See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/372861780

Exploring social media influencers’ moral dilemmas through role theory

Article in Journal of Marketing Management · August 2023

DOI: 10.1080/0267257X.2023.2241468

CITATIONS READS

2 139

3 authors, including:

Nina Grgurić Čop Ivana First Komen

University of Rijeka University of Rijeka
6 PUBLICATIONS 12 CITATIONS 18 PUBLICATIONS 177 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Nina Grgurić Čop on 10 October 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Marketing Management

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjmm20

Exploring social media influencers’ moral

dilemmas through role theory

Nina Grgurić Čop, Barbara Culiberg & Ivana First Komen

To cite this article: Nina Grgurić Čop, Barbara Culiberg & Ivana First Komen (02 Aug 2023):
Exploring social media influencers’ moral dilemmas through role theory, Journal of Marketing
Management, DOI: 10.1080/0267257X.2023.2241468

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2023.2241468

© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.

Published online: 02 Aug 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 952

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjmm20
JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2023.2241468

Exploring social media influencers’ moral dilemmas through

role theory
a,b a b
Nina Grgurić Čop , Barbara Culiberg and Ivana First Komen
a
School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia; bFaculty of Economics and
Business, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study examines how social media influencers (SMIs) perceive their Received 16 February 2022
role in the complex relationships between brands, followers, and Accepted 10 June 2023
society, the moral dilemmas they face, and how they deal with them. KEYWORDS
The results show that SMIs find themselves in different roles depending Influencer marketing; role
on which stakeholders’ expectations they fulfil. Using role theory as theory; moral dilemma; role
a theoretical framework, we find that the conflicts between extended conflict; influencer morality
expectations (commitment, authenticity, and responsibility) lead to
various moral dilemmas: non-disclosure, withholding negative experi­
ences, lack of empathy, promotion of products without genuine experi­
ence, sharing opinions on socially relevant issues, and promotion of
harmful products. Strategies for resolving these dilemmas which help
SMIs manage their complex moral obligations include: spotlighting
a role, downplaying a role, customizing a role, and resorting to a role.

Introduction
Brands are putting more and more money into social media influencers (SMIs) as an
advertising channel, with expenditure for influencer marketing in the US alone having
increased by more than 30% in 2020 (Insider Intelligence, 2022) and exceeding
three billion dollars the year after (Statista.com, 2022). Many believe the growing popu­
larity of influencer marketing is due to the shift of social interactions to social media
platforms, where consumers demand content that is not staged (Lou & Yuan, 2019).
However, SMIs have also come under public scrutiny due to their questionable practises
and ethical concerns, such as SMIs’ covert tobacco advertising to youth to circumvent
government regulations (Kirkham, 2019). Moral concerns about SMIs’ actions have been
raised (Influence.co, n.d.), primarily because there is still no consensus on who is an
influencer (Enke & Borchers, 2019) and what they should do. Scholars describe SMIs as
opinion leaders (e.g. Boerman, 2020) with influence over many followers who mimic their
attitudes and behaviours (Belanche et al., 2021), considering them more credible than
traditional celebrities (Schouten et al., 2020), as prosumers − consumers who become
producers (Archer et al., 2014; Leban et al., 2021), and even ‘big sister’ figures to their
followers (Berryman & Kavka, 2017).

CONTACT Nina Grgurić Čop nina.grguric.cop@efri.hr School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana,
Kardeljeva ploščad 17, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly
cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or
with their consent.
2 N. GRGURIĆ ČOP ET AL.

As SMIs grow, brands expect them to do very little besides professional content
creation while maintaining an authentic relationship with their audience (Campbell &
Farrell, 2020). Furthermore, while brands envision organic and unobtrusive promotion of
their products (Dhanesh & Duthler, 2019; Ge & Gretzel, 2018), studies have confirmed that
consumer expectations include transparency about the true content creator or content
sponsor (e.g. Karagür et al., 2022), which seems to contradict brand expectations.
Understanding how SMIs perceive their roles is important because expectations and
emerging roles guide individuals in their daily lives. These roles correspond to behaviours,
attitudes, and beliefs, and vice versa (Biddle, 2013). Consequently, a better understanding
of the roles SMIs play in the marketplace makes research on influencer marketing more
predictable (Şeşen, 2015) and advertising practitioners less confused about what SMIs
should (not) do.
As Vrontis et al. (2021, p. 617) noted, most of the research on SMIs is still ‘divergent,
partial, and fragmented’, leaving many gaps to be filled. Among other issues, there are
questions about the roles SMIs take on as their fan base grows and brands reach out to
them. While researchers acknowledge that SMIs’ dual role in social media poses a moral
hazard (e.g. Borchers & Enke, 2022; Cocker et al., 2021; Kozinets et al., 2010) as they evolve
from content creators to entrepreneurs, there have been no explicit attempts to clarify
how SMIs’ role complexity is related to the moral dilemmas involved.
Previous research has determined the role of brands in the SMI-brand relationship
(Nascimento et al., 2020) and recognized how SMIs transform from ordinary consumers to
human brands ‘through a continuous process of identity negotiation, adaptation, and
reinterpretation with multiple stakeholders’ (Erz & Christensen, 2018, p. 69). Even though
researchers accept and acknowledge the dual role of SMIs (Borchers & Enke, 2022; Cocker
et al., 2021; Wellman et al., 2020), so far the complexity of the SMIs’ roles has been
addressed explicitly from an entrepreneurial perspective (Mardon et al., 2023), inviting
for more of a nuanced approach of their complex position in society. Extensive research
has been conducted on followers, examining the effects, characteristics, and reactions
related to the disclosure issue (see Vrontis et al., 2021); however, few authors have drawn
systematic research on SMIs’ morality (Borchers & Enke, 2022; Cocker et al., 2021; Leban
et al., 2021; Wellman et al., 2020). Moreover, research on this topic has mostly been
confined to limited insights from other industry actors (agencies, brands, followers) and
thus did not consider the broader social context in which SMIs are situated.
Therefore, the aim of this study is to find answers to the following questions:

RQ1: How do SMIs perceive their role given the expectations of different stakeholders?

RQ2: What moral dilemmas do SMIs face in relation to the expectations of different
stakeholders?

RQ3: How do SMIs resolve moral dilemmas arising from different stakeholder
expectations?

By seeking answers to these questions, our study makes several contributions. First, we
identify how SMIs perceive their stakeholders’ expectations. By using role theory as
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 3

a theoretical foundation, we explain how these expectations lead to many roles that SMIs
perform. In doing so, we draw attention to the underlying tensions that SMIs face daily as
they attempt to meet the often-conflicting needs of various stakeholders. Second, by
combining business ethics and role theory, we explain how SMIs’ moral dilemmas arise
under current conditions where influencer marketing is still largely unguided by formal
guidelines. We propose that SMIs use various conflict resolution strategies as guiding
principles when faced with a moral dilemma. This paves the way for exploring factors
related to influencer morality that have not yet been addressed in the influencer market­
ing literature. Third, we contribute to the empirical aspect of influencer marketing
research, which has so far mainly focused on the perspective of followers, by examining
the perspective of the central actors in influencer marketing, i.e. SMIs themselves.

