Psychology & Marketing

RESEARCH NOTE

The Dark Side of Social Media Influencers: A Research

Agenda for Analysing Deceptive Practices and Regulatory
Challenges
Yuksel Ekinci1 | Shubhankar Dam2 | Georgia Buckle3

1School of Strategy Marketing and Innovation, The Faculty of Business and Law, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK | 2School of Law, The Faculty of Business and
Law, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK | 3School of Accounting, Economics, and Finance, The Faculty of Business and Law, University of Portsmouth,
Portsmouth, UK

Correspondence: Yuksel Ekinci ([email protected])

Received: 23 May 2024 | Revised: 5 December 2024 | Accepted: 6 December 2024

Keywords: dark behavior | dark side of social media | human influencers | social media influencers | virtual influencers

ABSTRACT
Social media influencers are powerful agents as they broadcast information, steer consumer behavior and social norms. But their
influence masks a “dark side,” too. Our research agenda investigates this understudied theme. What happens when social media
influencers behave badly? Does the negative influence adversely impact marketing strategies and consumer behavior? We explore a
range of areas, including influencers' authenticity, ethics, and their psychological and social impact on followers. Employing
interdisciplinary approaches, our research presents the complexities and harms of influencer culture. Organized around six key themes—
Harmful Products, Misinformation, Unrealistic Beauty Standards, Comparison Culture, Deceptive Consumption, and Privacy Concerns—
the findings provide a comprehensive analysis of the negative impacts of social media influencers in marketing contexts. Additionally,
the study proposes six theoretical propositions and presents 35 research questions to guide future investigations.
1 | Introduction Influencer Content Shapes Mental Well-being and Self-image. The
Psychological Consequences and Ethical Challenges of Social Media
Social media has profoundly reshaped the landscape of marketing Influencers. Companies are increasingly enlisting SMIs to promote
(Campbell and Farrell 2020). A notable manifestation of this shift is their brands and products, focusing more on fostering long‐term
the rise of influencer marketing, which has grown from a novel partnerships rather than relying on one‐off collaborations
concept just a decade ago to a global practice today (Ye et al. 2021). (Whateley 2024). Consequently, SMIs have considerable power,
By 2027, the global influencer marketing industry is projected to exerting significant influence over both consumers and corporate
expand to an estimated $480 billion (Rossum 2024). Influencer marketing strategies (Brown and Hayes 2008; Uzunoğlu and Misci
marketing has also fundamentally altered both consumer behavior Kip 2014; Bhattacharya 2023; Cheung et al. 2022).
and brand strategies (Mallipeddi et al. 2022; Li and Peng 2021;
Leung, Gu, and Palmatier 2022; Barari 2023; Marchand, Holler, and While the inaugural article in this field was published in 2003 (e.g.,
Dünschede 2024). According to a recent survey, 60% of consumers Subramani and Rajagopalan 2003, Ye et al. 2021), academic interest
Ethics and the Need for Regulation in Influencer Marketing. How has surged since 2017 (Fernández‐Prados et al. 2021; Han &

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

© 2025 The Author(s). Psychology & Marketing published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Psychology & Marketing, 2025; 42:1201–1214 https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.22173

