JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE

2020, VOL. 19, NO. 1, 103–124

https://doi.org/10.1080/15332861.2019.1700741

The Effect of Influencer Marketing on Consumers’

Brand Admiration and Online Purchase Intentions:
An Emerging Market Perspective
Jay Trivedia and Ramzan Samab
a
Digital Platform and Strategies, MICA, Ahmedabad, India; bSchool of Business, SVKM’s NMIMS
(Deemed to be University), Indore, India

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This paper focuses on consumer electronics products and Brand admiration; brand
observes the comparative effect of celebrity vis-a-vis expert attitude; influencer
influencers on consumers’ online purchase intentions. The marketing; message process
involvement; millennials;
mediating role played by brand admiration and brand attitude online purchase intentions
between influencer marketing and online purchase intentions
are tested. The moderating role played by message involve-
ment between influencer marketing and brand attitude is also
observed. The survey method was employed to conduct this
research, and data were collected from 438 respondents. The
proposed hypotheses were tested using structural equation
modeling, hierarchical regression analysis, and Hayes process
method. The results submit that there is a definite advantage
in choosing an expert influencer over an attractive celebrity
influencer while planning the marketing communications of
consumer electronics products. The mediating role of brand
attitude and brand admiration is empirically evident. The
moderating effect of involvement is also established.

Introduction
India is the fastest-growing e-commerce market expanding at a rate of
51%, the highest in the world (IBEF 2019). Consumer electronics is the
largest category, commanding 48% of the total e-commerce category sales
in this lucrative market (IBEF 2019). This online retail revolution in India
is driven by the active participation of millennial consumers, who form the
most significant consumer segment online (Trivedi and Trivedi 2018).
Consumer electronics category marketers employ social media influencers
to build an interactive relationship with the millennial consumers’ as this
cohort continues to lose interest in traditional advertising (Odell 2015;
Fromm 2018; Lou and Yuan 2019; Cooley and Parks-Yancy 2019).
However, few researchers have attempted to understand the effect of

CONTACT Jay Trivedi Jaytrivedi2002@gmail.com Digital Platform and Strategies, MICA,

Ahmedabad, India.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/wico.
ß 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
104 J. TRIVEDI AND R. SAMA

influencer marketing on various facets of consumer behavior (Godey et al.

2016; Lim et al. 2017; Lou and Yuan 2019). Also, choosing from among
the domain expert influencers’ vis-a-vis an attractive celebrity influencer is
proving to be a conundrum for marketers (Wolfson 2017; Hill 2018). From
an academic perspective, few studies have attempted to compare the effi-
cacy of the two endorses, making this an essential addition to literature
(Schouten, Janssen, and Verspaget 2019). Also, the effect of influencer mar-
keting on the consumer-brand relationship is understudied (Schouten,
Janssen, and Verspaget 2019). Such a study is crucial in today’s scenario
where marketers are aiming at developing an emotional relationship with
their consumers. As the effectiveness of endorser type varies with the prod-
uct they endorse, choosing an appropriate influencer assumes a greater
challenge (De Veirman, Cauberghe, and Hudders 2017).
Hence, this research observes the comparative effect of an expert social
media influencer vis-a-vis’ an attractive celebrity influencer’s endorsement
on the millennial consumer’s brand attitude, which further results in brand
admiration, finally leading to online purchase intentions. The moderating
role of message process involvement between influencer endorsement and
brand attitude is observed. The mediating role played by brand attitude
and brand admiration between influencer endorsement and purchase inten-
tions are also observed. This study is focused on consumer electronics
products as marketers in this category spend a significant amount of their
budgets on influencer marketing (Hallanan 2018). Further, owing to the
availability of a wide array of latest technologies in the consumer electron-
ics segment, it is difficult for consumers to select the right product suiting
their needs (Heitmann, Lehmann, and Herrmann 2007). This difficulty
leads to their dependence on social media influencers for customized
suggestions.
India is home to the largest cohort of Gen Y (born after 1981, also
referred to as millennials) individuals. This consumer cohort spends about
11.2% of their monthly income on electronics, the most among other gen-
erations (Kaur and Singh 2007; Ahluwalia 2018). This cohort possesses
high purchasing power, nurture aspirations, and play a crucial role in the
purchase decision-making process in the family (Khare and Rakesh 2011;
Adnan, Ahmad, and Khan 2017). For these consumers, the internet and
social media influencers have become a trusted source for updated product
information (Kumar, Singh, and Gupta 2018). Social media influencers are
“a new type of independent third party endorser who shape audience atti-
tudes through blogs, tweets, and the use of other social media” (Freberg
et al. 2011). Influencers are present across most digital media platforms like
Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube, to name a few (Lou and Yuan
2019; Trivedi 2018; Kumar, Singh, and Gupta 2018).
 JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE 105

Marketing literature has established a strong connection between involve-

ment and formation of brand attitude (Lutz et al. 1983; Lutz 1985, Trivedi
2018). White (2014) indicated that millennials are more caring about their
experiences and relationship with brands. Hence, marketers have great
value for factors leading to a strong consumer-brand relationship
(Karjaluoto, Munnukka, and Kiuru 2016). A strong consumer-brand rela-
tionship leads to higher sales, lower price sensitivity, brand loyalty, and
higher profitability (Franzen 1999; Aaker and Joachimsthaler 2000).
Admired brands enjoy strong consumer-brand relationships leading to
recurrent purchases and better brand image (Aaker, Garbinsky, and Vohs
2012; Park, MacInnis, and Eisingerich 2016). As brand admiration is a rela-
tively unexplored marketing construct, there is a need to explore its antece-
dents and consequences further (Aaker, Garbinsky, and Vohs 2012; Park
et al. 2016). This paper studies the effect of influencers’ endorsement on
brand attitude, further leading to brand admiration, finally resulting in
online purchase intentions.
The further sections of the paper are structured as follows: the literature
review discusses the extant studies related to the context of the present
study and helps conceptualize the proposed model. The methodology sec-
tion highlights the sampling and data collection process. The data analysis
section tests the proposed hypotheses to draw conclusions and identify the
potential contribution to theory and practice.

Literature review and hypotheses development

The extant research focused on the theory of reasoned action, source mod-
els, and brand admiration for designing a proposed model that reflected
the research objectives. The theory of reasoned action has been factored in
for this study because it explains the relationship between attitude and
behavior. In this study, the researchers aim to unravel the relationship
between brand attitude and purchase intentions for consumer electronics
products. The brand attitude is proposed to be formed due to the stimuli
of endorsement by an attractive celebrity influencer or an expert influencer.
Both these characteristics of the influencers i.e. attractiveness and expertise,
are drawn from the source models available in extant literature.