Literature review
The complexity of SMIs’ role and morality
At the core of one of the earliest definitions of SMIs was the notion that they are
independent third-party influencers and that they are perceived as credible because
their followers believe they produce genuine content (Lou & Yuan, 2019). Unlike tradi­
tional celebrities, SMIs get closer to their audience by providing insight into their see­
mingly uncensored private lives and, in turn, gain legitimacy to be opinion leaders and
salespeople for the brands they endorse (Berryman & Kavka, 2017). Due to the disclosure
of their daily activities, people consider SMIs as close friends (Jin & Muqaddam, 2019),
unlike traditional media figures who have never been so close to their audience (Silva
et al., 2020). Ironically, brands saw this production of genuine content by SMIs as an
opportunity to regain consumer trust (Turcotte et al., 2015). They use SMIs and their social
capital to influence people’s attitudes, decisions, and behaviours (Boerman, 2020).
However, brands often make little effort to align their communications with existing
SMIs’ content, and hire SMIs to incorporate them into their on-going campaigns (Silva
et al., 2020).
Over time, SMIs have exhibited a form of evolutionary professionalization in which they
began as ordinary consumers but became celebrities in the digital environment through
identity negotiation, adaptation, and reinterpretation with multiple stakeholders (Erz &
Christensen, 2018). By scrutinizing well-established social roles within consumer commu­
nities, they provoked substantial changes in an otherwise highly embedded economic
surrounding (Mardon et al., 2023). SMIs can achieve a similar status to traditional celeb­
rities (Nascimento et al., 2020), but this comes at a cost: the bigger and more powerful
SMIs are, the more their actions are scrutinised by their followers, and they can be seen as
insincere (Martínez-López et al., 2020) and blamed for the negative consequences of their
behaviour (Sanders et al., 2018).
In the early stages of research on SMIs’ morality, studies examined followers and the
issue of disclosure predominated (e.g. van Dam & van Reijmersdal, 2019), and the notion
that immoral behaviour took place was more implied than explicitly stated. Other poten­
tial moral concerns related to influencer marketing, and more immediate research of SMIs’
morality were referred to as one of the neglected aspects of brand communication in
social media (Voorveld, 2019). There were also other cues that influencer marketing could
4 N. GRGURIĆ ČOP ET AL.

breed a fruitful ground for immoral behaviour. For example, Audrezet et al. (2020) found
that SMIs experience tension when trying to balance their authenticity and brand content
in their posts. Mardon et al. (2018) also noted this tension among followers, as members of
the ‘tribe’ may feel betrayed when SMIs prioritise financial gain over tribal interest.
To date, few studies have examined influencer morale from the SMIs’ perspective. For
example, Archer et al. (2014) showed that, from the bloggers’ perspective, the moral
issues involved in blogging concern the privacy of their family, friends, and themselves.
A qualitative study conducted by Leban et al. (2021) on high-net-value Instagram millen­
nial influencers explained how SMIs reconcile morality and a luxurious lifestyle. Their
findings suggest that reconciliation between these two poles is achieved by SMIs creating
different personas for themselves. Similarly, in examining SMIs’ morality, Wellman et al.
(2020) showed that travel influencers rely on their authenticity as a moral framework
when producing sponsored content. This idea is based on two core principles – being true
to oneself (one’s brand) and being true to one’s audience. Insisting on authenticity allows
influencers to do their work in a way that is not inherently immoral, even in the absence of
official guidelines, regulations, or professional association codes of conduct.
Cocker et al. (2021) analysed follower responses to sponsored content and defined five
moral responsibilities expected of SMIs: honest and unbiased reviews, organic content
overcoming sponsored content, informative and/or entertaining value of content, avoid­
ing over-saturation with the same brand, and endorsement of products they genuinely
use and like. Borchers and Enke (2022) further deepened the discussion of influencer
morality by introducing additional moral issues and organising the field of SMI industry
ethics. The authors also noted that the role of SMIs depends on the stakeholder (Borchers
& Enke, 2022). When working with clients, they act as advertisers or PR managers, while
when producing non-sponsored content, they act as journalists. In sum, previous studies
suggest that influencer morality is determined by authenticity and is related to role
construction. The current study draws on these notions to deepen the understanding of
moral dilemmas in influencer marketing.

Role theory and moral dilemmas

Previous research on SMIs has implied the existence of more roles within their specific
social position (e.g. Cocker et al., 2021; Mardon et al., 2018). Hence, role theory is proposed
as the theoretical framework of the study. Role theory bridges the gap between individual
behaviour and social structure. It proposes that individuals in complex social systems are
subject to a set of expectations that result in roles associated with social positions (Biddle,
2013). A role is a set of expectations and duties that a person faces and fulfils (Biddle,
2013). Consequently, each role carries norms and behaviours that are appropriate to it.
Roles can be dysfunctional when the person taking on a role experiences role conflict
(Kahn et al., 1964). Role conflict occurs when an individual experiences conflicting or
inconsistent expectations associated with multiple roles or with a single role (Biddle,
2013), and as such can lead to numerous dysfunctional outcomes.
Role theory has implications for business ethics.Expectations (in the form of
a role) that others have of a focal person (i.e. the role actor) direct that person’s
behaviour. This behaviour then affects both the role sender (i.e. the person holding
the expectation, usually someone the role actor regularly has interaction with), role
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 5

actor, and their relationship (Beu et al., 2003; Katz & Kahn, 1978). As Kohlberg and
Kramer (1969) explain, social approval is key for most adult people, so they try to
conform to the roles and expectations of others when making moral decisions. In
this sense, moral behaviour is also a result of responding to expectations that others
have of the individual (Frink & Klimoski, 1998). Awareness of the consequences of
our actions for others and ascribing responsibility to ourselves are essential prere­
quisites for the activation of one’s moral norms and moral behaviour (Schwartz,
1968). However, divergent roles can lead to role conflicts and create fertile ground
for unethical behaviour masked in role morality – behaving differently in a role
(Gibson, 2003).
When talking about role morality in organisations with a clear code of conduct,
individuals usually agree to financial and reputational constraints (Gibson, 2003), but
SMIs are not direct employees whose behaviour depends directly on the employer’s
values. When someone is unfamiliar with the values of those who hold them accountable,
they fall back on their own value system to resolve a moral dilemma (Brief et al., 1991).
Using only one’s own value system can pave the way to the moral dilemma: a dilemma in
which a decision-maker must choose between two or more mutually exclusive moral
values or duties (Kvalnes, 2019).
It is prudent to apply role theory to the context of SMIs’ morality for several reasons.
First, influencer marketing is a relatively new phenomenon that is causing SMIs to
redefine their roles outside of existing knowledge boundaries (Vrontis et al., 2021) and
challenge embedded social roles (Mardon et al., 2023). Role theory has the potential to
explain how the presence of multiple sets of expectations for a position in a social
structure (in this case, the position of SMI) affects the person performing a role and
what this may lead to. Second, SMIs can be considered boundary spanners because they
operate at the periphery of an organisation and represent the nexus between business
entities (i.e. endorsed brands) and the environment (i.e. followers and society) (Weatherly
& Tansik, 1993), and role theory has been used in research to describe and understand the
work situations of boundary spanners (Singh & Rhoads, 1991). Third, role theory is often
used to understand ethical issues in business (e.g. Gibson, 2003) because people try to
fulfil the roles and expectations of others (Trevino, 1986), and this constant monitoring
promotes their (un)ethical behaviour.

Methodology
Sampling and procedure
The study followed an inductive design with qualitative interviews. This method is
a powerful tool to understand individuals’ thoughts, beliefs, and experiences
(DeJonckheere & Vaughn, 2019), when the scope of the topic was not entirely
new, but neither too narrow nor too broad (Guest et al., 2013). Because the study
targeted typical cases (Flick, 2007), the criteria for determining suitable respondents
were formed according to recent definitions of SMIs as ‘content creators with many
followers on social media platforms such as Instagram, Snapchat, and YouTube. They
share tastes and information with other individuals in various fields, including fash­
ion, beauty, hobbies, and everyday life, as well as provide product reviews’ (Jun & Yi,
6 N. GRGURIĆ ČOP ET AL.

Table 1. Description of the sample.

