Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 55 (2020) 102121

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

“I’ll buy what she’s #wearing”: The roles of envy toward and parasocial
interaction with influencers in Instagram celebrity-based brand
endorsement and social commerce
S. Venus Jin a, b, *, Ehri Ryu c
a
NU-Q Communication Department, Northwestern University, 1801 Maple Ave, Evanston, IL, 60201, USA
b
School of Business, Sejong University, Seoul, South Korea
c
Boston College, 140 Commonwealth Ave, Chestnut Hill, MA, 02467, USA

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

Keywords: Companies increasingly leverage Instagram as a channel for brand management, consumer services, and social
Instagram celebrities commerce. This study addresses the dynamics of interaction among brand-related user-generated contents (UGC)
Social commerce posted on Instagram, social media-based brand communication with Instagram celebrities (parasocial interaction
Branded-user-generated content (UGC)
[PSI] and envy), and consumers’ characteristics (social comparison tendency, compulsive buying tendency, and
Influencer marketing
Parasocial interaction
materialistic envy). Three between-subjects experiments (Experiment 1: N ¼ 121; Experiment 2: N ¼ 106;
Envy Experiment 3: N ¼ 377) were conducted to test the effects of Instagram influencers and their branded-UGC on
Social comparison consumer behavior outcomes. Experiment 1 employed a 3 (branded content type [Instagram influencer’s photo
Materialism type]: selfies vs. photos taken by others vs. group photos) x 2 (gender: female vs. male) factorial design.
Compulsive buying Experiment 2 employed a 2 (content generator type: Instagram celebrity vs. mainstream celebrity) x 2 (gender:
female vs. male) factorial design. Experiment 3 deployed a 2 (branded content type: photos listing products vs.
photos showing models) x 2 (content generator type: commercial brand [corporate] vs. Instagram celebrity
[human]) factorial design. Experiment 1 indicates Instagram influencers’ photo types and gender moderate the
effects of envy toward and PSI with them on consumers’ intention to buy the products Instagram influencers are
wearing. Experiment 2 shows content generator types and gender moderate the effects of envy and PSI on source
trustworthiness perception. Experiment 3 demonstrates branded content types and content generator types
moderate the effects of consumers’ physical appearance social comparison tendency, compulsive buying ten­
dency, and materialistic envy on brand trust. This study makes theoretical contributions to the literature on
retailing and consumer services as well as provides managerial implications for Instafamous-based influencer
marketing and social commerce in Web 2.0 environments.

1. Introduction
Popular clothing brand Madewell leveraged the reach of existing
fashion influencers on Instagram like Stephanie Sterjovski (@steph­
sterjovski) and Bethany Marie (@bethanymarieco) to promote the an­
niversary of their signature tote in their #TOTEWELL campaign.
Partnering with only five Instagram influencers, Madewell reached over
million targeted consumers and generated high-quality branded user-
generated contents (UGC) from rising stars in fashion (Talbot, 2015).
Instagram launched multi-million-dollar careers for fashionistas,
enabling them not only to partner on countless brand collaborations but
also to launch their own product lines (Adler, 2016). As of March 2020,
more than 98 million Instagram posts are hashtagged with #fashionista
(s) (Instagram). Top fashionista bloggers and beauty influencers, who
function primarily on Instagram, have millions of followers, reach mil­
lions of audiences on a daily basis, and actively engage with consumers
(Indvik, 2016). In such relationship marketing-based brand manage­
ment, Instagram celebrities create awareness of fashion brands and
products, serve as implicit or explicit endorsers for brands, and ulti­
mately influence consumer purchase decisions (Loureiro et al., 2017).
This study examines the effects of Instagram celebrities as content
generators (sources) and their Instagram photos as branded UGC

