Journal of Interactive Advertising

ISSN: (Print) 1525-2019 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujia20

How Social Media Influencers Foster Relationships

with Followers: The Roles of Source Credibility and
Fairness in Parasocial Relationship and Product
Interest

Shupei Yuan & Chen Lou

To cite this article: Shupei Yuan & Chen Lou (2020): How Social Media Influencers
Foster Relationships with Followers: The Roles of Source Credibility and Fairness in
Parasocial Relationship and Product Interest, Journal of Interactive Advertising, DOI:
10.1080/15252019.2020.1769514

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2020.1769514

Accepted author version posted online: 23

May 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujia20
 How Social Media Influencers Foster Relationships with Followers:

The Roles of Source Credibility and Fairness in Parasocial Relationship and Product Interest

Shupei Yuana and Chen Loub

a
Department of Communication, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois, USA

t
ip
b
Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University,
Singapore

cr
us
CONTACT Shupei Yuan

syuan@niu.edu
an
Department of Communication, Northern Illinois University, Reavis Hall, Room 117, DeKalb,
IL, 60015, USA
M
e d
pt

Shupei Yuan is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication at Northern Illinois

University.
ce

Chen Lou is an Assistant Professor of Integrated Marketing Communication in the Wee Kim
Wee School of Communication and Information at Nanyang Technological University,
Singapore.
Ac
 Abstract
Afforded by the unprecedented interactivity of social media, social media personae can

build strong relationships with followers. Such relationships, which carry great marketing

potential, appeal to corporates and brands. Based on the literature of source credibility and

communication justice, this study investigated the determinants of the parasocial relationship

between social media influencers and their followers, as well as its effect on followers’ interests

t
in the products advertised by influencers. The results of an online survey (N = 355) showed that,

ip
followers’ perceived attractiveness of influencers, similarity to influencers, procedural fairness

cr
and interpersonal fairness of their interaction with influencers are positively related to the

us
strength of their parasocial relationship with influencers, which further mediates the effect of the

aforementioned factors on followers’ interests in influencer-promoted products. The findings of

an
this study explicated the mechanism through which influencers foster relationships with
M
followers and also provide practitioners with insights on orchestrating strategic influencer

campaigns.
e d

Keywords: Parasocial relationship, communication justice, social media influencers, source

pt

credibility, product interests

ce
Ac
 In today’s media landscape, mass communication channels such as TV, radios, and

newspapers are no longer the dominant sources of information. Individuals now use social media

channels or virtual communities to seek and/or exchange information and to cultivate

relationships (Hair, Clark and Shapiro 2010). Social media users often resort to “someone like

me” or influential online personae for consumption-related information and domain-specific

information, including tips on healthy living, travel, food, lifestyle, beauty, fashion, and so on

t
ip
(Karp, 2016; Varsamis, 2018). Over repeated exposure to the user-generated content created by

these influential personae and via constant interactions with them, social media users gradually

cr
develop intimate relationships with these online personae. Accordingly, these online personae

us
can wield influence over followers’ consumption behavior (Lou and Yuan 2019). These
an
influential online personae are termed as “social media influencers” (thereafter influencers), an

“independent third party endorser who shape audience attitudes” (Freberg et al. 2011, p. 90) and
M
who are “content generators with ‘celebrity’ status” on social media (Lou and Yuan 2019, p. 59).

Influencers constantly engage in two-way interactions with their followers via social media,
e d

which contribute to the strong relationships between the two. Given that followers place
pt

tremendous trust in influencers and influencer-generated content (Swant 2016), influencers thus
ce

promise great marketing potential for brands and advertisers.

Influencers often build their online personalities across one or several social media
Ac

platforms (e.g., YouTube, Instagram, or personal blogs) by producing valuable content, and over

time they accrue a large number of captive followers (Agrawal 2016; Swant 2016). There is no

exact number to describe the economic influence or social impact of social media influencers,

but a New York Time article called it “taking over the world” with some sound evidence (Roose

2019). However, how social media influencers interact with their followers and develop
relationship is understudied in terms of the determinants of their relationship and the effects of

such relationship. The relationship between influencers and their followers are unique and

therefore presents its own value in the domain of advertising.

In the current study, we revisited the concept of parasocial relationship, which has been

investigated to understand the relationship between mass media personae (such as celebrities)

and audiences, to understand the influencer phenomenon. Social media influencers exhibit

t
ip
similar characteristics as celebrities, and the interactions between influencers and their followers

also can lead to pseudo-friendships perceived by the followers (Bond 2016). For instance, a

cr
recent study of Twitter indicates that consumers may register a similar level of trust in social

us
media influencers as they do with their friends (Swant 2016).
an
However, different from the top-down one-way communication between media personae

and fans via mass media productions (e.g., TV, movies), social media platforms provide
M
influencers the opportunity to initiate somewhat two-way communication with followers —

meaning influencers can also engage in replying and interacting with their followers (e.g.,
e d

Colliander and Dahlén 2011; Tsai and Men 2013). Additionally, different from traditional
pt

celebrities, influencers rely on the engagement that they have with followers to build their fame
ce

and personal branding (Uzunoglu and Kip 2014). However, due to the nature of influencer-

follower relationship, the interaction between these two is still far from being reciprocal and
Ac

differs from the two-way interaction between followers and their close friends. Nevertheless, we

argue that the literature on parasocial relationships still provides important insights to understand

the relationship between influencers and followers. Unsettled fundamental questions include, for

example, what factors contribute to the parasocial relationship between influencers and followers?

How does the strength of such parasocial relationship drive consumption-related behavior? With
limited investigation on this topic so far, we set forth to address these questions in the current

study. Specifically, in addition to the traits of influencers (i.e., source credibility) being

determinants of parasocial relationship strength (Bond 2018), we introduce a new construct –

justice, originating from the literature in organizational communication – to account for the

formation of parasocial relationship as well as the effect of this parasocial relationship on a

downstream variable – product interests.

t
ip
The rational for investigating the effects of source credibility of influencers and justice on

influencer-follower relationship is that source credibility and justice represent the two important

cr
elements in interpersonal interaction: characteristics of the source or communicator and

us
evaluation of the communication process. Prior research on influencer advertising often
an
explicated the role of source credibility in consumer reactions (e.g., Djafarova and Rushworth

2017; Lou and Yuan 2019; Lou, Tan, and Chen 2019), few has yet considered the role of
M
communication process between influencers and followers in consumer behavior. Informed by

the concept of organizational justice/fairness (Colquitt et al. 2001), this study is to fill this gap by
e d

focusing on fairness of the interaction process between influencers and followers.

pt

Literature Review
ce

Parasocial Relationship

Influencers, to a large extent, provide an indirect and mediated communication channel

Ac

between marketers/brands and the followers. What is unique in the indirect communication

through influencers is that marketers’ objectives, such as shaping corporate brand perception, are

achieved through the interactions between influencers and their followers (Booth and Matic

2011). Therefore, understanding the relationship between influencers and followers is imperative.

Horton and Wohl (1956) described parasocial interaction as audiences’ illusory social
experiences with media personae. Parasocial interaction (PSI) and parasocial relationships (PSR)

have been used interchangeably in some literature (e.g., Escalas and Bettman 2017; Kim and

Song 2016). PSR is based on PSI and is considered as a socioemotional bond between media

personae and audiences (Horton and Wohl 1956; Giles 2002). PSI refers to audiences’

relationship perception during a one-time exposure to media production (e.g., show, movie),

whereas PSR refers to a more lasting relationship between media personae and audiences

t
ip
(Dibble et al. 2016).

Similar to real-life relationship development, PSR is developed via audiences’ reactions

cr
to and involvement with media personae (Stever 2017). Unlike social relationship, PSR, as a

us
one-sided interaction, does not entail reciprocity between media personae and audiences (Calvert
an
and Richards 2014). Compared with traditional media, social media affords two-way interaction

opportunities between influencers and their audiences. Therefore, today’s media personae not
M
only engage in one-way communication with their fans via traditional media channels but also

actively engage with their audiences through interactive social media channels such as Twitter or
e d

Instagram (Bennett 2014). Although PSR has often been examined in the traditional TV era (e.g.,
pt

Auter 1992, Rubin 2002), recent studies have extended its application to the interactive social
ce

media context (e.g., Colliander and Dahlén 2011; Tsai and Men 2013).