Interviewee (pseudonyms) Followers on Instagram (approx.) Age Gender Topics of interest
Ana 3K early 20s F lifestyle
Marko 230 K early 20s M lifestyle
Petra 74 K early 20s F make-up, fashion
Ivana 67 K mid 20s F travel, fashion
Helena 27 K early 30s F motherhood, fashion
Dario 11 K mid 20s M nightlife, hospitality
Luka 6K early 30s M business, lifestyle
Kimmy 180 K early 20s F lifestyle
Martina 15 K early 30s F cooking
Tina 200 K mid 30s F lifestyle

2020, p. 803), who have ‘built a sizable social media network of followers and
thereby have acquired the potential to exert their influence over their followers’
(Ki et al., 2020, p. 1).
On the above-mentioned bases, we chose SMIs who (1) had gained their popularity on
social media (i.e. were not traditional celebrities or were not celebrities before receiving
sponsorship deals), (2) had at least three years of influencing experience, and (3) earned
money from paid sponsorships. Instagram sponsorships were included in this study
because both practitioners (Linkr, 2020) and researchers (e.g. Vrontis et al., 2021) agree
that Instagram is most commonly used for SMI research because it is the most strategic
channel for SMI marketing campaigns.
Convenience sampling was used, starting with SMIs that met the three criteria
mentioned above and that the researchers or their acquaintances had previously had
contact with (e.g. during a professional conference on SMIs), and then continuing
with other SMIs that were recommended by the respondents (always ensuring that
they met the three criteria). This study was conducted with Croatian-speaking SMIs
whose followers are located in Croatia and neighbouring countries. None of these
countries have specific guidelines regarding SMIs, as in the United States or the
United Kingdom. The language of the interviews was Croatian, and the transcripts
were initially coded in Croatian. Sections of the transcripts were then translated for
the purposes of this paper. After interviewing 10 SMIs, data saturation was achieved
as SMIs’ responses were similar in terms of repetition of moral dilemmas and
strategies, so data collection was completed. The main characteristics of all respon­
dents are presented in Table 1, based on the data at the time the interviews were
conducted.
Given the COVID-19 restrictions in April 2021, all interviews were conducted via
Google Meet. The interviews lasted about an hour and provided the researchers with
108 pages of transcripts. As Leban et al. (2021) noted, it can be challenging to obtain
detailed opinions from SMIs regarding moral issues within their line of work. Therefore:
(1) we assured respondents that their identities would remain anonymous throughout
the research process and would only reveal those parts of the conversations that could
not be used to trace their identities; and (2) we exchanged information about the
purpose of our research and SMIs’ general view of their work before discussing specific
issues such as relationships with followers and brands, moral dilemmas, and SMIs’
opinion of them, and at the end, left time for the respondents to explain topics that
they considered important.
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 7

Analysis
All interviews were transcribed and analysed with the MAXQDA Analytics Pro software. In
order to develop an understanding of a meta-narrative about the stories, data transcripts
were coded. Rather than adopting an a priori coding system, an inductive approach to
categorization was used, allowing themes to emerge from the data (Fereday & Muir-
Cochrane, 2006). Thus, following the logic of role theory, roles were formed based on the
stakeholders’ perceived expectations. The analysis followed the logic of the ‘hermeneutic
circle’ (Thompson, 1997) to allow researchers to move simultaneously from intratextual
material (i.e. the experience of a single influencer) to intertextual material (i.e. the
experience between influencers). This was done to ensure that the issues that emerged
were not idiosyncratic but had their basis in the respondents’ first-hand experiences.
Initial codes were suggested by the researcher who conducted the interviews, and these
codes were discussed among the authors to understand what each of the codes stands for
and excludes, and which codes are relevant to focus on in subsequent rounds of analysis.
There were three additional rounds of analyses with different analysis units. In the first
round, the analysis units were respondents and we looked for different expectations to
identify the roles. In the second round, the moral issues they mentioned were the unit of
analysis, and we looked for moral dilemmas resulting from conflicting expectations. To
identify relevant moral dilemmas, each issue was subjected to three main questions: 1)
does the issue have a moral dimension, i.e. does it have negative consequences for
others? 2) is there a conflict between the expectations of different interest groups, i.e.
are there two or more mutually exclusive moral values or duties? 3) is the issue related to
SMIs’ collaborations with brands? In the third round, we looked for conflict resolution
strategies and used moral dilemmas as units of analysis. In each of these rounds, the
principal researcher identified possible codes that were discussed among researchers, and
then at least 20% of the text was analysed by two researchers, using a codebook, but
allowing both researchers to remain open to possible new insights (related to the goal of
each analysis round). There were some differences in how researchers understood the
data. The researchers discussed the differences, and then the principal researcher coded
the text using a new codebook.

Results
SMIs’ roles
SMIs emphasize that being an influencer requires juggling expectations from three
different stakeholders: brands, followers, and society. According to role theory, respon­
dents form underlying roles to meet each set of expectations. Therefore, SMIs perceive
their social position as an entanglement of several roles. To a certain extent, these roles
correspond to narratively constructed personas that Leban et al. (2021) found as an
abstraction of SMIs’ identity, allowing them to resolve identity conflicts. However, in the
current paper, the basis for building a projected identity through roles is the expectations
of other stakeholders rather than the need to reconcile their own taste regimes. These
expectations are formed at two levels: simple expectations and extended expectations.
Simple expectation is ‘an expectation involving a single modal reaction about one
characteristic of an object person’ (Biddle, 2013, p. 144), and extended expectation is
8 N. GRGURIĆ ČOP ET AL.

what two or more simple expectations yield as ‘referenced characteristics of those that
precede it’ (Biddle, 2013, p. 146).

Brand-related roles
Respondents of this study agree that followers are their bedrock, which echoes the
findings by Wellman et al. (2020). However, most of them started to perceive themselves
as SMIs when brands started working with them. The results show that SMIs play at least
two roles in relation to brands and their expectations: a professional Committed Business
Partner and a resourceful and underappreciated Jack-of-all-trades. The expectations
contained in these roles converge to commitment as an extended expectation.
As Committed Business Partners, SMIs primarily feel that they are expected to act
professionally and take the agreed responsibilities seriously in exchange for compensa­
tion. The focus of the agreement is usually that an SMI should represent a brand positively
and strengthen brand awareness and image. These agreements are often also enforced by
the contracts. In the role of a Committed Business Partner, SMIs are often expected to be
mercenaries or billboards, giving up any autonomy in content creation to strictly adhere
to a script that a brand prepares as part of an overall campaign. At the same time, such
staged content must appear organic and real. Previous research suggests that inhibiting
creative freedom suppresses SMIs’ motivation to create content (Audrezet et al., 2020)
and SMIs consider their own work inauthentic (Wellman et al., 2020). Our research
confirms these results:
Indeed, I need the directions. But it cannot be honest if they tell me word by word what to say
or return the video seven times before authorizing it. (Kimmy)

The second brand-related role, Jack-of-all-trades, is associated with SMIs feeling that they
need to deliver much more than what is stated in the contract or much more than what
would be required of a normal Committed Business Partner. In order to remain compe­
titive, SMIs as a Jack-of-all-trades must offer the entire package of services:
They want us because they can pay less. If they paid a make-up stylist, an editor,
a photographer, a hair stylist (. . .), it would be a few thousand euros campaign. This way, it
is a few thousand kunas [seven times less]. (. . .). I am a photographer, a cook, a community
manager. (Martina)

Additionally, as a Jack-of-all-trades, SMIs feel they are expected to provide a means of

communication for brands that cannot use other means of communication, such as
cigarettes. Being omnipresent and always at their best is a way to be appreciated by
brands. Finally, a Jack-of-all-trades is still often expected to work for payment-in-kind
rather than money, as if they are doing it because they enjoy the lifestyle and not because
it is their job.