Attitude toward the brand (AB) and purchase intentions (PI)

According to the theory of reasoned action (TRA) proposed by Ajzen and
Fishbein (1980), attitude toward the behavior is one of the critical determi-
nants of behavioral intentions. Attitude is defined as “an internal evaluation
of an object such as branded product.” Kotler and Armstrong (1996)
106 J. TRIVEDI AND R. SAMA

explained the brand attitude as “an individual’s favorable or unfavorable

evaluation for a specific brand or product in the market.” As reported in
multiple studies, attitude toward the brand (AB) is an established mediator
between advertising stimuli and multiple marketing variables like purchase
intentions (Gresham and Shimp 1985; MacKenzie, Lutz, and Belch 1986;
Trivedi 2018). Thus the study of attitude is important in marketing and
advertising studies to predict consumer purchase intentions (Oliver 1980;
Shih 2004; Kobia and Liu 2017; Evans and Bang 2019). PI is defined as
“the consumer’s propensity of buying the brand in the future (Yoo,
Donthu, and Lee 2000).” Most studies in the area of consumer behavior
submit that purchase intention is the function of attitude toward the brand
(Bennett and Harrell 1975; MacKenzie, Lutz, and Belch 1986; Flaherty and
Pappas 2000).
Consumers are slow in changing their attitude as it is formed over a
period through experiences (Boone and Kurtz 2002). Few researchers have
studied the effect of influencer marketing on attitude toward the brand
(AB) and purchase intentions (PI). Attractive celebrities or domain experts
are the key influencers employed by marketers to build a consumer-brand
relationship (Lim et al. 2017; Trivedi 2018).

Expert influencers (EI) and attractive celebrity influencers (ACI)

Source models play a crucial role in explaining the impact of endorsements
on consumer behavior. Source trustworthiness and expertise are the critical
dimensions of the source credibility model (Hovland and Weiss 1951). This
seminal study defined source expertise as “the extent to which a communi-
cator is perceived to be a source of valid assertions.” The source attractive-
ness model (McGuire 1985) defined attractiveness as the consumer’s
perceived likability, familiarity, and similarity with the endorser. Multiple
studies conducted using both these models submit that perceived source
credibility and attractiveness influences consumer behavior (Hovland and
Weiss 1951; McGuire 1985; Meenaghan 1994; Rashid, Nallamuthu, and
Sidin 2002).
However, there exist varied opinions about the effectiveness of endorse-
ments in extant research. One school of thought has established the crucial
role played by expert endorsers toward influencing consumer behavior
(Ohanian 1990; Biswas, Biswas, and Das 2006; Bhatt, Jayswal, and Patel
2013; Tzoumaka, Tsiotsou, and Siomkos 2016). Contrary to these results,
the second school of thought posits that an attractive celebrity has a more
significant impact on consumer behavior (McGuire 1985; Trivedi 2018).
However, it is noteworthy that the extant research conducted to observe
the effectiveness of endorsements has not taken into account the
 JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE 107

uniqueness of social media influencers (Lim et al. 2017; Trivedi 2018).

Freberg et al. (2011) posited that social media influencers are unique third-
party endorsers who use digital media channels to shape public attitudes.
Moreover, few researchers have focused on observing the effectiveness of
social media influencers on the consumer-brand relationship (Lou and
Yuan 2019). Moreover, the efficacy of each endorser type varies with the
product being endorsed (De Veirman, Cauberghe, and Hudders 2017).
Here, the researchers intended to observe the comparative effect of an
attractive v/s expert influencer on consumer’s brand attitude from the per-
spective of consumer electronics products. Hence the following hypotheses
are proposed:
H1: Expert influencers (EI) exhibit a significant and positive effect on brand
attitude (AB).

H2: Attractive celebrity influencers (ACI) exhibit a significant and positive influence
on brand attitude (AB).

Message process involvement (MPI)

Consumers’ motivation to process the information on exposure to a stimu-
lus is termed as message process involvement (Baker and Lutz 2000).
Message process involvement is an important factor influencing advertising
processing (Muehling and Laczniak 1988). Krugman (1965) argued that
consumers’ involvement with the message affects the response to advertise-
ments. Celsi and Olson (1988) established that higher message involvement
leads to an increase in advertisements’ attention and higher cognitive
efforts. Petty and Cacioppo (1986) proposed the ELM (Elaboration
Likelihood Model) model and posited that the higher involvement results
in the message being processed through the central route. On the other
hand, low involvement situations lead to the increased influence of other
dimensions of advertisement such as endorsers and advertising milieu.
Higher message involvement leads to shaping consumer attitudes
(Greenwald and Leavitt 1984; Fernando, Sivakumaran, and Suganthi 2016).
Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann (1983) established the moderating role of
message process involvement in advertisements. Their study established that
message involvement moderates the relationship between advertising stimuli
and consumer attitude. A study by Muehling, Laczniak, and Stoltman (1991)
established the moderating role of involvement from the advertising message
perspective. Hence it can be presumed that the level of consumers’ involve-
ment will alter the effectiveness of the advertising stimuli.
However, the above research studied the moderating role of involvement
from the perspective of traditional advertising stimuli and not from the per-
spective of digital marketing communications and influencer marketing. It is
108 J. TRIVEDI AND R. SAMA

noteworthy that consumer involvement and attitude toward traditional and

digital marketing communications are different (Kaplan and Haenlein 2010).
Hence, the researchers wanted to confirm the moderating role played by
MPI between the influencer endorsement and formation of brand attitude,
leading to the formation of the following hypothesis:
H3A: MPI positively strengthens the relationship between expert influencer
marketing and brand attitude (AB).

H3B: MPI positively strengthens the relationship between attractive celebrity

influencer marketing and brand attitude (AB).

Brand admiration (BA)

In highly competitive markets, an established brand proves to be a strong
competitive advantage, helping create consumer pull. The enduring success
of popular brands like Google, Disney, Apple, and Nike is due to the
admiration endowed upon them by their consumers (Park, MacInnis, and
Eisingerich 2016). These companies are the market leader in their segment
and enjoy strong brand equity, indicating their success. Park, MacInnis,
and Eisingerich (2016) posited that brand admiration is an important
measure of consumer-brand relationship and established brand love(BL),
brand trust(BT), and brand respect(BR) as the three key elements of brand
admiration. Albert, Merunka, and Valette-Florence (2009) defined brand
love as “customers’ passionate affection towards the brand.” Chaudhuri and
Holbrook (2001) referred to brand trust as “the readiness of an average
customer to rely on the capacity of the brand to perform its committed
function.” Corebrand Report (2013) report describes brand respect as “the
level of familiarity and favourability of the brand among the consumers.”
Karjaluoto, Munnukka, and Kiuru (2016) established that brand love is a
stronger predictor of the consumer-brand relationship as compared to
other affective variables like brand attitude and preference. Batra, Ahuvia,
and Bagozzi (2012) submitted that loved brands are difficult to replace, and
consumers feel distressed in the unavailability of these brands and are
ready to pay a premium for a loved brand (Thomson, MacInnis, and Park
2005). A feeling of psychological affinity with the brand, a positive attitude
toward the brand, and positive brand experiences are a few notable and
established antecedents to brand love (Alex and Joseph 2012). As per the
commitment-trust theory posited by Morgan and Hunt (1994), trust is an
important element in the development of a long-lasting consumer-brand
relationship. Kabadayi and Alan (2012) posited that brand trust is the func-
tion of the direct experiences of consumers in dealing with the brand.
Delgado-Ballester and Luis Munuera-Aleman (2005) argued that brand trust
 JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE 109