1201 of 1214
Balabanis 2024 Sundermann and Raabe 2019; Hudders, De Jans, ranging from “nano” or “micro” influencers with smaller, more
and De Veirman 2021). Research in this area has largely converged intimate followings, to “macro” influencers who boast massive
around five broad themes: (a) influencer characteristics, audiences across multiple platforms. SMIs act as opinion leaders or
encompassing demographics, expertize, and personal branding; (b) experts within their respective domains, frequently reviewing
content characteristics, such as authenticity, narrative styles, and products and leveraging their authority, expertize, or relationships
presentation; (c) audience characteristics, including audience size, with followers to influence purchasing decisions (Lee and Watkins
engagement levels, and stakeholder perspectives; (d) product 2016; Hwang and Zhang 2018; Casaló, Flavián, and IbáñezSánchez
characteristics, which refer to the expertize of influencers in specific 2020; Sands et al. 2022a; König and Maier 2024).
products and their engagement with them; and (e) regulatory
characteristics, focusing on ethical concerns and disclosure As SMIs gain prominence, marketers are increasingly capitalizing on
requirements (Hudders, De Jans, and De Veirman 2021; Ye et al. their ability to foster positive brand attitudes and stimulate word‐
2021; Vrontis et al. 2021; Cho et al. 2022; Han & Balabanis, 2023; of‐mouth promotion (Martínez‐López et al. 2020; Casaló, Flavián,
Tanwar, Chaudhry, and Srivastava 2024). Many of these analyses, and Ibáñez‐Sánchez 2020). This includes both human influencers
however, seek to uncover the psychological mechanisms driving and virtual influencers (VIs), the latter of which combine computer‐
influencer marketing (Hudders, De Jans, and De Veirman 2021; generated personas with human‐like traits (Campbell et al. 2021).
Pittman and Abell 2021; Pilgrim and BohnetJoschko 2019) and how Since their entrance in 2016, VIs, such as Lil Miquela, have garnered
SMIs exploit parasocial relationships for commercial gain (Lou and significant online followings and collaborated with leading fashion
Yuan 2019; Lou 2022). brands, occasionally outperforming human SMIs in terms of
consumer engagement (TIME Staff 2018; HypeAuditor Blog 2021;
Our analysis investigates the opposite dimension: The risks and Leung, Gu, and Palmatier 2022). Their rapid rise within the
negative consequences of influencer marketing. Scholarship in this influencer ecosystem has made them indispensable to marketers
area is still at an embryonic stage (Barari 2023; Tanwar, Chaudhry, (Sands et al. 2022b; Hofeditz et al. 2022; Igarashi, Bhoumik, and
and Srivastava 2024). Early research has, among other things, begun Thompson 2024). Whether real or virtual, influencers are seen as
to identify how influencer marketing can increase alcohol authentic and relatable, qualities that earn consumer trust and
consumption (Hendriks et al. 2020), promote fake goods (Palmer drive purchase intent (Chapple and Cownie 2017; Kapitan et al.
2020), induce concerns about body image (Prichard et al. 2020), 2022).
and spread misinformation about the effectiveness of vaccines
(Harff, Bollen and Schmuck 2022). These, however, are discrete Influencers often post photos and videos that present a polished,
strands of investigation; an overarching view of the field is missing. almost flawless version of themselves sometimes altered through
Our analysis endeavors to fill that gap. We systematize this growing filters or cosmetic work which may gradually impair how followers
body of research into six clusters and identify six research see themselves. These carefully curated images tend to create
propositions for empirical and theoretical exploration. We unrealistic standards, leaving many young men and women
emphasize the ethical, psychological, and societal implications of feeling that their bodies do not measure up. The desire to imitate
influencer marketing, and use that to propose a general framework these lifestyles can push people toward extreme diets or
unnecessary cosmetic treatments, just to feel closer to that image
for research. Increasingly, SMIs' detrimental impact on individuals,
of perfection. The article also discusses how one sided emotional
communities, and the digital culture is gaining public prominence
bonds with influencers can deepen the personal impact, making
and inviting political responses (Barari 2023). Academic scholarship people feel worse when they fall short of these ideals. The
too must keep pace with these public developments. By reviewing authors caution that constant exposure to luxury and “perfect”
existing analyses and systematizing studies into overarching lifestyles may distort reality and cause emotional strain.a1M1
themes, we advance a more nuanced understanding of the
potential harm associated with influencer marketing and identify One ongoing concern is that many influencers don’t clearly state
directions for further scholarly investigations and regulatory when content is sponsored, blurring the lines between honest
responses. opinion and paid endorsement. The article even cites cases where
influencers promoted fake or dangerous products, which raises
serious safety concerns for consumers. Without consistent rules or