Follower-related roles
When SMIs have a large enough follower base, they become interesting for brands, and in
order to build a large follower base, they need to consider followers’ expectations. These
expectations are closely related to moral responsibility, reported by Cocker et al. (2021) as
a generally accepted set of rules that SMIs must follow to avoid perceived transgressions.
To meet all of these expectations, SMIs play at least three distinct roles: as a Close Friend,
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 9

an Entertainer and a Reliable Reviewer. While the three follower-related roles involve
different expectations, these expectations converge towards authenticity as an extended
follower expectation.
As a Close Friend, SMIs maintain a close bond with their followers. To create a close
bond, SMIs feel that followers expect them to share much of their personal lives, including
sometimes the most intimate details, and while this makes them vulnerable, it also shows
that they are ordinary people with real struggles. Insisting on closeness and reliability with
their followers was also recognized in a recent study by Mardon et al. (2023), where they
identified vloggers enacted in a Friend role. As Close Friends, SMIs must also meet the
expectation of empathy. That said, followers expect SMIs to be mindful of real-life
problems and adjust their content accordingly. For example, to empathise with those
who lost jobs or even loved ones during the COVID-19 pandemic, SMIs needed to tone
down the content of lavish, carefree living and luxury.
The second role SMIs play in relation to followers is as an Entertainer. All respondents
agree that their fanbase expects them to draw attention away from reality and into
a world of entertainment. Although SMIs need to be aware of real-world events (as
explained in the previous role), followers expect SMIs’ online spaces not to become too
real, but rather to provide a shield from serious and often negative things they may
encounter through other communication channels. Additionally, as an Entertainer, an SMI
is expected not to have too much sponsored content, which is similar to what Cocker et al.
(2021) found as a transgression of over-endorsement.
Finally, SMIs are expected to be Reliable Reviewers, with respondents citing their
credible product reviews as a major reason people follow them.
Today the most valuable thing is human recommendation, because a person gives a face to
the brand or service and Google Ads can never do that. (Luka)

SMIs believe that followers turn to them to get reliable reviews because they get lost in
many sources of information available online. These results confirm previous findings that
transparency, sincerity (Borchers & Enke, 2022), authenticity (Wellman et al., 2020), and
honest and unbiased reviews (Cocker et al., 2021) are of the greatest value to SMIs’
followers.

Society-related roles
Guided by previous research (Cocker et al., 2021; Leban et al., 2021; Wellman et al., 2020),
the study initially focused on followers’ and brands’ expectations, but the interviews
revealed that SMIs also come under pressure from society as a third stakeholder group.
This finding is comparable to a recent finding by Borchers and Enke (2022), who proposed
social responsibility (e.g. supporting good causes and sustainable consumption) as a part
of influencer industry ethics. However, their study focuses on industry-level influencer
ethics rather than specific moral issues and the underlying role conflicts they emerge
from. Respondents in this study believe that society expects SMIs to conform to social
norms and act as a Role Model, and engage in public debate on issues with little or no
broad consensus, thus acting like an Advocate. Society’s extended expectation is that
SMIs act responsibly to maintain their good reputation.
As a Role Model, society expects SMIs to conform to social norms because many young
people follow their example. For example, SMIs feel that society expects them not to
10 N. GRGURIĆ ČOP ET AL.

swear in their videos or glorify dangerous behaviours like excessive drinking or harmful
products like cigarettes. In addition, some respondents feel that society expects them not
to avoid harmful products entirely, but to acknowledge their existence and educate their
followers about responsible behaviour:

(. . .) parents don’t do their job, so they expect us to raise children and although we’re not here
to raise their children, I’m very happy to take that responsibility in these negative situations.
Of course, you will go out, you will try a cigarette, you will drink (. . .). They [young followers]
need to be taught to try it in circumstances where they will be safe, where they will be
comfortable, and in the company of the people they know. (Kimmy)

Unlike the Role Model role, which is based on society’s expectations of how SMIs create
branded content, as Advocates, SMIs believe they are expected to participate in public
conversations about non-branded matters, i.e. general issues, such as abortion and
minority rights. While SMIs agree that they are expected to use their online space to
raise awareness of these issues, some even feel compelled to take a stand and tell
followers how to act on these matters. Table 2 shows how different stakeholder expecta­
tions produce different SMIs’ roles.

Moral dilemmas and conflict resolution strategies

Faced with three sets of expectations from different stakeholders (followers,
brands, society), the SMIs from our study addressed many issues they face on
a daily basis. The regulatory framework that is supposed to guide them is incon­
sistent and there is no oversight over its implementation, so they must decide
what is the right thing to do themselves. Our results reveal two main findings: (1)
many of the moral dilemmas faced by SMIs are the result of conflicting extended
expectations from different stakeholder groups, and (2) when faced with a moral
dilemma, SMIs employ different strategies to resolve moral dilemmas and do
their job.
We discovered that conflicting extended expectations (commitment, authenticity and
responsibility) lead to an irreconcilable clash of values that makes it very difficult for SMIs
to follow through simultaneously, and thus they face the following moral dilemmas:

Table 2. Different stakeholders’ expectations and SMIs’ roles.

Extended
Stakeholders Roles Expectations Expectations
BRANDS COMMITTED boost brand awareness and sales, positive, organic and COMMITMENT
BUSINESS controlled brand presentation, exclusive collaborations
PARTNER
JACK-OF-ALL- provide a package of many services, work for payment-in-
TRADES kind (not money), promote items forbidden in other media,
omnipresence on social media
FOLLOWERS CLOSE FRIEND sharing private content, empathy, truthfulness AUTHENTICITY
ENTERTAINER entertainment
RELIABLE honest product experience
REVIEWER
SOCIETY ROLE MODEL conform to social norms RESPONSIBILITY
ADVOCATE adding to public conversation, educate followers
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 11

● Conflict between commitment and authenticity leads to moral dilemmas related

to non-disclosure (making clear that content is sponsored), withholding negative
experiences (not sharing bad product experiences), lack of empathy (pushing spon­
sored content while society is burdened with situations like pandemics and earth­
quakes), and promotion of products without genuine experience (promotion of
products not normally used by SMIs).
● Conflict between commitment and responsibility leads to moral dilemmas related
to opinion sharing on socially relevant topics (making public awareness of the topics
of relevance for society like gay marriage) and the promotion of harmful products
(promotion of products that society considers harmful such as cigarettes, alcohol,
and casinos).

When faced with role conflict and moral dilemmas, SMIs use four different strategies to
help them decide how to handle a moral dilemma:

● Downplaying a role: a strategy of minimizing the overall importance and impact of

one of the conflicting roles so that SMIs can avoid it (because the other conflicting
role has already been intuitively prioritised).
● Spotlighting a role: a strategy to increase the importance of a single role to the
point where it becomes the SMIs’ duty to prioritise it (and consequently ignore the
other, conflicting role).
● Customizing a role: a strategy to adjust one of the conflicting roles as the situation
requires so that it is aligned with the original conflicting and intuitively prioritised
role (allowing the SMIs to appear to be staying in both roles at the same time).
● Resorting to a role: a strategy to seek a solution in a third role, since neither of the
two conflicting roles presents a clear preference for the SMIs.