has positive effects on brand equity and purchase intentions, which further
leads to a competitive advantage for a brand. Thus brand trust plays a vital
role in the company’s success (Morgan and Hunt 1994). Chaudhuri and
Holbrook (2001) established that brand trust has a significant impact on two
dimensions of brand loyalty, i.e. behavioral and attitudinal loyalty.
Roberts (2005) submitted that brands earn consumers’ respect owing to
good performance, finally resulting in building a positive reputation. Cho
(2011) submitted that brand respect leads to the formation of goodwill for
the seller. Kapferer (2012) suggested that respected brands reduce the quan-
tum of risk for the consumer in a purchase situation. Earlier studies have
reported risk as a potent threat to the consumer decision-making process.
Some studies have reported a significant correlation between brand respect
and purchase intentions (Frei and Shaver 2002; Zacchilli, Hendrick, and
Hendrick 2009). Thus BL, BR, and BT are the three elements forming the
construct of brand admiration. All these three elements are essential
together because love needs to be accompanied by trust and respect to be
sustainable and long-lasting (Eisingerich 2017). Aaker, Garbinsky, and
Vohs (2012) established that admired brands motivate consumers to pur-
chase more from the brand.
However, as brand admiration is a relatively new variable indicating a
strong consumer-brand relationship, it is important to identify its antece-
dents and consequences (Aaker, Garbinsky, and Vohs 2012; Park, MacInnis,
and Eisingerich 2016). Hence, the researchers here intend to observe the
relationship between AB and BA, leading to the following hypothesis:
H4: Brand Attitude (AB) has a significant impact on brand admiration (BA).

Drawing from the literature elaborated above, the researchers intended

to observe the impact of BA on PI, leading to the following hypothesis:
H5: Brand admiration (BA) has a significant impact on online purchase
intentions (PI).

The relationship between source models (attractiveness and expertise)

and purchase intentions is mediated by brand attitude (Lafferty and
Goldsmith 1999). This suggests that source characteristics (attractiveness
and expertise) will not have a significant effect on purchase intentions dir-
ectly. However, source characteristics will positively affect brand attitude,
which will further result in purchase intentions. On these lines, the
researchers here wanted to observe if AB and BA play a mediating role
between influencer marketing and PI (Figure 1), leading to the follow-
ing hypothesis:
H6a: AB mediates the relationship between EI, ACI, and PI.

H6b: BA mediates the relationship between EI, ACI, and PI.

110 J. TRIVEDI AND R. SAMA

Expert
Influencer
Online
Atude Brand
Purchase
towards Admiraon
Intenon
the brand

Aracve
Celebrity
influencer
= Direct Impact

= Moderang Effect
Message (Source: Author’s proposed model)
Process
Involvement

Figure 1. Author’s proposed model.

Methodology
Data and sample
This research focused on consumer electronics products like mobile
phones, laptops, and other electronics accessories. The researchers
employed a descriptive research design to conduct the study. Hence, the
researchers created an online structured questionnaire (Google forms) and
administered it to respondents using social media platforms like Facebook.
The questionnaire was administered to respondents in India. This because
India is the world’s number one country in terms of usage of Facebook
(World’s most populated social media platform) and also ranks second in
the world in terms of internet users (Statista 2019). The questionnaire was
administered in English.
To begin with, there were three filter questions to identify the appropri-
ate respondents. First, the choice of respondents was restricted in the age
group of 24–38 years as this cohort constitutes a significant online popula-
tion in India and also confirmed to the definition of Gen Y (born between
1981–1995) (Solka, Jackson, and Lee 2011). Also, the urban markets report
the highest internet penetration (65%) in India compared to rural markets
(20%), as reported by IAMAI (Agarwal 2018). Hence responses were
requested from consumers residing in urban India only. The third filter
question required the respondent to fill the questionnaire only if they fol-
lowed influencers on social media platforms and had purchased at least
one electronics product through an e-commerce platform after exposure to
influencer content promoted by the marketer. These three filter questions
 JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE 111

assured the researchers of obtaining responses from the most significant

online consumer cohort in the Indian market.
438 responses were obtained after giving sufficient time to the respond-
ents. Of these responses, 17 were found inappropriate on account of miss-
ing responses to most questions. Hence data analysis was performed using
421 responses. This number is sufficient to conduct the study, following
Slovin’s formula for calculating the sample size.
Slovin’s formula n ¼ N=ð1 þ N  E2 Þ
Here, n¼sample size, N¼total population, and E¼margin of error. The
current research determines the sample size with a 95% confidence level,
thus allowing only a 5% margin of error. Internet and Mobile Marketing
Association of India (IAMAI) reported 500 million internet users in India
in June 2018. Hence, based on Slovin’s formula, the ideal sample size
should have been 385. Hence the number of responses in this research is
suitable in quantum.
Of the 438 respondents, 46% (n ¼ 201) of the consumers were in the age
group of 24–30 years, and 54% (n ¼ 237) were in the age group of 31-
38 years. 67% (n ¼ 293) of the respondents were male and the balance 33%
(n ¼ 145) were females. Further, 33% (n ¼ 144) of the respondents had
completed graduation, 65% (n ¼ 285) had completed post-graduation, and
2% (n ¼ 9) of the consumers were either pursuing a doctorate or had com-
pleted it. The detailed demographics of the consumers are reported in the
below table. 29% (n ¼ 127) of the respondents were single and 71%
(n ¼ 311) were married. From the household income (in INR) perspective,
4% (n ¼ 18) of the respondents fell in the slab below INR 5,00,000 while
54% (n ¼ 237) of the respondents belonged to the 5,00,001–10,00,000 slab
and 42% (n ¼ 183) of the respondents made above INR 10,00,001.

Measures, face validity and statistical software

Seven-point Likert scales ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly
agree” were adapted from previous studies to develop the instrument used
in this survey. Only AB was measured using a semantic differential scale.
Scales for EI and ACI were drawn from a survey conducted by Ohanian
(1990). The scale to measure MPI was drawn from Muehling and Laczniak
(1988). A study done by Biehal, Stephens, and Curio (1992) helped adapt a
scale to measure AB. The scale to measure PI was drawn from Trivedi
(2018). The scale to measure brand love was drawn from Karjaluoto,
Munnukka, and Kiuru (2016). Brand trust was measured by adapting a
scale from Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001). Brand respect was measured
using a scale from a study conducted by Cho (2011).
112 J. TRIVEDI AND R. SAMA

Before the final questionnaire was sent to the respondents, it was sent to
two experienced researchers to determine its face validity. The comments
received from this exercise helped in improving the readability of the
instrument and hence face validity was confirmed. There were 34 items in
the instrument in addition to the demographics and three filter questions.
Data analysis was conducted using SPSS, AMOS, and Ms-Excel.

