Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 66 (2022) 102904

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

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

Influencer marketing: Homophily, customer value co-creation behaviour

and purchase intention
Yi Bu a, *, Joy Parkinson b, Park Thaichon a
a
Department of Marketing, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, 4222, Australia
b
Department of Marketing, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, 4111, Australia

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

Keywords: Given the rise in influencer marketing on social media, this paper explores how homophily between influencers
Homophily and their audiences affects customer value co-creation behaviour, resulting in increased expected brand value
Customer participation behaviour and purchase intention. A sample of 910 respondents from the United States completed an online investigation.
Customer citizenship behaviour
The results indicate that homophily positively influences customer value co-creation behaviour as well as
Purchase intention
Influencer marketing
positively correlates with expected brand value and purchase intention. Customer value co-creation behaviour
Value co-creation plays a multi-mediating role. Para-social relationship moderates the relationship between homophily and
customer participation behaviour. Overall, this study encourages further research on value co-creation in
influencer marketing and can constitute a valuable reference for marketing practitioners and influencers.

1. Introduction appropriate personalities that have gained widespread popularity and a

Influencer marketing is exponentially increasing (Lou and Yuan,
2019). Brands and retailers are rapidly embracing influencer marketing,
having realised that aligning with social media influencers (hereinafter
referred to as ‘influencer(s)’) promotes products with profound potential
for viral growth (De Veirman et al., 2017). Influencers are not just ce­
lebrities (Childers et al., 2019); they are individuals based on social
media platforms who are approachable and can easily relate with their
audiences. Influencers can foster a new sense of brand awareness and
elicit a user image that is appropriate for brands and retailers (Lee and
Watkins, 2016). They are both brand spokespersons and content crea­
tors (Kay et al., 2020; Lee and Watkins, 2016). Implementing influencer
marketing strategies and partnering with these influencers can reach
more target audiences—and even more wallets—in a more organic,
authentic, and direct way compared to traditional marketing strategies
(Lou and Yuan, 2019). Instead of talking to the audience, influencer
marketing can function as a bridge through which to open interactive
and communicative channels with customers and establish authentic
partnerships with brands and retailers (Ki et al., 2020).
Influencer marketing, which refers to the endorsement, sponsorship
or product placement of an influential person or organisation, is a means
of social media marketing (Breves et al., 2019; Kay et al., 2020). It can
also be understood as a marketing strategy where marketers select
following on social media to promote their brands or products to their
target audiences (Lou and Yuan, 2019). Regarded as a robust approach,
influencer marketing is a long-term digital marketing strategy for re­
tailers (Ki et al., 2020). Globally, influencer marketing reached USD148
million in 2019 — an increase of approximately 8% over the previous
year—and is projected to exceed USD373 million in the next six years
(Statista, 2020). Over half of brand strategists and retailer marketers
surveyed have integrated influencer marketing into their marketing
activities (Statista, 2020). In addition, 94% of marketers believe that
influencer marketing activities are effective (Lou and Yuan, 2019), and
89% consider that the return on investment of influencer marketing’s is
equal to or greater than other marketing strategies (Martínez-López
et al., 2020). Remarkably, it is 11 times that of traditional advertising
(Lou and Yuan, 2019).
Importantly, influencer marketing is not mass marketing and
communication, but aims at reaching followers or potential followers in
an influencer’s social network to drive brand awareness and guide their
purchasing decisions (Lou and Yuan, 2019). Therefore, it is vital that
retailers stimulate (potential) followers’ purchasing intentions to redi­
rect this traffic towards both on and offline outlets.
To date, many studies on purchase intentions in influencer marketing
have centred on sponsored advertising, sponsored disclosure and source
characteristics (Kay et al., 2020; Ladhari et al., 2020). From the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: yi.bu@griffithuni.edu.au (Y. Bu), j.parkinson@griffith.edu.au (J. Parkinson), p.thaichon@griffith.edu.au (P. Thaichon).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102904
Received 7 April 2021; Received in revised form 29 November 2021; Accepted 29 December 2021
Available online 5 January 2022
0969-6989/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Bu et al.
sponsored advertising perspective, customers’ reasons for buying a
product/service can be affected by such factors as the fit between
influencers and products, and the association between influencers and
brands or followers, given para-social interaction and social cognitive
theory (Dhanesh and Duther, 2019; Kay et al., 2020; Lee and Watkins,
2016). Regarding sponsored disclosure, scholars have discovered that
disclosure type can also affect customers’ purchase intentions based on
reactance theory (Stubb and Colliander, 2019). Further, according to
para-social interaction theory and social cognitive theory, source char­
acteristics (particularly in the form of source credibility from influ­
encers, and homophily between influencers and followers) enable
influencers to manipulate a target audience’s intention to consume
(Sokolova and Kefi, 2020).
Increasingly, homophily is recognised as an essential dimension of
source characteristics (Ladhari et al., 2020). Homophily, defined as the
similarity between entities in binary relationships, is the degree of
similarity between people who interact based on belief, education, and
social status (Eyal and Rubin, 2003: 80). Similarity, in this case, refers to
matching demographic characteristics and/or psychological traits (Shen
et al., 2010: 52). Some scholars use similarity and homophily inter­
changeably (Ladhari et al., 2020). Compared with the term ‘similarity’,
homophily used primarily in communication research, has recently been
introduced into marketing research on social and virtual environments
(Ladhari et al., 2020). Existing research on the homophily impacts on
purchase intention in influencer marketing mainly focuses on the rela­
tionship between influencers and followers, para-social relations (or
para-social interactions), brand value and brand awareness (Ladhari
et al., 2020; Lou and Yuan, 2019). Some research argues that attitude
homophily has a positive relationship with credibility and subsequently
leads to purchase intention in influencer marketing (Sokolova and Kefi,
2020). However, some scholars have pointed out that the research on
the relationship between homophily and online experience value
co-creation has been neglected (Lam et al., 2020). There is also a lack of
research on the effect of homophily on follower behaviour.
Besides, compared with direct discussions concerning influencer
marketing on purchase intentions within the context of sponsored
advertising and sponsored disclosure, scholars have mainly adopted
indirect research methods to study source characteristics. Within the
context of social media, only a few studies focus on customers’
engagement in influencer marketing, in particular addressing the sub­
sequent effects on purchase intent. Social media platforms are also
characterised as the basis through which stakeholders conduct co-
creation activities, understand needs, and collaborate (Moghadamza­
deh et al., 2020). Considering influencers and target audiences as both
actors and value creators (Jiménez-Castillo and Sánchez-Fernández,
2019), research on co-creation between influencers and customers is
necessary.
In what follows, we discuss the research background, as well as the
research model and hypotheses development. This is followed by a
report on the study that was carried out and the analyses of data. The
aim is to understand whether value co-creation behaviour affects pur­
chase intention within the context of homophily and fulfils the research
gap in influencer marketing research on the mutual benefits and value
co-creation between influencers and their audiences. This study in­
troduces customer value co-creation behaviour into influencer market­
ing. Theoretical support is provided as a basis for investigating
homophily and purchase intention between influencers and their target
audiences. By implementing this study’s new model, retailers and
marketers can provide and/or cultivate the means for generating
customer value co-creation behaviour, thus stimulating audiences’
purchase intentions.
2
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 66 (2022) 102904
2. Research background
2.1. The role of influencers
Although many scholars and marketers use the term ‘influencer’,
there is no consensus on a definition. Scholars often assign different
meaning to the term according to their different roles. Generally,
influencers, viewed as subjects who can interact with a target audience,
stimulate engagement, drive communication and/or sell a product or
service. Influencers can be celebrities or professionals, or even non-
professionals (Childers et al., 2019: 258). The term also embodies
those who have a large online following, attract a great deal of attention
and engagement, and can use that influence to manipulate the market in
a particular industry. Many have developed personal brands, also known
as ‘human brands’ (Kay et al., 2020: 3), and are sometimes referred to as
digital or internet celebrities, (digital) opinion leaders, market mavens,
vloggers, ‘instafamous’, and ‘Wanghong’ (a Chinese term for internet
celebrity) (Kay et al., 2020; Park and Lin, 2020).
In recent years, research on the effects of influencer-sponsored
advertising content on different target groups’ purchase intentions has
received extensive attention (see Table 1). Scholars highlight that
influencer-generated branded content is more organic and capable of
reaching potential target markets compared to brand-generated content
(Lou and Yuan, 2019). Influencer-generated content can sway cus­
tomers’ purchase decisions, simply by voicing their opinion and/or
through their aesthetic judgements (Daniel Jr et al., 2018; Ki et al.,
2020). Since influencer-generated content enables their audiences to
grow recognition of brand congruence and brand attitude, this can
subsequently stimulate purchasing intent (Torres et al., 2019).
The brand value reflected in influencer-generated brand content
positively relates to the target audience’s desire to consume (Lee and
Watkins, 2016). This leads to greater brand expectation value and brand
engagement and increases purchase intention (Jiménez-Castillo and
Sánchez-Fernández, 2019). Scholars have also confirmed that the
para-social relationship between influencers and target audiences can
encourage followers to ‘imitate’ influencers by way of consumption (Ki
and Kim, 2019).
The disclosure of sponsored content communicated by influencers
can also affect their audiences’ purchase intention (see Table 1). Such
disclosure can promote or hinder the interaction or engagement with
customers and affect information diffusion (Jiménez-Castillo and
Sánchez-Fernández, 2019). Disclosure types can generate different
product knowledge and product appeal for a target audience, resulting
in different purchase intentions (Kay et al., 2020). Sponsored disclosure
(i.e., sponsorships, paid content, or non-disclosure) can also affect the
audience’s advertising recognition and activate ‘persuasion knowledge’
(Dhanesh and Duthler, 2019). Interestingly, disclosure language can
affect brand attitude but not purchase intention (Evans et al., 2017).
Scholars have researched the source characteristics embedded in
purchase intention and influencer marketing (see Table 1). Most studies
have examined source characteristics as antecedents of para-social
interaction and purchase intention (De Jans et al., 2018), brand
awareness (Lou and Yuan, 2019), brand credibility and purchase
intention (Chung and Cho, 2017), desire to mimic (Ki and Kim, 2019),
influencer popularity and purchase intention (Ladhari et al., 2020). Only
a few scholars have discussed the direct relationship between source
credibility and purchase intention (Park and Lin, 2020).
Most studies investigate the relationship between influencers and
customers from an influencer’s perspective, whereas few consider the
target audience’s perspective (Ki et al., 2020). Influencer marketing is
related to digital marketing and online relationship marketing. With the
help of influencers’ reputation and authority, influencer marketing
harnesses social media platforms to increase product and/or brand
exposure, expand their scope of power, and build a stable online rela­
tionship with target audiences by stimulating their interaction and
engagement (Thaichon et al., 2019). Especially for social media
Y. Bu et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 66 (2022) 102904

Table 1
Overview of the research on purchase intention in influencer marketing.
Author(s) year Aspect Term/Label Theory Themes or Variables Research
Approach