Conflict of commitment and authenticity

The first conflict we identified is between commitment and authenticity. SMIs must juggle
between meeting their brands’ expectations through commitment and meeting their
followers’ expectations through authenticity. Most dilemmas come with this conflict
because SMIs need to balance the person they initially introduced and promised their
followers with a desire to monetize their social media efforts by customising the content
to reflect the brands that support them. Moral dilemmas in which they find themselves
deciding whether authenticity or commitment is more important to them are: non-
disclosure, withholding negative brand experiences, lack of empathy, and promoting
products without trying them. To handle these moral dilemmas, they use the following
strategies:

● Downplaying the follower-related roles

Sometimes SMIs diminish the importance of transparency and authenticity, meaning they
avoid a follower-related role. In these situations, they argue that only the SMIs’ commu­
nication tone and choice of expressions allow followers to tell whether they are (dis)
honest about product experiences and sponsorship deals. For example:
12 N. GRGURIĆ ČOP ET AL.

It is easily seen when I am really enthusiastic about something and recommend something
from the heart, and on the other hand, when I do it only because I need money at that
moment. It’s very easy to see the difference. (Kimmy, Pos. 45)

At first glance, downplaying follower roles may seem to resemble the role-
distancing strategy found in Mardon et al. (2023). They describe role distancing
as SMIs tactically dissociating themselves from the roles of Celebrity and Influencer,
despite their behaviour point that is exactly what they are. While the main
mechanism of both role-distancing and downplaying a role is similar – to minimize
the importance of a certain role – there are two main differences. First, in the case
of role distancing SMIs do it to deter others from a role, while by downplaying
a role they are convincing themselves the role is not important. Kimmy’s quote
points to another important difference. Role distancing as portrayed in Mardon
et al. (2023) focuses on victimizing the SMIs (they didn’t mean to become famous
or influential), while in the case of downplaying a role it is about shifting respon­
sibility for SMIs’ behaviour to followers who should be more attentive to subtle
cues in SMIs’ content.
The second argument used when SMIs downplay the expectation of authenticity to
avoid follower-related roles is to present themselves as nothing more than another
communication channel:

If you are a consumer who buys things for eyelash growth, you won’t go there to buy it
now, based on my example. Now a new L’Oreal mascara was being advertised, one
website published an article, if I’m going to buy it, I’m going to Amazon to see the
reviews to see what it’s like, (. . .), to get informed. The fact that our average consumer is
not interested in Googling is again a topic for a new doctorate (. . .) I think it is his
[follower’s] responsibility to get additional information in addition to the information he
received on Instagram. (Tina)

Mentioning followers’ ‘responsibility to get additional information’ in the context of SMIs’

paid promotion shows the defensive attitude SMIs often demonstrate to downplay
follower roles. This attitude, that followers should know better than follow SMIs’ advice,
also surfaced in the study by Wellman et al. (2020) but in a softer manner. Their
respondent mentioned followers should seek more comprehensive reviews elsewhere
because SMIs’ opinion is too subjective.

● Spotlighting follower-related roles

Sometimes SMIs choose follower-related roles because the expectations followers have of
them align with the values they strongly hold themselves. For example, they believe it is
not empathetic, and therefore it is wrong to promote a lavish branded lifestyle that
ignores the fact that people are suffering the consequences of pandemics and earth­
quakes, or they believe it is necessary to be authentic to oneself and really promote
products aligned with their genuine values. This strategy can be seen in a comment from
a respondent opposed to eating meat:

At a private gathering . . . I will not offer a steak, but rather make a vegetarian dish. And
I transfer that to my networks, because I would feel hypocritical if I had an ad: ‘Buy fresh
chickens for 9.99’. (Luka)
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 13

Insisting on a certain value system when doing business was common among respon­
dents, and in this case a respondent labels it as hypocritical to do otherwise. However, it is
worth mentioning the research was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic and two
months after a big earthquake in Croatia, which might make respondents more empa­
thetic and value-oriented. The latest findings related to hypocrisy on social media reveal
there are a growing number of cases of ‘authentifakes’ – insisting on meeting someone’s
expectations to the point it becomes intentionally deceptive (Kikerpill, 2023). It is worth
noting that ‘authentifakes’ on social media could start as spotlighting a follower-related
role but end up customizing it.

● Customizing follower-related roles

Some SMIs customize their follower-related roles and strive to remain as Committed
Business Partners that produce positive branded content without leaving their follower-
related roles. What SMIs do within this strategy, rather than disclosing a sponsored nature
of the content, is to use a disclaimer: a simple notion that says a product has worked for
them, and taking a stance that it does not need to be disclosed because it is a genuine
review that happens to be sponsored. Also, SMIs search through a brand’s portfolio until
they find a product they are happy with to review and withhold negative experiences of
the brand’s other products. This strategy represents customization of their follower-
related roles because, while remaining truthful, which is characteristic of the follower-
related role, they neglect the followers’ expectation of full transparency and disclosure.
For example:
I recently received three types of cream from the same company, but they have three
different lines. One cream was bad for me, maybe it’s not for my skin type, while the other
one is great. I’ll advertise it because it suits me. I won’t mention the other one. (Ivana)

Although stated in a nonchalant manner, this quote summarizes the problem of omission,
previously recognized in Wellman et al. (2020). Content omission posing as genuine
authenticity is a frequent strategy for customizing follower-related roles. Talking about
negative experiences with a product or service would be just as authentic but would not
meet the brand’s expectations.

Conflict of commitment and responsibility

The other conflict that emerged between different stakeholders’ expectations was that
between commitment and responsibility. It occurs when business roles require SMIs to be
professional and committed promoters, even when social circumstances dictate different
behaviour. Two moral dilemmas SMIs face in this case are sharing opinions on socially
relevant topics (e.g. gay rights and abortion) and promoting harmful products such as
cigarettes, alcohol, gambling, etc. In these situations, SMIs employ the following
strategies:

● Downplaying society-related roles

Some respondents mentioned that their societal role in modelling social behaviour can be
taken too seriously and that they do not see how their own viewpoints on societal issues
14 N. GRGURIĆ ČOP ET AL.

could do any good other than make them less favourable business partners, so they avoid
society-related roles with arguments like:

I will certainly not allow myself to somehow compromise myself and close the door to myself
elsewhere, and I can close the door to myself elsewhere if I bring up some topics or my views.
(Helena, Pos. 32)

● Spotlighting society-related roles

Some respondents spotlight their society-related roles in the case of opinion sharing on
socially relevant topics and the promotion of harmful products. They feel it is their duty to
bring attention to difficult yet socially relevant topics as they want to give back to the
society that created their influence. Regardless of their point of view (traditional vs. liberal)
and the consequent problems such topics might pose (loss of cooperation or even legal
proceedings), SMIs have been equally opinionated about them. They see themselves as
important initiators for changes in people’s behaviour and thus obligated to act in an overall
responsible manner. SMIs who employ this strategy consider SMIs that promote products
and habits such as drinking, smoking, drugs, or gambling to be responsible for imposing
and supporting risky and dangerous behaviours that cause widespread harm to society:

I refused clients like X betting shop. I refused because I don’t think it would be ok for me since
I am followed by a lot of children . . . those who have just started high school and they are still
children, and I don’t think that I can impose certain things on them now . . . It’s not ok. (Marko)

● Resorting to a follower-related roles

Sometimes, when SMIs are faced with the dilemma of whether to promote harmful
products, they seem torn and undecided as to whether they want to be Committed
Business Partners or responsible Role Models. In such situations, they take on a third,
follower-related role and reach for authenticity to resolve the conflict. In these situations,
they either side with brands or society, whichever is more authentic. When they side with
brands, they do not necessarily feel like they are doing the right thing, but they argue that
presenting themselves as who they are is more important than hiding their true selves.
Often such decisions are accompanied by the removal of young followers who might fall
under the ‘bad’ influence from their community base, or tutorials on how to use poten­
tially harmful products. But even when it comes to products whose effectiveness is still
under-researched, or even dangerous when combined with medical treatment, some
respondents find acceptable to promote them as long as they have experience with
them or genuinely accept them as a philosophy (i.e. as long as they remain authentic):

If they contacted me regarding CBD cannabidiol[a compound found in marijuana], which

until recently was a taboo in Croatia, I would definitely agree because I believe it helps. In
principle, everything that I believe and think helps a person to be better, I do it and share the
awareness of it. (Martina)

Figure 1 summarizes the main findings and presents the conflicts of stakeholders’
extended expectations (commitment vs. authenticity and commitment vs. responsibility),
moral dilemmas that emerge from these conflicts, and SMIs’ resolving strategies.
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 15

Figure 1. Conflict of stakeholders’ extended expectations (commitment, authenticity, and responsi­

bility), emerging moral dilemmas and strategies for resolving the conflict.