Data analysis
Reliability and validity
Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess scale reliability. Each variable exhibited
an alpha value above 0.70 and hence, admissible (Nunnally 1978). The
need for conducting factor analysis was observed by testing the KMO and
Bartlett’s test of sphericity. KMO value obtained was 0.808, and Bartlett’s
test of sphericity was significant. This established the need for conducting
factor analysis. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) test exhibited factor load-
ings of each item of each variable to be above 0.60 and hence, acceptable
(Hair et al. 2009). The presence of multicollinearity issue was tested by
examining the variance inflation factor (VIF) values. The VIF values were
observed for each variable in the study. The highest VIF value observed
was 1.22, negating the presence of multicollinearity issues (Grewal, Cote,
and Baumgartner 2004).
Thereafter, the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using
the maximum- likelihood estimation. The CMIN/DF value was 1.679, GFI
value was 0.937, AGFI value was 0.901, CFI value was 0.915, the TLI value
was 0.927, RMSEA value was 0.06, and SRMR value was 0.06. Chin et al.
(1995) submitted that the CMIN/DF value should be less than 3. Hair et al.
(1998) submitted that the values for TLI, GFI, AGFI, and CFI should be
more than 0.90 for a good model fit. Hair et al. (1998) also submitted that
the value for SRMR should be less than 0.1. Browne and Cudeck (1993)
submitted that the value for RMSEA should be less than 0.1. Hence the
model fit indices were in the acceptable range. Factor loading for two items
was observed to be less than 0.60 and was neglected in further analysis.
Post removal of these two items, Cronbach’s alpha was calculated, and each
variable exhibited the alpha value of more than 0.70. Appendix Table A1
demonstrates the post CFA, Cronbach’s alpha, and factor loadings.
Thereafter the convergent and discriminant validity were examined
(Bagozzi and Edwards 1998). The average variance extracted (AVE) and
composite reliability (CR) values were above 0.5 and 0.7, respectively, and
hence acceptable (Fornell and Larcker 1981). Appendix Table A1 exhibits
the AVE and CR values of each variable. Further, discriminant validity was
also established as the square root of the AVE value of each variable was
 JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE 113

observed to be higher than its correlation value with other variables

(Fornell and Larcker 1981). Appendix Table A2 exhibits the values estab-
lishing discriminant validity.

Common method bias (CMB) and non-response bias

The researchers had conducted the study using a structured questionnaire
as the only instrument. Hence it was important to detect if common
method bias (CMB) is impacting the data. Harman’s single factor test was
conducted, and therein, a single factor accounted for 22% of the variance,
negating the possibility of common method bias (Podsakoff et al. 2003).
Further, the researchers confirmed the absence of CMB by using the com-
mon latent factor method. Regression weight for the two models, viz. one
with the CLF and the other without the CLF exhibited delta less than 0.20,
confirming the absence of CMB. Non-response bias was established as no
difference in response to any variables was observed between the early and
late respondents of the survey (Armstrong and Overton 1977).

Structural model assessment

Structural equation modeling (SEM) using maximum-likelihood estimation
was conducted to test the proposed hypothesis. This because SEM can dir-
ectly measure the relationship between latent and observed variables (Hair
et al. 2009). The CMIN/DF value was 1.619, GFI value was 0.948, AGFI
value was 0.912, the CFI value was 0.921, the TLI value was 0.938, the
RMSEA value was 0.06, and SRMR value was 0.05. The results helped
establish a good fit between data and the model. Thereafter, the hypotheses
were tested using SEM. Both EI (p ¼ .000, Beta value (b) ¼ 0.675) and ACI
(p ¼ .013, b ¼ 0.375) exhibited a significant impact on AB. Further, AB
(p ¼ .000, b ¼ 0.604) exhibited a significant impact on BA. Further BA
(p ¼ .000, b ¼ 0.740) exhibited a significant influence on the PI as exhibited
in Appendix Table A3.

Moderation analysis
Thereafter, hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to observe the
moderating role played by MPI between the independent variables and AB.
This method was selected as it is more suitable in cases when the data is
non-categorical (Hood et al. 2015; Chen and Huang 2017). Holmbeck
(2002) submitted that moderation is established in cases when the inter-
action variable (created by the interaction between standardized independ-
ent variables and moderating variable) exhibits a significant impact on the
dependent variable (in this case-AB).
114 J. TRIVEDI AND R. SAMA

The moderating role of MPI between EI and AB was tested. As such, as

exhibited in Appendix Table A4, Section A, model 1, the effect of EI
(p ¼ .000, Beta Value (b) ¼ 0.668) on AB was found to be significant. The
R-squared value was 0.416. In model-2, MPI (p ¼ .012, b ¼ 0.368) also
exhibited a significant effect on AB. Here the R-squared value was 0.448. In
Model-3, an interaction item (p ¼ .000, b ¼ 0.671) is introduced which also
exhibited a significant influence on AB. The R-squared value for this model
is 0.483. The R-squared value increases steadily from Model-1 to Model-3,
indicating the moderating effect (Aiken, West, and Reno 1991). The results
suggest that MPI moderates the relationship between EI and AB, as exhib-
ited in Appendix Table A4, section A.
Further, the moderating role of MPI between ACI and AB was tested. As
exhibited in Appendix Table A4, section B, ACI (p ¼ .008, b ¼ 0.380) exhib-
ited a significant effect on AB in model 1. The R-Squared value was 0.397.
MPI (p ¼ .012, b ¼ 0.367) exhibited significant influence on AB and the R-
Squared value was 0.448. In model-3, a moderator item was created, and
its effect on AB was tested. The moderator item (p ¼ .000, b ¼ 0.501) exhib-
ited a significant effect on AB, indicating the moderating effect. The results
suggest that MPI moderates the relationship between ACI and AB, as
exhibited in Appendix Table A4, section-B.

Mediation analysis
The mediation effect was confirmed using the Hayes process method using
the bootstrapping method (Hayes 2009). The bootstrapping method is
accepted as a comparatively stronger method for testing mediating effects
(Shrout and Bolger 2002).
The direct effect of EI on PI was not significant (p ¼ .328). However, the
indirect effect of EI on PI mediated by brand attitude and brand admir-
ation was significant. For AB as the mediator, the absence of zero value
between the bootstrapped lower level confidence interval (LLCI) (0.073)
and upper-level confidence interval (ULCI) (0.173) confirmed the medi-
ation effect. Similarly, in the case of BA as the mediator, the absence of
zero value between the bootstrapped LLCI (0.037) and ULCI (0.141) con-
firmed the mediation effect.
The direct effect of ACI on PI was not significant (p ¼ .074). However,
the indirect effect of ACI on PI mediated by brand attitude and brand
admiration was significant. For AB as the mediator, the absence of the zero
value between the bootstrapped LLCI (0.042) to ULCI (0.116) confirmed
the mediation effect. Similarly, in the case of BA as the mediator, the
absence of zero value between the bootstrapped LLCI (0.012) and ULCI
(0.202) confirmed the mediation effect.
 JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE 115