* Corresponding author. NU-Q Communication Department, Northwestern University, 1801 Maple Ave, Evanston, IL, 60201, USA.
E-mail addresses: venus.jin@northwestern.edu, venus@northwestern.edu, venus@sejong.ac.kr, seunga.venus.jin@gmail.com (S.V. Jin), ehri.ryu@bc.edu
(E. Ryu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102121
Received 12 November 2018; Received in revised form 15 November 2019; Accepted 23 March 2020
Available online 2 April 2020
0969-6989/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S.V. Jin and E. Ryu
(messages) on consumers’ buying intention, source trustworthiness
perception, and brand trust in Instagram-based branding and influencer
marketing. Despite Instagram celebrities’ substantial presence on
Instagram and their influence on consumer purchasing decisions, we
know very little about success factors of Instagram celebrity-based brand
endorsement and social commerce. The current experimental study aims
to highlight this gap and ultimately provide practical insights on effec­
tive strategises for influencer marketing in social media environments.
Many Instagram influencers such as Stephanie Sterjovski (@steph­
sterjovski) engage in promotional activities through leveraging “Shop
my Insta” “Shop the feed” “Shop my look” “Buy now” links and features
on their Instagram pages and fashion blogs. Consumers enjoy following,
interacting with, and forming a parasocial interaction (PSI, “illusion of
face-to-face relationship with a media personality”, Horton and Wohl,
1956, p. 215) with Instagram influencers, envy brands and products
influencers strategically showcase on Instagram, and consequently
decide to buy the same products (i.e., envy consumption, referring to the
purchase of the envied object of material value, Milovic, 2014), which
rationalizes the present study’s examination of the positive impact PSI
and envy consumption have on buying intention (H1) and trustworthi­
ness perception (H4) in Instagram influencer marketing. Instagram
influencers post a wide variety of photos including self-centric selfies,
appealing group photos, glamorous portraits taken by others, pro­
duct/brand photos (style, beauty, travel, interior, and wedding cate­
gories, etc.), and model photos featuring themselves wearing the
products. Instagram influencers strategically showcase a diverse range
of photos to exhibit their lifestyles and promote the brands/products
they endorse as well as to share their daily life stories. In light of the
influx of a broad-spectrum of photos posted by Instagram celebrities,
this study examined the effects of different photo types as brand-related
user-generated contents (UGC) on consumer behavior outcomes (H2,
H3, H5, H6, and H8). Furthermore, social media influencers exhibit their
luxurious lifestyle, thus inducing many followers’ upward social com­
parison (Chae, 2018), materialistic envy, and obsessive-compulsive
buying for hedonic motivations, which justifies the present study’s test
of the roles played by consumers’ charactersitics such as social com­
parison tendency, materialism, and compulsive buying tendency (Jin
et al., 2018) in Instagram marketing and luxury branding (H7 and H9).
As a variety of social networking sites (SNSs) provide new channels
for brands to interact with consumers, increasing number of brands
leverage social media as an arena for creating customer value (Hamilton
et al., 2016). Relational brand communication can improve brand
profitability through increasing purchase intentions and behavioral
loyalty (Simon, 2017). Brands’ use of social media for relational
communication results in positive marketing outcomes including com­
pany’s profitability (Rishika et al., 2013) and brand’s performances
(Singh and Sonnenburg, 2012) as well as consumers’ improved purchase
intention (Wang et al., 2012), more favorable brand attitude (Colliander
and Dahl�en, 2011), greater willingness to communicate with the brand,
and higher brand loyalty (Labrecque, 2014). The new ways consumers
engage with brands in Web 2.0 environments have challenged brand
managers to utilize social media strategically and create contents in a
way to stimulate interactions with consumers that ultimately lead to the
creation of customer value (Schulze et al., 2015). Consumer interaction
in social media marketing happens through sharing and responding to
UGC. Brand-related UGC drives brand/product awareness and in­
fluences peer consumers’ purchase decisions, thus playing a central role
in developing social interaction, spreading electronic word-of-mouth
(eWoM), and facilitating brand communication (Ashley and Tuten,
2015; Kim and Johnson, 2016; Muller and Christandl, 2019; Roma and
Aloini, 2019).
Buying intention, trustworthiness perception, and brand trust are
integral constructs in social commerce (Hsu et al., 2017; Li, 2019).
Providing theoretical foundations and managerial guidelines for social
commerce and strategic social media marketing through elucidating
various mechanisms by which brand-consumer interactions contribute
2
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 55 (2020) 102121
to improvement of buying intention, source trustworthiness, and brand
trust is an impetus for conducting the present study. To this end, the
current study reports empirical findings from three experiments that
examined the interaction effects among (1) multifarious aspects of visual
contents posted on Instagram (i.e., branded content types [photo mes­
sages] and content generator types [sources]), (2) relational brand
communication variables in social commerce (i.e., envy toward and PSI
with Instagram celebrities), and (3) consumers’ characteristics (social
comparison tendency, compulsive buying tendency, and materialism)
on important social media marketing outcomes (buying intention,
trustworthiness perception, and brand trust).
2. Experiment 1: Envy, parasocial interaction, and buying
intention
2.1. Theoretical underpinnings and hypothesis development
Envy, as one dimension of materialism (Belk, 1984), is generated
when others possess envied products or brands (Belk, 2008; McFerran
et al., 2014). The current study focuses on two-person situation envy
rather than three-person situation jealousy (Parrott and Smith, 1993).
Materialistic envy refers to an unpleasant emotion which stems from the
desire to covet another’s superior possessions (Belk, 2008). Envy con­
sumption is shaped by the willingness to purchase the envied object of
material value (Milovic, 2014). Since the willingness to pay for the
enviable good is one of the typical effects of envy on customer behavior,
marketing strategies often take advantage of envy to create desires in
consumers to obtain products associated with admired or envied sources
(Belk, 2008).
PSI refers to a media user’s “illusion of face-to-face relationship with
a media personality” (Horton and Wohl, 1956, p. 215). The concept of
PSI not only elucidates relationships between social media celebrities
and their followers but also explains digital celebrities’ persuasion
power over consumers (Hwang and Zhang, 2018; Jin, 2018). PSI in
social media marketing and social commerce platforms, which stems
from imagined intimacy or illusion of social media characters, positively
influences consumers’ buying intention (Xiang et al., 2016) and
consumer-brand relationships (Labrecque, 2014).
Both envy and PSI constructs are highly relevant to the roles Insta­
gram celebrities play in social commerce in the sense that consumers (1)
feel envious of Instagram celebrities because of their popularity and
fashionable styles and (2) form PSI with Instagram celebrities due to the
two-way communication interface (Jin, 2018). Instagram celebrities’
popularity is quantitatively indicated by millions of followers and likes
as well as qualitatively indicated by followers’ positive comments.
Instagram celebrities also showcase fashionable styles by posting filtered
and strategically selected images of their fashion taste and purchased
items, thus serving as generators/sources of branded contents. In such
strategic marketing management context, envy is a positive predictor of
PSI with Instagram influencers and consumers’ behavioral intention
(Jin, 2018). Social media users’ purchase intention toward desirable
objects is enhanced by the emotion of envy such that as envy increases
purchase intention of the envied object increases (Lin, 2018; Loureiro
et al., 2019) (H1a). PSI between digital celebrities and their followers
also positively influences followers’ purchase intention (Hwang and
Zhang, 2018; Sokolova and Kefi, 2020) (H1b).
Instagram influencers such as Stephanie Sterjovski (@steph­
sterjovski) and Bethany Marie (@bethanymarieco) post various types of
photos including self-promotional selfies, exciting group photos, and
glamorous long-shot portraits to strategically promote the brands/
products they endorse. Instagram users who post self-centered selfies are
perceived to be more narcissistic and self-promotional while those who
post group photos in which they are surrounded by others are perceived
to be more sociable, popular, and friendly than those who post neutral
photos (Jin and Muqaddam, 2018; Jin et al., 2018). Moreover, those
who post long-shot photos taken by others tend to be perceived to be
S.V. Jin and E. Ryu
more glamorous and induce stronger envy and higher behavioral
intention than those who post neutral photos (Jin et al., 2018). The
current study proposes, therefore, the main effects of Instagram celeb­
rities’ photo types on peer consumers’ envy (H2a), PSI (H2b), and
buying intention (H2c).
Although recent studies show that social media users’ envy increases
purchase intention (Lin, 2018) and that consumers’ PSI with celebrities
through social media has a positive impact on celebrity endorsement
(Chung and Cho, 2017), there is a dearth of experimental research on
how multifarious attributes of Instagram photos moderate the influence
of envy toward and PSI with Instagram celebrities on brand manage­
ment outcomes. The current study addresses the theoretical and
empirical gaps. Theoretically, the positive relationship between envy
and buying intention could be stronger for male consumers, who tend to
be evolutionarily more competitive toward intrasexual rivals (Buunk
and Massar, 2012), especially when males are exposed to same-sex
others’ narcissistic self-centric selfies and long-shot portraits than
friendly group photos. Conversely, female consumers tend to be more
envious of same-sex others’ physical beauty and attractiveness (Faer
et al., 2005; Fisher and Cox, 2010) and this envious feeling may
consequently trigger intention to buy the envied products the rival is
wearing regardless of the photo types. Gender moderates the effects of
envy on the association between SNS use and consumer psychology
(Ding et al., 2017). Research also shows the moderating effect of gender
on PSI (Wang et al., 2008). Furthermore, research demonstrates
moderating effects of Instagram photo types (selfies, groupies, and
photos taken by others) on consumers’ behavioral intention (Jin et al.,
2018). In the context of Instagram influencer marketing, narcissistic
selfies and glamorous long-shot photos taken by others may induce
stronger envy while group photos may induce stronger PSI. Therefore, it
can be hypothesized that the positive influence of envy (Lin, 2018;
Milovic, 2014) and PSI (Xiang et al., 2016) on consumers’ buying
intention would be moderated by Instagram celebrities’ photo types and
the gender (H3). Based on these theoretical rationales and logical
reasoning, Experiment 1 proposed eny and PSI as positive predictors of
purchase intention (H1), main effects of Instagram celebrities’ photo
types (H2), and interaction effects among envy/PSI, Instagram celeb­
rities’ photo types, and the gender of the Instagram celebrity/consumer
(female vs. male matched between the Instagram celebrity and the
consumer) on purchase intention (H3).
H1. Consumers’ (a) envy toward and (b) PSI with Instagram celebrities
are positive predictors of consumers’ intention to buy the products the
Instagram celebrities are wearing.
H2. Photo types (selfies vs. group photos vs. photos taken by others)
will have main effects on (a) envy toward Instagram celebrities (b) PSI
with Instagram celebrities and (c) intention to buy the products the
Instagram celebrities are wearing, such that self-promotional selfies will
induce stronger envy, group photos will induce closer PSI, and photos
taken by others will induce stronger envy and higher buying intention.
H3. The influence of (a) envy toward and (b) PSI with Instagram ce­
lebrities on consumers’ intention to buy the products the Instagram
celebrities are wearing will be moderated by the Instagram celebrities’
photo types and gender.
2.2. Methodology
2.2.1. Design and participants
Experiment 1 deployed a 3 (branded contents generated by an
Instagram celebrity: selfies vs. photos taken by others vs. group photos,
all of which featuring an Instagram celebrity wearing products) x 2
(Instagram celebrity gender: female vs. male) between-subjects factorial
design. Given that gender was one of the independent factors and the
key dependent variable was intention to buy the products the Instagram
celebrity (InstaCeleb) is wearing, gender was matched between the
3
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 55 (2020) 102121
InstaCeleb and the participants. Females were exposed to the female
InstaCeleb whereas males were exposed to the male InstaCeleb. Partic­
ipants (N ¼ 121, 37% females, 63% males, M age ¼ 33.02, SD age ¼
10.30) were recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk, following
guidelines to conduct experiments with MTurk (Paolacci et al., 2010).
2.2.2. Manipulation stimuli and experimental procedure
Example manipulation stimuli are presented in Fig. 1 (Experiment 1
[top]).
Participants were randomly assigned to one of the experimental
conditions. After submitting informed consent form online, participants
were exposed to manipulation stimuli. Upon completion of manipula­
tion and manipulation checks, participants filled out the post-
experimental questionnaire to be measured on the outcome variables.
2.2.3. Measures
Buying intention was measured with 3 modified items from Holz­
warth et al.’s (2006) buying intention scales (e.g., “I am interested in
buying the clothing brands/products this Instagram celebrity is wearing,
” Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .936), using 7-point Likert scales ranging from
“strongly disagree” [1] to “strongly agree” [7]. Envy was measured with
3 modified items from envy dimension of Belk’s (1984) materialism
scales (e.g., “When Instagram celebrities have things I cannot afford, it
bothered me,” alpha ¼ .754), using 7-point Likert scales. Closeness of
parasocial interaction (CPSI) was measured with 4 items from Rubin
et al.’s (1985) PSI scales (e.g., “I could establish a personal relationship
with this Instagram celebrity,” alpha ¼ .855), using 7-point Likert scales.
Instagram usage frequency (“How often do you use Instagram?“) was
measured as a control variable.
2.3. Results
The results of a regression analysis show that envy (beta coefficient
¼ 0.28, t ¼ 3.46, p < .001) and PSI (beta coefficient ¼ 0.70, t ¼ 4.44, p <
.001) are positive predictors of buying intention, F (3, 117) ¼ 38.909, p
< .001, supporting H1a and H1b. The results of ANOVAs to test main
effects of photo types are presented in Fig. 2 (top mean plots), partially
supporting H2.
Multiple regression analyses were conducted to test the interaction
effects of photo type, gender, and social media communication out­
comes (ENVY, CPSI) on buying intention (BI). The three photo types
were coded by a set of two dummy variables. Gender was dummy coded.
Table 1 shows the results with group photos as a reference category for
photo type, and female as a reference category for gender. The regres­
sion analyses were repeated with a different photo type as a reference
category so that the effects of photo types were tested between all three
conditions. Significant three-way interaction effects with ENVY and
with CPSI are shown in Table 1 and graphically depicted in Fig. 3, thus
supporting H3.
In Fig. 3, to facilitate the interpretation, each interaction effect is
presented in two different formats. In Fig. 3a, the three-way interaction
of photo type*gender*ENVY occurred as follows. There was a significant
conditional two-way photo type*ENVY interaction in males, but not in
females. In males, the positive relationship between ENVY and BI was
significantly weaker in group photos than selfies and photos taken by
others (Fig. 3a top). There was a significant conditional two-way gen­
der*ENVY interaction in selfies and in photos taken by others (in which
the relationship between ENVY and BI was stronger in males than in
females), but not in group photos (Fig. 3a bottom). These results mean
the higher post-experimental envy the greater buying intention among
male consumers, and this positive relationship was stronger when the
photo type was selfies or photos taken by others compared to group
photos. In contrast, this interaction was not found among female con­
sumers, supporting H3a.
In Fig. 3b, there was a significant conditional two-way photo
type*CPSI interaction in females, but not in males. In females, the
S.V. Jin and E. Ryu Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 55 (2020) 102121

Fig. 1. Example stimuli.

4
S.V. Jin and E. Ryu Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 55 (2020) 102121

Figure 2. Main effects of manipulation stimuli.

