310-321.
840 McRae, S. (2017), “Get off my internets: how anti-fans deconstruct lifestyle bloggers’ authenticity
work”, Persona Studies, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 13-27.
Morhart, F., Mal€ar, L., Guevremont, A., Girardin, F. and Grohmann, B. (2015), “Brand authenticity: an
integrative framework and measurement scale”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 2,
pp. 200-218.
Moulard, J.G., Rice, D.H., Garrity, C.P. and Mangus, S.M. (2014), “Artist authenticity: how artists’
passion and commitment shape consumers’ perceptions and behavioral intentions across
genders”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 8, pp. 576-590.
Moulard, J.G., Garrity, C.P. and Rice, D.H. (2015), “What makes a human brand authentic? Identifying
the antecedents of celebrity authenticity”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 173-186.
Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory 3E, Tata McGraw-Hill Education, New
York, NY, pp. 248-292.
Ohanian, R. (1990), “Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers’ perceived
expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 39-52.
Peltier, J., Dahl, A.J. and VanderShee, B.A. (2020), “Antecedent consumer factors, consequential
branding outcomes and measures of online consumer engagement: current research and future
directions”, Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 239-268.
Petty, R.E., Wegener, D.T. and Fabrigar, L.R. (1997), “Attitudes and attitude change”, Annual Review
of Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 609-647.
Pituch, K.A. and Stevens, J.P. (2015), Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences: Analyses
with SAS and IBM’s SPSS, Routledge, New York, London.
P€oyry, E., Pelkonen, M., Naumanen, E. and Laaksonen, S.M. (2019), “A call for authenticity: audience
responses to social media influencer endorsements in strategic communication”, International
Journal of Strategic Communication, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 336-351.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2012), “Sources of method bias in social science
research and recommendations on how to control it”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 63,
pp. 539-569.
Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000), “Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new
directions”, Contemporary Educational Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 54-67.
Schlegel, R.J., Hicks, J.A., King, L.A. and Arndt, J. (2011), “Feeling like you know who you are:
perceived true self-knowledge and meaning in life”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 745-756.
Shan, Y., Chen, K.J. and Lin, J.S. (2020), “When social media influencers endorse brands: the effects of
self-influencer congruence, parasocial identification, and perceived endorser motive”,
International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 590-610.
Shek, D.T. and Yu, L. (2014), “Confirmatory factor analysis using AMOS: a demonstration”,
International Journal on Disability and Human Development, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 191-204.
Shoenberger, H., Kim, E.A. and Johnson, E.K. (2020), “# BeingReal about Instagram ad models: the
effects of perceived authenticity: how image modification of female body size alters advertising
attitude and buying intention”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 197-207.
Silvera, D.H. and Austad, B. (2004), “Factors predicting the effectiveness of celebrity endorsement
advertisements”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38 Nos 11/12, pp. 1509-1526.
Suciu, P. (2020), “Brand ROI from social media”, available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/petersuciu/ Authenticity of
2020/03/06/brand-roi-from-social-media/#408e9e9f2f9c.
social media
Todd, P.R. and Melancon, J. (2018), “Gender and live-streaming: source credibility and motivation”,
Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 79-93.
influencers
Trivedi, J. and Sama, R. (2020), “The effect of influencer marketing on consumers’ brand admiration
and online purchase intentions: an emerging market perspective”, Journal of Internet
Commerce, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 103-124.
841
Tsai, W.H.S. and Men, L.R. (2017), “Social CEOs: the effects of CEOs’ communication styles and
parasocial interaction on social networking sites”, New Media and Society, Vol. 19 No. 11,
pp. 1848-1867.
Wang, N. (1999), “Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 26
No. 2, pp. 349-370.
Wang, C.L. (2021), “New frontiers and future directions in interactive marketing: inaugural Editorial”,
Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 1-9.

About the authors

Jung Ah Lee is Postdoctoral Fellow in the Department of Communication at Seoul National University.
She is interested in consumers’ perceptions of and responses to various marketing practices on social
media, including social media influencers. Her research spectrum ranges from exploring consumers’
motives for engaging in new media phenomenon to investigating key factors that impact buying
behavior. Her research has been published in Journal of Interactive Advertising, Cyberpsychology,
Behavior, and Social Networking, Computers in Human Behavior, and Personality and Individual
Differences. Jung Ah Lee is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: jungahlee@snu.ac.kr
Matthew S. Eastin is Professor of Advertising and Public Relations at The University of Texas at
Austin. Dr. Eastin’s research focuses on new media behavior. From this perspective, he has investigated
information processing as well as the social and psychological factors associated with involvement, new
media adoption and e-commerce. Dr. Eastin’s research can be found in the Journal of Communication,
Communication Research, Human Communication Research, Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic
Media, Cyberpsychology and Behavior, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, and Computers in
Human Behavior, to name a few.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com