Sponsored advertising
Lee and Watkins (2016) Influencer & Vlogger Social Comparison Brand Value → Empirical,
Brand Theory; Purchase Intention; Experimental,
Para-social Interaction Brand-user-imagery fit → Purchase Intention Quantitative
Theory
Chung and Cho (2017) Influencer & Celebrity on Social Penetration Brand Credibility → Purchase Intention Empirical,
Brand Social Media Theory; Quantitative
Signals Theory
Jiménez-Castillo and Influencer & Digital Media Dependency Brand Engagement → Purchase Intention; Empirical,
Sánchez-Fernández (2019) Brand Influencer Theory; Brand Expected Value → Purchase Intention Quantitative
Social Learning Theory
Torres et al. (2019) Influencer & Digital Transfer Theory Brand Attitude → Purchase Intention; Empirical,
Brand Influencer Brand Congruence → Purchase Intention Quantitative
Park and Lin (2020) Influencer & Wanghong Self-congruity Theory Self-Product Fit → Intention to Buy Empirical,
Product Quantitative
Kay et al. (2020) Influencer & Social Media Product Knowledge → Purchase Intention; Empirical,
Product Influencer Product Attractiveness → Purchase Intention Experimental,
Quantitative
De Jans et al. (2018) Influencer & Vlogger Para-social Interaction Para-social Interaction → Purchase Intention Empirical,
Follower Theory Experimental,
Quantitative
Hwang and Zhang (2018) Influencer & Digital Use and Gratification Para-social Relationship → Purchase Intention Empirical,
Follower Celebrity Theory Mixed method
Dhanesh and Duther (2019) Influencer & Social Media Relationship Influencer-Follower relationship → Purchase Intention Empirical,
Follower Influencer Management Theory Quantitative
Ki and Kim (2019) Influencer & Social Media Consumer’s Desire to Mimic → Purchase Intention Empirical,
Follower Influencer Doppelganger Effect Quantitative
Theory;
Megaphone Effect
Theory
Lou and Yuan (2019) Influencer & Social Media Brand Awareness → Purchase Intention Empirical,
Follower Influencer Quantitative
Shan et al. (2020) Influencer & Social Media Social Cognitive Self-influencer Congruence → Empirical,
Follower Influencer Theory Purchase Intention Quantitative
Sokolova and Kefi (2020) Influencer & Blogger Para-social Interaction Para-social Interaction → Purchase Intention Empirical,
Follower Theory; Quantitative
Social Cognitive
Theory;
Persuasion Theory
Ladhari et al. (2020) Influencer & Vlogger Influencers’ Popularity → Purchase Intention Empirical,
Follower Quantitative

Sponsored Content Disclosure

De Jans et al. (2018) Influencer & Vlogger Para-social Interaction Advertising Disclosure → Purchase Intention Empirical,
Disclosure Theory Experimental,
Quantitative
Stubb and Colliander (2019) Influencer & Social Media Reactance Theory Disclosure Type → Purchase Intention Empirical,
Disclosure Influencer Experimental,
Quantitative
Kay et al. (2020) Influencer & Social Media Disclosure Type → Purchase Intention; Empirical,
Disclosure Influencer Influencer Type → Purchase Intention Experimental,
Quantitative

Source Characteristic
Lee and Watkins (2016) Source Vlogger Social Comparison Social Attractiveness, Physical Attractiveness → Para-social Empirical,
Credibility; Theory; Interaction → Brand Luxury, Brand-user-imagery fit, Luxury Experimental,
Homophily Para-social Interaction Brand Value → Purchase Intention; Quantitative
Theory Attitude Homophily → Para-social Interaction → Brand
Luxury, Brand-user-imagery fit, Luxury Brand Value →
Purchase Intention
Chung and Cho (2017) Source Celebrity on Social Penetration Source Trustworthiness → Brand Credibility → Purchase Empirical,
Credibility; Social Media Theory; Intention Quantitative
Homophily Signals Theory
Lou and Yuan (2019) Source Social Media Expertise, Trustworthiness, Attractiveness, Similarity → Trust Empirical,
Credibility; Influencer in Branded Posts, Brand Awareness → Purchase Intention Quantitative
Homophily
Sokolova and Kefi (2020) Source Blogger Para-social Interaction Attitude Homophily, Physical Attractiveness → Credibility → Empirical,
Credibility; Theory; Purchase Intention; Quantitative
Homophily Social Cognitive Attitude Homophily, Social Attractiveness → Para-social
Theory; Interaction → Purchase Intention
Persuasion Theory
Ladhari et al. (2020) Homophily Vlogger Homophily → Vloggers’ Popularity → Purchase Intention Empirical,
Quantitative
(continued on next page)