5
S.V. Jin and E. Ryu Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 55 (2020) 102121

Table 1
Experiment 1: Estimated regression models to test three-way interaction of photo type, gender, and social media communication outcomes on consumers’ buying
intention (BI).
Social Media Communication Outcomes (X)

ENVY CPPI CPSI

Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2

Intercept 3.91 (0.32)** 3.64 (0.42)** 4.00 (0.25)** 3.51 (0.33)** 4.09 (0.27)** 3.56 (0.34)**
X 0.30 (0.10)** 0.14 (0.29) 0.72 (0.08)** 0.96 (0.23)** 0.74 (0.09)** 1.36 (0.30)**
SG 0.34 (0.37) 0.45 (0.62) 0.19 (0.29) 0.01 (0.52) 0.34 (0.30) 0.15 (0.54)
OG 0.17 (0.36) 0.91 (0.57) 0.04 (0.28) 0.93 (0.44)* 0.00 (0.29) 0.95 (0.46)*
Male 0.38 (0.30) 0.03 (0.53) 0.52 (0.24)* 0.28 (0.41) 0.56 (0.25)* 0.27 (0.43)
SG*X 0.14 (0.36) 0.62 (0.33)y 1.07 (0.43)*
OG*X 0.15 (0.39) 0.56 (0.31)y 1.02 (0.38)**
Male*X 0.06 (0.34) 0.06 (0.27) 0.55 (0.34)
SG*Male 0.18 (0.77) 0.55 (0.63) 0.56 (0.66)
OG*Male 1.21 (0.73) 1.39 (0.56)* 1.48 (0.59)*
SG*Male*X 0.88 (0.49)y 0.58 (0.40) 1.26 (0.51)*
OG*Male*X 0.72 (0.49) 0.38 (0.38) 0.95 (0.45)*
ΔR2, F test .089, F ¼ 3.548** .182, F ¼ 2.86* .367, F ¼ 23.931** .416, F ¼ 10.40** .316, F ¼ 18.456** .381, F ¼ 8.72**

Notes. Unstandardized coefficients are shown with standard errors in parentheses. Instagram use frequency (“How often do you use Instagram?“) was controlled in all
analyses (coefficient estimates not shown in the table). ΔR2 shows the proportion of variance in BI accounted for by the study variables (photo type, gender, and social
media communication outcome variable in Model 1; photo type, gender, social media communication outcome variable, and their interactions in Model 2) controlling
for Instagram use frequency, and its statistical significance was tested by the F tests with degrees of freedom (4, 115) in Model 1, and with degrees of freedom (11, 108)
in Model 2. SG and OG are a set of three dummy variables to represent the three different photo types with Group photos as the reference category. Male is a dummy
variable (0 ¼ Female and 1 ¼ Male). All social media communication outcome variables (X) were centered at the means. The coefficient for X is the estimated simple
slope for X for males in Group photos. The coefficients for SG and OG are the estimated difference in BI between Selfie and Group photos, and between Others and
Group photos, respectively, in females whose X value is at the mean. The coefficient for Male is the gender difference in BI in Group photos for those whose X value is at
the mean. The coefficients for SG*X and OG*X are the estimated difference in simple slope for X between Selfie and Group photos, and between Others and Group
photos, respectively, in females. The coefficient for Male*X is the difference in simple slope for X between males and females in Group photos. The coefficients for
SG*Male and OG*Male are the conditional two-way interaction of photo type and gender for those whose X value is at the mean. yp < .08; *p < .05; **p < .01.

positive relationship between CPSI and BI was significantly stronger in evokes stronger envy, and induces closer PSI than mainstream celeb­
group photos than in the other two photo types. This result means that rities (Jin et al., 2019). Women show closer PSI with a celebrity and
the higher CPSI the greater buying intention among female consumers expresses stronger desire to imitate the target celebrity (Greenwood
and this positive relationship was stronger when the photo type was et al., 2008; Sokolova and Kefi, 2020). It can be hypothesized, therefore,
group photos compared to selfies or photos taken by others, supporting that the positive relationship between envy/PSI and trustworthiness
H3b. could be significantly different for female consumers contingent upon
the content generator types whereas there could be no difference for
3. Experiment 2: Envy, parasocial interaction, and male consumers regardless of the content generator types (H6). Based on
trustworthiness perception these rationales, Experiment 2 proposed the following hypotheses.
H4. Consumers’ (a) envy toward and (b) PSI with Instagram celebrities
3.1. Theoretical underpinnings and hypothesis development
are positive predictors of consumers’ source trustworthiness perception.
Celebrities’ PSI with consumers also increases source trustworthiness H5. Content generator types (mainstream celebrity vs. Instagram ce­
(Chung and Cho, 2017) (H4). Building upon the findings from Experi­ lebrity) will have main effects on (a) envy (b) PSI and (c) trustworthiness
ment 1, which examined the effects of different types of branded con­ perception such that Instagram celebrities will induce stronger envy,
tents generated by Instagram celebrities, Experiment 2 examined the closer PSI, and higher trustworthiness than mainstream celebrities.
effects of different content generator types (Instagram celebrity vs.
H6. The influence of (a) envy and (b) PSI on consumers’ source
mainstream celebrity) on consumers’ brand trustworthiness perception
trustworthiness perception will be moderated by the content generator
(H5). The tone of voice of brand-consumer conversations in social media
types (Instagram celebrity vs. mainstream celebrity) and gender.
tends to be informal and the high level of interactivity makes consumers
perceive the interlocutor as a conversational human voice (Beukeboom
3.2. Methodology
et al., 2015; Kelleher, 2009). The tone of voice influences purchase
intention and trustworthiness perception on social media (Barcelos
3.2.1. Design and participants
et al., 2018), such that perceived conversational human voice and
Experiment 2 employed a 2 (Instagram celebrity vs. mainstream
consequent interactivity improve brand evaluation (Beukeboom et al.,
celebrity) x 2 (gender: female vs. male) factorial design. Participants (N
2015), including brand trust, brand satisfaction, and brand commitment
¼ 106) were recruited from Amazon MTurk.
(Kelleher and Miller, 2006). Celebrities as human brand identities
(Centeno and Wang, 2017) sell products and brands through endorse­
3.2.2. Manipulation stimuli and experimental procedure
ments and persuasions by giving human touch and personality qualities
Example manipulation stimuli are presented in Fig. 1 (Experiment 2
to inanimate brands and they encourage consumption through func­
[middle]). Participants were randomly assigned to one of the two
tioning as an idealized consumer and a commodity vessel (Holmes and
experimental conditions. After submitting informed consent form on­
Redmond, 2014). Instagram fashionistas tend to start their career as a
line, participants were exposed to manipulation stimuli. Upon comple­
fashion stylist blogger and gain Instafame, whereas mainstream celeb­
tion of manipulation and manipulation checks, participants filled out the
rities such as TV stars, models, movie stars, and musicians gain their
post-experimental questionnaire to be measured on the outcome
fame through traditional media and entertainment industry. Research
variables.
shows Instagram celebrities are perceived to be more trustworthy,

6
S.V. Jin and E. Ryu Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 55 (2020) 102121

Figure 3. Experiment 1: Estimated three-way interaction of Instagram celebrities’ photo type, gender, and social media communication outcomes (ENVY, CPSI) on
buying intention (BI)
Notes. The figures were created based on the estimated regression model in Table 1. The three-way interaction effects are shown in two different formats to facilitate
the interpretation. The estimated simple slopes for the social media communication outcomes in each condition are shown (S ¼ Selfies, G ¼ Group photos; O ¼
Others; F ¼ Females, M ¼ Males). The differences in the simple slopes for the social media communication outcomes are noted. yp < .08; *p < .05; **p < .01.

3.2.3. Measures
Envy was measured with 3 modified items from envy dimension of
Belk’s (1984) materialism scales (e.g., “When Instagram celebrities have
things I cannot afford, it bothered me,” alpha ¼ .803), using 7-point
Likert scales. Closeness of parasocial interaction (CPSI) was measured
with 4 items from Rubin et al.’s (1985) PSI scales (e.g., “I could establish
a personal relationship with this Instagram celebrity,” alpha ¼ .905),
using 7-point Likert scales. Celebrity persona parasocial interaction
(CPPI) was measured with 4 items from Bocarnea and Brown’s (2007)
CPPI scales (e.g., “This Instagram celebrity’s personality makes me feel
comfortable, as if I am with friends,” alpha ¼ .857), using 7-point Likert
scales. Source trustworthiness perception was measured with 6 items
from McCroskey and Teven’s (1999) trustworthiness scales (e.g.,
“dishonest” [1] - “honest” [7], alpha ¼ .948), using 7-point semantic
differential scales. Instagram usage frequency (“How often do you use
Instagram?“), brand attitude (7-point bipolar scale ranging from

7
S.V. Jin and E. Ryu Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 55 (2020) 102121

“unfavorable” to “favorable”) were measured as control variables.
3.3. Results
The results of a regression analysis show that PSI (beta coefficient ¼
0.46, t ¼ 3.24, p < .005) is a positive predictor of trustworthiness
perception, F (3, 102) ¼ 24.853, p < .001, supporting H4b. The results of
ANOVAs to test main effects of content generator types are presented in
Fig. 2 (middle), partially supporting H5.
Multiple regression analyses were conducted to test the interaction
effects of content generator types, gender, and social media communi­
cation outcomes (ENVY, CPPI, and CPSI) on trustworthiness (TW).
Table 2 shows the results of the regression analyses.
The three-way interactions are depicted in Fig. 4, supporting H6.
4. Experiment 3: Social comparison, compulsive buying,
materialistic envy, and brand trust
4.1. Theoretical underpinnings and hypothesis development
Building upon the findings from Experiment 1 (branded content
types) and Experiment 2 (content generator types), Experiment 3 further
examined the roles played by consumer charactersitics in determining
the effects of branded content types and content generator types. Social
comparison theory (Festinger, 1954) suggests consumers evaluate
themselves by comparing what they possess and consume to what others
possess and consume (Lee and Watkins, 2016). Envy-triggering contents
and consequent upward social comparisons are prevalent on social
media (Lin, 2018). Physical appearance social comparison, referring to
tendency to compare one’s appearance to others (Thompson et al.,
1991), is particularly relevant to social comparison on visual
image-based social media like Instagram. Consumers with higher
physical appearance social comparison tendency might be more sensi­
tive to images of physically attractive Instagram celebrities wearing
luxury brands’ products, which suggests the interactive effects of con­
sumers’ physical appearance social comparison and luxury brand posts
featuring fashionable Instagram celebrities.
From the lens of social comparison theory, some consumers use
luxury brands to conform to social standards (Wiedemann et al., 2009).
Social comparison plays a significant role in developing materialistic
values and compulsive buying (Islam et al., 2018). Compulsive buying is
defined as “a tendency to be preoccupied with buying that is revealed
through repetitive buying and a lack of impulse control over buying”
(Ridgway et al., 2008, p. 622). Compulsive buying is associated with
obsessive spending, hedonic feelings, and impulsivity while shopping
(Gallagher et al., 2017). Consumer impulsivity arises from the tendency
to overvalue benefits and undervalue long-term effects, and impulsive
buying tendency is higher for hedonic things such as luxury brands and
branded products (Ramanathan and Menon, 2006). Compulsive con­
sumers engage in shopping primarily for hedonic motivations (Horvath
and Adiguzel, 2018). Hedonic value is of crucial importance for luxury
brand consumption as it reflects gratification and sensory pleasure
through experience with the luxury product (Shade et al., 2016). Luxury
brands are more extendible and elastic than value products by virtue of
their hedonic potential and their promise of emotional pleasure (Hagt­
vedt and Patrick, 2009; Jin, 2012). Consumers who place high emphasis
on hedonic value have a positive attitude towards luxury brand con­
sumption (Ajitha and Sivakumar, 2017). Luxury brand posts presented