Discussion
Business is permeated by moral dilemmas regardless of the position of the decision maker
(Kvalnes, 2019), and influencer marketing is no exception. It was evident early on that it
transcends existing normative models of PR that encourage genuine messaging and
responsible advocacy. The purpose of this study was to clarify the role(s) of SMIs and to
examine moral dilemmas arising from the tensions between extended expectations
imposed by various stakeholder groups as well as conflict resolution strategies. In exam­
ining SMIs’ moral issues, Borchers and Enke (2022) positioned the SMI industry at the
intersection of PR, advertising and journalism. Our research has a different perspective: it
looks at SMIs’ dilemmas within each SMI as a person who needs to balance being
authentic, committed and responsible. This grainier view allowed for a micro perspective
on influencer morale. Using role theory (Katz & Kahn, 1978), we deepen our understand­
ing of the currently under-researched perceptions of SMIs. We find support for our
findings in the responses of 10 SMIs, who share several common role perceptions,
moral dilemmas arising from role conflict, and conflict resolution strategies. This is
consistent with the assumption that the principles guiding SMIs when trying to balance
the production of sponsored content with making money are not well understood rather
than being unethical (Wellman et al., 2020).
Instead of pre-focusing on a topic, this study uses an inductive approach. It allowed for
the expansion of previous research by explaining what moral dilemmas SMIs encounter,
why these dilemmas arise, and how SMIs direct their behaviour through four conflict
resolution strategies. We built on the insights of Borchers and Enke (2022), which focused
on moral issues faced by SMIs in their business role, by adding the expectations of other
16 N. GRGURIĆ ČOP ET AL.

stakeholders (followers and society) and showing how this creates fertile ground for moral
dilemmas. Similarly, Cocker et al. (2021) suggest that SMIs have some moral responsibility
within their online community, and that a breach of this responsibility leads to transgres­
sions, i.e. moral issues. Following this logic, the current research provides three main
findings. It (1) determines the extended expectations that lead to moral dilemmas, (2)
explains the richness of SMIs’ social position, and (3) proposes strategies that guide SMIs
when dealing with moral dilemmas.

Moral dilemmas
Dealing responsibly with moral dilemmas requires understanding and identifying them
(Kvalnes, 2019), and this research takes our understanding a step further. The six moral
dilemmas found in this study are: non-disclosure, withholding negative experiences, lack
of empathy, promotion of products without genuine experience, opinion sharing on
socially relevant topics, and promotion of harmful products. Previous research on SMIs’
issues mainly relates to the dual role of SMIs as consumer marketers (Kozinets et al., 2010).
This study builds on that by explaining how SMIs perceive tensions that lead to moral
dilemmas. Moral dilemmas found in this study correspond to some extent to those found
in previous research: promotion of products without genuine experience (Cocker et al.,
2021), non-disclosure (Borchers & Enke, 2022; Cocker et al., 2021; Wellman et al., 2020),
lack of empathy (Borchers & Enke, 2022), and withholding of negative experiences
(Borchers & Enke, 2022; Wellman et al., 2020). However, opinion sharing on socially
relevant topics and the promotion of harmful products have not yet been addressed,
and represent a common moral dilemma for SMIs. Recognising moral issues is the
beginning of most ethical decision-making models (e.g. Trevino, 1986), and this means
that our results are a step to understanding the complex moral decision-making process
of SMIs. The constant need to balance conflicting expectations makes it difficult for SMIs
to make a moral decision that is perceived as correct across roles. This poses a problem
because when moral dilemmas are common in a busy business environment, the moral
dimensions of people’s decisions are not recognised (Kvalnes, 2019).

Richness of SMIs’ social position

Our findings are comparable to those of Nascimento et al. (2020) and Mardon et al. (2023),
who recognised that the role of SMIs changes as their business grows, but they focused
on either the relationship with brands or with followers. Our research shows the interplay
of the multiple roles that SMIs play simultaneously, not just in relation to their business
partners (Committed business partner, Jack-of-all-trades) and followers (Close Friend,
Entertainer, Reliable Reviewer), but also society (Role Model, Advocate), which has largely
been neglected in prior research. These roles are responses to the expectations of the
different stakeholders (brands, followers, society), as perceived by the SMIs.
Previous research has suggested that SMIs need to nurture relationships with both
followers (e.g. Belanche et al., 2021) and brands (e.g. Jin & Muqaddam, 2019), with the
expectations of the two being in conflict (e.g. Borchers & Enke, 2022; Cocker et al., 2021;
Mardon et al., 2023; Martínez-López et al., 2020). Our study shows that SMIs face expecta­
tions that are very difficult to meet simultaneously, as the expectations pertain not only to
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 17

followers and brands but also to society. Similarly, Leban et al. (2021) have already stated
that the projected self of SMIs needs to be adapted to the public. The results of our
research show that SMIs seek to maintain a relationship with general society by meeting
their expectations that they engage in responsible behaviour, and this brings a new
perspective to influencer morality. This is comparable to the study by Borchers and
Enke (2022), which identified three groups of actors, but all of them came from
a business environment (SMIs, brands, intermediaries). In addition, we complement the
proposition of Wellman et al. (2020), who explained SMIs’ moral behaviour, which relies
on authenticity, i.e. being true to oneself and one’s followers, as the guiding principle for
moral decisions. We propose that decision-making is much more complex as it involves an
additional set of stakeholders, i.e. society, and multiple strategies that help SMIs to
overcome the dilemmas they face.

Conflict resolution strategies

The fact that there is no control over the implementation of rare and vague rules for SMIs
(e.g. the rules of certain platforms) shifts the responsibility for what should or should not
be done onto the SMIs. People often make certain compromises when confronted with
different role requirements (Gibson, 2003), and previous research implied SMIs do it by
engaging in reconciliation of conflicted roles (Leban et al., 2021; Mardon et al., 2023). We
found that strategies that guide SMIs when faced with a moral dilemma emerging from
role conflicts are: spotlighting a role, downplaying a role, customizing a role, and resorting
to a role. As these strategies focus on moral dilemmas, they largely differ in comparison to
the four role negotiation strategies identified by Mardon et al. (2023), apart from role
prioritisation, which has a similar undertone to our ‘spotlighting a role’. Aware that
adhering to community norms is critical to evaluating a third-party endorser (Kozinets
et al., 2010) like themselves, SMIs use these strategies to decide what they see as a less
immoral decision. This leads to SMIs interfering in selective role-switching depending on
the specific situations, dilemmas and strategies they use. This approach allows them to
feel better about engaging in behaviours that would otherwise make them feel guilty
(Bandura, 2002) by following the logic of role morality, i.e. departing from the notion of
right or wrong when in a role (Gibson, 2003). Similarly, Mardon et al. (2023) found that
SMIs engage in role negotiation strategies to resolve dysfunctional role dynamics within
their online community. The current study shows that such strategies have even greater
potential as they enable SMIs to resolve role conflict even outside the online community
and allow them to proceed without feeling guilty for not meeting stakeholders’
expectations.