3
Y. Bu et al.
Table 1 (continued )
Author(s) year Aspect Term/Label Theory
Ki and Kim (2019) Source Social Media Consumer’s
Credibility Influencer Doppelganger Effect
Theory;
Megaphone Effect
Theory
Park and Lin (2020) Source Wanghong Self-congruity Theory
Credibility
platforms with low involvement or high distraction, post-content stra­
tegies tend to centre on content with hedonistic value (Hughes et al.,
2019). Although there is existing research on the online relationship
between influencers and their audiences, there is a dearth of research
exploring this affiliation for the purpose of achieving mutual benefits
and co-creating value.
2.2. Engagement in influencer marketing
Some scholars have defined engagement as “a state of being
involved, occupied, fully absorbed or engrossed in something” (Higgins
and Scholer, 2009: 102). In marketing, engagement is regarded as one
behavioural manifestation of the relationship between customers and
brands, known commonly as customer engagement behaviour (van
Doorn et al., 2010). This is also described as a means of inducing
customer responses to stimulate co-created experiences (Gambetti et al.,
2012). Customer engagement is viewed as customer volitional invest­
ment into cognitive, affective, behavioural and social resources in the
interaction process between customers and brands (Araujo et al., 2020;
Hollebeek et al., 2019). However, the definition of customer engage­
ment has been divided, and there is little consensus in the marketing
literature (Araujo et al., 2020). In the extant influencer marketing
literature, discussions about engagement cover four aspects of brand
engagement, customer engagement, engagement behavioural di­
mensions, and the relationship between engagement and value (Hughes
et al., 2019; Lou et al., 2019; Shan et al., 2020).
Research on brand engagement mainly covers its motivational fac­
tors (Florenthal, 2019), influencer advertising’s influential factors on
brand engagement (Hughes et al., 2019), and brand engagement’s ef­
fects on influencer marketing’s effectiveness (Shan et al., 2020). Of
particular attention are the effects of influencers’ personal and profes­
sional characteristics, the content they produce, the type(s) of social
media platforms used, and/or the campaign intentions on brand
engagement (Hughes et al., 2019).
For customer engagement, scholars mainly study influencers’ effects
on customer engagement and the consequences. The comparative
research by Lou et al. (2019), examining influencer promotion effects
and brand promotion effects on customer engagement, showed that
influencer promotion has a significantly higher level of customer
engagement than brand promotion.
Research on behavioural engagement suggests this can be measured
using such behavioural response indicators as viewing, liking, sharing,
and commenting (Lou et al., 2019). Meanwhile, customer engagement
can influence customer behaviour through eWOM and purchase inten­
tion (Lou et al., 2019). However, these studies are observed through a
single perspective, notably either customers’ or influencers’, with a lack
of consideration for both simultaneously and the value co-created be­
tween these groups. Importantly, likes, shares and/or comments do not
mean that users are engaging with an influencer.
On the relationship between engagement and value, some scholars
believe that the interaction and dependence between customers and
influencers can activate a process to co-create value in the digital
environment (del Águila-Obra et al., 2007). Here, customers’ engage­
ment can be stimulated, brand value cognition improved, and value
co-creation can be realised (Jiménez-Castillo and Sánchez-Fernández,
4
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 66 (2022) 102904
Themes or Variables Research
Approach
Attractiveness, Prestige, Expertise →Taste Leadership, Empirical,
Opinion Leadership → Desire to Mimic → Purchase Intention Quantitative
Trustworthiness → Intention to Buy Empirical,
Quantitative
2019). Some studies empirically confirm the relationship between
engagement and value, while others suggest the opposite. Despite the
current lack of consensus on engagement and value, most scholars’
conceptual framework in the literature is that a highly engaged person
can derive high value (Jiménez-Castillo and Sánchez-Fernández, 2019).
Therefore, in-depth research into the relationship between engagement
and value, as well as the behavioural intention generated by customers
after obtaining value from engagement, warrants further discussion.
Research on engagement and value co-creation has recently attrac­
ted more attention, and some progress has been made in the value co-
creation and brand engagement literature (Jiménez-Castillo and
Sánchez-Fernández, 2019). Nevertheless, research on customer
engagement and value co-creation in influencer marketing remains
scarce.
3. Research model and hypotheses development
3.1. Customer value co-creation behaviour
More enterprises are applying social media to enhance the direct
interactions with customers and stakeholders to promote value co-
creation (Hajli et al., 2017). Customer engagement can stimulate
value co-creation via diversified resources integration, following which,
customers are then viewed as the value co-creators (Vargo and Lusch,
2008). It has become a significant direction in marketing research to
explore value co-creation from the customer engagement perspective.
In the process of value co-creation, customer value co-creation
behaviour is used to describe customers’ positive behaviour (Delpe­
chitre et al., 2018). It comprises customer participation behaviour and
customer citizenship behaviour (Yi and Gong, 2013). Customer value
co-creation behaviour has been broadly stated as embodying all
customer involvement and engagement (Yi et al., 2011). Thus, customer
value co-creation behaviour is introduced in this study to research the
customer engagement impacts in value co-creation from the customer
perspective.
Customer participation behaviour, one of the customer value co-
creation behaviours, is considered inevitable in-role behaviour for co-
creating value, involving information seeking, information sharing,
responsible behaviour, and personal interaction (Yi and Gong, 2013). Yi
and Gong (2013) explain that information seeking means customers can
clarify service standards or parameters through information exchanges
and access information to reduce uncertainty regarding their role as
value creators. Information sharing means customers providing infor­
mation to create an effective value co-creation process, thus, ensuring
that services align with individual needs (Yi and Gong, 2013). Yi and
Gong (2013) also state that responsible behaviour describes how cus­
tomers are value facilitators and abide by a brand’s rules and policies.
There is an interpersonal relationship between customers and serv­
ice/products providers, named personal interaction, which substantially
affects value co-creation (Yi and Gong, 2013).
As another dimension, customer citizenship behaviour is regarded as
voluntary or discretionary extra-role behaviour (behaviours beyond
customer expectations that are beneficial to a company) (Kim et al.,
2019), including advocacy, assistance, tolerance, and feedback (Yi and
Gong, 2013). Advocacy is the act of recommending businesses to friends,
Y. Bu et al.
family members or other people (Yi and Gong, 2013). Providing help or
assistance to other customers is self-explanatory, and tolerance means
remaining patient, even while the customer does not receive the stan­
dard service (Yi and Gong, 2013). Feedback occurs when a customer
provides guidance and advice based on their extensive experience (Yi
and Gong, 2013).
Using service-dominant logic in value co-creation research is quite
significant (Vargo and Lusch, 2004). Service-dominant logic emphasises
the customer-oriented relationship, elaborating that the service is the
specific content of the exchange and the basis of all exchanges (Payne
et al., 2008; Vargo and Lusch, 2004). Customers participate in
value-creation processes through mutual learning between customers
and enterprises (Payne et al., 2008). Service-dominant logic claims the
unity of products and services, emphasising that all economies are ser­
vice economies, whereby customers engage in resource exchanges and
co-production, and they conclusively determine and co-create value
(Vargo and Lusch, 2004). Therefore, the economic activity of influencers
can be viewed as one form of service economic activity where in­
dividuals actively engage in the process of exchange and co-production.
These individuals are customers who determine and co-create value. As
the core concept of service-dominant logic, co-creation is used to study
customers who co-create brands and advertisements to disseminate
brand messages (Nyström and Mickelsson, 2019). Since influencers are
also viewed as customers (Campbell and Farrell, 2020), they can also
interact and collaborate with other customers within this approach.
Essentially, through their interactions, other customers can decide what
and how to consume (Nyström and Mickelsson, 2019). Since influencer
marketing focuses on the interaction and resource exchange between
influencers and their audiences in social media marketing (Ki and Kim,
2019), social media participants could effectively integrate resources
through interaction (Zadeh et al., 2019). Since influencers also produce
virtual digital content rather than physical products, view the process by
which influencers provide virtual content to their audiences can, thus, as
a specific service process.
According to service-dominant logic, we propose a conceptual
framework: in influencer marketing, customers perceive homophily
Fig. 1. The proposed conceptual model.
5
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 66 (2022) 102904
with influencers, interact with and integrate resources to generate
customer value co-creation behaviour, form expected brand value and,
ultimately, influence customers’ purchase intentions (see Fig. 1).
3.2. Homophily
Homophily consists of four dimensions: attitude, background, values
and appearance (Ladhari et al., 2020). The attitude dimension of
homophily is the degree of similarity in attitudes (thinking, behaviour).
The perceived degree of similarity in one’s social background (social,
economic status and social class) shapes the background dimension. The
degree of similarity between morals and values (personal morals and
values, cultural values) forms the value dimension, while the appear­
ance dimension reflects the degree of similarity in terms of visual at­
tributes (Ladhari et al., 2020).
Research has shown that homophily can affect one’s willingness to
seek opinions and resonate with others through social networking
(Ladhari et al., 2020). Homophily may encourage information seeking,
establishing interpersonal relationships with influencers, and sharing
information. Also, perceived homophily can increase community
commitment and perceived information quality (Ladhari et al., 2020).
Thus, scholars use homophily to explain followers’ reactions to influ­
encers’, opinion leaders’ and/or ‘celebrity’ content (Ladhari et al.,
2020). Homophily between followers and influencers can increase the
probability of interactive behaviour (Ladhari et al., 2020). Remarkably,
on social media, the similarity between the information source and the
receiver has been found to promote interpersonal relationships and
achieve connections and interactions (Zhang et al., 2018); this then fa­
cilitates followers’ engagement (Ladhari et al., 2020) in the form of
participatory behaviour (Yi et al., 2011). Likeability due to similarity
leads to the perception that similar followers are, by default, friendly,
kind and polite, which further increases the chance to influence
customer behaviour (Teng and Tsai, 2020). Therefore, we propose Hy­
pothesis 1:
H1. Homophily has a positive relationship with customer participation
Y. Bu et al.
behaviour.
In the network environment, homophily often occurs when network
users have a common interest in an object or entity, or share similar
ideas (Lam et al., 2020). Some scholars have confirmed that the
perceived homophily of spokespersons on social media can motivate
customers to form positive attitudes and behavioural intentions (Ye
et al., 2021). According to social exchange theory, when customers
realise that they can benefit from the process of knowledge exchange
with others, they will voluntarily engage in co-creation (Frasquet-Del­
toro et al., 2019). This knowledge exchange process can increase the
possibility of people receiving information or suggestions to contribute
actively and voluntarily to co-create specific experiences (Lam et al.,
2020). Within the context of social media, followers will tend to consider
influencers as providers of information and advice or support (Ye et al.,
2021). They can exchange knowledge with these influencers and other
users online and generate positive and voluntary behaviour to reward
influencers for their contributions. People with similar psychological
characteristics can positively contributions to the co-creation experience
(Lam et al., 2020). In this circumstance, they are more likely to generate
customer citizenship behaviour because of this voluntary intent to
conduct (Frasquet-Deltoro et al., 2019; Ye et al., 2021). Therefore, we
propose Hypothesis 2:
H2. Homophily has a positive relationship with customer citizenship
behaviour.
3.3. Expected brand value
Unlike typical value, expected value in social science is formed by
recognising the (in) consistency between performance and expectation
(Lee and Back, 2008). Expected brand value can be explicated from the
expectation mechanism. Expected brand value is an anticipation of
future brand value based on previous experience, one’s current situation
and/or other sources. Expected brand value can also be understood as
the overall evaluation of customer experience satisfaction after updating
or accumulating information. The updated value becomes the prior ex­
pected standard to judge future value. Expected brand value moves in a
cycle between previous and updated expected values (Lee and Back,
2008). Therefore, expected brand value in this study is defined as the
(dis)confirmation of the expectations and perceived value of followers
and the value provided by influencers in the context of influencer
marketing. Expected brand value refers to followers’ expectations of a
brand’s total value, as recommended by one or several influencers.
Previous research has shown that customers’ expectations and
perceived values are easily influenced by others’ opinions, decisions,
and behaviours (Jiménez-Castillo and Sáncez-Fernández, 2019). Infor­
mation seeking and information sharing can affect how customers
interact with different information sources and their opinions and de­
cision making (Zadeh et al., 2019). This interaction and integration
process also affects customers’ expectations and perceived value (Zadeh
et al., 2019). In addition, followers’ emotional commitment also affects
their brand intention, especially the expected brand value
(Jiménez-Castillo and Sánchez-Fernández, 2019). Some scholars have
confirmed that brand engagement has a positive relationship with the
expected brand value (Jiménez-Castillo and Sáncez-Fernández, 2019).
Customer participation behaviour is a value co-creation positive
behaviour and embodies all customer engagement (Yi and Gong, 2013;
Yi et al., 2011). Hence, considering the dimensions of information
seeking, information sharing, personal interaction, and emotional
commitment in relation to customer participation behaviour, Hypothe­
sis 3 postulates the following:
H3. Customer participation behaviour has a positive relationship with
expected brand value.
According to social exchange theory, learning, exchanging, and
sharing knowledge in virtual communities can trigger community
6
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 66 (2022) 102904
members’ altruistic motivation and stimulate their online citizenship
behaviour to co-create for others’ benefit and value (Frasquet-Deltoro
et al., 2019). Value co-creation can improve customer satisfaction and
help build stronger bonds between customers and brands (Cossío-Silva
et al., 2016). Empirical studies have shown customer citizenship
behaviour can positively affect satisfaction with co-creation, including
brand satisfaction (Frasquet-Deltoro et al., 2019). Brand satisfaction also
can positively affect updated expected brand value (Lee and Back,
2008). When participants acquire and accumulate new information from
situational or cumulative satisfaction, they compare perceived brand
value with previous brand value, and actively update their expectations
(Lee and Back, 2008). Within the context of influencer marketing, this
altruistic citizenship behaviour may associate with expected brand
value. Therefore, we present Hypothesis 4:
H4. Customer citizenship behaviour has a positive relationship with
expected brand value.
3.4. Purchase intention
Value co-creation could enhance customer engagement and increase
purchase intention (Payne et al., 2008). As one such platform for value
co-creation, an actor’s social networking page, for example, has become
the birthplace for sharing information, developing and promoting
brands or products, and spreading eWOM (See-To and Ho, 2014). These
types of social networking profiles provide opportunities for value cre­
ators to participate, communicate and interact with celebrities and each
other, facilitating and enhancing mutual understanding (See-To and Ho,
2014). When actors participate in this networking process, their actions
initiate the ensuing process of value co-creation. Other customers’
comments or experiences become references for online community
members to search, share, take responsibility for and interact with one
another (See-To and Ho, 2014; Yi and Gong, 2013). These comments and
experiences also encourage customer value co-creation behaviour
among other customers through advocacy, assistance and feedback
(See-To and Ho, 2014). Besides, researchers argue that co-creation
behaviour could lead to increased customer satisfaction and purchase
intentions (Kennedy and Guzmán, 2017). By inference, customer
participation behaviour is an intra role through which customers engage
the value co-creation process; this also elevates customers’ purchasing
intent within the context of influencer marketing. Therefore, we
hypothesise 5:
H5. Customer participation behaviour has a positive relationship with
purchase intention.
Scholars believe that value co-creation might promote purchase
intention (Choi et al., 2016). Research has shown that customers are
satisfied when they perform their extra-role duties in the formation
process of value co-creation (Yi, 2014). Customer citizenship behaviour
constitutes customers’ constructive behaviour, and customers will be
satisfied when helping other customers (Yi and Gong, 2013). Previous
research has confirmed that customer satisfaction could lead to pur­
chasing behaviour (Yi, 2014). Thus, customer citizenship behaviour
might stimulate purchase intention (Yi, 2014). Besides, customer value
co-creation behaviour positively affects customer attitude loyalty (Cos­
sío-Silva et al., 2016). The advocacy from positive WOM and user rec­
ommendations are manifestations of citizenship behaviour and the
means to measure customer loyalty under the background of value
co-creation (Yi, 2014). Some scholars have also proven a positive cor­
relation between customer attitude loyalty and purchase intention
(Cossío-Silva et al., 2016). Therefore, customer citizenship behaviour
could affect purchase intention; as such, we propose:
H6. Customer citizenship behaviour has a positive relationship with
purchase intention.
Perceived value is among the primary factors of purchase intention
Y. Bu et al.
(Jiménez-Castillo and Sánchez-Fernández, 2019). The greater a prod­
uct’s perceived value on a website, the greater the probability that
customers will buy it (Jiménez-Castillo and Sánchez-Fernández, 2019).
The increased perceived value can also increase purchase intention
(Jiménez-Castillo and Sánchez-Fernández, 2019). Customers will
constantly update their expected brand value and modify their purchase
intentions accordingly as their perceived value changes (Lee and Back,
2008). Should one’s intent shift too radically, effective influencers can
provide enough value for the target audience and (re)guide them to­
wards a brand’s products (Jiménez-Castillo and Sánchez-Fernández,
2019). Followers have value expectations regarding influencers’ brand
recommendations is inferred, resulting in their willingness to make
purchases. Therefore, consider Hypothesis 7:
H7. Expected brand value has a positive relationship with purchase
intention.
3.5. The mediating effects of customer value co-creation behaviour
Homophily can resonate with customers and affect one’s willingness
to seek opinions on social networks (Ladhari et al., 2020). Social
network members tend to interact and exchange information with
people with homogeneous traits (Ladhari et al., 2020). Therefore, the
frequency of information exchange and interaction between like in­
dividuals is higher, and people with higher perceived homophily tend to
interact more easily (Lee and Watkins, 2016). Perceived homophily is
positively related to behavioural engagement in social network sites,
and participation can elevate purchase intentions (Prentice et al., 2019).
Therefore, in the presence of homophily, followers are more likely to
engage and exchange information that solidifies what and why they
consume. Filieri et al. (2018) demonstrated a partial mediating effect
between source homophily and purchase intention in the form of direct
and indirect effects. Based on this inference, we propose:
H8a. Customer participation behaviour positively mediates the rela­
tionship between homophily and purchase intention.
Homophily can explain the relationship between members regarding
their similarity and interaction characteristics (Filieri et al., 2018).
When people perceive similarities between themselves and others, they
compare mutual abilities and attitudes, and then assume related needs
and preferences (Filieri et al., 2018). In the social network environment,
customers infer their similarity with others through online interaction
and participation—people with high similarity also have higher in­
teractions, higher trust, and closer relationships (Filieri et al., 2018).
Some studies have shown that close relationships can lead to customer
citizenship behaviour (Bove et al., 2009). Creation of mutual benefits is
through connecting the closing relationship and citizenship behaviour
based on homophily (Ye et al., 2021). People tend to reciprocate the
benefits of strengthening their relationships when they receive social or
economic benefits from others (Blau, 1964). These findings have been
widely tested in marketing research (Ye et al., 2021). The return is un­
derstood as purchasing behaviour in the context of this study. Accord­
ingly, we hypothesise:
H8b. Customer citizenship behaviour positively mediates the rela­
tionship between homophily and purchase intention.
3.6. The mediating effects of expected brand value
In some virtual communities, peers with the same preferences are
easy to relate to in terms of self-perception and are more likely to form
homophily (Smith et al., 2005). Recommendations from homogenous
peers are comparatively more convincing and more easily distinguish­
able from other peers’ (Hu et al., 2016). In the context of online shop­
ping, the similarity between customers and other peers is positively
correlated with the utilitarian value and social value of the perceived
brands or commodities (Hu et al., 2016). Since customers’ purchase
7
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 66 (2022) 102904
motivations are also bound to social interaction and communication, it
is argued that customers can gain recognition from other members of a
(virtual) community by purchasing products in the presence of a brand
with similar perceived value (Hu et al., 2016). Further, utilitarian value
is a primary driver of purchase decisions (Hu et al., 2016). Therefore,
customers’ perceived value (including social value and utilitarian value)
is positively correlated with their purchase intention (Hu et al., 2016),
leading to Hypothesis 9:
H9. Expected brand value mediates the relationship between homo­
phily and purchase intention.
3.7. The serial mediation of customer value co-creation behaviour and
expected brand value
Research in the online shopping environment has shown that simi­
larity and familiarity between customers and sellers can shorten the
psychological distance between them, reduce the uncertainty of shop­
ping behaviours and promote mutual trust (Edwards et al., 2009). The
trust mechanism established on social networking sites enables cus­
tomers and companies to co-create value (Naeem, 2019). Under the
background of social media, both customers’ brand engagement and
expected brand value can directly influence customers’ purchase in­
tentions (Jiménez-Castillo and Sánchez-Fernández, 2019). Notably,
customers’ brand engagement can influence their brand value percep­
tions because when customers are more enthusiastic about brand
engagement, their brand value expectations increase (Jiménez-Castillo
and Sánchez-Fernández, 2019). Based on the relationship among cus­
tomers’ brand engagement, expected brand value and purchase inten­
tion, it can be inferred that customers’ brand contact can also affect
expected brand value and then affect purchase intention. In light of the
fact that engagement can lead to customer perceived value in social
networking sites (Marbach et al., 2016), it is a vital element in value
co-creation (Vargo and Lusch, 2004) that is realised through customer
value co-creation behaviour (Yi and Gong, 2013). It can also be under­
stood that value co-creation behaviour may also affect expected brand
value and, ultimately, purchase intention.
Accordingly, the similarity might elicit customers’ behaviour for
value co-creation and increase their expected brand value, stimulating
their purchase intentions. Moreover, engagement as one of the forms of
value co-creation behaviour (Yi et al., 2011) and expected brand value
serially mediates (a serial causal chain linking of the mediators) the
relationship between perceived influence and purchase intention
(Jiménez-Castillo and Sánchez-Fernández, 2019). Therefore, this study
also supposes a serial mediation effect by value co-creation behaviour
and expected brand value on perceived homophily influence and pur­
chase intention, thus leading to Hypothesis 10:
H10. Customer value co-creation behaviour (customer participation
behaviour [H10a], customer citizenship behaviour [H10b]) and expected
brand value serially mediate the relationship between homophily and
purchase intention.
3.8. The moderating effects of para-social relationships
In recent years, the study on para-social relationships has been
widely applied to the field of marketing, especially influencer marketing
(Tukachinsky et al., 2020). Para-social relationships are one type of
unilateral relationship developed by media audiences and media per­
formers, and are a powerful form of intimate, pseudo-friendship,
mimicking the intimate feelings that arise in social relationships
(Hwang and Zhang, 2018). In previous research on para-social re­
lationships, scholars have found that homophily is a prerequisite for
identification, pointing out that the more similar people are, the more
likely they are to interact (Lee and Watkins, 2016). In the marketing
context, a para-social relationship is considered an illusory experience
that brings about the interaction and reciprocal bond between customers
Y. Bu et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 66 (2022) 102904