Table 2
Experiment 2: Estimated regression models to test three-way interaction of content generator type (mainstream celebrity vs. Instagram celebrity), gender, and social
media communication outcomes on consumers’ trustworthiness perception (TW) and buying intention (BI).
Social Media Communication Outcomes (X)

ENVY CPPI CPSI

Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2

TW
Intercept 4.28 (0.23)** 4.41 (0.27)** 4.41 (0.20)** 4.55 (0.24)** 4.55 (0.20)** 4.73 (0.25)**
X 0.07 (0.09) 0.08 (0.19) 0.49 (0.08)** 0.78 (0.18)** 0.52 (0.09)** 0.81 (0.19)**
SourceM 0.13 (0.26) 0.13 (0.38) 0.08 (0.22) 0.16 (0.33) 0.07 (0.22) 0.34 (0.34)
Male 0.01 (0.26) 0.21 (0.36) 0.18 (0.22) 0.41 (0.31) 0.29 (0.22) 0.56 (0.32)
SourceM *X 0.29 (0.25) 0.43 (0.22)y 0.39 (0.24)
Male*X 0.05 (0.26) 0.41 (0.22)y 0.43 (0.24)y
SourceM *Male 0.38 (0.50) 0.34 (0.44) 0.38 (0.45)
SourceM *Male*X 0.57 (0.37) 0.64 (0.29)* 0.59 (0.32)y
ΔR2, F test .006, F ¼ 0.264 .315, F ¼ 1.096 .197, F ¼ 12.057** .227, F ¼ 6.054** .203, F ¼ 12.624** .226, F ¼ 6.015**

BI
Intercept 2.67 (0.30)** 2.48 (0.34)** 2.82 (0.27)** 2.63 (0.31)** 3.01 (0.26)** 2.87 (0.30)**
X 0.25 (0.12)* 0.09 (0.24) 0.59 (0.11)** 0.86 (0.23)** 0.74 (0.11)** 0.99 (0.23)**
SourceM 0.66 (0.33)* 1.08 (0.47)* 0.62 (0.30)* 1.03 (0.43)* 0.40 (0.28) 0.80 (0.41)y
Male 0.21 (0.33) 0.43 (0.45) 0.02 (0.30) 0.28 (0.41) 0.21 (0.28) 0.09 (0.40)
SourceM *X 0.33 (0.31) 0.14 (0.29) 0.36 (0.30)
Male*X 0.31 (0.33) 0.61 (0.29)* 0.54 (0.30)y
SourceM *Male 0.74 (0.62) 0.75 (0.58) 0.96 (0.56)
SourceM *Male*X 0.77 (0.46) 0.55 (0.38) 0.98 (0.40)*
ΔR2, F test .058, F ¼ 3.092* .134, F ¼ 3.342** .176, F ¼ 11.631** .217, F ¼ 6.383** .237, F ¼ 17.781** .279, F ¼ 9.520**

Notes. Unstandardized coefficients are shown with standard errors in parentheses. Instagram use frequency (“How often do you use Instagram?“) and brand attitude
were controlled in all analyses (coefficient estimates not shown in the table). ΔR2 shows the proportion of variance in the dependent variable accounted for by the
study variables (content generator type, gender, and social media communication outcome variable in Model 1; content generator type, gender, social media
communication outcome variable, and their interactions in Model 2) controlling for Instagram use frequency and brand attitude, and its statistical significance was
tested by the F tests with degrees of freedom (3, 100) in Model 1, and with degrees of freedom (7, 96) in Model 2. SourceM is a dummy variable to indicate the content
generator type (0 ¼ Mainstream Celebrity, 1 ¼ Instagram Celebrity). Male is a dummy variable (0 ¼ Female and 1 ¼ Male). All social media communication outcome
variables (X) were centered at the means. The coefficient for X is the simple slope for X for females in Mainstream Celebrity condition. The coefficient for SourceM is the
estimated difference in the dependent variable between Mainstream Celebrity and Instagram Celebrity in females whose X value is at the mean. The coefficient for Male
is the gender difference in Mainstream Celebrity condition for those whose X value is at the mean. The coefficient for SourceM*X is the conditional two-interaction of
content generator type and X in females. The coefficient for Male*X is the difference in simple slope for X between males and females in Mainstream Celebrity
condition. The coefficients for SouceM*Male is the conditional two-way interaction of content generator type and gender for those whose X value is at the mean. yp <
.08; *p < .05; **p < .01.