Discussion and conclusion

The objective of this study was to observe the comparative effect of an
attractive celebrity influencer vis-a-vis, an expert influencer on consumers’
choice of electronics products. The results obtained here indicate that con-
sumers give more weight to an expert influencer’s opinion compared to that
of an attractive celebrity influencer while choosing electronics products.
The researchers observed the impact of an expert influencer vis-a-vis an
attractive celebrity influencer on brand attitude (AB), which further influ-
ences brand admiration (BA) and finally resulting in online purchase inten-
tions. Both EI (expert influencers) and ACI (attractive celebrity influencers)
exhibited a significant impact on AB, thus leading to the acceptance of H1
and H2. These results are similar to Trivedi (2018) and Lim et al. (2017).
However, these two studies did not focus on observing the impact of influ-
encer marketing from the context of the consumer electronics industry,
making the current results a unique contribution. Moreover, the beta values
obtained indicate a stronger effect of EI as compared to ACI. Although
these results contradict the findings suggested by Trivedi (2018), it is note-
worthy that both the studies were conducted for different product catego-
ries. While the research by Trivedi (2018) reported higher efficacy of
attractive celebrity influencers in fashion products marketing, this study
established the effectiveness of expert influencers over celebrity influencers
in the consumer electronics products marketing.
Further, AB exhibited a significant effect on BA, leading to the accept-
ance of H4. This result established brand attitude as an antecedent to a
relatively new marketing variable, brand admiration (Aaker et al. 2012),
making this a novel contribution. The impact of BA was significant on
online PI (purchase intention), leading to acceptance of H5. Aaker,
Garbinsky, and Vohs (2012) and Eisingerich (2017) had proposed brand
admiration as an antecedent to purchase intentions. The result obtained in
this study supports their proposition. The moderating role of MPI between
expert influencer marketing and brand attitude (AB) was also observed.
The moderating role of MPI between attractive celebrity influencer and
brand attitude was also tested. The results are exhibited in Appendix
Table A4 and validate the moderating role played by MPI in both the
stated relationships. As such, these results concur with the findings of
Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann (1983) and Fernando, Sivakumaran, and
Suganthi (2016), thus accepting H3A and H3B. However, it is noteworthy
that the role of message involvement in this study was observed from the
perspective of influencer marketing, making this a unique contribution.
Further, the mediating role played by AB and BA was also established,
leading to acceptance of H6a and H6b. Multiple studies focused on market-
ing communications have proposed brand attitude as a mediating variable
116 J. TRIVEDI AND R. SAMA

(MacKenzie, Lutz, and Belch (1986); Aaker, Garbinsky, and Vohs (2012);
Lim et al. (2017); and Trivedi (2018)). The results obtained in the current
research supports these findings. Notably, this study established the media-
ting role played by BA, thus unraveling the role of this relatively new vari-
able in the consumer-brand relationship. Further, the results obtained in
this study are unique as the focus here was on studying the effectiveness of
influencer marketing from an emerging market perspective.

Contribution to theory
This study contributes to theory from three perspectives. Firstly, this paper
contributes to the understanding of consumer behavior toward influencer
marketing in an emerging market like India. There are limited studies that
have explored the effect of influencer marketing on various facets of con-
sumer behavior (Godey et al. 2016; Lou and Yuan 2019). For marketing of
the consumer electronic products, this paper empirically establishes the
importance of an expert influencer compared to an attractive celebrity
influencer. As the usage of influencer marketing gains steam across the
globe, this study confirmed the role played by influencer marketing toward
the formation of brand attitude, brand admiration(affective variable) and
purchase intentions- PI (conative variable), which is a significant contribu-
tion to the extant understanding of influencer marketing.
Further, this study unravels the role played by brand admiration, a rela-
tively new variable (Aaker, Garbinsky, and Vohs 2012) in the consumer
decision-making process. The findings establish brand attitude (AB) as an
antecedent to brand admiration (BA) and also empirically validates BA as
an antecedent to online PI. Notably, BA exhibits a strong consumer-brand
relationship (Park, MacInnis, and Eisingerich 2016). Further, this study also
established brand admiration as a mediator, thus exploring this relatively
new variable from multiple dimensions.
Lastly, this paper also establishes the moderating role played by message
process involvement (MPI) between communication stimuli (here influen-
cer marketing) and brand attitude, supporting the earlier results obtained
by Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann (1983) and Fernando, Sivakumaran,
and Suganthi (2016). However, as this study observed the moderating role
of involvement from the perspective of influencer marketing, the result is
an incremental addition to the theory of involvement.

Contribution to practice
From the perspective of practice, this study highlights the importance of
working with an expert influencer in consumer electronics marketing.
Further, as involvement moderates the relationship between influencer
 JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE 117

endorsement and brand attitude, it is important that influencers ensure

that they help their followers with authentic and updated product informa-
tion, which increases consumer involvement and also strengthens brand
attitude. The brand attitude thus formed, results in brand admiration
among the millennial cohort and further leads to online purchase inten-
tions. This is a significant insight as it may help marketers achieve a higher
return on influencer marketing investments. It is also noteworthy that
brand admiration indicates a strong consumer-brand relationship. This
study indicates that for the marketing of consumer electronics products,
expert influencers will help marketers create a strong consumer-brand rela-
tionship, which may give brands, sustainable competitive advantage in
highly competitive emerging markets.

Limitations and future scope

It is important to note that the role played by influencers in marketing
communications is understudied. This is arguably one of the first studies
focused on observing the effect of influencer marketing on consumer
behavior from the perspective of consumer electronics. However, there are
a few limitations to this study. As data is drawn from millennials, it is not
representative of all consumer cohorts in a largely populated country like
India. The effect of influencers is expected to vary with the product cat-
egory under consideration. Hence, future studies can focus on other emerg-
ing categories in the e-commerce market like wearables, online furniture,
and jewelry, among others. An increasing number of marketers are aiming
at understanding the behavior of gen z as online shoppers. Hence a study
focused on the effect of influencer marketing on gen z is an emerging area
of study. Future research can also focus on moderators like gender and
higher-income groups. Also, the data collected for this study was cross-
sectional. A longitudinal study can help observe the long term impact of
influencer marketing on consumer behavior. Future researchers can also
look at observing the impact of influencer marketing on other important
variables like brand equity, brand loyalty, and brand recall. The effect of
marketing communication varies with the consumers’ product involvement
making this an interesting moderator in future models involving influ-
encers. From a cultural perspective, endorsement effectiveness studies have
exhibited varying results. Hence a cross-cultural study comparing influencer
effectiveness in emerging vis-a-vis developed markets will be an interesting
addition to the extant literature on influencer marketing.