and personas (Hwang and Zhang, 2018). Illusory experience refers to an 4.2. Participants profiles
illusion of intimacy rather than a traditional social relationship. For
instance, experienced influencers cultivate the illusion of intimacy with This study collected a total of 910 valid questionnaires (including the
their followers, and they blur the line between themselves and their data from the 100 participants in the pre-test and the 8101 participants
audiences (both their followers and viewers). in the subsequent data collection) and Table 2 outlines the participant
The strength of para-social relationships can affect the degree of profiles. The gender ratio of participants was roughly equal, with 49.1%
perceived homophily among followers (Sakib et al., 2020). The degree of participants under the age of 34 and slightly more married than single
of homophily also can be used to describe the tendency to form people. Also, about 75.4% of the participants had college degrees or
friendships between similar people, including one-sided friendships that above, and about 80% were full-time employees. A total of 76.5% of
resemble para-social relationships (Lee and Watkins, 2016). According participants had an annual income between USD 20,000 and USD
to social cognitive theory, the higher homophily an individual perceives 100,000.
to have with an influencer, the more likely that person is to identify with
the influencer on social media (Labrecque, 2014). Social media users 4.3. Measures
who have a strong sense of identification with influencers are vulnerable
to influencers’ effect on them; hence, the higher the sense of identifi­ The scales applied in this study were derived from the existing
cation, the greater the chance this will stimulate engagement (Jin and literature, and all have been examined. To evaluate homophily, Ladhari
Phua, 2014). Existing studies have recognised that para-social interac­ et al.’s (2020) scale was selected; the loadings of the scale were all
tion has essential impacts on engaging an online brand community, higher than .60, and Cronbach’s alpha was greater than .81. The
including interaction, participation and recommendation (Tsai and customer value co-creation behaviour was measured through Yi and
Men, 2013). In shared value especially, perceived homophily with Gong’s (2013) scales of customer participation behaviour and customer
influencers is closely related to para-social interaction (Sokolova and citizenship behaviour. The loading factors and Cronbach’s alpha indices
Kefi, 2020). Para-social interactions can be directly influenced by for these scales were both higher than .70. To evaluate the moderating
perceived homophily (Lee and Watkins, 2016) and can directly affect effects of the para-social relationship, Hwang and Zhang’s (2018) scale
audiences’ online engagement (Labrecque, 2014). Studies have shown was applied, as it has a high factor loading of .73–.82 and a Cronbach’s
that the intensity of para-social relationships strongly correlates with alpha of .91. The measures for the expected brand value and purchase
homophily and can positively affect the audiences’ attitudes and be­ intention scales were derived from Jiménez-Castillo and
haviours (Tukachinsky et al., 2020). Sánchez-Fernández (2019). Both expected brand value and purchase
Currently, there exist few contemporary studies on the value co-
creation between influencers and their audiences. There is also a lack Table 2
of focus on how para-social relationships affect the relationship between Demographic profiles of participants.
homophily and customer value co-creation behaviour. Therefore, this
Variable Frequency Percent
study is expected to provide a boundary condition for the perceived
degree of para-social relationship between followers and influencers to Gender Male 480 52.8
Female 429 47.1
explain the impact of homophily on customer value co-creation behav­
Others 1 .1
iour in influencer marketing. Thus, we propose Hypothesis 11: Age 18–34 447 49.1
35–54 387 42.5
H11. Para-social relationships moderate the relationships between
55–64 61 6.7
homophily and customer participation behaviour (H11a), and homophily Over 64 15 1.7
and customer citizenship behaviour (H11b). Marital status Single 428 47.0
Married or in a domestic partnership 480 52.8
Divorced/Separated 2 .2
4. Methodology
Education High school or below 100 11.0
College, TAFE or Trade Qualification 124 13.6
4.1. Sample Undergraduate Degree 465 51.1
Graduate Degree or above 221 24.3
This research utilised an online survey, and recruitment information Employment Employed full time 720 79.1
Employed part time 83 9.1
was posted on the Amazon Mechanical Turk website to enlist online
Unemployed 40 4.4
participants. Participants were asked to answer four kinds of questions Student 24 2.6
sequentially, including “agreement to participate”, “about the influ­ Retired 7 .8
encer”, “about the influencer and value co-creation behaviour” and Self - employed 27 3.0
Others 9 1.0
“demographic questions”. These questions also acted as qualifiers, with
Yearly income 0 - US$ 20,000 118 12.9
those failing to agree to participate or who did not follow an influencer US$ 20,001- US$ 50,000 416 45.7
being excluded from the study. During the survey, participants were US$ 500,001- US$ 100,000 280 30.8
required to answer the questions in relation to their favourite US$ 100,001- US$ 150,000 79 8.7
influencers. Over US$ 150,00 17 1.9
Total 910 100
Participants were all social media users over 18 years of age from the
United States and were interested in social media influencers. During the
process of data collection, a pre-test was conducted on the first 100
participants to ensure that all the items were clear. Based on this feed­
back data, the design and wording of all items in the questionnaire were
checked, and the reliability and validity of all instruments were exam­ 1
The results of the data analysis with the 810 subsequent participants
ined. After pre-testing, the reliability and validity of all instruments met showed that the goodness-of-fit indices of measurement model and the struc­
the questionnaire requirements, the questionnaire was not modified and tural model were both met the requirements. Also, the significance test results
the formal data collection could begin, and data from 100 participants for all hypotheses including direct, mediating, and moderating effects were the
could be combined with data from the next participants. same as those for the 910-sample containing the pre-test of 100 participants,
although specific values slightly differed. This shows that it is possible to
combine the data from the 100 participants in the pre-test and the 810 par­
ticipants in the subsequent study.

8
Y. Bu et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 66 (2022) 102904

intention have high loading factors over .80, and their Cronbach’s alpha
indices exceed .90. Here, homophily, customer participation behaviour
and customer citizenship behaviour all are second-order variables with
the abovementioned related scales used for evaluation.
A 7-point Likert scale was employed to assess the participants’ views
on each item (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Age, gender,
marriage, education occupancy and income level were used as control
variables to prevent other factors from interfering with the latent
variables.
4.4. Data analysis
This study tested the structural equation model through the
Maximum Likelihood Robust approach with Mplus Version 8.0. A
measurement model examined all constructs’ reliability and validity,
after which a structural model tested all the hypotheses. Further, a
multiple mediation method through bootstrapping examined the
mediating effects, and the hierarchical regression method tested the
moderating effects in the model. Harman’s single-factor test and Het­
erotrait–Monotrait ratio of correlations method tested common method
bias.
5. Results
Tucker-Lewis Index [TLI] = .970 > .900; comparative fit index [CFI] =
.972 > .900; root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .026
< .080, standardised root mean square residual [SRMR] = .032 < .080)
(Hair et al., 2014). Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability values
were higher than .70 regarding the reliability examination. All con­
structs’ average variance extracted values were over .50 (Table 4) (Hair
et al., 2014). Also, estimates of the square root of each constructs’
average variance extracted (bold and italicised, see Table 5) were
greater than those of the corresponding intercorrelation (Hair et al.,
2014). Besides, there were no redundancy or multicollinearity violations
in the correlation, being less than the .90 cut-off range (Hair et al.,
2014). Therefore, these tests confirmed that all constructs had sufficient
convergent effectiveness and discriminant validities.
In addition to evaluating the goodness of fit of measurement models,
this study also conducted confirmatory factor analysis for second-order
variables of homophily (CMIN = 474.408; df = 100; CMIN/df = 4.740;
TLI = .948 > .900; CFI = .957 > .900; RMSEA = .064 < .080, SRMR =
.057 < .080), customer participation behaviour (CMIN = 273.702; df =
100; CMIN/df = 2.730; TLI = .976 > .900; CFI = .980 > .900; RMSEA =
.044 < .080, SRMR = .031 < .080) and customer citizenship behaviour
(CMIN = 150.875; df = 61; CMIN/df = 2.470; TLI = .982 > .900; CFI =
.986 > .900; RMSEA = .040 < .080, SRMR = .020 < .080) (Hair et al.,
2014). All outcomes met the requirements for the model’s fit.