8
S.V. Jin and E. Ryu
in the form of aesthetically filtered images on the highly visual platform
Instagram evokes consumers’ hedonic sensation and emotional attrac­
tion to luxury brands. Given that luxury brands (1) are hedonic in na­
ture, (2) offer consumers with symbolic and hedonic values, and (3)
ultimately stimulate consumers’ affective response to and emotional
attraction to them, it is worth considering the moderating role of con­
sumers’ compulsive buying tendency in testing their psychological re­
sponses to luxury brand posts on Instagram.
Compulsive buyers also believe that expensive material is essential
for happiness and success much more than normal buyers believe this
(Dittmar and Drury, 2000), thus rationalizing the examination of con­
sumers’ materialistic value along with compulsive buying tendency in
the context of Instagram-based luxury branding. Materialism refers to
“the importance a person places on possessions and their acquisition as a
necessary or desirable form of conduct to reach desired end states”
9
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 55 (2020) 102121
Fig. 4. Experiment 2: Estimated three-way interac­
tion of content generator type (mainstream celebrity
vs. Instagram celebrity), gender, and social media
communication outcomes (CPPI, CPSI) on trustwor­
thiness (TW)
Notes. The figures were created based on the esti­
mated regression model in Table 2. The three-way
interaction effects are shown in two different for­
mats to facilitate the interpretation. The estimated
simple slopes for the social media communication
outcomes in each condition are shown (MC ¼ Main­
stream Celebrity, IC ¼ Instagram Celebrity; F ¼ Fe­
males, M ¼ Males). The differences in the simple
slopes for the social media communication outcomes
are shown. yp < .08; *p < .05; **p < .01.
(Richins and Dawson, 1992, p. 307). Thus, materialism is conceptual­
ized as a value orientation in which materialists place a high value on
acquisition as a means to reach important life goals (Richins, 2017).
Envy is one dimension of materialism (Belk, 1984) and materialistic
value is a predictor of compulsive buying tendency and celebrity
worship (Dittmar, 2005; Reeves et al., 2012). Also, consumers’ materi­
alism is associated with compulsive buying (Islam et al., 2017; Oter­
o-Lopez and Villardefrancos, 2013) as well as “self-aggrandizing” and
ostentatious luxury brand consumption (Gornik-Durose and Pilch, 2016;
Kamal et al., 2013), which generates envy among other materialistic
consumers (Kim et al., 2016; McFerran et al., 2014). In light of the dy­
namics of fame and envy in Instafamous-based luxury brand manage­
ment, Experiment 3 proposes the influence of consumers’ social
comparison, compulsive buying tendency, and materialistic envy on
brand trust. Simply viewing images of luxury goods increases
S.V. Jin and E. Ryu
consumers’ emphasis on material goods, thus situationally priming
materialism (Bauer et al., 2012). This suggests that luxury brand posts
on Instagram can function as channels for priming consumers’ upward
social comparison and materialistic envy.
Social media use moderates the relationship between social com­
parison and media celebrities (Islam et al., 2018). Consumers with
higher levels of materialism and compulsive buying tendencies show
higher celebrity worship (Reeves et al., 2012), which may induce higher
brand trust when the branded content on Instagram is posted by an
Instagram celebrity (vs. a corporate brand) in product-centric branded
content conditions, whereas brand trust is equivalent in model-centric
branded content conditions regardless of the generator of the content.
Consumers’ social comparison, materialistic envy, and compulsive
buying coexist and interact to influence consumer behavior outcomes in
Instagram-based luxury branding. Therefore, Experiment 3 tested
physical appearance social comparison tendency, compulsive buying
tendency, and materialistic envy as positive predictors of luxury brand
trust (H7), main effects of brand posts’ attributes (branded content types
and content generator types) on brand trust (H8), and their interaction
effects (H9).
H7. Consumers’ (a) physical appearance social comparison (b)
compulsive buying tendency and (c) materialistic envy are positive
predictors of luxury brand trust.
H8. Branded content types and content generator types will have main
effects on brand trust.
H9. The influence of (a) physical appearance social comparison (b)
compulsive buying tendency and (c) materialistic envy on consumers’
luxury brand trust will be moderated by branded content types and
content generator types.
4.2. Methodology
4.2.1. Design and participants
Experiment 3 employed a 2 (branded content type: photos listing
products vs. photos showing models) x 2 (content generator type:
commercial brand [corporate] vs. InstaCeleb [human]) between-
subjects factorial design. Four experimental conditions include: prod­
uct photos posted by brand (BP), model photos posted by brand (BM),
product photos posted by the InstaCeleb (IP), and model photos posted
by the InstaCeleb (IM).
Participants (N ¼ 377, 52% males, 48% females, M age ¼ 33.05, SD
age ¼ 9.82) were recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk, following
guidelines to conduct experiments with MTurk (Paolacci et al., 2010).
MTurk workers were instructed to participate in only one experiment to
eliminate a threat to internal validity by ensuring that participants in
each experiment were not exposed to another experiment’s manipula­
tion stimuli. In the data cleaning process, responses from those workers
who participated in multiple experiments were deleted.
4.2.2. Manipulation stimuli and experimental procedure
For Experiment 3, participants filled out the pre-experimental
questionnaire to be measured on consumer characteristic variables
before exposure to the manipulation stimuli. Example manipulation
stimuli are presented in Fig. 1 (Experiment 3 [bottom]). Participants
were randomly assigned to one of the experimental conditions. Upon
completion of manipulation and manipulation checks, participants filled
out the post-experimental questionnaire to be measured on the outcome
variables.
4.2.3. Measures
Pre-experimental physical appearance comparison on Instagram was
measured with 3 items from Fardouly and Vartanian (2015), which are
modified items of physical appearance social comparison scale (PACS)
(Thompson et al., 1991) (e.g., “When using Instagram, I compare my
10
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 55 (2020) 102121
physical appearance to the physical appearance of others” alpha ¼
.937), using 7-point Likert scales. Pre-experimental obsessive-­
compulsive buying (OCB) was measured with the items from Ridgway
et al.’s (2008) compulsive buying index (CBI) scales (e.g., “My closet has
unopened shopping bags in it” alpha ¼ .934). Pre-experimental mate­
rialistic envy was measured with 3 items of the envy dimension of Belk’s
(1984) materialism scales (e.g., “I am bothered when I see people who
buy anything they want” alpha ¼ .841). Post-experimental brand trust
was measured with Delgado-Ballester et al.’s (2003) brand trust scale (e.
g., “This brand name guarantees satisfaction,” “This brand would
compensate me in some way for the problem with the product” alpha ¼
.938), using 7-point Likert scales. Instagram usage frequency (“How
often do you use Instagram?“), brand attitude (7-point bipolar scale
ranging from “unfavorable” to “favorable”), and familiarity with the
Instagram influencer (whether the participant is following the Instagram
influencer: yes versus no) were measured as control variables.
4.3. Results
The results of a regression analysis show that physical appearance
comparison tendency (beta coefficient ¼ 0.15, t ¼ 3.06, p < .005) and
compulsive buying (beta coefficient ¼ 0.33, t ¼ 7.03, p < .001) are
positive predictors of luxury brand trust, F (3, 373) ¼ 35.288, p < .001,
supporting H7a and H7b. The results of ANOVAs to test main effects of
content generator types and branded content types are presented in
Fig. 2 (bottom), rejecting H8.
Multiple regression analyses were conducted to test the three-way
interaction effects of content type, generator type, and consumer char­
acteristics (pre-experimental physical appearance social comparison
[PACS], obsessive-compulsive-buying tendency [OCB], and envy
[ENVY]) on brand trust.
In Table 3, there were three-way interaction effects with PACS and
with OCB only in females. These interaction effects are depicted in
Fig. 5a and Fig. 5b, respectively. In the two plots for females in the top
left panel of Fig. 5a, PACS had a significant positive relationship with
BT_R in model condition but not in product condition when the content
generator was brand, whereas PACS showed a significant positive rela­
tionship with BT_R in product condition but not in model condition
when the generator was InstaCeleb. This result means that when the
content generator was the brand, the higher PACS the higher BT_R
among female consumers exposed to the model photos. In contrast,
when the generator was the InstaCeleb, the higher PACS the higher BT_R
among female consumers exposed to the product photos. Framed
differently, the plots in the bottom left panel of Fig. 5a show that PACS
was positively related to BT_R in InstaCeleb condition but not in brand
condition when the content type was product, whereas PACS was
positively related to BT_R in brand condition but not in InstaCeleb
condition when the content was model, supporting H9a. Fig. 5b showed
the same pattern among females. OCB showed a significant positive
relationship with BT_R in BM and IP conditions, but not in BP and IM
conditions. When the generator was the InstaCeleb, the higher OCB the
higher BT_R among female consumers exposed to the product photos.
In Table 4, there was a significant three-way interaction with ENVY
on BT_I only in males. The interaction effects are shown in Fig. 5c. In the
top right panel of Fig. 5c, the simple slope for ENVY was significantly
different between the content types only when the content generator
was InstaCeleb, but not when the generator was brand. When the
generator was InstaCeleb, ENVY was positively related to BT_I in model
photos, but not in product photos. This result means that when the
generator was the InstaCeleb, the higher envy, the higher BT_I among
male consumers exposed to model photos as opposed to product photos.
In the bottom right panel of Fig. 5c, the simple slope for ENVY was
significantly different between the generators in product photos but not
in model photos. When the content type was product, ENVY showed a
significant positive relationship with BT_I when the generator was brand
but not when the generator was InstaCeleb. This result means that when
S.V. Jin and E. Ryu Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 55 (2020) 102121

Table 3
Experiment 3: Estimated regression models to test three-way interaction of branded
content generator type (brand vs. Instagram celebrity), branded content type
(product vs. model), and consumer characteristics (PAC, OCB, ENVY) on consumers’ brand trust reliability (BT_R) and brand trust intention (BT_I) in Females (N ¼
182).
Consumer characteristics (X)

PAC OCB ENVY

Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2

BT_R
Intercept 4.60 (0.14)** 4.60 (0.16)** 4.61 (0.14)** 4.60 (0.17)** 4.60 (0.14)** 4.59 (0.16)**
X 0.01 (0.04) 0.11 (0.08) 0.03 (0.05) 0.07 (0.09) 0.01 (0.05) 0.07 (0.08)
SourceB 0.03 (0.16) 0.06 (0.23) 0.03 (0.16) 0.03 (0.23) 0.03 (0.16) 0.04 (023)
PostP 0.05 (0.16) 0.06 (0.22) 0.05 (0.16) 0.03 (0.23) 0.05 (0.16) 0.02 (023)
SourceB*X 0.19 (0.12) 0.24 (0.12)y 0.06 (0.12)
PostP*X 0.21 (0.12) 0.15 (0.13) 0.20 (0.13)
SourceB*PostP 0.09 (0.32) 0.01 (0.32) 0.01 (0.32)
SourceB*PostP *X 0.35 (0.17)* 0.37 (0.18)* 0.21 (0.19)
ΔR2, F test .000, F ¼ 0.048 .011, F ¼ 0.675 .001, F ¼ 0.145 .013, F ¼ 0.791 .000, F ¼ 0.048 .006, F ¼ 0.338

BT_I
Intercept 4.22 (0.16)** 4.14 (0.19)** 4.25 (0.16)** 4.21 (0.19)** 4.23 (0.16)** 4.16 (0.19)**
X 0.05 (0.05) 0.02 (0.09) 0.08 (0.06) 0.15 (0.11) 0.05 (0.05) 0.02 (0.10)
SourceB 0.20 (0.18) 0.05 (0.26) 0.20 (0.18) 0.07 (0.26) 0.20 (0.19) 0.05 (0.26)
PostP 0.06 (0.18) 0.23 (0.26) 0.08 (0.18) 0.16 (0.26) 0.07 (0.18) 0.19 (0.26)
SourceB*X 0.13 (0.14) 0.02 (0.14) 0.10 (0.14)
PostP*X 0.06 (0.14) 0.13 (0.15) 0.12 (0.15)
SourceB*PostP 0.31 (0.37) 0.26 (0.37) 0.27 (0.37)
SourceB*PostP *X 0.10 (0.20) 0.00 (0.20) 0.11 (0.21)
ΔR2, F test .007, F ¼ 0.754 .012, F ¼ 0.558 .009, F ¼ 0.973 .016, F ¼ 0.748 .006, F ¼ 0.642 .015, F ¼ 0.721

Notes. Unstandardized coefficients are shown with standard errors in parentheses. Instagram use frequency (“How often do you use Instagram?“), Instagram follow (0
¼ yes, 1 ¼ no), and brand attitude were controlled in all analyses (coefficient estimates not shown in the table). ΔR2 shows the proportion of variance in the dependent
variable accounted for by the study variables (branded content generator type, branded content type, and consumer characteristic variable in Model 1; branded content
generator type, branded content type, consumer characteristic variable, and their interactions in Model 2) controlling for Instagram use frequency, Instagram follow,
and brand attitude, and its statistical significance was tested by the F tests with degrees of freedom (3, 175) in Model 1, and with degrees of freedom (7, 171) in Model 2.
SourceB is a dummy variable (0 ¼ Brand, 1 ¼ InstaCeleb). PostP is a dummy variable (0 ¼ Product and 1 ¼ Model). All consumer charactieristic variables (X) were
centered at the means. The coefficient for X is the simple slope for X in Brand Product condition. The coefficient for SourceB is the simple effect of branded content
generator type for those whose X value is at the mean in Product condition. The coefficient for PostP is the simple effect of branded content type for those whose X value
is at the mean in Brand condition. The coefficient for SourceB*X is the conditional two-way interaction of branded content generator type and X in product condition.
The coefficient for PostP*X is the conditional two-way interaction of branded content type and X in Brand condition. The coefficients for SouceB*PostP is the con­
ditional two-way interaction of branded content generator type and branded content type for those whose X value is at the mean. yp < .08; *p < .05; **p < .01.