ORCID
Ramzan Sama http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5743-8175
118 J. TRIVEDI AND R. SAMA

References
Aaker, D. A., and E. Joachimsthaler. 2000. The brand relationship spectrum: The key to the
brand architecture challenge. California Management Review 42 (4):8–23. doi:10.1177/
2F000812560004200401.
Aaker, J. L., E. N. Garbinsky, and K. D. Vohs. 2012. Cultivating admiration in brands:
Warmth, competence, and landing in the golden quadrant. Journal of Consumer
Psychology 22 (2):191–194. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2011.11.012.
Adnan, A., A. Ahmad, and M. N. Khan. 2017. Examining the role of consumer lifestyles on
ecological behavior among young Indian consumers. Young Consumers 18 (4):348–377.
doi:10.1108/YC-05-2017-00699.
Agarwal, S. 2018. Internet users in India expected to reach 500 million by June: IAMAI.
The Economic Times. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/internet/internet-users-
in-india-expected-to-reach-500-million-by-june-iamai/articleshow/63000198.cms.
Ahluwalia, A. 2018. Millennials to redefine India’s consumption story: Report. https://www.
livemint.com/Consumer/vj5e3v3uGyQR9KRwcvNBvN/Millennials-to-redefine-Indias-con-
sumption-story-report.html (accessed March 2019).
Aiken, L. S., S. G. West, and R. R. Reno. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions, Sage.
Ajzen, I., and M. Fishbein. 1980. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour.
doi:10.1037/h0031930.
Albert, N., D. Merunka, and P. Valette-Florence. 2009. The feeling of love toward a brand:
Concept and measurement. Vol. 36. In Advances in Consumer Research, ed. Ann L.
McGill and Sharon Shavitt, 300–307. Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.
Alex, N. J., and A. Joseph. 2012. Hedonic versus utilitarian values: The relative importance
of real and ideal self to brand personality and its influence on emotional brand attach-
ment. Vilakshan: The XIMB Journal of Management 9 (2)
Armstrong, J. S., and T. S. Overton. 1977. Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys.
Journal of Marketing Research 14 (3):396–402. doi:10.1080/00913367.1990.10673198.
Bagozzi, R. P., and J. R. Edwards. 1998. A general approach for representing constructs in
organizational research. Organizational Research Methods 1 (1):45–87. doi:10.1177/
109442819800100104.
Baker, W. E., and R. J. Lutz. 2000. An empirical test of an updated relevance-accessibility
model of advertising effectiveness. Journal of Advertising 29 (1):1–14. doi:10.1080/
00913367.2000.10673599.
Batra, R., A. Ahuvia, and R. P. Bagozzi. 2012. Brand love. Journal of Marketing 76 (2):1–16.
doi:10.1509/jm.09.0339.
Bennett, P. D., and G. D. Harrell. 1975. The role of confidence in understanding and pre-
dicting buyers’ attitudes and purchase intentions. Journal of Consumer Research 2 (2):
110–117. doi:10.1086/208622.
Bhatt, N., R. M. Jayswal, and J. D. Patel. 2013. Impact of celebrity endorser’s source cred-
ibility on attitude towards advertisements and brands. South Asian Journal of
Management 20 (4):74.
Biehal, G., D. Stephens, and E. Curio. 1992. Attitude toward the ad and brand choice.
Journal of Advertising 21 (3):19–36. doi:10.1080/00913367.1992.10673373.
Biswas, D., A. Biswas, and N. Das. 2006. The differential effects of celebrity and expert
endorsements on consumer risk perceptions. The role of consumer knowledge, perceived
congruency, and product technology orientation. Journal of Advertising 35 (2):17–31.
doi:10.1080/00913367.2006.10639231.
 JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE 119

Boone, L. E., and D. L. Kurtz. 2002. Contemporary marketing. 10th ed. Hinsdale, IL: The
Dryden Press.
Browne, M. W., and R. Cudeck. 1993. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sage focus
editions. 154, 136.
Celsi, R. L., and J. C. Olson. 1988. The role of involvement in attention and comprehension
processes. Journal of Consumer Research 15 (2):210–224. doi:10.1086/209158.
Chaudhuri, A., and M. B. Holbrook. 2001. The chain of effects from brand trust and brand
affect to brand performance the role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing 65 (2):81–93.
doi:10.1509/jmkg.65.2.81.18255.
Chen, Y. S., and S. Y. Huang. 2017. The effect of task-technology fit on purchase intention:
The moderating role of perceived risks. Journal of Risk Research 20 (11):1418–1438. doi:
10.1080/13669877.2016.1165281.
Chin, W. W., and P. A. Todd. 1995. On the use, usefulness, and ease of use of structural
equation modeling in MIS research: A note of caution. MIS Quarterly 19 (2):237.
Cho, E. 2011. Development of a brand image scale and the impact of love marks on brand
equity. Ph.D. thesis, lowa state university.
Cooley, D., and R. Parks-Yancy. 2019. The effect of social media on perceived information
credibility and decision making. Journal of Internet Commerce :1–21. doi:10.1080/
15332861.2019.1595362.
Corebrand Report. 2013. The corebrand top 100 brand power ranking 2012. https://www.
sustainablebrands.com/digital_learning/white-paper/corebrand-top-100-brandpower-rank-
ings-2012 (accessed March 2019).
De Veirman, M., V. Cauberghe, and L. Hudders. 2017. Marketing through Instagram
influencers: The impact of number of followers and product divergence on brand
attitude. International Journal of Advertising 36 (5):798–828. doi:10.1080/02650487.2017.
1348035.
Delgado-Ballester, E., and J. Luis Munuera-Aleman. 2005. Does brand trust matter to brand
equity. Journal of Product and Brand Management 14 (3):187–196. doi:10.1108/
10610420510601058.
Eisingerich, A. 2017. Brand admiration: How to build a business that people love. https://
www.imperial.ac.uk/business-school/knowledge/marketing/brand-admiration-in (accessed
March 2019).
Evans, N. J., and H. Bang. 2019. Extending expectancy violations theory to multiplayer
online games: The structure and effects of expectations on attitude toward the advertis-
ing. Attitude toward the brand, and purchase intent. Journal of Promotion Management
25(4), 589–608. doi:10.1080/10496491.2018.1500411.
Fernando, A. G., B. Sivakumaran, and L. Suganthi. 2016. Message involvement and attitude
towards green advertisements. Marketing Intelligence and Planning 34 (6):863–882. doi:
10.1108/MIP-11-2015-0216.
Flaherty, K. E., and J. M. Pappas. 2000. Implicit personality theory in evaluation of brand
extensions. Psychological Reports 86 (3):807–818. doi:10.2466/pr0.2000.86.3.807.
Fornell, C., and D. F. Larcker. 1981. Structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. doi:10.1177/002224378101800313.
Franzen, G. 1999. Brands and advertising: How advertising effectiveness influences brand
equity. Admap.
Freberg, K., K. Graham, K. McGaughey, and L. A. Freberg. 2011. Who are the social media
influencers? A study of public perceptions of personality. Public Relations Review 37 (1):
90–92. doi:10.1016/2010.11.001.
120 J. TRIVEDI AND R. SAMA