5.1. Common method bias 5.3. Structural model

This study considered the question design and order of the ques­
tionnaire to avoid common method bias and use two different ap­
proaches to detect any issues. First, it adopted Harman’s single-factor
test through non-rotational exploratory factor analysis for all measures.
The outcome illustrated that the variance of the first component
accounted for only 17.67% of the variance less than the threshold of
40% (Eichhorn, 2014). Following this, the Heterotrait–Monotrait ratio
of correlations was also employed (Henseler et al., 2015). Table 3 il­
lustrates that all the indices are within the required range of .90
(Henseler et al., 2015). These results confirmed that no common method
bias was found.
5.2. Measurement model
Although all measures used in this study have been published in
market research or related field journals, this study implemented further
rigorous psychometric assessments to ensure that the reliability and
validity of the measures were not affected by other factors. The mea­
surement model fit well based on the calculation of the goodness-of-fit
indices (Chi-square [CMIN] = 2009.403; df = 1252; CMIN/df = 1.600;
The structural model was estimated to examine all hypotheses. The
results of the model analysis presented that the structural model met the
thresholds of the goodness-of-fit (CMIN = 2343.411; DF = 1553; CMIN/
df = 1.509; TLI = .969 > .900; CFI = .971 > .900; RMSEA = .024 < .080,
SRMR = .037 < .080) (Hair et al., 2014). Table 6 and Fig. 2 show results
as to each path estimate and significance from H1 to H7. H1 and H2
predicted a positive relationship between homophily and customer
participation behaviour and customer citizenship behaviour, which
were supported (H1: β = .228, p = .000; H2: β = .207, p = .000).
Customer participation behaviour (β = .180, p = .000) and customer
citizenship behaviour (β = .248, p = .000) both have significant effects
on expected brand value. These results support H3 and H4, respectively.
Meanwhile, customer participation behaviour (β = .183, p = .000) and
customer citizenship behaviour (β = .203, p = .000) have significant
effects on purchase intention, supporting H5 and H6. Also, H7 predicted
that expected brand value would have a positive and significant rela­
tionship with purchase intention (β = .210, p = .000), which was
supported.

Table 3
The consequence of the heterotrait-monotrait ratio of correlations analysis (HTMT).
ATI BGD VAL APE BEV PCI IFS IMS RPB PEI ADC HEL TOL FED

ATI
BGD .496
VAL .678 .526
APE .603 .738 .525
BEV .105 .090 .094 .128
PCI .168 .217 .193 .243 .328
IFS .160 .142 .162 .172 .163 .243
IMS .102 .117 .151 .120 .194 .251 .642
RPB .109 .149 .157 .161 .156 .266 .580 .653
PEI .103 .139 .192 .108 .183 .195 .605 .579 .642
ADC .175 .126 .157 .112 .198 .240 .096 .118 .089 .094
HEL .116 .133 .095 .107 .248 .252 .086 .142 .120 .125 .585
TOL .121 .125 .130 .150 .258 .239 .116 .111 .109 .145 .513 .599
FED .120 .128 .102 .124 .172 .256 .081 .060 .076 .066 .620 .652 .577

Note: ATI = attitude; BGD = background; VAL = value; APE = appearance; BEV = expected brand value; PCI = purchase intention; IFS = information seeking; IMS =
information sharing; RPB = responsible behaviour; PEI = personal interaction; ADC = advocacy; HEL = helping; TOL = tolerance; FED = feedback; all indices of
monotrait–heteromethod correlations are less than the threshold of .9 (Henseler et al., 2015).

9
Y. Bu et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 66 (2022) 102904

Table 4
Instrument items and reliability indices.
Construct Items Factor Cronbach’s Composite Average Source
Loading alpha Reliability Variance
Extracted

Homophily (HMP)
Attitude (ATI) My favourite influencer thinks like me. .740 .879 .879 .646 Adapted from Ladhari et al.
My favorite influencer behaves like me. .805 (2020)
My favourite influencer is similar to me. .827
My favourite influencer is like me. .839
Background My favourite influencer is from a social class similar to .776 .882 .882 .653
(BGD) mine.
My favourite influencer’s economic situation is similar to .837
mine.
My favourite influencer’s background is similar to mine. .791
My favourite influencer’s status is similar to mine. .825
Value (VAL) My favourite influencer shares my cultural values. .737 .842 .843 .574
My favourite influencer shares my personal values. .789
My favourite influencer treats people like I do. .722
My favourite influencer’s morals are like mine. .780
Appearance My favourite influencer looks similar to me. .821 .884 .884 .657
(APE)
My favourite influencer appearance is like mine. .810
My favourite influencer resembles me. .808
My favourite influencer is the same size as me. .802
Customer value co-creation behaviour (CVCCB)
Customer participation behaviour (CPB)
Information Ask others for information on what the influencer’s .816 .822 .823 .609 Adapted from Yi and Gong
seeking (IFS) recommendation or presentation in her social media post (2013)
is.
Search for information on where can find out the stuff that .733
she recommends or presents.
Pay attention to how others behave to use she .789
recommends or presents stuff well.
Information Clearly explain what you expect the influencer to do. (For .817 .890 .891 .672
sharing (IMS) instance, you expect this influencer provide more
recommendations about your interests and so on.)
Share proper information to this influencer. (For example, .846
you share more information about the stuff she presents in
her post.)
Provide necessary information so that this influencer .836
could perform her duties.
Answer this influencer’s questions. .778
Responsible Perform tasks expected by this influencer (such as .817 .878 .879 .646
behaviour participate she organise online or offline activities and so
(RPB) on.)
Conform to the expected demeanour (for example, you .835
arrive on time at the place where she organises online
activities, etc)
Fulfill responsibilities to this influencer (for example, you .816
observe the rule of the activity).
Followed this influencer’s suggestions or comments. .743
Personal Be friendly to this influencer. .805 .885 .885 .606
interaction
(PEI)
Be kindly to this influencer. .772
Be polite to this influencer. .787
Be courteous to this influencer. .780
Avoid acting rudely to this influencer. .746
Customer citizenship Behaviour (CCB)
Advocacy (ADC) Say positive things to others about this influencer and her .770 .839 .840 .636 Adapted from Yi and Gong
recommendations. (2013)
Recommend this influencer and her recommendations to .800
others.
Encourage your friends and relatives to follow this .822
influencer and adopt her recommendations.
Help (HEL) Assist this influencer if she needs my help. .793 .888 .888 .665
Help other followers if they seem to have difficulties. .818
Teach other followers to correctly use the product or .808
something recommended/presented by the influencer.
Give advice to other followers. .841
Tolerance (TOL) Put up with problems this influencer may encounter. .821 .824 .826 .614
Be patient if this influencer makes a mistake. .724
Show tolerance if the changes that inconvenience me by .802
this influencer.
Feedback (FED) Let this influencer know if there is a useful idea. .824 .859 .859 .671
.804
(continued on next page)

10
Y. Bu et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 66 (2022) 102904

Table 4 (continued )
Construct Items Factor Cronbach’s Composite Average Source
Loading alpha Reliability Variance
Extracted

Let this influencer know and comment when have a good

experience from her recommendation.
Let this influencer know if I experience a problem from .829
her recommendation.
Para-social Relationship (PSR)
I feel close to this influencer through following his/her .732 .886 .887 .571 Adapted from Hwang and
social media. Zhang (2018)
I feel comfortable about this influencer’s message on her .670
social media.
I can rely on information from this influencer. .714
I feel fascinated with this influencer’s social media. .710
I pity this influencer if she makes a mistake on her social .940
media.
I think that this influencer’s social media is helpful for my .736
interests.
Expected Brand Value (BEV)
I think that the brands suggested by this influencer that I .788 .867 .867 .621 Adapted from Jiménez-Castillo
follow have an acceptable standard of quality. and Sánchez-Fernández (2019)
In my opinion, the products of the brands suggested by .752
this influencer that I follow are well made.
The brands suggested by this influencer that I follow seem .792
attractive to me.
I positively value the brands suggested by this influencer .818
that I follow.
Purchase Intention (PCI)
I would follow brand recommendations from this .830 .848 .850 .655 Adapted from Jiménez-Castillo
influencer. and Sánchez-Fernández (2019)
I would purchase the brand based on the advice I am given .735
by this influencer.
In the future, I will purchase the products of brands .858
recommended by this influencer that I follow.

5.4. Mediation on the relationship between homophily and customer participation

The multiple mediation analysis was performed using bootstrapping
to estimate each independent mediating path’s results using Mplus
software (Preacher and Hayes, 2008). The mediating effect analysis in
this study included the parallel mediation analyses (H8a, H8b, H9) and
serial mediation analyses (H10a, H10b). The results in Table 7 show that
customer participation behaviour (indirect effect: β = .042, p = .004;
direct effect: β = .156, p = .000) and customer citizenship behaviour
(indirect effect: β = .041, p = .004; direct effect: β = .156, p = .000) have
a partial mediating effect between homophily and purchase intention,
supporting H8a and H8b, respectively. However, the expectation that
expected brand value would have a mediating effect on purchase
intention (H9) was not supported (indirect effect: β = .009, p = .331).
For the serial mediation test results, customer participation behav­
iour and expected brand value have a partially serial mediating effect
between homophily and purchase intention (indirect effect: β = .009, p
= .010; direct effect: β = .156, p = .000). Also, customer citizenship
behaviour and expected brand value have a partially serial mediating
effect between homophily and purchase intention (indirect effect: β =
.011, p = .004; direct effect: β = .156, p = .000). Both H10a and H10b
were supported.
5.5. Moderation
This study conducted a hierarchical regression analysis to analyse
the para-social relationship’s moderating impacts on homophily and
customer value co-creation behaviour (as seen in Table 8). The para-
social relationship has a significant moderating impact on homophily
and customer participation behaviour (β = .078, t = 2.393 > 1.96),
which supports H11a. However, the para-social relationship has no
significant moderating impact on homophily and customer citizenship
behaviour (β = .006, t = 1.88 < 1.96), and it does not support H11b
(Table 9). Fig. 3 shows the moderating effect of para-social relationship
behaviour.
6. Discussion
6.1. Homophily and customer value co-creation behaviour
As expected, homophily can motivate the target audience’s customer
value co-creation behaviour. This means that homophily can positively
promote customer participation behaviour through encouraging audi­
ences’ seeking and sharing information, eliciting their responsible
behaviour and personal interaction. These findings echo a previous
study that notes how a receiver’s positive response to homophily can
affect the receiver’s participation behaviour (Teng and Tsai, 2020).
Some scholars have found that customers are likely to engage in bene­
ficial behaviour and generate customer value co-creation behaviour
when the similarity between customers and service personnel results in a
high degree of identification (Teng and Tsai, 2020). For example, cus­
tomers with high similarity are likely to identify with one another and
tend to seek and share information about services or products (in-role
behaviour) (Teng and Tsai, 2020). This confirms the positive influence
of homophily proposed by previous scholars on customers’ online
experience, sharing and interaction (Zhang et al., 2018). Also, homo­
phily can actively induce extra-role behaviours like customer citizenship
behaviours, including offering feedback to providers, helping other
customers, recommending products and/or services to peers, and
tolerating service quality defects (Mandl and Hogreve, 2020). Thus, this
study further explains that homophily can encourage acts of communal
help and advocacy (Mandl and Hogreve, 2020) and result in customer
citizenship behaviour through the transference of customer preferences
(Ye et al., 2021).