males were exposed to product photos, the higher ENVY the higher BT_I
only when the content generator was the brand as opposed to InstaCe­
leb, supporting H9.
5. Discussion
5.1. Key findings, theoretical contributions, and managerial implications
Using three highly controlled randomized between-subjects experi­
ments, this study provides rich empirical findings about significant
factors and moderators to consider in social media influencer marketing
in order to improve consumers’ buying intention, source trustworthiness
perception, and brand trust in social commerce. Instagram celebrities
post a vast array of photos including selfies, portraits taken by others,
and group photos, all of which featuring themselves wearing products
they endorse as well as catalogue style-product photos and snapshot
style-model photos. Experiment 1 tested the interaction effects among
(1) envy, branded content (Instagram celebrity’s photo) types, and
content generator’s gender and (2) PSI, branded content types, and
gender on consumers’ buying intention. Experiment 1 verified the
moderating effects of Instagram celebrities’ brand-related UGC and
gender in determining the influence of consumers’ post-experimental
envy and PSI on intention to buy the products Instagram celebrities
are wearing. The patterns and directions of the interaction effects were
different between envy and PSI. More specifically, the higher envy the
greater buying intention among male consumers, and this positive
relationship was stronger in selfie or photo taken by others conditions
than in group photo conditions. In addition, the relationship between
envy and buying intention was stronger in males than in females. This
finding implies that males show more competitive attitude toward the
same-sex others (Buunk and Massar, 2012), which presumably triggers
intention to buy the envied products. It also resonates with the evolu­
tionary perspective on males’ stronger intrasexual competition (Buunk
and Fisher, 2009). In contrast, the higher PSI the greater buying inten­
tion among female consumers and this positive relationship was stron­
ger in group photo conditions than selfie or photo taken by others
conditions. This empirical finding provides managerial implications
such that female Instagram celebrities’ group photos are more effective
than selfies or photos taken by others in increasing the positive influence
of PSI on buying intention when targeting female consumers. These
different patterns not only suggest different mechanisms between envy
and PSI but also gender differences in the context of brand management
and social commerce leveraging Instagram celebrities: (1) envy plays a
more significant role in increasing male consumers’ buying intention
especially when male consumers are exposed to male Instagram celeb­
rities’ selfies or photos taken by others; and (2) PSI plays a more sig­
nificant role in increasing female consumers’ buying intention especially
when female consumers are exposed to female Instagram celebrities’
group photos. Experiment 2 confirmed the moderating effects of content
generator types and gender in determining the influence of envy and PSI
on source trustworthiness perception. Experiment 3 examined the con­
tent generator type/tone of social media brand communication (Insta­
gram celebrity [human] vs. commercial brand [corporate]) and branded
content types (products vs. models) as Instagram brand posts’ attributes
that would affect consumers’ brand trust. Furthermore, Experiment 3
proposed interaction effects among content generator types, branded

11
S.V. Jin and E. Ryu Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 55 (2020) 102121

Fig. 5. Experiment 3: Estimated three-way interaction of branded content generator type (brand vs. Instagram celebrity), branded content type (product vs. model),
and consumer characteristics (PAC, OCB, ENVY) on brand trust reliability (BT_R) and brand trust intention (BT_I) Notes. The figures were created based on the
estimated regression model in Tables 3 and 4 The three-way interaction effects are shown in two different formats to facilitate the interpretation. The estimated
simple slopes for the consumer characteristics in each condition are shown (B ¼ Brand, I ¼ Instagram Celebrity; P ¼ Product, M ¼ Model). The differences in the
simple slopes for the consumer characteristics are shown. yp < .08; *p < .05; **p < .01.

12
S.V. Jin and E. Ryu Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 55 (2020) 102121

Table 4
Experiment 3: Estimated regression models to test three-way interaction of branded content generator type (brand vs. Instagram celebrity), branded content type
(product vs. model), and consumer characteristics (PAC, OCB, ENVY) on consumers’ brand trust reliability (BT_R) and brand trust intention (BT_I) in Males (N ¼ 195).
D Consumer characteristics (X)

PAC OCB ENVY

Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2

BT_R
Intercept 4.56 (0.14)** 4.60 (0.16)** 4.54 (0.16)** 4.59 (0.16)** 4.54 (0.14)** 4.59 (0.16)**
X 0.14 (0.05)** 0.15 (0.09) 0.19 (0.05)** 0.16 (0.08)y 0.07 (0.05) 0.06 (0.09)
SourceB 0.24 (0.15) 0.34 (0.21) 0.29 (0.15)* 0.40 (0.21)y 0.25 (0.015) 0.32 (0.22)
PostP 0.05 (0.15) 0.05 (0.21) 0.08 (0.15) 0.04 (0.21) 0.05 (0.15) 0.06 (0.22)
SourceB*X 0.07 (0.13) 0.04 (0.11) 0.03 (0.13)
PostP*X 0.04 (0.12) 0.03 (0.11) 0.08 (0.13)
SourceB*PostP 0.21 (0.30) 0.21 (0.30) 0.14 (0.30)
SourceB*PostP *X 0.20 (0.17) 0.06 (0.15) 0.28 (0.19)
ΔR2, F test .023, F ¼ 3.568* .0291, F ¼ 1.865y .034, F ¼ 5.408** .038, F ¼ 2.512* .009, F ¼ 1.389 .018, F ¼ 1.161

BT_I
Intercept 4.64 (0.14)** 4.75 (0.16)** 4.63 (0.14)** 4.74 (0.16)** 4.64 (0.14)** 4.69 (0.16)**
X 0.10 (0.05)y 0.01 (0.10) 0.24 (0.05)** 0.18 (0.08)* 0.10 (0.05) 0.26 (0.10)**
SourceB 0.16 (0.16) 0.34 (0.22) 0.24 (0.15) 0.42 (0.22)y 0.18 (0.16) 0.25 (0.22)
PostP 0.21 (0.16) 0.35 (0.22) 0.17 (0.15) 0.36 (0.21) 0.21 (0.16) 0.33 (0.22)
SourceB*X 0.03 (0.13) 0.04 (0.11) 0.36 (0.13)**
PostP*X 0.23 (0.13) 0.08 (0.11) 0.22 (0.13)
SourceB*PostP 0.30 (03.1) 0.31 (0.30) 0.18 (0.31)
SourceB*PostP *X 0.02 (0.18) 0.03 (0.15) 0.60 (0.19)**
ΔR2, F test .017, F ¼ 2.270 .035, F ¼ 2.000y .062, F ¼ 8.975** .071, F ¼ 4.357** .018, F-2.321y .046, F ¼ 2.691*

Notes. Unstandardized coefficients are shown with standard errors in parentheses. Instagram use frequency (“How often do you use Instagram?“), Instagram follow (0
¼ yes, 1 ¼ no), and brand attitude were controlled in all analyses (coefficient estimates not shown in the table). ΔR2 shows the proportion of variance in the dependent
variable accounted for by the study variables (branded content generator type, branded content type, and consumer characteristic variable in Model 1; branded content
generator type, branded content type, consumer characteristic variable, and their interactions in Model 2) controlling for Instagram use frequency, Instagram follow,
and brand attitude, and its statistical significance was tested by the F tests with degrees of freedom (3, 188) in Model 1, and with degrees of freedom (7, 184) in Model 2.
SourceB is a dummy variable (0 ¼ Brand, 1 ¼ InstaCeleb). PostP is a dummy variable (0 ¼ Product and 1 ¼ Model). All consumer charactieristic variables (X) were
centered at the means. The coefficient for X is the simple slope for X in Brand Product condition. The coefficient for SourceB is the simple effect of branded content
generator type for those whose X value is at the mean in Product condition. The coefficient for PostP is the simple effect of branded content type for those whose X value
is at the mean in Brand condition. The coefficient for SourceB*X is the conditional two-way interaction of branded content generator type and X in product condition.
The coefficient for PostP*X is the conditional two-way interaction of branded content type and X in Brand condition. The coefficients for SouceB*PostP is the con­
ditional two-way interaction of branded content generator type and branded content type for those whose X value is at the mean. yp < .08; *p < .05; **p < .01.

content types, and consumer traits (social comparison tendency,
compulsive buying tendency, and materialism) on brand trust. Experi­
ment 3 demonstrated the moderating effects of branded content types
and content generator types in determining the influence of females’
social comparison and compulsive buying and males’ envy on luxury
brand trust. When females were exposed to product photos, the higher
social comparison tendency the higher brand trust only when the con­
tent generator was the InstaCeleb. In contrast, when females were
exposed to model photos, the higher social comparison tendency the
higher brand trust only when the generator was the brand. Similarly,
when females were exposed to product photos, the higher
obsessive-compulsive buying tendency the higher brand trust only when
the generator was InstaCeleb. On the other hand, when the generator
was InstaCeleb, the higher envy, the higher brand trust among males
exposed to model photos as opposed to product photos.
This study makes several theoretical contributions to the literature
on retailing and consumer services. First, the current experiment ex­
tends research on the role of envy in social commerce far beyond the
extant literature on the simple association between envy and purchase
intention (Lin, 2018). Second, this study advances theories of PSI by
unraveling relevant moderators to the previous models of PSI and source
credibility. Third, this experiment elucidates the moderating effects of
branded contents on the relationship between consumer psychology
(materialism, social comparison tendency, and compulsive buying ten­
dency) and brand trust. Ultimately, this study adds theoretical expla­
nations for moderation effects relevant to Instafamous-based brand
management and social commerce: (1) multifarious product images and
branded UGC interact with relational brand communication variables
(post-experimental envy toward and PSI with Instagram content gen­
erators after exposure to their branded contents) to influence buying
intention and trustworthiness perception; (2) branded content types and
content generator types interact with consumer traits to influence brand
trust.
With respect to additional managerial implications, this study pro­
vides social media marketers and brand managers with helpful insights
for developing brand management strategies in the novel context of
Instafamous-based social commerce. For example, marketing managers
need to strategically select female social media celebrities as endorsers
who can actively form PSI with female consumers, which results in
increased intention to buy the products endorsed by the social media
celebrities whom they perceive as friends. When targeting male con­
sumers, social media celebrities can evoke envious feelings, which re­
sults in buying the envied products promoted by the social media
celebrities. Social commerce enables companies to develop closer re­
lationships with consumers and maintain high quality relational brand
communication, which ultimately increases sales and helps consumers
form loyalty to the company (Xiang et al., 2016). The current study
theoretically and empirically corroborates this assumption.
5.2. Limitations and suggestions for future research
First, consumers relish their role as active participants in brand-
consumer interactions fueled by social media (Hanna et al., 2011). In
light of this new wave of brand-consumer dynamics, follow-up studies
need to further delve into consumer engagement (Dessart et al., 2015)
by (1) utilizing more sophisticated experimental apparatus (i.e.,
prompting participants’ actual clicking, following, liking, commenting,
and buying behavior on social media platforms) and (2) more objectively
measuring actual consumer engagement-related variables, beyond
measuring subjective perception of relational brand communication