oversight, influencers can act like experts especially in areas like
2 | Background of the Study health or money without any real qualifications. Sometimes the
rush to gain clicks and followers takes priority over doing the right
SMIs are individuals who attain credibility within a specific industry thing, which can open the door to misinformation. While the
or niche through their online presence and interactions with article doesn’t outline specific policy suggestions, it emphasizes
followers (Freberg et al. 2011; Childers, Lemon, and Hoy 2018; the urgent need for research that could support new
regulations.a1M2
Hudders, De Jans, and De Veirman 2021). Unlike traditional
celebrities, whose fame is typically rooted in institutional settings
such as acting, music, or sports, SMIs gain recognition through The curated, picture‐perfect content that SMIs produce thus
contributes to a culture of comparison and unattainable
social media platforms, often relying on personal branding and
standards, exacerbating issues related to body image
consistent engagement with their audiences (Lou and Yuan 2019;
dissatisfaction, low self‐esteem, and mental health challenges,
Jin and Ryu 2019). Their reach and influence vary considerably,
1202 of 1214 Psychology & Marketing, 2025
particularly among impressionable young audiences. We aim to Findings
categorize the extant literature on this dark side of SMIs: the types
of negative behaviors some promote and the harms they
engender. The six thematic research clusters represent the dark side of social
media influencers, highlighting their potential impact on
consumers' quality of life as shown in Figure 1.

3 | Methodology These impacts may manifest directly, affecting consumers' physical

and mental health, and economic or social well‐being, or indirectly,
Before conducting our literature review, we established the mediated by variables such as addiction, erosion of trust, anxiety,
boundaries of our research and identified key search terms. Our stress, reputational damage, and loss of consumer confidence. In
scope was limited to SMIs, both human and virtual, rather than a addition, we complement each thematic cluster with further
broader examination of social media content. Furthermore, we research questions summarizing the key behavioral implication
focused specifically on the negative aspects of SMIs, particularly the underpinning the theme, from which we build our specific research
intentional and unintentional harm caused by influencers to others, suggestions in the following section.
as opposed to harm inflicted upon influencers themselves. Given
the nascent state of research on SMIs, we restricted our search to Articles 1, 3, and 4 all show that seeing idealized influencer
articles published within the past 10 years (2014–present) to ensure content can lead to negative feelings about one’s appearance.
the relevance of findings. We also limited our review to high‐quality Difference: Article 3 notes that likes and engagement don’t make
articles published in ABS 3&4* or SJR Q2 journals and above.
these effects worse, while Article 4 adds that virtual influencers
may be less emotionally damaging. Difference: Article 1 explores
In defining our search terms, we settled on “Social media
the issue conceptually, calling for deeper studies, while Articles 3
influencer,” “Instagram influencer,” and “Influencer” to capture a
and 4 rely on short-term lab experiments.M1SD cautious about
broad spectrum of relevant literature. Additionally, inspired by a
the implications of their posts than their peers. Drawing on
governmental report on the role of SMIs in promoting counterfeit
goods (Shepherd, Whitman, and Button 2021), we included the longitudinal survey data, Smit et al. (2020) also reveal that the
search term “Social Media Influencer Counterfeit” to refine our self‐reported frequency of children watching vlogs had a
search. significant impact on their consumption of unhealthy beverages 2
years later. According to a study by Hendriks et al. (2020), the
majority of influencers, comprising 63.5%, had posts regarding
alcohol. The posts, primarily shared by lifestyle influencers,
radiated positivity and depicted desirable social settings. Although
1203 of 1214
a sizable portion (19.5%) of these posts displayed recognizable women's mood, body image, and exercise behavior. They found
alcohol brands, only a small fraction disclosed them as that exposure to these images leads to negative effects on mood
advertisements. Even fewer included educational slogans like and body satisfaction among young women without improving
“#no18noalcohol”. These are alarming findings. The reported actual exercise behavior. But, these patterns are not limited to
behaviors border on criminality. Alcohol‐related posts may expose women. Tiggemann and Anderberg (2020) discovered that
minors to such content, breaching marketing codes and criminal exposure to bare‐chested and idealized muscular images on
laws. Such posts may also increase alcohol consumption among a Instagram led to significantly lower body satisfaction among men
compared to viewing clothed fashion images or scenery images,
vulnerable age group.
which showed no difference between them.