11
Y. Bu et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 66 (2022) 102904

Table 6

Notes: CR = construct reliability, AVE = average variance extracted, MSV = maximum shared variance, MaxR(H) = maximal reliability of constructs; ATI = attitude; BGD = background; VAL = value; APE = appearance;
BEV = expected brand value; PCI = purchase intention; IFS = information seeking; IMS = information sharing; RPB = responsible behaviour; PEI = personal interaction; ADC = advocacy; HEL = helping; TOL = tolerance;
.784
Significance testing results of the model path coefficients.

TOL
Hypothesis Path Path P
Values
Coefficients

.603***
.815
HEL
H1 Homophily → Participation .228*** .000
Behaviour
H2 Homophily → Citizenship .207*** .000
Behaviour

.585***
.508***
H3 Participation → Expected Brand .180*** .000

.798
ADC

Behaviour Value
H4 Citizenship → Expected Brand .248*** .000
Behaviour Value

.146***
H5 Participation → Purchase .183*** .000

.124**
.098*
.778
Behaviour Intention
PEI

H6 Citizenship → Purchase .203*** .000

FED = feedback; the diagonal elements are the AVE’s square root (bold and italicised); the lower-left triangle elements are correlations; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Behaviour Intention
H7 Expected Brand → Purchase .210*** .000
.641***

.116**
.112**
.090*

Value Intention
.804
RPB

Note: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

.649***
.575***

.136***

6.2. Customer value co-creation behaviour and expected brand value

.120**

.106**
0.820
IMS

This study reveals that expected brand value can be affected by

customer value co-creation behaviour. This finding supports some pre­
.641***
.578***
.601***

.117**

vious research. Customers interact with and integrate information

.096*
.082*
.780
IFS

sources through different modes of seeking and sharing information, by

making an emotional commitment, and through personal interaction,
influencing their expectations and perceived value (Jiménez-Castillo
.238***
.244***
.257***
.186***
.238***
.253***
.235***
.809

and Sánchez-Fernández, 2019). This finding reflects that customer

PCI

participation behaviour can positively affect customer perceived value

(Hau et al., 2017). In influencer marketing, follower brand engagement
.327***
.160***
.192***
.159***
.184***
.197***
.249***
.256***

can be used to estimate willingness to expect brand value

.788
BEV

(Jiménez-Castillo and Sánchez-Fernández, 2019). Also, customers can

become motivated by altruism in co-creation to encourage others to
perform in ways that benefit them, thereby actively updating their ex­
.127***
.242***
.172***

.161***

.152***
.121**

.107**
.110**
.108**

pected brand value (Lee and Back, 2008). The path coefficient between
.810
APE

customer citizenship behaviour and expected brand value is the largest

among all path coefficients for the hypotheses, meaning that customer
citizenship behaviour might have the greatest influence on expected
.517***

.182***
.165***
.154***
.157***
.192***
.152***

.130**
.093*

.091*
.757

brand value in this study.

VAL

6.3. Customer value co-creation behaviour and purchase intention

.509***
.740***

.212***
.146***

.146***
.133***

.137***
.118**

.120**

.128**
.090*
.807
BGD

This research reveals that customer value co-creation behaviour can

affect purchase intention. In influencer marketing, customer participa­
tion and citizenship behaviours, which are the two essential factors of
.492***
.668***
.610***

.165***
.161***

.173***
.101**

.103**
.108**
.103**

.116**
.122**

customer value co-creation, positively affect expected brand value and

.797
ATI

the target audiences’ purchase intention. Followers’ customer partici­

pation behaviours (notably interaction, sharing and information
searching) can help to familiarise customers with the brands and/or
.128***

.172***
.253***

.620***
.652***
.574***
.120**

.124**
.097*

.083*

.077*
.819

.061

.064

products influencers endorse or release, and, thus, increase customers’

FED

purchase intent (See-To and Ho, 2014). In this process of interacting

with influencers, followers’ suggested feedback, positive advocacy and
MaxR(H)
Discriminant validity and convergent validity.

assistance, and tolerance were also found to affect purchase intentions

(See-To and Ho, 2014). Simultaneously, the findings support the pur­
.860
.844
.885
.846
.884
.869
.861
.827
.893
.883
.886
.842
.889
.833

chase intent prediction of brand value co-creation in digital marketing,

as proposed by other scholars (Choi et al., 2016).
MSV

.425
.446
.548
.446
.548
.107
.107
.411
.421
.421
.411
.384
.425
.364

6.4. Expected brand value and purchase intention

.671
.635
.652
.574
.656
.621
.655
.608
.672
.646
.606
.636
.665
.614
AVE

This study further confirms that expected brand value can result in
increased purchase intention in influencer marketing (Jiménez-Castillo
and Sánchez-Fernández, 2019). Within this context, perceived expected
.859
.839
.882
.843
.884
.867
.850
.823
.891
.879
.885
.840
.888
.826
CR

brand value among the target audience can positively affect purchasing
intent. In other words, the greater the perceived expected value of a
Table 5

brand, the more likely the target audience will buy a product
BGD

ADC
RPB
VAL

BEV

HEL
TOL
APE
FED

IMS
ATI

PCI

PEI
IFS

(Jiménez-Castillo and Sánchez-Fernández, 2019). Our study also

12
Y. Bu et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 66 (2022) 102904

Fig. 2. The consequence of data analysis of the structural model.

Table 7
Results of customer value co-creation behaviour mediating effect.
Hypothesis Mediating Independent Dependent Indirect Total Direct Total Mediating
Variable Variable Variable Effect Indirect Effect Effect Effect
Effect

H8a Participation Behaviour Homophily Purchase .042** (p = .112*** (p = .156*** (p = .268*** (p = PM

Intention .004) .000) .000) .000)
H8b Citizenship Behaviour .041** (p = PM
.004)
H9 Expected Brand Value .009 (p = NM
.331)
H10a Participation Behaviour & Expected .009* (p = PM
Brand Value .010)
H10b Citizenship Behaviour & Expected .011** (p = PM
Brand Value .004)

Note: PM = partial mediating effect, NM = no mediating effect; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Table 8
Results of moderating effects of para-social relationships.
Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

B Beta t B Beta t B Beta t

H11a

Dependent variable: Customer Participation Behaviour

Independent: Homophily .183 .185 5.669*** .183 .186 5.675*** .181 .184 5.628***
Moderator: Para-social Relationship .025 .027 .834 .031 .034 1.034
Interaction Term Homophily * .063 .078 2.393*
Para-social Relationship
R Square .047 .048 .054
Adjusted R Square .039 .039 .044
R Square Change .034 .001 .006
F Change 32.139*** .696 5.725*

H11b
Dependent variable: Customer citizenship Behaviour
Independent: Homophily .159 .164 4.995*** .159 .164 4.987*** .159 .164 4.978***
Moderator: Para-social Relationship -.029 -.032 -.982 -.029 -.032 -.962
Interaction Term Homophily * .005 .006 .188
Para-social Relationship
R Square .034 .035 .035
Adjusted R Square .027 .027 .026
R Square Change .027 .001 .000
F Change 24.953*** .964 .035

Note: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

supports previous research, finding that increases in perceived value in a 6.5. Homophily and purchase intention
social network will improve customers’ purchase intentions
(Jiménez-Castillo and Sánchez-Fernández, 2019). This study found that both direct and indirect effects exist between