Prior literature examined parasocial relationships between a media celebrity/public figure

Ac

and his/her fans/supporters across different scenarios, including celebrity endorsement (Escalas

and Bettman 2017; Wen 2017; Yuan, Kim, and Kim 2016), political voting (Thorson and

Rodgers 2006), romantic attachment to media figures (Erickson, Harrison, and Dal Cin 2018),

brand page interaction (Tsai and Men 2013), and interaction with game avatars (Jin and Park

2009). More recently, multiple studies have examined the parasocial relationships between social
media users, fellow users, and/or social media personae/influencers (e.g., Bond 2016 2018; Chen

2016). Specifically, Bond (2016) indicated that adolescents on Twitter reported stronger

parasocial relationships with their favorite personae when they experienced social interactions

than those without such interactions. Similarly, Chen (2016) also emphasized the role of social

interactions facilitated by YouTube in the development of parasocial relationship between

amateur YouTubers and their viewers.

t
ip
In understanding parasocial relationship, researchers have used both uses and

gratification theory and uncertainty reduction theory to measure interaction and argued that

cr
individuals need to be goal-directed, and actively analyze the media persona and their behavior

us
during the interaction when developing parasocial relationship (Perse and Rubin 1989). Although
an
it has been recognized by researchers that both the performer’s own characteristics (such as

attractive or not) and their performance during the interaction (such as verbal or bodily behavior),
M
contribute to audience’s parasocial experience with the performer (Hartmann and Goldhoorn

2011), current research on parasocial relationship predominantly investigated characteristics of

e d

the performer/source and audience (such as level of loneliness). Based on the previous studies,
pt

we argue that in the process of developing parasocial relationship, three aspects play significant
ce

roles: the characteristics of the source/communicator, the characteristics of the audience, and the

interaction process between the two, research that focuses on the role of communication process
Ac

or interaction process is scarce (see a review: Bond 2016). Given that the interaction between

influencers and followers is more interactive than traditional celebrity-viewer interaction, it is

imperative to look into the effect of communication process when studying the appeal of

influencers among followers.

 We argue that two major components that capture the characteristics of message source

and communication process – source credibility and justice – determine the development of

parasocial relationship between influencers and followers. Specifically, we expect that influencer

credibility and interaction fairness determine the strength of the parasocial relationship between

influencers and their followers. In the following section, we review the body of literatures on

source credibility and justice in relation to the influencer context.

t
ip
Source Credibility of Influencers and Parasocial Relationship

A number of studies have identified the antecedents of the strength of parasocial

cr
relationships, such as the time spent with media personae (Schiappa, Allen, and Gregg 2007),

us
characteristics of the individuals (Rosaen and Dibble 2016), and characteristics of the media

personae (Bond 2018).

an
In terms of the characteristics of influencers, previous researchers have considered the
M
credibility of a message source when gauging a communicator’s influence on the effectiveness of

persuasive messages (e.g., Giffin 1967; Hovland and Weiss 1951; McGuire, Rice and Atkin
e d

2001). Through the lens of source credibility, previous studies have investigated celebrity
pt

endorsers’ influence on consumers (e.g., Dwivedi, Johnson, and McDonald 2015; Guido and
ce

Peluso 2009; Lee and Koo 2015). We align with a recent study and focus on the role of

influencer source credibility (Lou and Yuan 2019) and expect that source credibility will play an
Ac

important role in parasocial relationship between influencers and followers.

This study also adopts the four-dimension conceptualization of source credibility

(Munnukka, Uusitalo, and Toivonen 2016) – trustworthiness, expertise, similarity, and

attractiveness – to examine influencer credibility. Expertise and trustworthiness are the two

original determinants that comprise source credibility proposed by researchers (Hovland, Janis,
and Kelley 1953). Source expertise refers to the competence or capability of a source such as the

person’s expertise/skills in a certain area or subject (McCroskey 1966). Source trustworthiness

refers to the extent to which a source is perceived as honest, sincere or truthful (Giffin 1967).

Meanwhile, attractiveness and similarity have been identified as antecedents of parasocial

relationships by previous researchers (Bond 2018; Cohen 2009). Attractiveness describes the

physical or social attractiveness of the individual who serves as the media personae (Schiappa,

t
ip
Allen and Gregg 2007). Similar to social relationship development, individuals are more likely to

develop relationships with media persona who are attractive (Hoffner and Buchanan 2005). More

cr
importantly, perceived attractiveness also has a positive effect on the quality and intensity of

us
parasocial relationship (Schmid and Klimmt 2011). Lastly, similarity refers to mutual
an
characteristics that audience shared with the media persona (Schiappa, et al. 2007). A number of

studies have found that perceived similarity also can lead to more positive interpersonal liking
M
(Duck and Barnes 1992), which thus contributes to the strength of parasocial relationship.

Previous researchers have focused on the influences of attractiveness and similarity on

e d

parasocial relationships (Bond 2018), yet there is a gap in the literature with respect to how
pt

perceived expertise and trustworthiness affect the parasocial relationship. The effects of source
ce

credibility, as reviewed above, provide a logical prediction that perceived expertise,

trustworthiness, attractiveness, and similarity of the influencer are important factors that
Ac

determine the strength of parasocial relationship between influencers and followers. Therefore,

we propose:

H1. Individuals’ perceived a) expertise of, b) trustworthiness of, c) attractiveness of, and

d) similarity to an influencer are positively associated with the strength of their parasocial

relationship with the influencer.

Fairness and Parasocial Relationship

Previous research has focused more on how internet or social media use facilitates the

relationship between communicators and audiences and has not fully investigated how the use of

social media challenges the “fundamental notions of relationships” between them (Giles 2002,

p.285). While source credibility captures the characteristics of communicators, justice is used to

access the interaction process between the communicators and their audience. Justice has often

t
been studied in the context of organizational communication in which employees’ perceived

ip
justice of the organizations’ handling of them has been found to shape employees’ trust in the

cr
organization, job attitudes, and relationship with the organization (e.g., Colquitt et al. 2001;

us
DeConinck 2010). The terms of “justice” and “fairness” have been used interchangeably in the
an
literature. The dimensions of justice/fairness has been widely applied in explicating the

persuasion process across varied contexts, including science communication (Besley, McComas,
M
and Waks 2006), knowledge-sharing in virtual communities (Fang and Chiu 2010), buyer-

supplier relationship (Liu, Huang, Luo, and Zhao 2012), instructor-student interaction (Chory
e d

2007), and customer satisfaction (Martinez-Tur, et al 2006). Using these studies as a backdrop, in
pt

the current influencer context, we argue that justice/fairness can also inform influencer-follower
ce

relationship building.

Literature on fairness investigates behaviors that happened during interactions between

Ac

organizations and the public or between decision-makers and audiences, which focuses on how

peoples’ judgement of fairness affects their views about the outcomes, such as whether the

respondent is willing to continue the interaction with decision-makers in the future (Besley,

McComas, and Waks 2006). Thibaut and Walker (1975) argued that people not only care about

the outcome fairness of a decision (“distributive” fairness) – namely whether they get a fair
outcome for their efforts, they also care about the non-outcome process, which is about the

process through which a decision is being made (Thibaut and Walker 1975). Lind (2001) found

that people use their evaluations of the quality of a decision-making process as heuristic cues to

evaluate the legitimacy of a decision when they are unsure about what constitutes a right

decision.