Frei, J. R., and P. R. Shaver. 2002. Respect in close relationships: Prototype definition, self-
report assessment, and initial correlates. Personal Relationships 9 (2):121–139. doi:10.
1111/1475-6811.00008.
Fromm, J. 2018. Under the Influence: How to engage younger consumers through social
media. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jefffromm/2018/06/26/under-the-influence-how-to-
engage-younger-consumers-through-social-media/#62dec63c2753 (accessed July 2018).
Godey, B., A. Manthiou, D. Pederzoli, J. Rokka, G. Aiello, R. Donvito, and R. Singh. 2016.
Social media marketing efforts of luxury brands: Influence on brand equity and con-
sumer behaviour. Journal of Business Research 69 (12):5833–5841. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.
2016.04.181.
Greenwald, A. G., and C. Leavitt. 1984. Audience involvement in advertising: Four levels.
Journal of Consumer Research 11 (1):581–592. doi:10.1086/208994.
Gresham, L. G., and T. A. Shimp. 1985. Attitude toward the advertisement and brand atti-
tudes: A classical conditioning perspective. Journal of Advertising 14 (1):10–49. doi:10.
1080/00913367.1985.10672924.
Grewal, R., J. A. Cote, and H. Baumgartner. 2004. Multicollinearity and measurement error
in structural equation models: Implications for theory testing. Marketing Science 23 (4):
519–529. doi:10.1287/mksc.1040.0070.
Hair, J. F., W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, and R. E. Anderson. 2009. Multivariate data analysis.
7th ed. Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hair, J., R. Andreson, R. Tatham, and W. Black. 1998. Multivariate data analysis. 5th ed.
Unites States of America: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Hallanan, L. 2018. How 7 electronics brand use influencer marketing in China. https://
www.parklu.com/electronics-brands-influencer-marketing-china/ (accessed September
2018).
Hayes, A. F. 2009. Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new mil-
lennium. Communication Monographs 76 (4):408–420. doi:10.1080/03637750903310360.
Heitmann, M., D. R. Lehmann, and A. Herrmann. 2007. Choice goal attainment and deci-
sion and consumption satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research 44 (2):234–250. doi:10.
15092/Fjmkr.44.2.234.
Hill, A. 2018. Brand spokesperson smack down: Famous face vs. social media rockstar.
https://www.business.com/articles/brand-spokesperson-influencer-vs-celebrity/ (accessed
March 2019).
Holmbeck, G. N. 2002. Post-hoc probing of significant moderational and mediational
effects in studies of pediatric populations. Journal of Pediatric Psychology 27 (1):87–96.
doi:10.1093/jpepsy/27.1.87.
Hood, K. M., K. J. Shanahan, C. D. Hopkins, and K. K. Lindsey. 2015. The influence of
interactivity on visit and purchase frequency: The moderating role of website informa-
tional features. Journal of Internet Commerce 14 (3):294–315. doi:10.1080/15332861.2015.
1084137.
Hovland, C. I., and W. Weiss. 1951. The influence of source credibility on communication
effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly 15 (4):635–650. doi:10.1086/266350.
IBEF. 2019. Growth of E-commerce industry in India. https://www.ibef.org/industry/ecom-
merce/infographic (accessed April 2019).
Kabadayi, E. T., and A. K. Alan. 2012. Brand trust and brand affect: Their strategic import-
ance on brand loyalty. Journal of Global Strategic Management 11 (6):81–88. doi:10.
20460/JGSM.2012615788.
Kapferer, J. N. 2012. The new strategic brand management: Advanced insights and strategic
thinking. Kogan Page Publishers.
 JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE 121

Kaplan, A. M., and M. Haenlein. 2010. Users of the world, unite! The challenges and oppor-
tunities of Social Media. Business Horizons 53 (1):59–68. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003.
Karjaluoto, H., J. Munnukka, and K. Kiuru. 2016. Brand love and positive word of mouth:
The moderating effects of experience and price. Journal of Product and Brand
Management 25 (6):527–537. doi:10.1108/JPBM-03-2015-0834.
Kaur, P., and R. Singh. 2007. Uncovering retail shopping motives of Indian youth. Young
Consumers 8 (2):128–138. doi:10.1108/17473610710757491.
Khare, A., and S. Rakesh. 2011. Antecedents of online shopping behavior in India: An
examination. Journal of Internet Commerce 10 (4):227–244. doi:10.1080/15332861.2011.
622691.
Kobia, C., and C. Liu. 2017. Why forward viral fashion messages? The moderating roles of
consumers’ fashion traits and message orientation. Journal of Internet Commerce 16 (3):
287–308. doi:10.1080/15332861.2017.1324651.
Kotler, P., and G. Armstrong. 1996. Principles of marketing. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Krugman, H. E. 1965. The impact of television advertising: Learning without involvement.
Public Opinion Quarterly 29 (3):349–356. doi:10.1086/267335.
Kumar, H., M. K. Singh, and M. P. Gupta. 2018. Socio-influences of user generated content
in emerging markets. Marketing Intelligence and Planning 36 (7):737–749. doi:10.1108/
MIP-12-2017-0347.
Lafferty, B. A., and R. E. Goldsmith. 1999. Corporate credibility’s role in consumers’ atti-
tudes and purchase intentions when a high versus a low credibility endorser is used in
the ad. Journal of Business Research 44 (2):109–116. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(98)00002-2.
Lim, X. J., A. R. B. Mohd Radzol, J.-H. Cheah, and M. W. Wong. 2017. The impact of
social media influencers on purchase intention and the mediation effect of customer atti-
tude. Asian Journal of Business Research 7 (2):19. doi:10.14707/ajbr.170035.
Lou, C, and S. 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. doi:10.1080/15252019.2018.1533501.
Lutz, R. J. 1985. Affective and cognitive antecedents of attitude toward the ad: A conceptual
framework. Psychological Process and Advertising Effects: Theory, Research, and
Application :45–63.
Lutz, R. J., S. B. MacKenzie, and G. E. Belch. 1983. Attitude toward the ad as a mediator of
advertising effectiveness: Determinants and consequences. ACR North American
Advances.
MacKenzie, S. B., R. J. Lutz, and G. E. Belch. 1986. The role of attitude toward the ad as a
mediator of advertising effectiveness: A test of competing explanations. Journal of
Marketing Research 23 (2):130–143. doi:10.1177/002224299405800302.
McGuire, W. J. 1985. Attitudes and attitude change. The Handbook of Social Psychology
62 (1):233–346.
Meenaghanmeenaghan, T. 1994. Point of view: ambush marketing: immoral or imaginative
practice? Journal of Advertising Research 34(5): 77–89.
Morgan, R. M., and S. D. Hunt. 1994. The commitment-trust theory of relationship mar-
keting. Journal of Marketing 58 (3):20–38. doi:10.1177/002224299405800302.
Muehling, D. D., R. N. Laczniak, and J. J. Stoltman. 1991. The moderating effects of ad
message involvement: A reassessment. Journal of Advertising 20 (2):29–38. doi:10.1080/
00913367.1991.10673211.
Muehling, D.D., and R.N. Laczniak. 1988. Advertising’s immediate and delayed influence
on brand attitudes: Considerations across message-involvement levels. Journal of
Advertising 17 (4):23–34. doi:10.1080/00913367.1988.10673126.
122 J. TRIVEDI AND R. SAMA

Nunnally, J. C. 1978. Psychometric theory. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: McGraw-Hill.