13
Y. Bu et al.
Table 9
Significance testing results of the moderating effects.
Hypothesis Moderating Independent Dependent
Variable Variable Variable
H11a Para-social Relationship Homophily Customer Participation Behaviour
H11b Customer Citizenship Behaviour
Note: ME = moderation effect, NM = no moderation; Standardised path coefficient significant at * p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Fig. 3. The moderating effect of para-social relationship on the relationship between homophily and customer participation behaviour.
homophily and purchase intention in influencer marketing. This con­
firms that homophily can directly influence customers’ purchase in­
tentions and indirectly induce customers to consume due to the
intermediary effects of other variables (Filieri et al., 2018). This study
also revealed that customer value co-creation behaviour not only plays
mediating role between homophily and purchase intention but (along
with expected brand value) also mediates between homophily and
purchase intention. This means that customer participation behaviour
and customer citizenship behaviour mediate between homophily and
purchase intention, respectively. The findings echo previous research
that customers are easier to engage in value co-creation and consump­
tion if customers’ beliefs are similar to a brand’s (See-To and Ho, 2014;
Shamim et al., 2016). Also, this study revealed that homophily has a
strong direct effect on purchase intention. In contrast, the single path’s
indirect effect of these two behaviours on homophily and intention is far
weaker. Thus, these two behaviours have a weak partial mediating effect
on homophily and purchase intention.
Further, this study found that customer value co-creation behaviour
and expected brand value significantly mediate between homophily and
purchase intention; that is, customer participation behaviour, customer
citizenship behaviour and expected brand value have significantly par­
tial mediating effects between homophily and purchase intention. This
supports the notion that homophily affects customer engagement, leads
to customer perceived value, and, thus, motivates purchase intention
(Marbach et al., 2016). Notably, each mediating effect between the two
was very weak compared with the direct effect. The total indirect
mediating effects from customer value co-creation behaviour are almost
equal to the direct effect from homophily on purchase intention. Besides,
expected brand value does not have a mediating effect on homophily
and purchase intent.
14
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 66 (2022) 102904
B Beta P Value Moderating
Effect
.063 .078 .017 ME
.005 .006 .851 NM
6.6. Para-social relationship, homophily and customer participation
behaviour
This study demonstrated the moderating effect of para-social re­
lationships between homophily and customer participation behaviour.
This result supports the notion that para-social bonds strengthen the
positive link between homophily and customer participation behaviour
in influencer marketing. As previous research has stated, para-social
relationships strongly influence media audience participation, interac­
tion and recommendation behaviours in social networks (Tsai and Men,
2013). Individuals’ participation and interaction in a social network can
be positively affected by their similarities with media performers (Jin
and Phua, 2014); that is, in influencer marketing, homophily between
customers and influencers can positively affect the degree to which
customers participate online in the event that customers and influencers
establish a para-social relationship. Higher homophily was related to
higher audience participation behaviour when there was a high level of
the para-social relationship between influencers and their audiences.
However, this was not the case with a low level of para-social rela­
tionship. Hence, increasing the chance of developing a para-social
relationship positively affects homophily between customers and influ­
encers, and subsequently determines the extent of customers’
participation.
However, the moderating effect of a para-social relationship between
homophily and customer citizenship behaviour was not statistically
significant. This may be due to the particularity of the relationship. First,
para-social relations are unilateral social relationships, typically regar­
ded as a pseudo-friendship rather than an intimate relationship (Hwang
and Zhang, 2018). Second, a para-social relationship is considered an
illusory experience for audiences (Hwang and Zhang, 2018). In
Y. Bu et al.
influencer marketing, these two characteristics may hinder the frequent
two-way interaction between media audiences and media performers
(Hwang and Zhang, 2018). Since users are engaging in unidirectional
relationships and illusory experiences, para-social relationships may
constrain customer citizenship behaviour in terms of advocacy, acts of
assistance and tolerance towards similar influencers, although, such
engagement can also arouse customer participation behaviour by
boosting their seeking and sharing information behaviours, eliciting
responsible behaviour and increased interaction.
7. Implications
7.1. Theoretical implications
This study extends the theory of influencer marketing. It develops a
new theoretical model to interpret how the homophily of customers and
influencers affects followers’ intentions through customer value co-
creation behaviour. The research shows that customer value co-
creation behaviour applies to studies on influencer marketing. By clar­
ifying the role of influencer marketing on purchase intention, we can
understand how influencer marketing affects purchase intention via
customer value co-creation behaviour; that is, influencers influence
their target audiences through homophily by sharing the same attitudes,
similar backgrounds, similar values and a similar appearance to their
market. In turn, target audiences can motivate each other to seek and
share information and even motivate one another to interact and behave
in certain ways; that is, customer participation behaviour. Thus,
customer participation behaviour contributes to understanding how
homophily affects purchase intention.
Simultaneously, under the influence of such homophily, the target
audience will also produce active and voluntary citizenship behaviours,
such as advocating for, encouraging and recommending positive actions;
providing help to those in need; tolerating certain circumstances; and
providing timely feedback regarding their thoughts. These behaviours
show that customer value co-creation behaviour will affect their ex­
pected brand value and, ultimately, their purchase intention. Accord­
ingly, this study helps make better sense of influencer marketing
research mechanism on customers’ purchase intentions on social
networking. It provides theoretical and empirical evidence for further
exploring influencer marketing strategies. This study contributes to the
literature development of customer value co-creation behaviour.
This model expands previous research on influencer marketing and
value co-creation. It integrates influencer marketing and value co-
creation behaviour and provides a bridge for studying influencer mar­
keting through value co-creation. Significantly, it introduces value co-
creation behaviour to influencer marketing and helps to accelerate the
development of value co-creation theory and influencer marketing.
In this study, customer value co-creation behaviour was directly
affected by homophily. Customer value co-creation behaviour also has
relationships with expected brand value, purchase intention and an
intermediary effect on these influencing factors. Notably, the notion of
para-social relationships is used to investigate the link between homo­
phily and customer value co-creation behaviour. These results show that
a para-social relationship strengthens a positive association between
homophily and customer participation behaviour. Therefore, it also
contributes to developing the value co-creation theory of influencer(s)
and customer(s) and furthers the research on para-social relationships
and participation behaviour.
7.2. Practical implications
Unlike traditional marketing strategies, influencer marketing focuses
on the individual members of an influencer’s group. Therefore, how
followers or potential followers are influenced becomes an essential part
of influencer marketing. Retailers and marketers need to implement
influencer marketing strategies on social media, improve the perceived
15
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 66 (2022) 102904
homophily of the target audiences in collaboration with influencers,
form and/or strengthen para-social relationships, and stimulate audi­
ences to co-create value through increased customer participation and
customer citizenship behaviour. This will assist retailers and marketers
in achieving the purpose of influencing the target audience’s purchase
intention.
Influencers should pay attention to similar characteristics within
target audiences, especially when attempting to attract potential cus­
tomers who share similar attitudes, personal backgrounds, values, and
even physical attributes. Homophily not only can help influencers
attract customers, but also help them form strong para-social relation­
ships. Establishing this kind of bond can coordinate and promote
customer participation behaviour and customer citizenship behaviour to
realise the goal of value co-creation. Indeed, these two behaviours are
entwined in a complex and comprehensive behavioural process of
interaction and resource integration. This process also involves cus­
tomers’ participation in service exchange and co-production, enabling
them to co-create value with influencers. It is particularly necessary that
influencers focus on their interaction and engagement with the target
audience because such collaborative effort can encourage an audience to
engage in customer value co-creation. Also, this effort is instrumental in
the process of influencing customers to perceive brand value beyond the
value provided by an influencer (hence, stimulating purchase intention)
(Breves et al., 2019; Chung and Cho, 2017).
Homophily is an important factor affecting customers’ desire to
consume. For retailers and marketers, homophily is an essential element
of establishing cooperative relationships with influencers. Indeed, the
perceived similarity between customers and influencers is likely to
stimulate customer value co-creation behaviour and purchase intention.
Therefore, when selecting influencers, retailers and marketers should
choose individuals with similar values, attitudes and backgrounds to
their target audiences. In addition, for specific product and service
categories, marketers need to approximate the value, attitude, and po­
tential appearance of an influencer. For example, if a particular clothing
brand targets young women aged in their 20s, the retailer manager and/
or marketers need to ensure that the selected influencer aligns with the
target customer regarding their values, attitudes and appearance (Lad­
hari et al., 2020) – indeed, a male enthusiast who is an outdoor
adventurist would not be a good choice. Evidently, homophily not only
influences customer value co-creation, but also generates effective ex­
pected brand value and purchase intention through these two behav­
iours. The potential role of influencer marketing is extraordinary.
Retailers and marketers should ensure that whomever they select as a
brand influencer effectively facilitates interaction with the audience and
inspires customer value co-creation behaviour. Marketers can provide
support or convenience for influencers to afford or integrate each other’s
resources. For example, marketers can offer relevant brand products as
gifts for assisting influencers in incentivising target audiences to conduct
information searching, sharing and interactive behaviours, as well as
encourage audiences’ feedback and referrals, and help to obtain infor­
mation on improving services or products. Thus, this study advises that
retail managers and marketing practitioners should provide favourable
conditions for value co-creation between influencers and customers to
enhance their brand perceived value and inspire one’s willingness to
buy. At the same time, marketers should focus on the interaction be­
tween influencers and customers in real-time to avoid and monitor po­
tential value co-destruction.
In addition to emphasising interactivity and engagement, retail
managers and marketers should also help create close, reciprocal,
friendship-like relationships between target audiences and the influ­
encers they select. For example, marketers can integrate resources from
the target audience’s perspective and provide the “software” and
“hardware” support to help influencers produce content. This content
makes the target audience feel more comfortable, appropriate and
fascinated, and supports forming a close relationship between audiences
and influencers. The “software” support includes organising or
Y. Bu et al.
providing data from professional marketing research for the influencers’
reference to establish or maintain this close relationship. The “hard­
ware” support includes providing accessible trials or gifts to influencers
to appeal to the target audiences with common language and interests.
Meanwhile, marketers need to help influencers create an atmosphere of
reciprocity for their audiences to promote para-social relationships. For
instance, creating multiple channels to ensure that influencers can reach
more a broader target audience and expand their influence while also
ensuring that target audiences can effectively communicate with influ­
encers. This study shows that customers in influencer marketing value
the para-social relationship highly. Such relations, which are unilateral
and illusory friendships from audiences to influencers, also have an
important effect on value co-creation. Retail managers and marketers
should use these para-social relationships to ensure that influencers
encourage followers to engage in customer participation behaviour,
which will affect customers’ value perceptions promoting their purchase
intentions. This is essential because, although value co-creation is a
collaborative effort between influencers and customers, brands and/or
firms can also benefit. For example, the feedback obtained through
customer value co-creation behaviour can help to improve products or
services and simultaneously enhance the customer experience. This
feedback can also assist in the development of new products or provide
further services to customers.
Further, para-social relations can easily generate customer partici­
pation behaviour and promote positive purchase intentions, because
target customers believe they have a very close relationship with
influencers—as though they are good friends. The more similar fol­
lowers are to influencers, the more they will engage in customer
participation behaviour and consume accordingly.
Finally, to attract customers, retail managers and marketers should
select suitable influencers in accordance with the characteristics and
demands of their audiences and encourage them to participate in value
co-creation. Therefore, marketers and retailers should also follow the
principle of value co-creation.
8. Limitations and future research directions
Several inherent limitations exist in this research. First, it employs a
quantitative research method only. Although the construct measure­
ment scale in this research is derived or modified based on previous
studies, and all constructs’ reliability and validity have also been tested
based on previous studies, these constructs may not be complete. A
sequential exploratory mixed method could be utilised in the future.