There are four factors that constitutue communication justice or fairness, including both

t
ip
outcome and non-outcome components (see a review: Colquitt 2001). The first component,

distributive fairness, is an outcome-related perception that describes the degree to which an

cr
individual receives a fair outcome from a decision (Thibaut and Walker 1975). The second

us
dimension is procedural fairness – a non-outcome component, which focuses on the degree to
an
which a process was seen as procedurally fair with an emphasis on whether those affected by a

decision had a meaningful voice in the decision-making process (van den Bos and van Prooijen
M
2001). The third dimension is interpersonal fairness, also a non-outcome component that can be

understood as the degree to which decision-makers treat those affected by decision with
e d

respectful and polite approaches (Bies 2005). The last dimension is informational fairness, a non-
pt

outcome component that argues people have fair access to appropriate information in the
ce

decision-making process (Colquitt et al. 2001). Among the four dimnsions, only distributive

fairness focuses on the outcomes of a decision; the other three emphasize the behaviors
Ac

associated with the process. In this study, we posit that all four dimensions can be applied to

account for influencer-follower interaction: for example, to what extent followers benefit from

the content shared by influencers (distributive fairness), to what extent followers have the chance

to share their voice with influencers (procedural fairness), to what extent followers are treated

respectfully during their interaction with influencers (interpersonal fairness), and to what extent
influencers deliver information to followers honestely and ethically (informational fairness). The

difference between informational fairness and distributive fairness is that distributive fairness

focuses on the usefulness of the information while informational fairness focuses on the honesty

and accuracy of message delivery.

To the best of our knowledge, no study has considered fairness of the communication

process or similar terms as the antecedents of the parasocial relationship between followers and

t
influencers. Prior studies have shown that these four components affect people’s perceptions of

ip
the decision-makers and/or relationship with the organizations (e.g., Bies 2005; Colquitt et al.

cr
2001). Researchers also argued that all four dimensions of fairness contribute to decision-making

us
related to interpersonal communication outcomes. For instance, Fang and Chiu (2011) found that
an
all four dimensions positively affect users’ trust in members of virtual communities during the

information-sharing process. Some research examined the effects of some specific dimensions on
M
the evaluation of communication outcome. For example, one study showed that individuals

found the participatory decision-making approach received more support and satisfaction from
e d

those affected in risk communication contexts (Lauber 1999). These studies have provided
pt

logical support for us to apply these four dimensions of fairness in the current influencer-
ce

follower context. Based on the discussions above, the rationale for taking into account the effect

of fairness in parasocial relationship is that, different from celebrities, social media influencers’
Ac

fame and reputation are heavily based on their interaction with their followers over time. It is

reasonable to expect that their communication patterns or process as a whole will influence their

relationship building and how followers evaluate the parasocial relationship that arises from this

process. Specifically, for influencer-follower communication, we expect that followers’

perceived fairness of their interaciton with influencers will be positively related to the strengh of

their parasocial relationship with infleuncers. Therefore, we predict:

H2. Individuals’ perceived fairness of their interaction with an influencer – a) distributive

fairness, b) procedural fairness, c) interpersonal fairness, and d) informational fairness –

will be positively associated with the strength of parasocial relationship with the

influencer.

t
ip
The Mediating Role of Parasocial Relationship in Product Interests

Besides identifying the antecedents of the parasocial relationship between followers and

cr
influencers, how the strength of this parasocial relationship influences marketing related

us
outcomes such as interests in endorsed brands or purchase intentions is also worth testing. One
an
important outcome valued by marketers or advertisers is followers’ interests in the products that

the influencer has mentioned (Jin 2014).

M
Despite a large number of studies investigating the effect of celebrity endorsers on

advertising (see a review: Bergkvist and Zhou 2016), social media influencers exhibit unique
e d

traits that distinguish themselves from celebrities, such as influencers’ fundamental role of being
pt

content generators on social or online media (Lou and Yuan 2019). Moreover, although some
ce

studies have addressed the effects of influencer advertising (e.g. De Veirman, Cauberghe, and

Hudders 2017; Djafarova and Rushworth 2017), only a few studies have addressed the
Ac

fundamental mechanism of the effectiveness of influencer marketing, for instance, one recent

study indicating that perceived trust in branded posts is a mechanism that explains followers’

awareness of the promoted brand and purchase intentions (Lou and Yuan 2019). Another study

suggests blogger characteristics and blog content affect followers’ engagement with influencer

ads, which further affects advertising effectiveness (Hughes, Swaminathan and Brooks 2019).
Additionally, recent research on the appeal of influencers among adolescents found that

parasocial relationship mediates influencer credibility and content value, but not parental

mediation, on adolescent’s materialistic views and purchase intentions (Lou and Kim 2019).

Collectively, we propose that the strength of a parasocial relationship serves as the

underlying mechanism of influencer credibility and communication fairness on followers’

product interests. As mentioned, the four dimensions of influencer source credibility affect the

t
strength of parasocial relationships, and these four dimensions of communicator’s credibility

ip
have been tested by previous researchers to gain desirable communication outcomes (Belch and

cr
Belch 2004). Therefore, we propose the following hypotheses to test the mediating role of

us
parasocial relationship between its antecedences and consequence.
an
H3. The parasocial relationship between influencers and followers mediates the

relationship between influencer source credibility – a) expertise, b) trustworthiness, c)

M
attractiveness, and d) similarity – and followers’ interests in influencer-promoted

products. In other words, followers who perceive higher influencer credibility will report
e d

a stronger parasocial relationship that, in turn, leads to higher interests in influencer-

pt

promoted products.
ce

Similarly, as discussed earlier, the four dimensions of fairness are expected to contribute

to the formation of parasocial relationship, we also predict that the parasocial relationship
Ac

mediates the effect of perceived fairness of the influencer-follower interaction on followers’

interests in the promoted products:

H4. The parasocial relationship between influences and followers mediates the

relationship between fairness – a) distributive fairness, b) procedural fairness, c)

interpersonal fairness, and d) informational fairness – and followers’ interests in

 influencer-promoted products. Such as, followers who perceive a higher level of fairness

of their interaction with influencers will report a stronger parasocial relationship, which

in turn, leads to higher interests in influencer-promoted products.

Method

Sample

Participants of this study were recruited through Amazon’s Mechanic Turk and the study

t
ip
was administered online via Qualtrics. To ensure that the participants recruited have interacted

with social media influencer(s) before, we included five prescreening questions (e.g., asking

cr
them to name one influencer whom they like and whom they have been following; those who

us
could not name any influencer were excluded). A total of 799 participants answered the
an
screening questions, 426 were eligible and completed the survey. After deleting participants who

failed to answer the attention check questions correctly or who listed obviously non-influencer
M
name (such as “Facebook” “yes”), the study input a total of 355 participants for data analysis.

The participants aged from 19 to 75 (Mage = 34, SD = 10.17), with 57% of them being female.
e d

The majority of the participants were white/Caucasian (79%), followed by Asian (13%) and
pt

Black/African American (8%). Over half of the participants held a bachelor’s degree (55%), and
ce

roughly one fourth were high school graduates (26%).

The amount of time that participants spent on their social media accounts on a daily basis
Ac

distributed from 10 minutes or less (10%), 11-30 minutes (23%), 31-60 minutes (20%), 1-2

hours (22%), 2-3 hours (15%), to over three hours (10%). About 41% of them were following 1-

10 influencers, 28% following 11-30 influencers, 12% following 31-50 influencers, and 18%

following over 50 influencers. They followed the influencers via multiple platforms, including

Facebook (34%), YouTube (52%), Instagram (61%), Twitter (28%), and Snapchat (9%). They
followed influencers who specialized in domains like lifestyle (64%), food (45%), fashion (41%),

healthy living (40%), and travel (36%) (Participants can choose multiple options).

Procedure

Upon consenting to participate, the participants were asked to answer several screening

questions. Those who used social media and who have followed at least one influencer were

directed to fill in the rest of the survey questions and were compensated with additional

t
ip
incentives $0.1 for answering screen questions, an extra $0.5 for filling in the rest of the survey.