Proposition 1. Exposure to influencer‐promoted harmful products Proposition 3. Exposure to influencer‐promoted beauty standards
is positively associated with increased consumption of harmful and body image ideals is associated with decreased self‐esteem and
products among followers. body image satisfaction among followers, leading to an increased
likelihood of engaging in unhealthy behaviors such as extreme
1. Dissemination of misinformation: By establishing dieting or cosmetic procedures and a lack of overall well‐being.
intimate para‐social relationships with their followers, SMIs can
alchemize into powerful thought leaders. Their appeal can surpass 3. Fostering of comparison culture: SMIs routinely present a
that of politicians and celebrities. However, they are not necessarily majestic lifestyle and followers rush into comparisons. Influencers
better informed than anyone else. Nor do they command greater portray an idealized version of their lives, stoking a false sense of
expertize than experts. This chasm between influence and reality. This provokes feelings of inadequacy or low self‐esteem. As
credibility can breed misinformation and disinformation. For relentless comparisons take hold, it fuels greater dissatisfaction
example, De Gregorio and Goanta (2022) highlight that while with oneself. Chae (2018) demonstrated this through a panel survey
national constitutions protect political speech, commercial speech of real social media user behavior. They found that the more users
enjoys far fewer regulations. This can convert influencers into paid reported seeing SMI content, the more they engaged in negative
conduits for political parties. Similarly, Harff, Bollen and Schmuck social comparison behaviors. That in turn triggered greater self‐
(2022) highlights how trust in influencers can spread inaccurate reported envy. This harm disproportionately affected more
health information among followers. The authors found that a vulnerable users; those with already low self‐esteem engaged in
fictitious influencer posting misinformation about COVID‐19 negative social comparison behaviors more. In a related study,
measures, such as the ineffectiveness of facemasks, fostered Parsons, Alden and Biesanz (2021) found that individuals with
increased mistrust of official guidance in respondents with high higher social anxiety experienced a significant drop in relative social
perceived influencer credibility. This underscores the value of rank perception and self‐esteem after viewing influencer posts on
effective policing. Without regulatory oversight, SMIs can exploit Instagram. The comparison culture impacts SMIs, too, not just
their elevated status to direct followers into perilous beliefs and followers. The pressure to maintain a flawless image online can
habits. undermine influencers' mental health. The validation economy—
measured through likes, comments, and shares—often engenders
Proposition 2. Exposure to influencer‐endorsed views and anxiety, depression, and other mental health issues.
information is positively associated with attitude change and
disinformation belief among followers. Proposition 4. Exposure to glamorized influencer lifestyles is
positively associated with negative social comparison behaviors,
2. Reinforcement of unrealistic beauty standards: Often, lifestyle discontent and higher social anxiety among followers
influencers promote (impossible) beauty standards and body image highlighting the detrimental effects of influencer culture on mental
ideals, sometimes artificially created through augmented reality health. Article 1 lacks real-world or long-term data, making it hard
filters (Ibáñez‐Sánchez, Orus, and Flavian 2022), which can to know whether these psychological effects last or how they differ
adversely impact followers' self‐esteem (Deng and Jiang 2023). The across cultures. Article 3 uses a small sample of young Australian
latter may adopt extreme dieting or harmful cosmetic procedures women in a lab setting, which limits how well the results apply to
to remedy that. For example, Pedalino and Camerini (2022) found broader populations. Article 4 only studies reactions to two specific
that browsing Instagram reduces body appreciation. Adolescent influencers with participants aged 18–35, ignoring male, older, or
females, especially with higher BMIs, suffered lower body non-binary viewers.M1GL
appreciation. Because followers measure themselves against
influencers rather than peers, a diminished sense of self‐worth 4. from a SMI. In 2020, Amazon sued two influencers for
besets them. Additionally, Willoughby et al. (2024) found that facilitating the sale of counterfeit products through their platform
among posts by 4 of the most followed fitness influencers, directly (Palmer 2020). However, such ‘dupe’ influencers who
objectification was present in more than half of their posts. These promote close copies of luxury goods are prolific across social
results underscore the importance of promoting healthy body media. Their actions reduce sales and soil the reputation of luxury
image and awareness of influencer posting behaviors among young businesses. But they also endanger consumers if counterfeit
women. Similarly, Prichard et al. (2020) investigate fitness products involve dangerous components. While there is a
inspiration
1204 of 1214images on social media (#fitspiration) on young Psychology & Marketing, 2025
significant body of research dedicated to the study of counterfeit The six thematic research clusters illustrate the darker side of SMI
products, much of it focuses on the consumers' desire to purchase research, highlighting the potential risks, harms, and ethical
or engage with counterfeit items (e.g., Bian et al. 2016). The studies dilemmas associated with influencer culture and digital marketing
explore the psychological and economic factors that drive practices. In addition to developing six thematic research clusters
consumers to prefer counterfeit products over pure ones. But the and research propositions that are primed for further exploration,
SMIs role—and liabilities—in facilitating these transactions also we have also established a comprehensive research agenda that
demand scrutiny. includes our six research propositions and 35 relevant related
research questions as shown in Table 1.
Proposition 5. The prevalence of unethical consumption behavior
among social media influencers, including the promotion of These research propositions are suitable for future investigation
counterfeit or illegal products without disclosure, undermines using either qualitative or quantitative methodologies. However, to
consumer trust and safety, perpetuates dishonesty, and poses legal aid future research, we also include the methodology that we
and health risks to followers. suggest would be most intuitive to address each question below in
italics. As observed by Han and Balabanis (2024), Source Credibility
5. Privacy concerns: SMIs, especially mega ones, are giant Theory, Congruity Theory, and correlational studies are
data factories. They can amass and administer copious amounts of predominant in SMI research. To achieve a more comprehensive
personal data. The access to—and use of—such data poses two understanding, future research should broaden its theoretical
types of issues for followers and consumers. Consumers developed scope beyond these dominant frameworks, incorporating
a culture of casually sharing data even before the age of social additional perspectives from consumer psychology and social
media. This generated a robust literature on privacy paradox influence. Employing controlled experiments, longitudinal analyses,
(Barnes 2006; Awad and Krishnan 2006; Jorstad 2000): why do and mixed‐method approaches to address these gaps will provide
consumers volunteer data despite privacy concerns? Scholars have deeper and more varied insights. By shedding light on these issues,
deployed normative and behavioral frames to interrogate this. The researchers can contribute to more informed discussions and policy
normative frame (Dienlin, Masur, and Trepte 2023; Solove 2021; interventions aimed at promoting ethical and responsible practices
Dienlin and Trepte 2015), grounded in a rationality model, says within the influencer industry.
followers divulge information due to social pressure irrespective of
any privacy concerns. The behavioral frame (Adjerid, Peer, and
Acquisti 2018; Acquisti, Brandimarte, and Loewenstein 2015; 4 | Conclusion
Norberg, Horne, and Horne 2007) demonstrates followers'
willingness to share data despite grasping the risks to privacy. SMIs engage in a variety of positive and negative behaviors. Some
Central to these analyses— and the paradox—is a distinction inspire and entertain; others deceive and upset. The deception and
between “attitude” and “behavior” towards data privacy. But a damage—and their impact on consumption— deserve a critical
growing literature (Solove 2021) rejects this divide claiming that mindset. Embarking on the research agenda outlined in this
attitude encompasses general privacy concerns while behaviors research note can deepen our understanding of the dark side of
dictate context‐specific disclosure decisions. Now consider SMIs. influencer marketing and its implications for academics and
Influencers' access to data multiplies with followers. Immediately, marketing practitioners. Through interdisciplinary collaboration,
risks arise including data vulnerability (Nunan 2021; Echeverri and rigorous inquiry, empirical research, and practical insights, this
Salomonson 2019; Martin and Murphy 2017), cybercrimes agenda can inform strategic decision‐making, promote ethical
(Bromium 2019; Basuchoudhary and Searle 2019), identity theft, marketing practices, and enhance the effectiveness and
and more. These, however, are “second‐order” risks: SMIs collect accountability of influencer marketing initiatives in the
data in good faith but lose control over them due to criminal contemporary marketing landscape.
activity. First‐order risks, on the other hand, involve SMIs' good faith
data collection activities. Increasingly, international and national Addressing the dark side of SMIs offers several key theoretical
legislation (General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679); The implications. First, it expands the understanding of influencer
Data Protection Act 2018 (UK); The Digital Personal Data Protection
Act, 2023 (India) regulate data individuals and organizations may
collect and process. They apply to SMIs, too. But they risk breaching
them due to weak awareness and understanding. This imperils SMIs
individually but also brands that may employ them, increasing the
prospect of vicarious liability.