Odell, P. 2015. Special report on influencer marketing. http://cdn.chiefmarketer.com/
wpcontent/uploads/2015/11/26966-CM-10232015-Special-Report-PDF-Influencer-
Marketing1.pdf (accessed March 2019).
Ohanian, R. 1990. The impact of celebrity spokesperson’s perceived image on consumers’
intention to purchase. Journal of Advertising Research 31 (1):46–52.
Oliver, R. L. 1980. A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction
decisions. Journal of Marketing Research 17 (4):460–469. doi:10.1177/
2F002224378001700405.
Park, C. W., D. J. MacInnis, and A. B. Eisingerich. 2016. Brand admiration: Building a
business people love. John Wiley & Sons.
Petty, R. E., J. T. Cacioppo, and D. Schumann. 1983. Central and peripheral routes to
advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer
Research 10 (2):135–146. doi:10.1086/208954.
Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, J.-Y. Lee, and N. P. Podsakoff. 2003. Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended rem-
edies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (5):879–903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
Rashid, M. Z. A., J. Nallamuthu, and S. M. Sidin. 2002. Perceptions of advertising and
celebrity endorsement in Malaysia. Asia Pacific Management Review 7 (4):535–553. doi:
10.6126/APMR.
Roberts, K. 2005. Lovemarks: The future beyond brands. Power House Books.
Schouten, A. P., L. Janssen, and M. Verspaget. 2019. Celebrity vs. influencer endorsements
in advertising: The role of identification, credibility, and product-endorser fit.
International Journal of Advertising :1–24. doi:10.1080/02650487.2019.1634898.
Shih, H. P. 2004. Extended technology acceptance model of Internet utilization behaviour.
Information and Management 41 (6):719–729. doi:10.1016/j.im.2003.08.009.
Shrout, P. E., and N. Bolger. 2002. Mediation in experimental and non-experimental stud-
ies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods 7 (4):422. doi:10.
1037//1082-989X.7.4.422.
Solka, A., V. P. Jackson, and M. Y. Lee. 2011. The influence of gender and culture on
Generation Y consumer decision making styles. The International Review of Retail,
Distribution and Consumer Research 21 (4):391–409. doi:10.1080/09593969.2011.596554.
Statista. 2019. Digital population in India as of January 2019 (in millions). https://www.sta-
tista.com/statistics/309866/india-digital-population/ (accessed March 2019).
Thomson, M., D. J. MacInnis, and C. W. Park. 2005. The ties that bind: Measuring the
strength of consumers’ emotional attachments to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology
15 (1):77–91. doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp1501_10.
Trivedi, J., and H. Trivedi. 2018. Investigating the Factors That Make a Fashion App
Successful: The Moderating Role of Personalization. Journal of Internet Commerce 17 (2):
170. doi:10.1080/15332861.2018.1433908.
Trivedi, J. P. 2018. Measuring the comparative efficacy of an attractive celebrity influencer
vis-a-vis an expert influencer-a fashion industry perspective. International Journal of
Electronic Customer Relationship Management 11 (3):256–71. doi:10.1504/IJECRM.2018.
093771.
Tzoumaka, E., R. H. Tsiotsou, and G. Siomkos. 2016. Delineating the role of endorser’s
perceived qualities and consumer characteristics on celebrity endorsement effectiveness.
Journal of Marketing Communications 22 (3):307–326. doi:10.1080/13527266.2014.
894931.
 JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE 123

White, C.C. 2014. Millennials’ buying habits may save the mall. http://www.USATODAY.
com (accessed March 2019).
Wolfson, C. 2017. Macro vs. micro influencers. https://www.revolutiondig-tal.com/article/
macro-vs-micro-influencers (accessed March 2019).
Yoo, B., N. Donthu, and S. Lee. 2000. An examination of selected marketing mix elements
and brand equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 28 (2):195–211. doi:10.
1177/0092070300282002.
Zacchilli, T. L., C. Hendrick, and S. S. Hendrick. 2009. The romantic partner conflict scale:
A new scale to measure relationship conflict. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships
26 (8):1073–1096. doi:10.1177/0265407509347936.

Appendix

Table A1. Post CFA, Cronbach’s alpha, factor loadings, AVE, and CR.
Variables and no. of items/variable
in the instrument Alpha value Factor loadings AVE CR
EI (expert influencers) 0.831 0.673 0.892
EI1 0.816
EI2 0.871
EI3 0.782
EI4 0.810
ACI (attractive celebrity influencers) 0.923 0.769 0.930
ACI1 0.913
ACI2 0.906
ACI3 0.866
ACI4 0.819
MPI (message process involvement) 0.860 0.705 0.905
MPI1 0.810
MPI2 0.884
MPI3 0.881
MPI4 0.779
AB (attitude toward the brand) 0.798 0.778 0.913
AB1 0.898
AB2 0.911
AB3 0.836
BA (brand admiration) 0.905 0.669 0.966
BT (brand trust)
BT1 0.866
BT2 0.834
BT3 0.836
BT4 0.761
BL (brand love)
BL1 0.842
BL2 0.827
BL3 0.743
BL4 0.792
BL5 0.877
BR (brand respect)
BR1 0.786
BR2 0.832
BR3 0.821
BR4 0.782
BR5 0.847
PI (purchase intention) 0.881 0.808 0.927
PI1 0.866
PI2 0.931
PI3 0.899
124 J. TRIVEDI AND R. SAMA

Table A2. Discriminant validity.

EI ACI MPI AB BA PI
EI 0.820
ACI 0.438 0.876
MPI 0.531 0.466 0.839
AB 0.547 0.413 0.525 0.882
BA 0.583 0.457 0.536 0.600 0.817
PI 0.522 0.436 0.419 0.447 0.618 0.898
EI: Expert influencers; ACI: attractive celebrity influencers; MPI: message process involvement; AB: attitude toward
the brand; BA: brand admiration; PI: purchase intention.

Table A3. Regression-1 results.

Hypotheses Independent variable Dependent variable Beta Value p Value Result
H1 EI AB 0.675 .000
H2 ACI AB 0.375 .013
H4 AB BA 0.604 .000
H5 BA PI 0.740 .000

Table A4. The moderation analysis of message involvement.

Independent Dependent Beta p R2
Models variable variable value Value value Hypothesis Result
Section A Moderating role of MPI between EI and AB H3A Supported
Model 1 EI AB 0.668 .000 0.416
Model 2 MPI AB 0.368 .012 0.448
Model 3 Moderator (EIMPI) AB 0.671 .000 0.483
Section B Moderating role of MPI between ACI and AB H3B Supported
Model 1 ACI AB 0.380 .008 0.397
Model 2 MPI AB 0.367 .012 0.448
Model 3 Moderator (ACIMPI) AB 0.501 .000 0.497
Copyright of Journal of Internet Commerce is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.