13
S.V. Jin and E. Ryu
simply based on retrospective self-report. Since the success of business in
today’s rapidly and constantly transforming landscape of social media
heavily relies upon effective engagement strategies for meaningful
partnerships (Men and Tsai, 2016), consumer engagement on corporate
SNS accounts and endorser SNS accounts are important aspects of
business-consumer relationship quality and purchase intention (Chen,
2017). Second, given that eWoM is a significant antecedent of purchase
intention in social media marketing (Wang and Yu, 2017), not only data
analytics of quantitative indices of the endorser’s popularity (i.e.,
number of followers) and the endorsed brands/products’ popularity (i.
e., number of likes and comments) but also content analysis of peer
Instagram users’ qualitative comments and eWoM about the products
endorsed by social media celebrities would provide deeper insights into
the role online popularity and eWoM play in brand-consumer in­
teractions in social commerce. Third, this study limited its manipulation
stimuli to fashion items posted on a single social media platform and
gender is an imperfect treatment as there is no variation within each
gender. Follow-up studies need to tone down the role of gender and
rather examine the role of other potentially interesting interactions into
the social media strategy pursued by different brands, which will further
amplify external validity and managerial implications. Although there is
a value in the role fo gender, the current empirical finding is limited in
the sense that the limited opportunity for customizing posts is partially
reducing the potential impact of the evidence to the selection of the right
gendered influencer depending on the promotion of the target market
segment (male products versus female products). The current study
mainly focused on “branded content types” and “source/endorser types”
on Instagram as the manipulated factors across three experiments for the
sake of coherent theoretical underpinnings and storytelling, while
omitting more diverse drivers of social media campaigns. Replication of
this experiment by (1) using other image-sharing/archiving platforms
like Pinterest (Roma and Aloini, 2019); (2) including other product
categories (e.g., automobile, books, electronics) or experiential service
(e.g., leisure, restaurant, entertainment); (3) comparing between luxury
brands targeting limited market segment and mainstream brands tar­
geting larger number of ordinary consumers; and (4) ensuring larger
sample sizes will increase external validity. Comparison between luxury
brands and mainstream brands will particularly further stretch external
validity of our research across different brand categories as well as
different endorser categories. Fourth, testing the matchup hypothesis
(celebrity-brand/product fit versus mismatch) and differentiating be­
tween high involvement versus low involvement product categories will
further enrich theoretical discussions about endorser-product fit and
booster practical value of this line of research in designing effective
social media marketing strategies. Furthermore, follow-up studies need
to be in the form of a field experiment where researchers can proficiently
collaborate with e-commerce players in a classic A/B test in order to
verify the actual impact of different marketing communication strate­
gies on click-through-rate (CTR) and real sales. The results from real
field experiments will enhance the magnitude of final implications and
increase external validity. Although this limitation cannot be fixed with
the current dataset and is beyond the scope of current research, trian­
gular replication of the current work with field experiments will yield
fruitful empirical findings with higher impact of significant managerial
implications. Lastly, although it is possible that consumers might have
perceived product photos as paid ads (versus model photos as organic
posts), the current data is missing formal measures on consumers’
perception of sponsored ads versus organic UGC. More sophisticated
experimental manipulation of the paid ads versus organic posts and
more systematic analysis of the differences between these post types will
further enhance our conceptual understanding of a typology of
branded-UGC and branded content generator as well as provide
empirical evidence about statistically significantly differential effects of
sponsored ads and organic UGC. Despite these caveats, the current study
provides theoretical foundations for this stream of future research and
serves as an exploratory step toward designing more creative social
14
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 55 (2020) 102121
commerce experiments.
Author disclosure statement
No competing financial interests exist.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to express their gratitude to the editor and anon­
ymous reviewers for their time.
References
Adler, R, 2016. The 19 most sought-after Instagram beauty influencers of 2016. htt
ps://fashionista.com/2016/12/instagram-beauty-makeup-influencers-2016.
Ajitha, S., Sivakumar, V.J., 2017. Understanding the effect of personal and social value
on attitude and usage behavior of luxury cosmetic brands. J. Retailing Consum. Serv.
39, 103–113.
Ashley, C., Tuten, T., 2015. Creative strategies in social media marketing: an exploratory
study of branded social content and consumer engagement. Psychol. Market. 32 (1),
15–27.
Barcelos, R.H., Dantas, D.C., Senecal, S., 2018. Watch your tone: how a brand’s tone of
voice on social media influences consumer responses. J. Interact. Market. 41, 60–80.
Bauer, M.A., Wilkie, J.E., Kim, J.K., Bodenhausen, G.V., 2012. Cuing consumerism:
situational materialism undermines personal and social well- being. Psychol. Sci. 23
(5), 517–523.
Belk, R.W., 1984. Three scales to measure constructs related to materialism: reliability,
validity, and relationships to measures of happiness. In: Kinnear, T.C. (Ed.),
Advances in Consumer Research. Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT,
pp. 291–297.
Belk, R.W., ith RH, 2008. Marketing and envy. In: Sm, R.H. (Ed.), Series in Affective
Science. Envy: Theory and research, pp. 211–226.
Beukeboom, C.J., Kerkhof, P., de Vries, M., 2015. Does a virtual like cause actual liking?
How following a brand’s Facebook updates enhances brand evaluations and
purchase intention. J. Interact. Market. 32, 26–36.
Bocarnea, M.C., Brown, W.J., 2007. Celebrity-persona parasocial interaction scale. In:
Reynolds, R.A., Woods, R., Baker, J.D. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Electronic
Surveys and Measurements, pp. 309–312.
Buunk, A.P., Fisher, M., 2009. Individual differences in intrasexual competition. J. Evol.
Psychol. 7, 37–48.
Buunk, A.P., Massar, K., 2012. Intrasexual competition among males: competitive
towards men, prosocial towards women. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 52, 818–821.
Centeno, D., Wang, J.J., 2017. Celebrities as human brands: an inquiry on stakeholder-
actor co-creation of brand identities. J. Bus. Res. 74, 133–138.
Chae, J., 2018. Explaining Females’ Envy toward Social Media Influencers, vol. 21.
Media Psychology, pp. 246–262, 2.
Chen, Y.R.R., 2017. Perceived values of branded mobile media, consumer engagement,
business-consumer relationship quality and purchase intention: a study of WeChat in
China. Publ. Relat. Rev. 43, 945–954.
Chung, S., Cho, H., 2017. Fostering parasocial relationships with celebrities on social
media: implications for celebrity endorsement. Psychol. Market. 34 (4), 481–495.
Colliander, J., Dahl�en, M., 2011. Following the fashionable friend: the power of social
media - weighing publicity effectiveness of blogs versus online magazines. J. Advert.
Res. 51, 313–320.
Delgado-Ballester, E., Munuera-Aleman, J.L., Yague-Guillen, M.J., 2003. Development
and validation of a brand trust scale. Int. J. Mark. Res. 45 (1), 35–53.
Dessart, L., Veloutsou, C., Morgan-Thomas, A., 2015. Consumer engagement in online
brand communities: a social media perspective. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 24, 28–42.
Ding, Q., Zhang, Y.-X., Wei, H., Huang, F., Zhou, Z.-H., 2017. Passive social network site
use and subjective well-being among Chinese university students: a moderated
mediation model of envy and gender. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 113, 142–146.
Dittmar, H., 2005. A new look at “compulsive buying”: self-discrepancies and
materialistic values as predictors of compulsive buying tendency. J. Soc. Clin.
Psychol. 24 (6), 832–859.
Dittmar, H., Drury, J., 2000. Self-image–is it in the bag? A qualitative comparison
between “ordinary” and “excessive” consumers. J. Econ. Psychol. 21 (2), 109–142.
Faer, L.M., Hendriks, A., Abed, R.T., Figueredo, A.J., 2005. The evolutionary psychology
of eating disorders: female competition for mates or for status? Psychol. Psychother.
Theor. Res. Pract. 78, 397–417.
Fardouly, J., Vartanian, L.R., 2015. Negative comparisons about one’s appearance
mediate the relationship between Facebook usage and body image concerns. Body
Image 12, 82–88.
Festinger, L., 1954. A theory of social comparison processes. Hum. Relat. 7 (2), 117–140.
Fisher, M., Cox, A., 2010. Four strategies used during intrasexual competition for mates.
Pers. Relat. 18 (1), 20–38.
Gallagher, C.E., Watt, M.C., Weaver, A.D., Murphy, K.A., 2017. “I fear, therefore, I shop!”
Exploring anxiety sensitivity in relation to compulsive buying. Pers. Indiv. Differ.
104, 37–42.
Gornik-Durose, M.E., Pilch, I., 2016. The dual nature of materialism. How personality
shapes materialistic value orientation. J. Econ. Psychol. 57, 102–116.
S.V. Jin and E. Ryu