Before the start of the survey, we provided a detailed definition of a social media

cr
influencer and asked participants to name the influencer who first comes to their mind, the name

us
of the influencer was inserted into the rest of the survey questions. Questions about participants’
an
social media use, perceptions of the influencer, perceived fairness of the interaction with the

listed influencer, their interests in products reviewed or promoted by the influencer, as well as
M
their demographic information, were asked. Participants were debriefed in the end.

Measurement
e d

Source Credibility. This study measured the four dimensions of an influencer’s credibility
pt

with three or four items for each dimension (Munnukka, Uusitalo, and Toivonen 2016).
ce

Participants indicated their agreement a series of statements that measured perceived expertise,

attractiveness, trustworthiness and similarity, starting with “concerning the influencer you just
Ac

mentioned” on a 7-point Likert scale varying from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”

Expertise was measured with questions like “I feel [influencer name] knows a lot of his/her area,”

attractiveness was measured with questions like “I consider [influencer name] very stylish,”

trustworthiness was measured with questions like “I feel [influencer name] is honest,” and

similarity was measured with questions like “[influencer name] and I have a lot in common.”
 Fairness. The measurement on the four dimensions of fairness were adopted and edited

based on Besley, McComas, and Wakes (2006), which was adopted and modified based on

Colquitt (2001). Distributive fairness was measured with three items such as “The information

[influencer name] shares benefits with fans like me,” procedural fairness was measured with

three items including “I am able to share with [influencer name] about my views and feelings,”

interpersonal fairness was measured with three items including “I feel like I am treated with

t
respect,” and informational fairness was measured with three items including “Reviews or

ip
recommendations provided by [influencer name] upheld ethical and moral standards.”

cr
Parasocial relationship and product interest. Perceived parasocial relationship was

us
measured by 15 items adopted from Rosaen and Dibble (2016). Questions included “[influencer
an
name] makes me comfortable, as if I am with a friend,” “I look forward to seeing [influencer

name]’s next post,” etc. Two items that measured interest in products were adopted from Jin
M
(2003), including “how much interest do you have in the products that [influencer name]

promoted on his/her social media accounts?” and “how much do you want to see those products
e d

that [influencer name] posted on social media?” The measurement items, means, standardized
pt

error, and reliability of the latent variables are reported in Table 1.

ce

Covariates. Informed by previous studies on parasocial relationship and influencer

marketing (e.g., Bernhold and Metzger 2018; Bond 2018; Lou and Yuan 2019), demographical
Ac

factors – age and gender – that may affect model testing are included as covariates. Additionally,

we also considered the duration of social media use as a third covariate, which has been found to

affect parasocial relationship building in previous studies (e.g., Bond 2016). The proposed

conceptual model efficiently summarizes our hypotheses (see Figure 1).

INSERT TABLE 1 AND FIGURE 1 HERE

Data Analysis

To test the proposed model, we used AMOS 24 software to conduct structural equation

modeling (SEM). SEM allows us to simultaneously test multiple independent variables and

dependent variables. We included four dimensions of influencer credibility – expertise,

trustworthiness, attractiveness, and similarly – and four dimensions of fairness (i.e., distributive

fairness, informational fairness, interpersonal fairness, and procedural fairness) as the

t
ip
independent variables, with parasocial relationship being the mediator and interest in products as

the dependent variable, while controlling for the effects of age, gender, time spent on social

cr
media. We analyzed both direct effects and indirect effects of the determinants on the dependent

us
variable with bias-corrected bootstrapping (with 95% bias-corrected bootstrap confidence
an
intervals based on 2,000 samples) to determine the significance of the indirect effects (Macho

and Ledermann 2011).

M
Results

Missing Data Handling

e d

The online questionnaire did not compel the participants to fill in every question. In
pt

addition, the participants could choose to drop out. Therefore, there were some missing values in
ce

the dataset. We carried out a missing pattern analysis. Seven participants had missing values in

their answers. We used the option in SPSS to replace missing values with series mean value.
Ac

Given the small amount of missing values, we believe the missing values caused no or negligible

bias in the statistical power of the parameter estimation.

CFA Measurement Model

The initial measurement model with unit-loading indicators to latent constructs indicated

fair model fit χ2 (899) = 2604.37, CFI = .89; TLI = .88, SRMR= .06, and RMSEA = .06.
Alteration to the model was made by omitting two indicators from the parasocial relationship

construct and one indicator from distributive fairness. The two dropped items of parasocial

relationship: “I feel sorry for [influencer name] when he/she makes a mistake” and “I find

[influencer name] to be attractive” and one item from distributive fairness: “The interactions

with [influencer name] about products he/she mentioned are not helpful with my decision-

making” (reversed code) had factor loadings lower than .60, the cutoff point (Kline 2011). We

t
followed the following standards to determine model fit, such as Χ2 /df (less than 3) (Kline 2011),

ip
CFI (greater than .90) (Bentler 1992), and RMSEA (less than .08) (Hu and Bentler 1999). The

cr
revised model had acceptable model fit indices, χ2 (734) = 1705.21, CFI = .92, TLI = .91, SRMR

us
= .05, RMSEA = .06. All the loadings on the latent constructs were sizable and significant,
an
ranging from .61 to .95, which indicated satisfactory convergent validity (Kline 2011). We also

conducted discriminant validity test: the average variance extracted (AVE) values for all latent
M
constructs were greater than .50, with the square root of the AVE for each construct bigger than

its correlation to any other constructs. This indicates adequate discriminant validity among the
e d

latent constructs. The correlations of variables in the measurement model are reported in Table 2.
pt

Therefore, all the latent constructs had acceptable discriminant validities. Moreover, a
ce

collinearity analysis showed that there is no significant levels of collinearity between any sets of

the independent variables, with variance inflation factor (VIF) falling between 1 and 5 (Hair et al
Ac

2014).

INSERT TABLE 2 HERE

Structural Model Testing

Adopting the above-mentioned model fit indexes, the proposed model showed good

model fit with the sample: χ2 (852) = 1833.13, χ2/df = 2.15, CFI = .92, TLI = .91, SRMR = .05,

RMSEA = .06.

H1 posits that influencer credibility dimensions – a) expertise, b) trustworthiness, c)

attractiveness, and d) similarity – positively relate to the strength of the parasocial relationship

t
ip
between the influencer and their followers. Results showed that expertise (β = .04, p = .52) and

trustworthiness (β = .07, p = .39) had no impact on the strength of the parasocial relationship,

cr
whereas attractiveness (β = .06, p < .05) and similarity (β = .27, p < .01) positively related to the

us
parasocial relationship strength. Therefore, H1a and H1b were not supported, while H1c and H1d

were supported.
an
H2 hypothesizes that fairness – a) distributive fairness, b) procedural fairness, c)
M
interpersonal fairness, and d) informational fairness – is positively related to the strength of

parasocial relationship. Results revealed that procedural fairness (β = .12, p <.01) and
e d

interpersonal fairness (β = .24, p <.01) were positively associated with the strength of a
pt

parasocial relationship, whereas informational fairness (β = .10, p = .31) and distributive fairness
ce

(β = .18, p = .07) did not affect parasocial relationship. H2a and H2d were not supported, while

H2b and H2c were supported.

Ac

H3 postulates about the mediating role of parasocial relationship on the relationship

between influencer credibility – a) expertise, b) trustworthiness, c) attractiveness, and d)

similarity – and product interest. Results demonstrated that the parasocial relationship was

positively related to product interest (β = .37, p < .05). More importantly, the indirect effects of

influencer similarity (β = .10, p < .05) and attractiveness (β = .02, p < .05) on product interest via
affecting parasocial relationship were significant, whereas the parasocial relationship was neither

mediating the effects of expertise (β = .01, p = .55) nor trustworthiness (β = .03, p = .40) on

product interest. Despite not being mediated by the parasocial relationship, trustworthiness was

found to be negatively related to product interests (β = -.49, p < .001).