Proposition 6. A culture of casual sharing of personal data and low

awareness of data regulations increases risks for both influencers
and followers.

1205 of 1214
TABLE 1 |
Research agenda for the dark side of SMIs.
Thematic clusters and propositions Specific research questions and suggested methodology
Promotion of harmful products P1: RQ1. What are the long‐term effects of exposure to influencer content promoting
Exposure to influencer‐promoted unhealthy products on the mental health and well‐being of followers, particularly in
harmful products is positively associated terms of addiction, self‐esteem, and eating disorders?
with increased consumption of harmful
products among followers Controlled Longitudinal survey or exploratory secondary data analysis of social media content
Experiments or Surveys. and followers.
RQ2. How do the motivations of social media influencers intersect with the
promotion of harmful products and/or unhealthy consumption behavior, and what
factors influence their decision‐making process in endorsing such content?
Focus group or qualitative study targeting influencers as participants.
RQ3. How can regulatory bodies or platforms implement more stringent guidelines
or policies to curb the promotion of harmful and unhealthy products by influencers,
while still preserving their creative freedom and authenticity?
Controlled experiments or RCTs to test the efficacy, and any unintended
consequences, of possible policies.

1206 of 1214 Psychology & Marketing, 2025

TABLE 1 | (Continued)
Dissemination of misinformation P2: RQ4. How might emerging technologies, such as AI‐powered content, moderation
Exposure to influencer‐endorsed views tools or influencer authenticity verification systems, be leveraged to identify and
and information is positively associated mitigate the spread of harmful or misleading influencer content, including
with attitude change and disinformation products that pose health risks or infringe on intellectual property rights?
belief among followers. Field experiments on social media sites if possible, or controlled online experiments
Controlled Experiments or Surveys. to test how effectively AI‐powered content, moderation tools and influencer
authenticity verification systems can lower deviant influencer behavior.
RQ5. What are the occurrences of influencer misrepresentation, encompassing fake
endorsements, undisclosed sponsorships, and brand alignment discrepancies, and
how do these instances impact brand equity or advertising practices?
Content analysis of social media posts and brand collaborations or, if possible,
qualitative investigations with brand representatives.
RQ6. How do consumers perceive and respond to social media influencers,
examining their trust in influencer recommendations, skepticism towards
sponsored content, and perceptions of authenticity regarding influencer
endorsements?
Controlled experiment to compare behavioral responses, or qualitative
investigation with social media users.
RQ7. What strategies can be implemented to mitigate the spread of misinformation
by influencers, especially in critical areas like public health during global crises such
as the COVID‐19 pandemic?
Controlled experiments or RCTs to test interventions for misinformation spread.
RQ8. How does the perceived credibility of influencers impact the reception and
dissemination of misinformation among their followers, and what factors contribute
to this credibility?
Controlled experiment to examine the impact of credibility signals on the perception
of misinformation, or qualitative investigation with social media users.
RQ9. What role do platforms and technology companies play in regulating the
content spread by influencers, and what measures can be taken to ensure
responsible use of influence on social media?
Secondary data or qualitative source analysis.
RQ10. How do cultural and societal factors influence the effectiveness of influencer‐
led campaigns and the spread of misinformation in different regions or demographic
groups?

(Continues)
Thematic clusters and propositions Specific research questions and suggested methodology
Cross‐country experiment, or secondary data analysis of social media content.
RQ11. How do influencers perceive their own social responsibility, and what
motivates them to either prioritize accurate information or engage in more
sensationalistic content creation?
Focus group or qualitative study targeting influencers as participants.

1207 of 1214
TABLE 1 | (Continued)
Reinforcement of unrealistic beauty RQ12. What role do influencers play in shaping societal norms and values,
standards particularly in influencing attitudes towards consumerism, beauty standards, and
P3: Exposure to influencer‐promoted lifestyle choices?
beauty standards and body image ideals Qualitative analysis of social media posts across time.
is associated with decreased selfesteem RQ13. How do social media influencers influence political discourse, public opinion,
and body image satisfaction among and social movements?
followers, leading to an increased
Qualitative analysis of social media posts across time.
likelihood of engaging in unhealthy
behaviors such as extreme dieting or R14. How does influencers' disclosure of photo editing or cosmetic procedures in
cosmetic procedures and a lack of their content affect the perception of beauty standards and body image among
overall well‐being. Controlled their followers, and what role does transparency play in mitigating negative effects?
Experiments Surveys or Controlled experiment to examine perceptions of beauty standards and body image
Qualitative Methods when photo editing and cosmetic procedures are disclosed or not.
RQ15. How do cultural differences and societal norms influence the impact of
influencer content on body image perceptions, and what cross‐cultural comparisons
can be made to better understand the universality or specificity of these effects?
Cross‐country experiment, or secondary data analysis of social media content.
RQ16. What interventions or strategies can be implemented to promote positive
body image and resilience against negative influencer messaging, particularly among
vulnerable populations such as individuals with pre‐existing body image concerns or
eating disorders?
Field experiment, if possible, or controlled online experiments or RCTs to test
interventions to protect against detrimental effects of influencer messaging and
online presence.
RQ17. What are the underlying psychological mechanisms that mediate the
relationship between exposure to influencer content and body image
dissatisfaction, and how do individual differences (e.g., self‐esteem, social
comparison tendencies) moderate these mechanisms?
Mixed methods approach, beginning with an exploratory qualitative investigation
with social media users to identify possible mechanisms, followed by controlled
experiments to test them.

Fostering of comparison culture RQ18. What are the psychological implications of influencer culture on influencers
P4: Exposure to glamorized influencer and their followers, specifically focusing on body image concerns, self‐esteem
lifestyles is positively associated with issues, and social comparison?
negative social comparison behaviors,
Focus group or qualitative study targeting influencers and social media users as
lifestyle discontent and higher social
participants.
anxiety among followers highlighting the
detrimental effects of influencer culture RQ19. How do different types of social media influencers (e.g., lifestyle, fitness,
on mental health beauty) impact their followers' tendencies towards negative social comparison, and
Controlled Experiments or Surveys are certain influencer niches more likely to evoke feelings of inadequacy or low self‐
esteem among their audience?
Controlled experiment comparing reported negative social comparisons when
exposed to different types of influencers.
(Continues)
Thematic clusters and propositions Specific research questions and suggested methodology