Second, this study may not include other influencing factors that might
impact value co-creation in influencer marketing. Future studies could
continue to explore other essential factors in influencing value-creation,
such as source credibility and tie strength. Third, the generalisability of
the findings is limited. On the one hand, the study’s respondents were all
from the United States, and future research in other countries is
required; on the other hand, the para-social relationships have different
effects on different influencers and followers, so the influencers and
followers need to be segmented. Lastly, this research discusses the as­
sociation and impacts on homophily and customer value co-creation
behaviour. Future studies might investigate the influence of manipu­
lated factors such as influencer type and information disclosure on value
co-creation to elucidate a deeper understanding of the role of influencers
on their audiences’ behavioural intentions.
References
Araujo, Theo, Jonathan R, Copulsky, Jameson L, Hayes, Su Jung, Kim,
Jaideep, Srivastava, 2020. From purchasing exposure to fostering engagement:
brand–consumer experiences in the emerging computational advertising landscape.
J. Advert. 49 (4), 428–445.
Blau, P.M., 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. John Wiley and Sons, New York,
NY.
16
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 66 (2022) 102904
Bove, L.L., Pervan, S.J., Beatty, S.E., Shiu, E., 2009. Service worker role in encouraging
customer organizational citizenship behaviors. J. Bus. Res. 62 (7), 698–705.
Breves, P.L., Liebers, N., Abt, M., Kunze, A., 2019. The perceived fit between instagram
influencers and the endorsed brand. J. Advert. Res. 59 (4), 440–454.
Campbell, C., Farrell, J.R., 2020. More than meets the eye: the functional components
underlying influencer marketing. Bus. Horiz. 63 (4), 469–479.
Childers, C.C., Lemon, L.L., Hoy, M.G., 2019. #Sponsored #Ad: Agency Perspective on
Influencer Marketing Campaigns. J. Curr. Issues Res. Advert. 40 (3), 258–274.
Choi, E., Ko, E., Kim, A.J., 2016. Explaining and predicting purchase intentions following
luxury-fashion brand value co-creation encounters. J. Bus. Res. 69 (12), 5827–5832.
Chung, S., Cho, H., 2017. Fostering parasocial relationships with celebrities on social
media: implications for celebrity endorsement. Psychol. Market. 34 (4), 481–495.
Cossío-Silva, F.J., Revilla-Camacho, M.Á., Vega-Vázquez, M., Palacios-Florencio, B.,
2016. Value co-creation and customer loyalty. J. Bus. Res. 69 (5), 1621–1625.
Daniel Jr, E.S., Crawford Jackson, E.C., Westerman, D.K., 2018. The influence of social
media influencers: understanding online vaping communities and parasocial
interaction through the lens of Taylor’s six-segment strategy wheel. J. Interact.
Advert. 18 (2), 96–109.
De Jans, S., Cauberghe, V., Hudders, L., 2018. How an advertising disclosure alerts young
adolescents to sponsored vlogs: the moderating role of a peer-based advertising
literacy intervention through an informational vlog. J. Advert. 47 (4), 309–325.
De Veirman, M., Cauberghe, V., Hudders, L., 2017. Marketing through Instagram
influencers: the impact of number of followers and product divergence on brand
attitude. Int. J. Advert. 36 (5), 798–828.
del Águila-Obra, A.R., Padilla-Meléndez, A., Serarols-Tarres, C., 2007. Value creation and
new intermediaries on Internet. An exploratory analysis of the online news industry
and the web content aggregators. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 27 (3), 187–199.
Delpechitre, D., Beeler-Connelly, L.L., Chaker, N.N., 2018. Customer value co-creation
behavior: a dyadic exploration of the influence of salesperson emotional intelligence
on customer participation and citizenship behavior. J. Bus. Res. 92, 9–24.
Dhanesh, G.S., Duthler, G., 2019. Relationship management through social media
influencers: effects of followers’ awareness of paid endorsement. Publ. Relat. Rev. 45
(3), 101765.
Edwards, S.M., Lee, J.K., Ferle, C.L., 2009. Does place matter when shopping online?
Perceptions of similarity and familiarity as indicators of psychological distance.
J. Interact. Advert. 10 (1), 35–50.
Eichhorn, B.R., 2014. Common Method Variance Techniques. Cleveland State University,
Department of Operations & Supply Chain Management, Cleveland, OH. SAS
Institute Inc.
Evans, N.J., Phua, J., Lim, J., Jun, H., 2017. Disclosing instagram influencer advertising:
the effects of disclosure language on advertising recognition, attitudes, and
behavioral intent. J. Interact. Advert. 17 (2), 138–149.
Eyal, K., Rubin, A.M., 2003. Viewer aggression and homophily, identification, and
parasocial relationships with television characters. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 1,
77–98.
Filieri, R., McLeay, F., Tsui, B., Lin, Z.B., 2018. Consumer perceptions of information
helpfulness and determinants of purchase intention in online consumer reviews of
services. Inf. Manag. 55 (8), 956–970.
Florenthal, Bela, 2019. Young consumers’ motivational drivers of brand engagement
behavior on social media sites. J. Res. Indian Med. 13 (3), 351–391.
Frasquet-Deltoro, M., Alarcón-del-Amo, M.C., Lorenzo-Romero, C., 2019. Antecedents
and consequences of virtual customer co-creation behaviours. Internet Res. 29 (1),
218–244.
Gambetti, R.C., Graffigna, G., Biraghi, S., 2012. The grounded theory approach to
consumer-brand engagement: the practitioner’s standpoint. Int. J. Mark. Res. 54 (5),
659–687.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M., 2014. A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equations Modeling (PLS-SEM). SAGE, Los Angeles, California.
Hajli, N., Shanmugam, M., Papagiannidis, S., Zahay, D., Richard, M.O., 2017. Branding
co-creation with members of online brand communities. J. Bus. Res. 70, 136–144.
Hau, L.N., Tram Anh, P.N., Thuy, P.N., 2017. The effects of interaction behaviors of
service frontliners on customer participation in the value co-creation: a study of
health care service. Service Business 11 (2), 253–277.
Higgins, E.T., Scholer, A.A., 2009. Engaging the consumer: The science and art of the
value creation process. J. Consum. Psychol. 19 (2), 100–114.
Hollebeek, Linda D., Srivastava, Rajendra K., Chen, Tom, 2019. S-D logic–informed
customer engagement: integrative framework, revised fundamental propositions,
and application to CRM. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 47 (1), 161–185.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2015. A new criterion for assessing discriminant
validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 43 (1),
115–135.
Hu, X., Huang, Q., Zhong, X.P., Davison, Robert M., Zhao, Dingtao, 2016. The influence
of peer characteristics and technical features of a social shopping website on a
consumer’s purchase intention. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 36 (6), 1218–1230.
Hughes, Christian, Swaminathan, Vanitha, Brooks, Gillian, 2019. Driving brand
engagement through online social influencers: an empirical investigation of
sponsored blogging campaigns. J. Market. 83 (5), 78–96.
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.
Jiménez-Castillo, D., Sánchez-Fernández, R., 2019. The role of digital influencers in
brand recommendation: examining their impact on engagement, expected value and
purchase intention. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 49, 366–376.
Jin, S.A.A., Phua, J., 2014. Following celebrities’ tweets about brands: the impact of
twitter-based electronic word-of-mouth on consumers’ source credibility perception,
Y. Bu et al.
buying intention, and social identification with celebrities. J. Advert. 43 (2),
181–195.
Kay, S., Mulcahy, R., Parkinson, J., 2020. When less is more: the impact of macro and
micro social media influencers’ disclosure. J. Market. Manag. 36 (3–4), 248–278.
Kennedy, E., Guzmán, F., 2017. When perceived ability to influence plays a role: brand
co-creation in Web 2.0. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 26 (4), 342–350.
Ki, Chung-Wha, Cuevas, Leslie M., Chong, Sze Man, Lim, Heejin, 2020. Influencer
marketing: social media influencers as human brands attaching to followers and
yielding positive marketing results by fulfilling needs. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 55.
Ki, C.W., Kim, Y.K., 2019. The mechanism by which social media influencers persuade
consumers: the role of consumers’ desire to mimic. Psychol. Market. 36 (10),
905–922.
Kim, E., Tang, L., Bosselman, R., 2019. Customer perceptions of innovativeness: an
accelerator for value Co-creation. J. Hospit. Tourism Res. 43 (6), 807–838.
Labrecque, L.I., 2014. Fostering consumer–brand relationships in social media
environments: the role of parasocial interaction. J. Interact. Market. 28 (2),
134–148.
Ladhari, R., Massa, E., Skandrani, H., 2020. YouTube vloggers’ popularity and influence:
the roles of homophily, emotional attachment, and expertise. J. Retailing Consum.
Serv. 54.
Lam, J.M.S., Ismail, H., Lee, S., 2020. From desktop to destination: user-generated
content platforms, co-created online experiences, destination image and satisfaction.
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 18, 100490.
Lee, J.E., Watkins, B., 2016. YouTube vloggers’ influence on consumer luxury brand
perceptions and intentions. J. Bus. Res. 69 (12), 5753–5760.
Lee, J.S., Back, K.J., 2008. Attendee-based brand equity. Tourism Manag. 29 (2),
331–344.
Lou, Chen, Tan, Sang-Sang, Chen, Xiaoyu, 2019. Investigating consumer engagement
with influencer- vs. Brand-promoted ads: the roles of source and disclosure.
J. Interact. Advert. 19 (3), 169–186.
Lou, C., Yuan, S.P., 2019. Influencer marketing: how message value and credibility affect
consumer trust of branded content on social media. J. Interact. Advert. 19 (1),
58–73.
Mandl, L., Hogreve, J., 2020. Buffering effects of brand community identification in
service failures: the role of customer citizenship behaviors. J. Bus. Res. 107,
130–137.
Marbach, J., Lages, C.R., Nunan, D., 2016. Who are you and what do you value?
Investigating the role of personality traits and customer-perceived value in online
customer engagement. J. Market. Manag. 32 (5–6), 502–525.
Martínez-López, F.J., Anaya-Sánchez, R., Esteban-Millat, I., Torrez-Meruvia, H.,
D’Alessandro, S., Miles, M., 2020. Influencer marketing: brand control, commercial
orientation and post credibility. J. Market. Manag. 36 (17–18), 1805–1831.
Moghadamzadeh, A., Ebrahimi, P., Radfard, S., Salamzadeh, A., Khajeheian, D., 2020.
Investigating the role of customer Co-creation behavior on social media platforms in
rendering innovative services. Sustainability 12 (17), 6926.
Naeem, M., 2019. Do social networking platforms promote service quality and purchase
intention of customers of service-providing organizations? J. Manag. Dev. 38 (7),
561–581.
Nyström, Anna-Greta, Mickelsson, Karl-Jacob, 2019. Digital advertising as service:
introducing contextually embedded selling. J. Serv. Market. 33 (4), 396–406.
Park, H.J., Lin, L.M., 2020. The effects of match-ups on the consumer attitudes toward
internet celebrities and their live streaming contents in the context of product
endorsement. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 52, 101934.
Payne, A.F., Storbacka, K., Frow, P., 2008. Managing the co-creation of value. J. Acad.
Market. Sci. 36 (1), 83–96.
Preacher, K.J., Hayes, A.F., 2008. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav. Res. Methods 40 (3),
879–891.
Prentice, C., Han, X.Y., Hua, L.L., Hu, L., 2019. The influence of identity-driven customer
engagement on purchase intention. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 47, 339–347.
17
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 66 (2022) 102904
Sakib, M.D.N., Zolfagharian, M., Yazdanparast, A., 2020. Does parasocial interaction
with weight loss vloggers affect compliance? The role of vlogger characteristics,
consumer readiness, and health consciousness. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 52,
101733.
Statista, 2020. Influencer Marketing. Retrieved from. https://www.statista.com/study/
28362/influence-marketing-statista-dossier/.
See-To, E.W.K., Ho, K.K.W., 2014. Value co-creation and purchase intention in social
network sites: the role of electronic Word-of-Mouth and trust – a theoretical analysis.
Comput. Hum. Behav. 31, 182–189.
Shamim, A., Ghazali, Z., Albinsson, P.A., 2016. An integrated model of corporate brand
experience and customer value co-creation behaviour. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag.
44 (2), 139–158.
Shan, Yan, Chen, Kuan-Ju, Lin, Jhih-Syuan, 2020. When social media influencers endorse
brands: the effects of self-influencer congruence, parasocial identification, and
perceived endorser motive. Int. J. Advert. 39 (5), 590–610.
Shen, Y.C., Huang, C.Y., Chu, C.H., Liao, H.C., 2010. Virtual community loyalty: an
interpersonal-interaction perspective. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 15 (1), 49–74.
Smith, D., Menon, S., Sivakumar, K., 2005. Online peer and editorial recommendations,
trust, and choice in virtual markets. J. Interact. Market. 19 (3), 15–37.
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, 101742.
Stubb, C., Colliander, J., 2019. “This is not sponsored content” – The effects of
impartiality disclosure and ecommerce landing pages on consumer responses to
social media influencer posts. Comput. Hum. Behav. 98, 210–222.
Teng, H.Y., Tsai, C.H., 2020. Can tour leader likability enhance tourist value co-creation
behaviors? The role of attachment. J. Hospit. Tourism Manag. 45, 285–294.
Thaichon, P., Liyanaarachchi, G., Quach, S., Weaven, S., Bu, Y., 2019. Online
relationship marketing: evolution and theoretical insights into online relationship
marketing. Market. Intell. Plann. 38 (6), 676–698.
Torres, P., Augusto, M., Matos, M., 2019. Antecedents and outcomes of digital influencer
endorsement: an exploratory study. Psychol. Market. 36 (12), 1267–1276.
Tsai, W.H.S., Men, L.J.R., 2013. Motivations and antecedents of consumer engagement
with brand pages on social networking sites. J. Interact. Advert. 13 (2), 76–87.
Tukachinsky, R., Walter, N., Saucier, C.J., 2020. Antecedents and effects of parasocial
relationships: a meta-analysis. J. Commun. 70 (6), 868–894.
van Doorn, Jenny, Katherine N, Lemon, Vikas, Mittal, Stephan, Nass, Doreén, Pick,
Peter, Pirner, Peter C, Verhoef, 2010. Customer engagement behavior: theoretical
foundations and research directions. J. Serv. Res. 13 (3), 253–266.
Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F., 2004. Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing.
J. Market. 68 (1), 1–17.
Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F., 2008. Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution. J. Acad.
Market. Sci. 36 (1), 1–10.
Ye, H.B.B., Fong, L.H.N., Luo, J.M., 2021. Parasocial interaction on tourism companies’
social media sites: antecedents and consequences. Curr. Issues Tourism 24 (8), 1–16.
Yi, Y., 2014. Customer Value Creation Behavior. Routledge, NY: New York.
Yi, Y., Gong, T., 2013. Customer value co-creation behavior: scale development and
validation. J. Bus. Res. 66 (9), 1279–1284.
Yi, Y., Nataraajan, R., Gong, T., 2011. Customer participation and citizenship behavioral
influences on employee performance, satisfaction, commitment, and turnover
intention. J. Bus. Res. 64 (1), 87–95.
Zadeh, A.H., Zolfagharian, M., Hofacker, C.F., 2019. Customer–customer value co-
creation in social media: conceptualization and antecedents. J. Strat. Market. 27 (4),
283–302.
Zhang, H.H., Fam, K.S., Goh, T.T., Dai, X., 2018. When are influentials equally
influenceable? The strength of strong ties in new product adoption. J. Bus. Res. 82,
160–170.
Zhang, K.Z.K., Stuart, J.B., Zhao, S.J., Zhang, H., 2018. “Can consumers be persuaded on
brand microblogs?” an empirical study. Inf. Manag. 55 (1), 1–15.