Last, H4 focused on the mediating role of parasocial relationship strength on the link

between fairness – a) distributive fairness, b) procedural fairness, c) interpersonal fairness, and d)

t
informational fairness – and product interests. The indirect effects of procedural fairness (β = .04,

ip
p < .05) and interpersonal fairness (β = .09, p = .01) on product interests via influencing

cr
parasocial relationship were significant. However, the indirect effects of distributive fairness (β

us
= .07, p = .20) or informational fairness (β = .04, p = .33) via parasocial relationship on product
an
interests were not significant. Despite not being mediated by parasocial relationship, distributive

fairness was positively related to product interest (β = .52, p < .05), a similar result was also
M
observed with informational fairness (β = .77, p < .001) (see Table 3).

INSERT TABLE 3 AND FIGURE 2 HERE

e d

Discussion
pt

As social media influencers are gaining increasing traction, researchers have looked into
ce

the value of influencers from advertising, communication or marketing perspectives. While

exploring the value of social media influencers in influencer marketing, it is also important to
Ac

understand the underlying mechanism of its value and the determinants of this value. Moreover,

unlike celebrities, social media influencers are content generators who rely heavily on mediated

interactions – mostly two-way interaction – with their followers to build their fame and

reputation. It is imperative to explicate the relationship between influencers and their followers

and to what extent the interaction between influencers and their followers shape followers’
perceptions of their relationship. The findings of this study suggest that parasocial relationship

plays an important role in understanding the value of social media influencers, and followers’

perceived fairness of the communication process is an important element to consider while

evaluating the strength of the parasocial relationship. Our findings extend the application of

organizational justice to interpersonal communication context, add to the literature on parasocial

relationships, and offer theoretical implications to researchers who examine parasocial

t
relationship in today’s dialogic media environment. We elaborate on the major findings as

ip
follows.

cr
The first major finding is that among the four characteristics of influencers, perceived

us
attractiveness and similarity were found to be positively related to parasocial relationship, which
an
is consistent with the findings of previous research (Bond 2018). Moreover, results showed that

the relationship between perceived attractiveness and product interest is mediated by parasocial
M
relationship. Similarly, parasocial relationship mediates the relationship between perceived

similarity and product interest. In other words, followers are more likely to form stronger
e d

parasocial relationship with influencers whom they consider attractive and similar to themselves,
pt

and the parasocial relationship in turn, leads to greater interests in the products promoted by the
ce

influencers. This finding again echoes what Lou and Kim (2019) have found among adolescents

that, parasocial relationship between adolescent followers and influencers mediates the
Ac

relationship between influencer attractiveness and similarity and adolescents’ materialistic views

and purchase intentions. Collectively, this finding showcases and highlights the mediating role of

parasocial relationship in the effect of influencers on advertising outcomes and consumer

behavior.
 However, the perceived expertise and trustworthiness of influencers did not relate to the

strength of parasocial relationship. It can be explained that, being an expert in a specific domain

or being trustworthy did not seem to help cultivate the parasocial relationship between an

influencer and his/her followers. Surprisingly, we found that perceived trustworthiness was

negatively related to product interests. Although this finding contradicts what we have

hypothesized, this finding resonates with the results of a recent study in which the researchers

t
ip
(Lou and Yuan 2019) also found that perceived influencer trustworthiness is negatively

associated with brand awareness and purchase intention. Agreeing with what Lou and Yuan have

cr
argued (2019), we speculate that, followers may be skeptical of the motive of even a trustworthy

us
influencer when he/she shares branded posts and may overcorrect the effect of the
an
trustworthiness cue when it comes to consumption-related evaluations. Nevertheless, future

qualitative and quantitative investigation is needed to validate this speculation.

M
We proposed and tested the role of fairness in the formation of influencer-follower

relationship. The current findings largely aligned with prior findings on the effect of fairness on
e d

individuals’ perceptions of the relationship with involved organizations (e.g., Bies 2005; Colquitt
pt

et al. 2001) and their evaluations of communication outcomes (e.g., Fang and Chiu 2011).
ce

Specifically, our results suggest that, two types of fairness – procedural fairness and

interpersonal fairness – are important antecedents of parasocial relationships. In other words,

Ac

followers build stronger parasocial relationship with an influencer if they believe that they are

being treated nicely, and that they are able to share their voices with the influencer. Furthermore,

procedural fairness and interpersonal fairness have been found to relate to the strength of

parasocial relationship between influencers and followers, which in turn, is associated with

followers’ product interests. It can be interpreted as, the interactivity and equality during the
interaction between influencers and followers shape the relationship between the two.

Interestingly, the results show that, although informational fairness and distributive fairness –

whether the information shared by influencers was beneficial, candid, or moral – did not affect

the parasocial relationship, the two types of fairness were positively associated with product

interests. This suggests that, valuable and moral information shared by influencers may not be

helpful for relationship development but still contributes to consumers’ evaluation of the

t
ip
promoted products (Dehghani et al. 2016; Van-Tien Dao et al. 2014). The takeaway of these

findings is that fairness should be given due attention in the persuasion process between

cr
influencers and followers or other related interlocutors. Overall, this again agrees with the

us
finding that interaction and messages that signal fairness during communication can yield

positive outcomes (e.g., Yamaguchi 2005).

an
Theoretical and Practical Implications
M
Theoretically, this study considers two critical factors – source credibility and

communication justice – in explicating the appeal of influencers among followers. Extant

e d

literature on social media influencers or influencer advertising often only focuses on the effects
pt

of source characteristics on the effectiveness of sponsored ads posted by influencers or on the

ce

formation of follower-influencer relationship. Informed by the fairness conceptualization that

originates from organizational communication, this study is the first to propose and identify that
Ac

followers’ evaluation of the communication process with influencers plays an indispensable role

in influencer-follower relationship and their consumption-related behavior. The findings of this

study not only add to the literature on source credibility, but also extends the repertoire of

theoretical framework or conceptualizations that relate to the formation of parasocial relationship

in interpersonal communication. Additionally, the findings of this study extend our knowledge
on the appeal of influencers and the mechanisms through which influencer advertising affect

consumer behavior.

Practically, for influencers, it is important to cultivate attractive personae that also signal

similarity to followers to strengthen the parasocial relationship with their followers. Meanwhile,

how followers are being treated by influencers (interpersonal fairness) and whether the

interaction with influencers is two-way and somewhat reciprocal (procedure fairness) also

t
ip
matters equally in relationship building. Influencers should showcase adequate etiquette and

respect in their interaction with followers and also reciprocate followers’ expectations and

cr
emotions to ensure stable relationship with followers. For marketers and brands who are

us
interested in influencer campaigns, besides assessing the reach of the influencers (e.g., number of
an
followers) and whether the influencers exhibit due decorum and follow the principle of

reciprocity in the interaction with followers, they should also consider the expertise of the
M
influencers in specific domains (distributive fairness) and the ethics that they uphold when

sharing information (informational fairness). In particular, only those who deliver accurate and
e d

valuable information to followers and those who uphold ethical and moral standards in their
pt

sharing are expected to have positive impact on followers’ interests in the promoted products.
ce

Limitations and Future Research

This study also bears several limitations that point directions for future research. First, to
Ac

capture an individual’s perception of an influencer whom they are familiar with, instead of using

a specified influencer, we asked respondents to name one who first came to their mind. Although

we believe it is the most logical way to capture users’ experience in an online survey and this has

been used in prior studies (e.g., Bond 2018; Tian and Hoffner 2010), we realize that the domain

type of the influencers may promise different experiences to followers. Future studies can
replicate the study with a more restricted setting – such as influencers in a specific domain or

scenario – and find out whether other factors affect the development of parasocial relationship.