1208 of 1214 Psychology & Marketing, 2025

TABLE 1 | (Continued)
RQ20. What role does the perceived authenticity or transparency of influencer
content play in mitigating or exacerbating the negative effects of social comparison
on followers' self‐esteem and mental well‐being?
Controlled experiment comparing reported negative social comparisons when
exposed to influencer content with manipulated authenticity and transparency.
RQ21. What strategies do influencers employ to cope with the pressure to maintain
a flawless image online, and how effective are these coping mechanisms in
mitigating the negative impact on their mental health?
Focus group or qualitative study targeting influencers as participants.
RQ22. How do platform algorithms and features (e.g., like counts, comments,
suggested content) contribute to the perpetuation of comparison culture on
social media, and what changes can be implemented to promote healthier
online interactions and reduce the prevalence of negative social comparison
behaviors?
Controlled experiment to compare the effect of different social media features and
exposure to metrics on social comparison prevalence, and treatments testing
interventions to dampen negative effects.
Fostering of deceptive consumption RQ23. What ethical dilemmas arise for both brands and social media influencers in
practices P5: The prevalence of unethical their collaborations within influencer marketing, with a focus on transparency,
consumption behavior among social maintaining integrity in content creation, and compliance with advertising
media influencers, including the regulations?
promotion of counterfeit or illegal Focus group or qualitative study targeting influencers, brands and social media
products without disclosure, undermines users as participants.
consumer trust and safety, perpetuates
RQ24. How do ethical breaches within social media influencer‐brand partnerships
dishonesty, and poses legal and health
influence brand reputation and consumer loyalty?
risks to followers. Controlled Experiments
or Surveys Secondary data or qualitative source analysis.
RQ25. What are the motivations and factors influencing influencers' decisions to
engage in unethical practices such as purchasing fake followers or promoting
products without disclosing paid partnerships, and how do these behaviors impact
their credibility and trustworthiness among followers?
Focus group or qualitative study targeting influencers and social media users as
participants.
RQ26. How do followers perceive and respond to influencers who promote
counterfeit or illegal products on social media platforms, and what are the potential
consequences for consumer trust, safety, and legal liability?
Secondary data analysis of engagement following promotion of illicit goods or
qualitative study targeting social media users as participants.
RQ27. What measures can be implemented by social media platforms and
regulatory bodies to detect and prevent the promotion of counterfeit or illegal
products by influencers, and how effective are these measures in deterring
unethical behavior?
Controlled experiment or RCT to test the efficacy of measures to deter unethical
behavior.
RQ28. How do luxury brands and legitimate businesses perceive the impact of
“dupe” influencers who promote close copies of their products, and what strategies
can be employed to protect brand reputation and consumer safety in an
environment where counterfeit products are prolific?
Focus group or qualitative study targeting brand representatives as participants and
controlled experiment to test interventions to protect brand reputation and
consumer safety.
(Continues)

1209 of 1214
ABLE 1 | (Continued)
Thematic clusters and propositions Specific research questions and suggested methodology
RQ30. What are the psychological and economic implications of consumers'
engagement with counterfeit products promoted by influencers, and how do
factors such as perceived social status, price sensitivity, and product quality
influence consumer preferences and behaviors in the context of counterfeit
consumption?
Longitudinal survey with ‘dupe influencer’ followers measuring psychological
implications of content exposure and purchasing decisions.
Privacy concerns RQ31. How effective are existing regulatory frameworks in tackling privacy and
P6: A culture of casual sharing of ethical concerns within influencer marketing practices?
personal data and low awareness of data Controlled experiment or RCT to test how effective existing regulations are at
regulations increases risks for both deterring unethical influencer behavior.
influencers and followers. Controlled
RQ32. What strategies can be developed to alleviate the adverse impacts of
Experiments, Surveys, or
influencer culture, focusing on implementing enhanced transparency measures,
Qualitative Methods
ethical guidelines, and providing mental health support resources?
Controlled experiment or RCT to test how effective transparency measures, ethical
guidelines and the option of mental health support is for mitigating negative
consequences of influencer exposure.
RQ33. How might education and media literacy programs contribute to
empowering consumers to engage with influencer content responsibly and
effectively?
Field experiment to trial education and media literacy programs.
RQ34. How does the current regulatory landscape governing influencer marketing
practices impact brands and marketers, and what are its implications?
Focus group or qualitative study targeting brand representatives and marketing
professionals as participants.
RQ35. What industry best practices and self‐regulatory measures exist to foster
transparency, accountability, and ethical conduct in influencer‐brand
collaborations?
Focus group or qualitative study with industry stakeholders to identify existing
practices, and controlled experiment or RCT to test the efficacy of practices.

marketing by incorporating social, ethical and legal dimensions, beauty standards, but also to build consumer trust and enhance
emphasizing the need for a multidisciplinary approach. This brand reputation. Transparency in influencer collaborations,
perspective integrates insights from marketing, psychology, and particularly regarding paid promotions and data privacy, is vital to
ethics to assess the broader societal impact of SMIs not just positive meet legal standards and maintain credibility with audiences.
impact. Second, it highlights the critical role of authenticity and Moreover, active monitoring of influencer content, combined with
transparency in shaping consumer trust and engagement, providing clear communication of brand values, ensures alignment and
a foundation for future research on trust‐building mechanisms in prevents deceptive practices that could harm consumer trust. By
digital interactions. Third, it identifies the growing importance of adopting these practices, brands can lead the way in creating a
inclusivity and well‐being in content creation, offering a basis for more ethical and sustainable digital marketing landscape.
theorizing how brands can influence positive societal norms
through their partnerships. Furthermore, future research should also explore the ethical and
managerial implications of virtual influencers, an emerging area
From a managerial standpoint, addressing the dark side of SMIs with unique challenges. Exploring their potential for positive
necessitates actionable strategies that protect brands while influence and risks related to authenticity and consumer perception
fostering a positive social media environment. Managers should can provide deeper insights into digital marketing strategies.
establish rigorous vetting processes for influencer partnerships, Research could also identify innovative approaches to boost ethical
prioritizing ethical standards and compliance with regulations to compliance, enhance consumer well‐being, and foster a healthier
safeguard against reputational risks. Promoting content that digital ecosystem for all stakeholders. Together, these efforts
embodies inclusivity, well‐being, and authenticity is essential not contribute to a more responsible, transparent, and legally
only to counteract harmful societal norms, such as unrealistic compliant approach to influencer marketing.