Practical implications
From a practical point of view, the contributions of this study are threefold. One is aimed
at SMIs who, despite the lack of regulation and vague guidelines, try to earn a living as
boundary spanners put between followers and brands. Our findings help SMIs become
aware of the role they put at the forefront of any collaboration and the expectations that
each role entails. This will allow them to strengthen their position as reputable business
entities, maintain long-term relationships with their followers and align them with
18 N. GRGURIĆ ČOP ET AL.

society’s expectations. Brand managers using SMIs need to manage their expectations to
help SMIs reduce role conflict: they should choose SMIs based on their genuine interest
instead of forcing products on them, reduce interventions into sponsored content, and
mind the balance between sponsored and organic content. Policymakers should facilitate
the use of influencer marketing by creating a comprehensive and clear regulatory frame­
work and control mechanisms based on real-world examples that would protect the
interests of SMIs and all stakeholders involved and minimise the possibility of fraud.
Also, more regulation is needed to prevent brands from using SMIs as an outlet for
products whose promotion is restricted in other forms of advertising (e.g. cigarettes,
alcohol, gambling). There is an important difference between SMIs and employees that
must be considered when examining SMIs’ morality. Typically, members of a certain
professional group interfere in such situations and create codes of conduct that have
the potential to reduce conflicting expectations that can lead to conflict. The moral level
of the industry can then be raised, boundaries of acceptable behaviour defined, and
immoral requests denied.

Limitations and future research

This study has two main limitations. First, the job of an influencer is still enigmatic, and the
issue of morality is inherently sensitive, so the respondents’ answers may not have been
entirely candid. Secondly, all respondents spoke Croatian, and whose target groups and
business deals are mainly focused on Southeast Europe. As this study examined the roles
SMIs perceive and the moral dilemmas they face, it paved the way for further research to
examine whether the expectations perceived by SMIs actually align with the actual
expectations of brands, followers, and society members. Additionally, it would be inter­
esting for future research to gain a more conclusive insight into the implications of role
switching to meet stakeholder expectations. Further research should provide more valu­
able information on various moral dilemmas faced by SMIs depending on their industry or
other characteristics.

Conclusion
Previous research on SMIs’ morality has gone so far as to identify moral issues, however
further insight is required. Tiptoeing around the unpleasant truth that the social position
of SMIs contains at its core irreconcilable moral obligations does not do the field justice. In
an attempt to push things further, our study has four main findings. First, by taking a step
back into SMI research, we focus on SMIs to identify roles they believe they need to play to
sustain their business, and explain how these roles compare to the expectations of
different stakeholders. The roles are Committed Business Partner and Jack-of-all-trades
for brands; Entertainer, Close Friend, and Reliable Reviewer for followers; Role Model and
Advocate for society. Second, we apply role theory to the context of influencer marketing
to better understand the interplay of these roles, role conflicts, and moral dilemmas. Third,
this research shows that the moral dilemmas of SMIs go well beyond disclosing
a relationship with a brand. We identify the critical moral dilemmas SMIs face every day
when deciding whether or not to promote a product: non-disclosure, withholding nega­
tive experiences, lack of empathy, promotion of products without genuine experience,
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 19

opinion sharing on socially relevant topics, and promotion of harmful products.

Identifying moral dilemmas helps influencer marketing research open a new set of
possibilities to explain factors related to each dilemma and its contextual variations.
Fourth, we present four strategies as a guiding principle for role ethics that go beyond
the need for authenticity: SMIs use spotlighting a role, downplaying a role, customizing
a role, and resorting to a role to decide which stakeholder group to side with when
confronted with a moral dilemma.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
This work was financially supported by the University of Rijeka under Grant [ZP UNIRI 1/19].

Notes on contributors
Nina Grgurić Čop is a research and teaching assistant at the University of Rijeka, Faculty of
Economics and Business, and Ph.D. candidate at The School of Economics and Business,
University of Ljubljana. Her research interest is in influencer marketing, marketing ethics and
branding. So far she has published in Our Economy and Econviews and participated in international
conferences.
Barbara Culiberg is an Associate Professor of Marketing at the School of Economics and Business,
University of Ljubljana. Her research focuses on consumer ethical decision-making in diverse
contexts, such as shadow economy, digital piracy, sharing economy, environmentally friendly
behaviour, and environmental anti-consumption. Her work has been published in several interna­
tional journals, including the Journal of Business Ethics, Computers in Human Behavior, Journal of
Consumer Behaviour, Business Ethics: A European Review, and International Journal of Consumer
Studies.
Ivana First Komen is a Full Professor of Marketing at the University of Rijeka, Faculty of Economics
and Business. Her research interests reside in consumer behaviour and marketing, with a particular
focus on branding and marketing strategy. The results of her research have been published in
international journals including Business Strategy and the Environment, EuroMed Journal of Business,
Tourism and Hospitality Management and Market.

ORCID
Nina Grgurić Čop http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6190-4033
Barbara Culiberg http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3863-2658
Ivana First Komen http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5312-6158

References
Archer, C., Pettigrew, S., & Harrigan, P. (2014). A tale of power, passion and persuasion: Bloggers,
public relations and ethics. Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal, 15(1), 37–54.
20 N. GRGURIĆ ČOP ET AL.

Audrezet, A., de Kerviler, G., & Moulard, J. G. (2020). Authenticity under threat: When social media
influencers need to go beyond self-presentation. Journal of Business Research, 117, 557–569.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.008
Bandura, A. (2002). Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Moral
Education, 31(2), 101–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305724022014322
Belanche, D., Casaló, L. V., Flavián, M., & Ibáñez-Sánchez, S. (2021). Building influencers’ credibility on
Instagram: Effects on followers’ attitudes and behavioral responses toward the influencer. Journal
of Retailing and Consumer Services, 61, 102585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102585
Berryman, R., & Kavka, M. (2017). ‘I guess a lot of people see me as a big sister or a friend’: The role of
intimacy in the celebrification of beauty vloggers. Journal of Gender Studies, 26(3), 307–320.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2017.1288611
Beu, D. S., Buckley, M. R., & Harvey, M. G. (2003). Ethical decision–making: A multidimensional
construct. Business Ethics: A European Review, 12(1), 88–107. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8608.
00308
Biddle, B. J. (2013). Role theory: Expectations, identities, and behaviors. Academic press.
Boerman, S. C. (2020). The effects of the standardized Instagram disclosure for micro-and
meso-influencers. Computers in Human Behavior, 103(2), 199–207.
Borchers, N. S., & Enke, N. (2022). “I’ve never seen a client say: ‘Tell the influencer not to label this as
sponsored’”: An exploration into influencer industry ethics. Public Relations Review, 48(5), 102235.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2022.102235
Brief, A. P., Dukerich, J. M., & Doran, L. I. (1991). Resolving ethical dilemmas in management:
Experimental investigations of values, accountability, and choice. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 21(5), 380–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1991.tb00526.x
Campbell, C., & Farrell, J. R. (2020). More than meets the eye: The functional components underlying
influencer marketing. Business Horizons, 63(4), 469–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2020.03.
003
Cocker, H., Mardon, R., & Daunt, K. L. (2021). Social media influencers and transgressive celebrity
endorsement in consumption community contexts. European Journal of Marketing, 5(7),
1841–1872. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-07-2019-0567
DeJonckheere, M., & Vaughn, L. M. (2019). Semistructured interviewing in primary care research:
A balance of relationship and rigour. Family Medicine and Community Health, 7(2), e000057.
https://doi.org/10.1136/fmch-2018-000057
Dhanesh, G. S., & Duthler, G. (2019). Relationship management through social media influencers:
Effects of followers’ awareness of paid endorsement. Public Relations Review, 45(3), 101765.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.03.002
Enke, N., & Borchers, N. S. (2019). Social media influencers in strategic communication: A conceptual
framework for strategic social media influencer communication. International Journal of Strategic
Communication, 13(4), 261–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2019.1620234
Erz, A., & Christensen, A. B. H. (2018). Transforming consumers into brands: Tracing transformation
processes of the practice of blogging. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 43, 69–82. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.intmar.2017.12.002
Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid
approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of
Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500107
Flick, U. (Ed.). (2007). The SAGE Qualitative Research Kit (Vol. 8). SAGE.
Frink, D, and Klimoski, R. (1998). Toward a theory of accountability in organizations and human
resources management. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources
Management (Vol. 16, pp. 1–51). Emerald Publ.
Ge, J., & Gretzel, U. (2018). Emoji rhetoric: A social media influencer perspective. Journal of Marketing
Management, 34(15–16), 1272–1295. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2018.1483960
Gibson, K. (2003). Contrasting role morality and professional morality: Implications for practice.
Journal of Applied Philosophy, 20(1), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5930.00232
Guest, G., Namey, E. E., & Mitchell, M. L. (2013). Collecting qualitative data: A field manual for applied
research. SAGE Publications, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506374680
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 21

