Do Influencers Influence? A Meta-Analytic Comparison of Celebrities and Social Media Influencers Effects

IF 5.5 1区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Social Media + Society Pub Date : 2024-08-12 DOI:10.1177/20563051241269269
Jiyoung Lee, Nathan Walter, Jameson L. Hayes, Guy J. Golan
{"title":"Do Influencers Influence? A Meta-Analytic Comparison of Celebrities and Social Media Influencers Effects","authors":"Jiyoung Lee, Nathan Walter, Jameson L. Hayes, Guy J. Golan","doi":"10.1177/20563051241269269","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The emergent body of scholarship on social media influencers (SMIs) highlights their potential to yield positive brand advertising outcomes. However, the literature is undermined by the lack of clarity regarding how SMIs conceptually compare to celebrity endorsers and their impact on advertising outcomes. The study aims to clarify these differences via a meta-analysis of 39 experimental studies (total sample size = 13,766) of SMI effects from 2010 through March 2024. Findings reveal that SMIs are more effective than brand-only advertising and that there is no significant difference between SMIs and celebrity endorsers. Taking these factors into consideration, the effects are moderated by perceived credibility and influencer types, indicating that mega-influencers are relatively more persuasive, while nano-influencers are less persuasive compared to celebrities, respectively. Findings imply that there is a “sweet spot” wherein SMIs are most effective and distinct from celebrity endorsers, providing support for more nuanced conceptualizations of SMIs and calling for future research to explore additional enhancing and attenuating factors.","PeriodicalId":47920,"journal":{"name":"Social Media + Society","volume":"68 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Media + Society","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051241269269","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The emergent body of scholarship on social media influencers (SMIs) highlights their potential to yield positive brand advertising outcomes. However, the literature is undermined by the lack of clarity regarding how SMIs conceptually compare to celebrity endorsers and their impact on advertising outcomes. The study aims to clarify these differences via a meta-analysis of 39 experimental studies (total sample size = 13,766) of SMI effects from 2010 through March 2024. Findings reveal that SMIs are more effective than brand-only advertising and that there is no significant difference between SMIs and celebrity endorsers. Taking these factors into consideration, the effects are moderated by perceived credibility and influencer types, indicating that mega-influencers are relatively more persuasive, while nano-influencers are less persuasive compared to celebrities, respectively. Findings imply that there is a “sweet spot” wherein SMIs are most effective and distinct from celebrity endorsers, providing support for more nuanced conceptualizations of SMIs and calling for future research to explore additional enhancing and attenuating factors.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
影响者会产生影响吗?名人和社交媒体影响者效应的元分析比较
关于社交媒体影响者(SMIs)的学术研究成果不断涌现,凸显了他们为品牌广告带来积极成果的潜力。然而,由于社交媒体影响者与名人代言人在概念上的比较及其对广告效果的影响不够清晰,这些文献受到了影响。本研究旨在通过对 2010 年至 2024 年 3 月期间有关 SMI 效果的 39 项实验研究(总样本量 = 13,766 个)进行荟萃分析,澄清这些差异。研究结果表明,SMI 比纯品牌广告更有效,而且 SMI 与名人代言人之间没有显著差异。考虑到这些因素,效果受感知可信度和影响者类型的调节,表明巨型影响者相对更具说服力,而纳米影响者与名人相比说服力较低。研究结果表明,存在着一个 "甜蜜点",在这个 "甜蜜点 "上,SMIs 最有效,而且有别于名人代言人,这为更细致的 SMIs 概念化提供了支持,并呼吁未来的研究探索更多的增强和削弱因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Social Media + Society
Social Media + Society COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
3.80%
发文量
111
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Social Media + Society is an open access, peer-reviewed scholarly journal that focuses on the socio-cultural, political, psychological, historical, economic, legal and policy dimensions of social media in societies past, contemporary and future. We publish interdisciplinary work that draws from the social sciences, humanities and computational social sciences, reaches out to the arts and natural sciences, and we endorse mixed methods and methodologies. The journal is open to a diversity of theoretic paradigms and methodologies. The editorial vision of Social Media + Society draws inspiration from research on social media to outline a field of study poised to reflexively grow as social technologies evolve. We foster the open access of sharing of research on the social properties of media, as they manifest themselves through the uses people make of networked platforms past and present, digital and non. The journal presents a collaborative, open, and shared space, dedicated exclusively to the study of social media and their implications for societies. It facilitates state-of-the-art research on cutting-edge trends and allows scholars to focus and track trends specific to this field of study.
期刊最新文献
Can Social Media Engagement Predict Election Results? Bandwagon Effects of Tweets About US Senate Candidates Politicians Under Fire: Citizens’ Incivility Against Political Leaders on Social Media Telehealth “Verzuz” Radical Telehealing: Reimagining Social Media as Virtual Healing Spaces for Black Communities Queerness and Mental Health in India: An Intersectional Approach to Sensitive Social Media Disclosures Understanding the Motivations of Young Adults to Engage in Privacy Protection Behavior While Setting Up Smartphone Apps: A Cross-Country Comparison Between Romania and Germany
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1