Second, we recognize that different forms of marketer – influencer collaborations (product

endorsement, product review, gifting or guest blogging) may yield different responses from

followers as well, and not all participants in the current study have experienced all kinds of

influencer marketing activities; future study may consider this difference as a moderator in the

t
ip
model. Third, we did not specify the social media platform through which followers follow

influencers. We acknowledge that different platforms may introduce different features that affect

cr
users’ experiences and perceptions of their listed influencers. Future studies can replicate the

us
current study and test the proposed model on one specific media platform. Also, we selected
an
product interests as the outcome that represents marketing objectives in the current study, future

research can examine other marketing or advertising related outcomes, such as purchase
M
intentions or actual purchase to validate the role of parasocial relationship. Last, we used MTurk

sample in the current study, which may not be a representative sample of the general population.
e d

We believe future research using more representative samples is needed to test the
pt

generalizability of the findings.

ce
Ac
 References

Agrawal, AJ (2016, December 27), Why influencer marketing will explode in 2017. Forbes.

Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/ajagrawal/2016/12/27/why-influencer-

marketing-will-explode-in-2017/#3bfaf85c20a9

Auter, Philip J (1992), "Psychometric: TV that talks back: An experimental validation of a

parasocial interaction scale. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media," 36 (2), 173-

t
ip
181.

Belch, George E., and Michael A. Belch (2004), Advertising and promotion: An integrated

cr
marketing communications perspective (6th ed), New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

us
Bennett, Lucy (2014), “Fan/celebrity interactions and social media: Connectivity and
an
engagement in Lady Gaga fandom,” The Ashgate Research Companion to Fan Cultures,

Duits, L., Koos Zwaan and Stijn Reijnders, eds.,Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 109-120.
M
Bentler, Peter M (1992), "On the fit of models to covariances and methodology to the Bulletin,"

Psychological Bulletin, 112 (3), 400-404.

e d

Bergkvist, Lars, and Kris Qiang Zhou (2016), “Celebrity endorsements: a literature review and
pt

research agenda,” International Journal of Advertising, 35 (3), 642-663.

ce

Bernhold, Quinten S., and Miriam Metzger (2018), “Older adults’ parasocial relationships with

favorite television characters and depressive symptoms,” Health Communication.

Ac

Advance online publication.

Besley, John C., Katherine A. McComas, and Leah Waks (2006), “Media use and the perceived

justice of local science authorities,” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 83

(4), 801-818.
Bies, Robert J (2005), “Are procedural justice and interactional justice conceptually

distinct?” Handbook of Organizational Justice, Greenberg, J.and Jason Colquitt, eds.,

Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 85-112.

Bond, Bradley J (2016), “Following your “friend”: Social media and the strength of adolescents'

parasocial relationships with media personae. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social

Networking, 19 (11), 656-660.

t
Bond, Bradley J (2018), “Parasocial relationships with media personae: Why they matter and

ip
how they differ among heterosexual, lesbian, gay, and bisexual adolescents,” Media

cr
Psychology, 21 (3), 457-485.

us
Booth, Norman, and Julie Ann Matic (2011), “Mapping and leveraging influencers in social
an
media to shape corporate brand perceptions,” Corporate Communications, 16 (3), 184-

191.
M
Calvert, Sandra L., Melissa N. Richards (2014) “Children’s para-social relationships,” Media

and the Well-being of Children and Adolescents, Jordan, A. B and Daniel Romer, eds.,
e d

New York: Oxford, 187-200.

pt

Casaló, Luis V., Carlos Flavián, and Sergio Ibáñez-Sánchez (2018), “Influencers on Instagram:
ce

Antecedents and consequences of opinion leadership,” Journal of Business Research.

Advance online publication.

Ac

Chen, Chih-Ping (2016), “Forming digital self and parasocial relationships on

YouTube,” Journal of Consumer Culture, 16 (1), 232-254.

Chory, Rebecca M (2007), “Enhancing student perceptions of fairness: The relationship between

instructor credibility and classroom justice,” Communication Education, 56 (1), 89-105.

Cohen, Jonathan (2009), “Mediated relationships and media effects: Parasocial interaction and

identification,” The Sage handbook of media processes and effects, Nabi, R and Mary

Beth Oliver, eds., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 223-236.

Colliander, Jonas, and Micael Dahlén (2011), “Following the fashionable friend: The power of

social media,” Journal of Advertising Research, 51 (1), 313-320.

Colquitt, Jason A (2001), “On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation

t
ip
of a measure,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (3), 386-400.

Colquitt, Jason A., Donald E. Conlon, Michael J. Wesson, Christopher OLH Porter, and K. Yee

cr
Ng (2001). “Justice at the millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of

us
organizational justice research,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (3), 425-445.
an
DeConinck, James B (2010), "The effect of organizational justice, perceived organizational

support, and perceived supervisor support on marketing employees' level of trust,"

M
Journal of Business Research, 63 (12), 1349-1355.

Dehghani, Milad, Mojtaba Khorram Niaki, Iman Ramezani, and Rasoul Sali (2016), “Evaluating
e d

the influence of YouTube advertising for attraction of young customers,” Computers in

pt

Human Behavior, 59, 165-172.

ce

De Veirman, Marijke, Veroline Cauberghe, and Liselot Hudders (2017), “Marketing through

Instagram influencers: the impact of number of followers and product divergence on

Ac

brand attitude,” International Journal of Advertising, 36 (5), 798-828.

Dibble, Jayson L., Tilo Hartmann, and Sarah F. Rosaen (2016), “Parasocial interaction and

parasocial relationship: Conceptual clarification and a critical assessment of

measures,” Human Communication Research, 42 (1), 21-44.

Djafarova, Elmira, and Chloe Rushworth (2017), “Exploring the Credibility of Online Celebrities’

Instagram Profiles in Influencing the Purchase Decisions of Young Female Users,”

Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 1–7.

Duck, Steve, and Melanie K. Barnes (1992), “Disagreeing about agreement: Reconciling

differences about similarity,” Communications Monographs, 59 (2), 199-208.

Dwivedi, Abhishek, Lester W. Johnson, and Robert E. McDonald (2015), “Celebrity

t
ip
endorsement, self-brand connection and consumer-based brand equity,” Journal of

Product and Brand Management, 24 (5), 449-461. doi: 10.1108/JPBM-10-2014-0722

cr
Escalas, Jennifer Edson, and James R. Bettman (2017), “Connecting with celebrities: how

us
consumers appropriate celebrity meanings for a sense of belonging,” Journal of

Advertising, 46 (2), 297-308.

an
Erickson, S. E., K. Harrison, and S. D. Cin (2018), “Toward a multi-dimensional model of
M
adolescent romantic parasocial attachment,” Communication Theory, 28, 376-399.

Fang, Yu-Hui, and Chao-Min Chiu (2010), “In justice we trust: Exploring knowledge-sharing
e d

continuance intentions in virtual communities of practice,” Computers in Human

pt

Behavior, 26 (2), 235-246.

ce

Freberg, Karen, Kristin Graham, Karen McGaughey, and Laura A. Freberg (2011), “Who are the

social media influencers? A study of public perceptions of personality,” Public Relations

Ac

Review, 37 (1), 90-92.

Giffin, Kim (1967), “The contribution of studies of source credibility to a theory of interpersonal

trust in the communication process,” Psychological Bulletin, 68 (2), 104-120.

Giles, David C (2002), “Parasocial interaction: A review of the literature and a model for future

research,” Media Psychology, 4 (3), 279-305. doi: 10.1207/S1532785XMEP0403_04

Guido, Gianluigi, and Alessandro M. Peluso (2009), “When are baby-faced endorsers

appropriate? Testing effects on credibility and purchase intention,” Journal of Current

Issues and Research in Advertising, 31 (2), 67-74.

Hair, Neil, Moira Clark, and Melanie Shapiro (2010), “Toward a classification system of

relational activity in consumer electronic communities: the moderator’s tale,” Journal of

Relationship Marketing, 9 (1), 54-65.

t
ip
Hair Jr, Joseph F., et al. (2016), A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling

(PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

cr
Hartmann, Tilo, and Charlotte Goldhoorn (2011), "Horton and Wohl revisited: Exploring

us
viewers' experience of parasocial interaction." Journal of Communication 61 (6), 1104-

1121.
an
Hoffner, Cynthia, and Martha Buchanan (2005), “Young adults' wishful identification with
M
television characters: The role of perceived similarity and character attributes,” Media

Psychology, 7 (4), 325-351.

e d

Horton, Donald, and R. Richard Wohl (1956), “Mass communication and para-social interaction:
pt

Observations on intimacy at a distance,” Psychiatry, 19 (3), 215-229.

ce

Hovland, Carl I., and Walter Weiss (1951), “The influence of source credibility on

communication effectiveness,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 15 (4), 635-650.