Influence.co. (n.d.). Ethics & influencers: Exploring influencers and the ethics behind their sharing.
https://influence.co/go/content/influencer-ethics
Insider Intelligence. (2022, January 13). US influencer marketing spending will surpass $4 billion in
2022 https://www.insiderintelligence.com/insights/us-influencer-marketing-spending/
Jin, S. V., & Muqaddam, A. (2019). Product placement 2.0: “Do brands need influencers, or do
influencers need brands?” Journal of Brand Management, 26(5), 522–537. https://doi.org/10.
1057/s41262-019-00151-z
Jun, S., & Yi, J. (2020). What makes followers loyal? The role of influencer interactivity in building
influencer brand equity. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 29(6), 803–814.
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational stress:
Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. John Wiley.
Karagür, Z., Becker, J. M., Klein, K., & Edeling, A. (2022). How, why, and when disclosure type matters
for influencer marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 39(2), 313–335. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2021.09.006
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). Wiley.
Ki, C. W. C., Cuevas, L. M., Chong, S. M., & Lim, H. (2020). Influencer marketing: Social media
influencers as human brands attaching to followers and yielding positive marketing results by
fulfilling needs. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 55, 102133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jretconser.2020.102133
Kikerpill, K. (2023). (M) asking for a return: Social hypocrisy and social engineering. In Masks and
human connections: Disruptive meanings and cultural challenges (pp. 47–59). Springer
International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16673-0_4
Kirkham, C. (2019, May 11). Exclusive: Philip Morris suspends social media campaign after Reuters
exposes young ‘influencers’. Reuters.com. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-philipmorris-ecigs-
instagram-exclusiv/exclusive-philip-morris-suspends-social-media-campaign-after-reuters-
exposes-young-influencers-idUSKCN1SH02K
Kohlberg, L., & Kramer, R. (1969). Continuities and discontinuities in childhood and adult moral
development. Human Development, 12(2), 93–120. https://doi.org/10.1159/000270857
Kozinets, R., de Valck, K., Wojnicki, A., & Wilner, S. (2010). Networked narratives: Understanding
word-of-mouth marketing in online communities. Journal of Marketing, 74(2), 71–89. https://doi.
org/10.1509/jm.74.2.71
Kvalnes, Ø. (2019). Moral reasoning at work: Rethinking ethics in organizations. Springer Nature.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15191-1
Leban, M., Thomsen, T. U., von Wallpach, S., & Voyer, B. G. (2021). Constructing personas: How
high-net-worth social media influencers reconcile ethicality and living a luxury lifestyle. Journal of
Business Ethics, 169(2), 225–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04485-6
Linkr. (2020, August 16). The ROI of influencer marketing on instagram. https://linkr-network.com/en/
blog-collection/the-roi-of-influencer-marketing-on-instagram/
Lou, C., & Yuan, S. (2019). Influencer marketing: How message value and credibility affect consumer
trust of branded content on social media. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 19(1), 58–73. https://
doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2018.1533501
Mardon, R., Cocker, H., & Daunt, K. (2023). How social media influencers impact consumer collectives:
An embeddedness perspective. The Journal of Consumer Research, ucad003. https://doi.org/10.
1093/jcr/ucad003
Mardon, R., Molesworth, M., & Grigore, G. (2018). YouTube beauty gurus and the emotional labour of
tribal entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Research, 92, 443–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2018.04.017
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.
Journal of Marketing Management, 36(17–18), 1805–1831. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.
2020.1806906
Nascimento, T. C. D., Campos, R. D., & Suarez, M. (2020). Experimenting, partnering and bonding:
A framework for the digital influencer-brand endorsement relationship. Journal of Marketing
Management, 36(11–12), 1009–1030. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2020.1791933
 22 N. GRGURIĆ ČOP ET AL.

Sanders, S., Wisse, B., Van Yperen, N. W., & Rus, D. (2018). On ethically solvent leaders: The roles of
pride and moral identity in predicting leader ethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(3),
631–645. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3180-0
Schouten, A. P., Janssen, L., & Verspaget, M. (2020). Celebrity vs. Influencer endorsements in
advertising: The role of identification, credibility, and product-endorser fit. International Journal
of Advertising, 39(2), 258–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2019.1634898
Schwartz, S. H. (1968). Words, deeds and the perception of consequences and responsibility in
action situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10(3), 232. https://doi.org/10.1037/
h0026569
Şeşen, E. (2015). Role theory and its usefulness in public relations. European Journal of Business and
Social Sciences, 4(1), 136–143.
Silva, M. J. D. B., Farias, S. A. D., Grigg, M. K., & Barbosa, M. D. L. D. A. (2020). Online engagement and
the role of digital influencers in product endorsement on Instagram. Journal of Relationship
Marketing, 19(2), 133–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332667.2019.1664872
Singh, J., & Rhoads, G. K. (1991). Boundary role ambiguity in marketing-oriented positions:
A multidimensional, multifaceted operationalization. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3),
328–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379102800307
Statista.Com. (2022, October 26). Global Instagram influencer market size from 2021 to 2025
(in billion US dollars) Global Instagram influencer market value 2021 | statista.
Thompson, C. J. (1997). Interpreting consumers: A hermeneutical framework for deriving marketing
insights from the texts of consumers’ consumption stories. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(4),
438–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379703400403
Trevino, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation interactionist
model. The Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 601–617. https://doi.org/10.2307/258313
Turcotte, J., York, C., Irving, J., Scholl, R. M., & Pingree, R. J. (2015). News recommendations from
social media opinion leaders: Effects on media trust and information seeking. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(5), 520–535. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12127
van Dam, S., & van Reijmersdal, E. (2019). Insights in adolescents’ advertising literacy, perceptions
and responses regarding sponsored influencer videos and disclosures. Cyberpsychology: Journal
of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2019-2-2
Voorveld, H. A. (2019). Brand communication in social media: A research agenda. Journal of
Advertising, 48(1), 14–26.
Vrontis, D., Makrides, A., Christofi, M., & Thrassou, A. (2021). Social media influencer marketing:
A systematic review, integrative framework and future research agenda. International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 45(4), 617–644. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12647
Weatherly, K. A., & Tansik, D. A. (1993). Tactics used by customer-contact workers: Effects of role
stress, boundary spanning and control. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 4(3),
0–0. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564239310041643
Wellman, M. L., Stoldt, R., Tully, M., & Ekdale, B. (2020). Ethics of authenticity: Social media influencers
and the production of sponsored content. Journal of Media Ethics, 35(2), 68–82. https://doi.org/10.
1080/23736992.2020.1736078

View publication stats