Greenwood, D.N., Pietromonaco, P.R., Long, C.R., 2008. Young women’s attachment
style and interpersonal engagement with female TV stars. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 25 (3),
387–407.
Hagtvedt, H., Patrick, V.M., 2009. The broad embrace of luxury: hedonic potential as a
drive of brand extendibility. J. Consum. Psychol. 19 (4), 608–618.
Hamilton, M., Kaltcheva, V.D., Rohm, A.J., 2016. Social media and value creation: the
role of interaction satisfaction and interaction immersion. J. Interact. Market. 36,
121–133.
Hanna, R., Rohm, A.J., Crittenden, V.L., 2011. We’re all connected: the power of the
social media ecosystem. Bus. Horiz. 54, 265–373.
Holmes, S., Redmond, S., 2014. Socialising celebrity. Celebr. Stud. 5, 223–224.
Holzwarth, M., Janiszewski, C., Neumann, M.M., 2006. The influence of avatars on
online consumer shopping behavior. J. Market. 70, 19–36.
Horton, D., Wohl, R.R., 1956. Mass communication and para-social interaction:
observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry 19, 215–229.
Horvath, C., Adiguzel, F., 2018. Shopping enjoyment to the extreme: hedonic shopping
motivations and compulsive buying in developed and emerging markets. J. Bus. Res.
86, 300–310.
Hsu, C.-L., Chen, M.-C., Kikuchi, K., Machida, I., 2017. Elucidating the determinants of
purchase intention toward social shopping sites: a comparative study of Taiwan and
Japan. Telematics Inf. 34, 326–338.
Hwang, K., Zhang, Q., 2018. “Influence of parasocial relationship between digital
celebrities and their followers on followers’ purchase and electronic word-of-mouth
intentions, and persuasion knowledge”. Comput. Hum. Behav. 87, 155–173.
Indvik, L., 2016. The 20 Most Influential Personal Style Bloggers: 2016 Edition.
Fashionista. https://fashionista.com/2016/03/style-bloggers-2016.
Islam, T., Sheikh, Z., Hameed, Z., Azam, R.I., 2018. Social comparison, materialism, and
compulsive buying based on stimulus-response-model: a comparative study among
adolescents and young adults. Young Consum. 19 (1), 19–37.
Islam, T., Wei, J., Sheikh, Z., Hameed, Z., Azam, R.I., 2017. Determinants of compulsive
buying behavior among young adults: the mediating role of materialism. J. Adolesc.
61, 117–130.
Jin, S.A., 2012. The potential of social media for luxury brand management. Market.
Intell. Plann. 31 (7), 687–699.
Jin, S.V., 2018. “Interactive effects of Instagram foodies’ hashtagged #foodporn and peer
users’ eating disorder on eating intention, envy, parasocial interaction, and online
friendship. Cyberpsychol., Behav. Soc. Netw. 21 (3), 157–167.
Jin, S.V., Muqaddam, A., 2018. Narcissism 2.0! Would narcissists follow fellow
narcissists on Instagram? The mediating effect of narcissists personality similarity
and envy and the moderating effects of popularity. Comput. Hum. Behav. 81, 31–41.
Jin, S.V., Ryu, E., Muqaddam, A., 2018. Dieting 2.0! Moderating effects of
Instagrammers’ body image and Instafame on other Instagrammers’ dieting
intention. Comput. Hum. Behav. 87, 224–237.
Jin, S.V., Muqaddam, A., Ryu, E., 2019. Instafamous and social media influencer
marketing. Market. Intell. Plann. 37 (5), 567–579.
Kamal, S., Chu, S., Pedram, M., 2013. Materialism, attitudes, and social media usage and
the impact on purchase intention of luxury fashion goods among American and Arab
young generations. J. Interact. Advert. 13 (1), 27–40.
Kelleher, T., 2009. Conversational voice, communicated commitment, and public
relations outcomes in interactive online communication. J. Commun. 59, 172–188.
Kelleher, T., Miller, B.M., 2006. Organizational blogs and the human voice: relational
strategies and relational outcomes. J. Computer-Mediated Commun. 11, 395–414.
Kim, A.J., Johnson, K.K.P., 2016. Power of consumers using social media: examining the
influences of brand-related user-generated content on Facebook. Comput. Hum.
Behav. 58, 98–108.
Kim, J.-E., Lloyd, S., Cervellon, M.-C., 2016. Narrative-transportation storylines in luxury
brand advertising: motivating consumer engagement. J. Bus. Res. 69, 304–313.
Labrecque, L.I., 2014. Fostering consumer–brand relationships in social media
environments: the role of parasocial interaction. J. Interact. Market. 28, 134–148.
Lee, J.E., Watkins, B., 2016. YouTube vloggers’ influence on consumer luxury brand
perceptions and intentions. Bus. Res. 69, 5733–5760.
Li, C.-Y., 2019. How social commerce constructs influence customers’ social shopping
intention? An empirical study of a social commerce website. Technol. Forecast. Soc.
Change 144, 282–294.
Lin, R., 2018. Silver lining of envy on social media? The relationships between post
content, envy type, and purchase intentions. Internet Res. 28 (4), 1142–1164.
Loureiro, S.M.C., Costa, I., Panchapakesan, P., 2017. A passion for fashion: the impact of
social influence, vanity, and exhibitionism on consumer behavior. Int. J. Retail
Distrib. Manag. 45 (5), 468–484.
15
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 55 (2020) 102121
Loureiro, S.M.C., de Plaza, M.A.P., Taghian, M., 2019. The effect of benign and malicious
envies on desire to buy luxury fashion items. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. (in press).
McCroskey, J.C., Teven, J.J., 1999. Goodwill: a reexamination of the construct and its
measurement. Commun. Monogr. 66, 90–103.
McFerran, B., Aquino, K., Tracy, J.L., 2014. Evidence for two facets of pride in
consumption: findings from luxury brands. J. Consum. Psychol. 24, 455–471.
Men, L.R., Tsai, W.H.S., 2016. Public engagement with CEOs on social media:
motivations and relational outcomes. Publ. Relat. Rev. 42, 932–942.
Milovic, A.J., 2014. If you have It, I want it...now!” the effect of envy and construal level
on increased purchase intentions. Theses and Dissertations. https://dc.uwm.edu/
etd/474, 474.
Muller, J., Christandl, F., 2019. Content is the king - but who is the king of kings? The
effect of content marketing, sponsored content and user-generated content on brand
responses. Comput. Hum. Behav. 96, 46–55.
Otero-Lopez, J.M., Villardefrancos, E., 2013. Five-factor model personality traits,
materialism, and excessive buying: a mediational analysis. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 54,
767–772.
Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., Ipeirotis, P.G., 2010. Running experiments on Amazon
mechanical Turk. Judgment Decis. Making 5, 411–419.
Parrott, W.G., Smith, R.H., 1993. Distinguishing the experiences of envy and jealousy.
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 64, 906–920.
Ramanathan, S., Menon, G., 2006. Time-varying effects of chronic hedonic goals on
impulsive behavior. J. Market. Res. 43, 628–641.
Reeves, R.A., Baker, G.A., Truluck, C.S., 2012. Celebrity worship, materialism,
compulsive buying, and the empty self. Psychol. Market. 29 (9), 674–679.
Richins, M.L., 2017. Materialism pathways: the processes that create and perpetuate
materialism. J. Consum. Psychol. 27 (4), 480–499.
Richins, M.L., Dawson, S., 1992. A consumer values orientation for materialism and its
measurement: scale development and validation. J. Consum. Res. 19 (3), 303–316.
Ridgway, N., Kukar-Kinney, M., Monroe, K.B., 2008. An extended conceptualization and
measure of compulsive buying. J. Consum. Res. 35, 622–639.
Rishika, R., Kumar, A., Janakiraman, R., Bezawada, R., 2013. The effect of customers’
social media participation on customer visit frequency and profitability: an empirical
investigation. Inf. Syst. Res. 24, 108–127.
Roma, P., Aloini, D., 2019. How does brand-related user-generated content differ across
social media? Evidence reloaded. J. Bus. Res. 96, 322–339.
Rubin, A.M., Perse, E.M., Powell, R.A., 1985. Loneliness, parasocial interaction, and local
television news viewing. Hum. Commun. Res. 12, 155–180.
Schulze, C., Scholer, L., Skiera, B., 2015. Customizing social media marketing. MIT Sloan
Manag. Rev. 56, 7–10.
Shade, M., Hegner, S., Horstmann, F., Brinkmann, N., 2016. The impact of attitude
functions on luxury brand consumption: an age-based group comparison. J. Bus. Res.
69, 314–322.
Simon, F., 2017. Relationship norms and media gratification in relational brand
communication. J. Bus. Res. 79, 12–22.
Singh, S., Sonnenburg, S., 2012. Brand performances in social media. J. Interact. Market.
26, 189–197.
Sokolova, K., Kefi, H., 2020. Instagram and YouTube bloggers promote it, why should I
buy? How credibility and parasocial interaction influence purchase intentions.
J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 53.
Talbot, K., 2015. 5 Brands on Instagram that Succeed with Influencer Marketing. Social
Media Examiner. https://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/5-brands-on-instagram-th
at-succeed-with-influencer-marketing/.
Thompson, J.K., Heinberg, L., Tantleff, S., 1991. The physical appearance comparison
scale (PACS). Behav. Ther. 14, 174.
Wang, Q., Fink, E.L., Cai, D.A., 2008. Loneliness, gender, and parasocial interaction: a
uses and gratifications approach. Commun. Q. 36 (1), 87–109.
Wang, Y., Yu, C., 2017. Social interaction-based consumer decision-making model in
social commerce: the role of word of mouth and observational learning. Int. J. Inf.
Manag. 37, 179–189.
Wang, X., Yu, C., Wei, Y., 2012. Social media peer communication and impacts on
purchase intentions: a consumer socialization framework. J. Interact. Market. 26,
198–208.
Wiedemann, K.P., Hennigs, N., Siebels, A., 2009. Value-based segmentation of luxury
consumption behavior. Psychol. Market. 26 (7), 625–651.
Xiang, L., Zheng, X., Lee, M.K.O., Zhao, D., 2016. Exploring consumers’ impulse buying
behavior on social commerce platform: the role of parasocial interaction. Int. J. Inf.
Manag. 36, 333–347.
https://www.instagram.com/explore/tags/fashionista/?hl¼en, 2020–. (Accessed 28
March 2020).