Ac

Hu, Li‐ tze, and Peter M. Bentler (1999), "Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure

analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives," Structural Equation Modeling: a

Multidisciplinary Journal 6 (1), 1-55.

Hughes, Christian, Vanitha Swaminathan, and Gillian Brooks (2019). "Driving brand

engagement through online social influencers: An empirical investigation of sponsored

blogging campaigns." Journal of Marketing 83 (5), 78-96.

Jin, Hyun Seung (2003), “Compounding consumer interest: Effects of advertising campaign

publicity on the ability to recall subsequent advertisements,” Journal of Advertising, 32

(4), 29-41.

t
Jin, Seung-A. Annie, and Namkee Park (2009), “Parasocial interaction with my avatar: Effects of

ip
interdependent self-construal and the mediating role of self-presence in an avatar-based

cr
console game, Wii,” CyberPsychology and Behavior, 12 (6), 723-727.

us
Karp, Katie (2016, May 10), “New research: the value of influencer on twitter,” Retrieved from
an
https://blog.twitter.com/2016/new-research-the-value-of-influencers-on-twitter.

Kim, Jihyun, and Hayeon Song (2016), “Celebrity's self-disclosure on Twitter and parasocial
M
relationships: A mediating role of social presence,” Computers in Human Behavior, 62,

570-577.
e d

Kline, Rex B (2011), Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.), New
pt

York, NY: Guilford Press.

ce

Lauber, T. Bruce (1999), “Measuring fairness in citizen participation: a case study of moose

management,” Society and Natural Resources, 12 (1), 19-37.

Ac

Lee, Younghan, and Jakeun Koo (2015), “Athlete endorsement, attitudes, and purchase intention:

The interaction effect between athlete endorser-product congruence and endorser

credibility,” Journal of Sport Management, 29 (5), 523-538.

Lind, E. Allan (2001), “Thinking critically about justice judgments,” Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 58 (2), 220-226.

Liu, Yi, Ying Huang, Yadong Luo, and Yang Zhao (2012), “How does justice matter in

achieving buyer–supplier relationship performance?” Journal of Operations

Management, 30 (5), 355-367.

Lou, Chen, and Shupei Yuan (2019), “Influencer marketing: how message value and credibility

affect consumer trust of branded content on social media,” Journal of Interactive

Advertising, 19 (1), 58-73.

t
———, and Hye Kyung Kim (2019), “Fancying the New Rich and Famous? Explicating the

ip
Roles of Influencer Content, Credibility, and Parental Mediation in Adolescents’

cr
Parasocial Relationship, Materialism, and Purchase Intentions,” Frontiers in Psychology,

us
10, 2567.
an
———, Sang-Sang Tan, and Xiaoyu Chen (2019), “Investigating consumer engagement with

influencer-vs. brand-promoted ads: The roles of source and disclosure,” Journal of

M
Interactive Advertising, 19 (3), 169-186.

Macho, Siegfried, and Thomas Ledermann (2011), “Estimating, testing, and comparing specific
e d

effects in structural equation models: The phantom model approach,” Psychological

pt

Methods, 16 (1), 34-43.

ce

Martínez‐ Tur, Vicente, José M. Peiró, José Ramos, and Carolina Moliner (2006), "Justice

Perceptions as Predictors of Customer Satisfaction: The Impact of Distributive,

Ac

Procedural, and Interactional Justice," Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36 (1), 100-

119.

McCroskey, James C (1966), “Scales for the measurement of ethos,” Speech Monographs, 33,

65-72.
McGuire, William J., R. E. Rice, and C. K. Atkin (2001), “Input and output variables currently

promising for constructing persuasive communications,” Public Communication

Campaigns, 3, 22-48.

Munnukka, Juha, Outi Uusitalo, and Hanna Toivonen (2016), “Credibility of a peer endorser and

advertising effectiveness,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 33 (3), 182-192.

Perse, Elizabeth M., and Rebecca B. Rubin (1989), "Attribution in social and parasocial

t
ip
relationships." Communication Research 16 (1), 59-77.

Roose, Kevin (2019, July), “Don’t Scoff at Influencers. They’re taking over the world,” New

cr
York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/technology/vidcon-

us
social-media-influencers.html.
an
Rosaen, Sarah F., and Jayson L. Dibble (2016), “Clarifying the role of attachment and social

compensation on parasocial relationships with television characters,” Communication

M
Studies, 67 (2), 147-162.

Rubin, Alan M (2002), “The uses-and-gratifications perspective of media effects,” Media Effects:
e d

Advances in Theory and Research, J. Bryant and Mary Beth Oliver, eds., Mahwah, NJ:
pt

Erlbaum, 525-548.
ce

Schiappa, Edward, Mike Allen, and Peter B. Gregg (2007), “Parasocial relationships and

television: A metaanalysis of the effects,” Mass Media Effects Research: Advances

Ac

through Meta-analysis, R. W. Preiss, Barbara Mae Gayle, Nancy Burrell, Mike Allen,

and Jennings Bryant, eds., New York, NY: Routledge, 301-314.

Schmid, Hannah, and Christoph Klimmt (2011), “A magically nice guy: Parasocial relationships

with Harry Potter across different cultures,” International Communication Gazette, 73 (3),

252-269.
Stever, Gayle S (2017), “Evolutionary theory and reactions to mass media: Understanding

parasocial attachment,” Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 6 (2), 95-102.

Swant, Marty (2016, May 10), “Twitter says users now trust influencers nearly as much as their

friends,” Adweek. Retrieved from http://www.adweek.com/digital/twitter-says-users-

now-trust-influencers-nearly-much-their-friends-171367/

Thibaut, John W., and Laurens Walker (1975), Procedural justice: A psychological analysis.

t
ip
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Thorson, Kjerstin S., and Shelly Rodgers (2006), “Relationships between blogs as eWOM and

cr
interactivity, perceived interactivity, and parasocial interaction,” Journal of Interactive

us
Advertising, 6 (2), 5-44.
an
Tian, Qing, and Cynthia A Hoffner (2010), “Parasocial interaction with liked, neutral, and

disliked characters on a popular TV series,” Mass Communication and Society, 13 (3),

M
250-269.

Tsai, Wan-Hsiu Sunny, and Linjuan Rita Men (2013), “Motivations and antecedents of consumer
e d

engagement with brand pages on social networking sites,” Journal of Interactive

pt

Advertising, 13 (2), 76-87.

ce

Uzunoğlu, Ebru, and Sema Misci Kip (2014), “Brand communication through digital influencers:

Leveraging blogger engagement,” International Journal of Information Management, 34

Ac

(5), 592-602.

Van den Bos, Kees, and Jan-Willem van Prooijen (2001), “Referent Cognitions Theory: The role

of closeness of reference points in the psychology of voice,” Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 81 (4), 616-626.

Varsamis, Evan (2018, Jun 13), “Are social media influencers the next-generation brand

ambassadors?” Forbes. Retrieved from

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theyec/2018/06/13/aresocial-media-influencers-the-next-

generation-brandambassadors/#2d8b9e82473d

Van-Tien Dao, William, Angelina Nhat Hanh Le, Julian Ming-Sung Cheng, and Der Chao Chen

(2014), “Social media advertising value: The case of transitional economies in Southeast

t
ip
Asia,” International Journal of Advertising, 33 (2), 271-294.

Wen, Nainan (2017), “Celebrity influence and young people’s attitudes toward cosmetic surgery

cr
in Singapore: The role of parasocial relationships and identification,” International

us
Journal of Communication, 11, 1234-1252.
an
Yamaguchi, Ikushi (2005), “Interpersonal communication tactics and procedural justice for

uncertainty management of Japanese workers,” International Journal of Business

M
Communication, 42 (2), 168-194.