210 of 1214 Psychology & Marketing, 2025

 Bond, B. J. 2016. “Following Your “Friend”: Social Media and the Strength of
Adolescents' Parasocial Relationships with Media Personae.”
Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking 19, no. 11: 656–660.
Conflicts of Interest
Bromium. (2019). Cybercriminals Earning Over $3B Annually Exploiting
The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Social Platforms. Retrieved 16.01.2023 from. https://www.globenewswire.
com/en/news‐release/2019/02/26/1742251/0/en/Cybercriminals‐
Data Availability Statement earningover‐3B‐annually‐exploitingsocial‐platforms.html.

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the Brown, D., and N. Hayes. 2008. Influencer Marketing. London: Routledge,
corresponding author upon reasonable request. Taylor & Francis Group.

Buijzen, M., E. A. Van Reijmersdal, and L. H. Owen. 2010. “Introducing the

References PCMC Model: An Investigative Framework for Young People's Processing of
Acquisti, A., L. Brandimarte, and G. Loewenstein. 2015. “Privacy and Human Commercialized Media Content.” Communication Theory 20, no. 4: 427–
Behavior in the Age of Information.” Science 347, no. 6221: 509–514. 450. Whateley, D., S. Bhattacharya, S. Bradley, and A. Perelli. July 2024.
“Influencer Marketing is Soaring Despite Troubles in Other Areas of the
Adjerid, I., E. Peer, and A. Acquisti. 2018. “Beyond the Privacy Paradox:
Creator Economy.” In 11 Insiders Break Down how the Industry is Scaling.
Objective Versus Relative Risk in Privacy Decision Making.” MIS Quarterly 42,
Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/influencermarketing‐is‐
no. 2: 465–488.
booming‐as‐brands‐take‐creators‐more‐seriously‐2024‐7.
Ainsworth, M. S., and J. Bowlby. 1991. “An Ethological Approach to
Campbell, C., and J. R. Farrell. 2020. “More Than Meets the Eye: The
Personality Development.” American Psychologist 46, no. 4: 333–341. Functional Components Underlying Influencer Marketing.” Business
Ajzen, I. 1991. “The Theory of Planned Behavior.” Organizational Behavior Horizons 63, no. 4: 469–479.
and Human Decision Processes 50, no. 2: 179–211. https://doi. Campbell, C., K. Plangger, S. Sands, and J. Kietzmann. 2021. “Preparing for
org/10.1016/0749‐5978(91)90020‐T. an Era of Deepfakes and AI‐Generated Ads: A Framework for Understanding
Anspach, N. M., and T. N. Carlson. 2020. “What to Believe? Social Media Responses to Manipulated Advertising.” Journal of Advertising 51, no. 1: 22–
Commentary and Belief in Misinformation.” Political Behavior 42, no. 3: 38. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2021.1909515.
697–718. Casaló, L. V., C. Flavián, and S. Ibáñez‐Sánchez. 2017. “Understanding
Awad, N. F., and M. S. Krishnan. 2006. “The Personalization Privacy Paradox: Consumer Interaction on Instagram: The Role of Satisfaction, Hedonism, and
An Empirical Evaluation of Information Transparency and the Willingness to Content Characteristics.” Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking
Be Profiled Online for Personalization.” MIS Quarterly 30: 13–28. 20, no. 6: 369–375.

Bandura, A. 1982. “Self‐Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency.” American Casaló, L. V., C. Flavián, and S. Ibáñez‐Sánchez. 2020. “Influencers on
Psychologist 37, no. 2: 122–147. Instagram: Antecedents and Consequences of Opinion Leadership.” Journal
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003066X.37.2.122. of Business Research 117: 510–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2018.07.005.
Bandura, A. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social
Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Chae, J. 2018. “Explaining Females' Envy Toward Social Media Influencers.”
Bandura, A., and R. H. Walters. 1977. Social Learning Theory (1). Englewood Media psychology 21, no. 2: 246–262.
Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Chapple, C., and F. Cownie. 2017. “An Investigation into Viewers' Trust in
Barari, M. 2023. “Unveiling the Dark Side of Influencer Marketing: How and Response Towards Disclosed Paid‐For‐Endorsements by Youtube
Social Media Influencers (Human Vs Virtual) Diminish Followers' Well‐ Lifestyle Vloggers.” Journal of Promotional Communications 5, no. 2: 110–
Being.” Marketing Intelligence & Planning 41, no. 8: 1162–1177. 136.