Weinberg, Jesse (2017, Jul 6), “What is influencer marketing?” Huffington Post. Retrieved from
e d

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/global-yodel/what-is-influcner-
pt

marketing_b_10778128.html
ce

Yuan, Chun Lin, Juran Kim, and Sang Jin Kim (2016), “Parasocial relationship effects on

customer equity in the social media context,” Journal of Business Research, 69 (9), 3795-
Ac

3803.
Table 1 Estimates of Measurement Items

M SD CR (AVE)
Expertise (Cronbach alpha = .91) 5.88 1.01 .86 (.75)
I consider ______ sufficiently experienced to make assertions
6.00 1.08
about his/her area.
I consider _____ an expert on his/her area. 5.94 1.08
I feel _____ is competent to make assertions about things that
5.69 1.28
they are good at.
I feel ____ knows a lot about their areas. 5.90 1.07
Trustworthiness (Cronbach alpha = .95) 5.72 1.24 .96 (.84)

t
I consider _____earnest. 5.76 1.32

ip
I feel _____ is truthful. 5.68 1.34
I consider _______ trustworthy. 5.73 1.31

cr
I feel ______ is honest. 5.69 1.33
Attractiveness (Cronbach alpha = .91) 5.06 1.43 .92 (.75)

us
I think ___ is sexy. 4.45 1.76
I think ____ is good looking. 5.31 1.49
I consider ___ vey stylish. an 5.35 1.49
I consider ____ very attractive. 5.12 1.63
Similarity (Cronbach alpha = .92) 4.49 1.44 .92 (.79)
I can easily identify with ____. 4.83 1.57
M
____ and I are a lot alike. 4.22 1.57
____ and I have a lot in common. 4.41 1.52
Distributive fairness (Cronbach alpha = .81) 5.38 1.21 .81 (.68)
d

The information ______ shares benefits fans like me. 5.30 1.33
e

I think the time I spent on viewing _____’ posts is worth it. 5.46 1.31
Interpersonal fairness (Cronbach alpha = .95) 5.37 1.28 .95 (.87)
pt

I feel I am treated with dignity. 5.30 1.33

I feel I am treated in a polite manner. 5.42 1.36
ce

I feel I am treated with respect. 5.38 1.34

Procedural fairness (Cronbach alpha = .71) 4.51 1.24 .74 (.50)
I am able to share with _____ about my views and feelings. 4.69 1.54
Ac

If I disagree with some messages or products posted by

4.85 1.53
_______, there is a way for me to let him/her know.
If I want to, I am able to influence the conversation or
3.98 1.62
interaction we have with _____.
Informational fairness (Cronbach alpha = .84) 5.34 1.08 .84 (.64)
Reviews or recommendations provided by _______ are based
5.39 1.28
on accurate information.
________ is usually candid in his/her message about product
5.51 1.24
they mention or review on followers like me.
Reviews or recommendations provided by _______ upheld
5.35 1.34
ethical and moral standards.
Parasocial relationship (Cronbach alpha = .94) .94 (.55)
_____ makes me feel comfortable, as if I am with a friend. 5.00 1.52
I look forward to seeing ______ 's need post. 5.49 1.26
I see ______ as a natural, down-to-earth person. 5.46 1.52
If ______ starts another social media channel, I will also
5.06 1.51
follow.
______ seems to understand the kinds of thing I want to
5.27 1.36
know.
If I see a story about ______ in other places, I would read it. 5.68 1.24
I miss seeing ______ when he/she did not post on time. 4.44 1.70
I would like to meet ______ in person. 5.15 1.65

t
If something happens to ______, I will feel sad. 4.87 1.58

ip
I would invite ______ to my party. 5.37 1.41
______ is the kind of person I would like to play or hang out

cr
5.28 1.59
with.
If ______ lived in my neighborhood we would be friends. 5.26 1.46

us
______ would fit in well with my group of friends.
Product interest (Cronbach alpha = .91) 4.36 1.74 .91 (.84)
How much interest do you have in the products that ______
an 4.49 1.79
promotes on his/her social media accounts?
How much do you want to see those sponsored products that
4.24 1.83
_____ posted on social media?
M
Note: Composite Reliability (CR) and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) from measurement
model are reported.
e d
pt
ce
Ac
Table 2 Correlations between Constructs in Measurement Model
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Product
Interest ---
2. Expertise .39** ---
3. Trustworthiness .39** .68** ---
4. Attractiveness .26** .20** .14** ---
5. Similarity .45** .36** .49** .12* ---
6. Distributive .64** .65** .68** .14* .65** ---
7. Interpersonal .41** .47** .67** .20** .51** .63** ---
8. Procedural .40** .35** .48** .12* .47** .54** .55** ---

t
9. Informational .63** .67** .79** .25** .48** .78** .67** .52** ---

ip
10. Parasocial
relationship .57** .52** .65** .24** .71** .71** .71** .60** .68** ---
Note. *p < .05, **p < .01.

cr
us
an
M
e d
pt
ce
Ac
Table 3 Estimates of Constructed Model
β SE Std β
Expertise  Parasocial relationship .04 .07 .03
Trustworthiness  Parasocial relationship .07 .07 .07
Attractiveness  Parasocial relationship .06* .03 .08
Similarity  Parasocial relationship .27*** .05 .31
Distributive  Parasocial relationship .18 .10 .17
Interpersonal  Parasocial relationship .24*** .05 .24
Procedural  Parasocial relationship .12** .04 .14
Informational  Parasocial relationship .10 .10 .09
Duration  Parasocial relationship .03 .03 .04
Age  Parasocial relationship .00 .00 .02

t
ip
Gender  Parasocial relationship - .06 .07 -.03
Parasocial relationship  Product Interest .37** .14 .27
Expertise  Product Interest -.11 .13 -.07

cr
Trustworthiness  Product Interest -.49*** .14 -.33
Attractiveness  Product Interest .10 .06 .09

us
Similarity  Product Interest .04 .09 .03
Distributive  Product Interest .52** .20 .35
Interpersonal  Product Interestan -.17 .10 -.13
Procedural  Product Interest .00 .07 .00
Informational  Product Interest .77*** .20 .52
Duration  Product Interest -.05 .05 -.04
M
Age  Product Interest -.01 .01 -.06
Gender  Product Interest .16 .13 .05
Indirect effect via parasocial relationship β SE Std.β 95% CI
d

Expertise  Product Interest .01 .04 .01 [-.03, .07]

Trustworthiness  Product Interest .03 .05 .02 [-.03, .11]
e

Attractiveness  Product Interest .02* .02 .02 [.00, .07]

 Product Interest
pt

Similarity .10* .05 .08 [.02, .18]

Distributive  Product Interest .07 .09 .05 [-.03, .23]
Interpersonal  Product Interest .09* .05 .07 [.01, .16]
ce

Procedural  Product Interest .04* .03 .04 [.01, .10]

Informational  Product Interest .04 .06 .03 [-.04, .12]
Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001, two-tailed.
Ac
 Expertise

Attractiveness
Parasocial
Relationship
Trustworthiness

Similarity

Distributive Fairness

t
ip
Procedural Fairness
Product Interest

cr
Interpersonal Fairness
Covariates:
Age, Gender, Social media use duration

us
Informational Fairness

an
Figure 1. Integrated conceptual model.
M
e d
pt
ce
Ac
 2
Expertise .04 R =.74
-.11 .06* Parasocial
Attractiveness .07 Relationship
.10
.27***
Trustworthiness
-.49***
.37**
Similarity .04

.18

t
ip
Distributive Fairness
2
.12**
R =.53

cr
Procedural Fairness .52**
Product
.00
.24*** Interest
Interpersonal Fairness

us
-.17
.10 .77**
Informational Fairness *
an
Figure 2. Regression coefficients in the model. Solid line indicates significant path, dotted line
M
indicates non-significant path. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
e d
pt
ce
Ac