Barnes, S. B. 2006. “A Privacy Paradox: Social Networking in the United Cheung, M. L., W. K. S. Leung, M. X. Yang, K. Y. Koay, and
States.” First Monday 11, no. 9. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v11i9.1394. M. K. Chang. 2022. “Exploring the Nexus of Social Media Influencers and
Consumer Brand Engagement.” Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and
Basuchoudhary, A., and N. Searle. 2019. “Snatched Secrets: Cybercrime and Logistics 34, no. 10: 2370–2385.
Trade Secrets Modelling a Firm's Decision to Report a Theft of Trade
Secrets.” Computers & Security 87, Article: 101591. Childers, C. C., L. L. Lemon, and M. G. Hoy. 2018. “#Sponsored #Ad: Agency
Perspective on Influencer Marketing Campaigns.” Journal of Current Issues
Bhattacharya, A. 2023. “Parasocial Interaction in Social Media Influencer‐ and Research in Advertising 40, no. 3: 258–274. https://
Based Marketing: An SEM Approach.” Journal of Internet Commerce 22, no. doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2018.1521113.
2: 272–292.
Cho, K., K. Jung, M. Lee, Y. Lee, J. Park, and N. Dreamson. 2022. “Qualitative
Bian, X., K. Y. Wang, A. Smith, and N. Yannopoulou. 2016. “New Insights into Approaches to Evaluating Social Media Influencers: A Case‐Based Literature
Unethical Counterfeit Consumption.” Journal of Business Research 69, no. Review.” International Journal of Electronic Commerce Studies 13, no. 2:
10: 4249–4258. 119–136.

Coates, A. E., C. A. Hardman, J. C. G. Halford, P. Christiansen, and E. J.

Boyland. 2019. “Food and Beverage Cues Featured in YouTube Videos of

1211 of 1214
Social Media Influencers Popular With Children: An Exploratory Study.” Influencers”, ECIS, Research‐in‐Progress Papers (June 18), Timisoara,
Frontiers in Psychology 10: 483608. Romania.

Corcoran, E., H. Doucette, J. E. Merrill, et al. 2024. “A Qualitative Analysis of Horton, D., and R. Richard Wohl. 1956. “Mass Communication and Para‐
Adolescents' Perspectives on Peer and Influencer Alcohol‐Related Posts on Social Interaction: Observations on Intimacy at a Distance.” Psychiatry 19,
Social Media.” Drug and Alcohol Review 43, no. 1: 13–27. no. 3: 215–229.

Deng, F., and X. Jiang. 2023. “Effects of Human Versus Virtual Human Hudders, L., S. De Jans, and M. De Veirman. 2021. “The Commercialization
Influencers on the Appearance Anxiety of Social Media Users.” International of Social Media Stars: A Literature Review and Conceptual Framework on
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 71: 103233. the Strategic Use of Social Media Influencers.” International Journal of
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2022.103233. Advertising 40, no. 3: 327–375.

Dienlin, T., P. K. Masur, and S. Trepte. 2023. “A Longitudinal Analysis of the Hwang, K., and Q. Zhang. 2018. “Influence of Parasocial Relationship
Privacy Paradox.” New Media & Society 25, no. 5: 1043–1064. between Digital Celebrities and Their Followers on Followers' Purchase and
Electronic Word‐Of‐Mouth Intentions, and Persuasion Knowledge.”
Dienlin, T., and S. Trepte. 2015. “Is the Privacy Paradox a Relic of the Past?
Computers in Human Behavior 87: 155–173.
An In‐Depth Analysis of Privacy Attitudes and Privacy Behaviors.” European
Journal of Social Psychology 45, no. 3: 285–297. HypeAuditor Blog. December 7 2021. The Top Virtual Instagram Influencers
in 2021. https://hypeauditor.com/blog/the‐top‐instagramvirtual‐
Digital Marketing Institute. 2024. 20 Surprising Influencer Marketing influencers‐in‐2021/.
Statistics, April 14, 2024.
https://digitalmarketinginstitute.com/blog/20influencer‐marketing‐ Ibáñez‐Sánchez, S., C. Orus, and C. Flavian. 2022. “Augmented Reality Filters
statistics‐that‐will‐surprise‐you. on Social Media. Analyzing the Drivers of Playability Based on Uses and
Gratifications Theory.” Psychology & Marketing 39, no. 3: 559–578.
Echeverri, P., and N. Salomonson. 2019. “Consumer Vulnerability During
Mobility Service Interactions: Causes, Forms and Coping.” Journal of Igarashi, R., K. Bhoumik, and J. Thompson. 2024. “Investigating the
Marketing Management 35, no. 3–4: 364–389. Effectiveness of Virtual Influencers in Prosocial Marketing.” Psychology &
Marketing 41, no. 9: 2121–2135.
Fernández‐Prados, J. S., A. Lozano‐Díaz, C. Bernal‐Bravo, and J.
MuyorRodríguez 2021. Influencers and Social Media: State of the Art and Jin, S. V., and E. Ryu. 2019. “Instagram Fashionistas, Luxury Visual Image
Bibliometric Analysis. In 2021 9th International Conference on Information Strategies and Vanity.” Journal of Product & Brand Management 29, no. 3:
and Education Technology (ICIET), pp 456–460. 355–368.

Festinger, L. 1954. “A Theory of Social Comparison Processes.” Human Jorstad, E. 2000. “The Privacy Paradox.” William Mitchell Law Review 27, no.
Relations 7, no. 2: 117–140. 3: 1503.

Festinger, L. 1962. “Cognitive Dissonance.” Scientific American 207, no. 4: Kapitan, S., P. van Esch, V. Soma, and J. Kietzmann. 2022. “Influencer
93–106. Folkvord, F., D. J. Anschütz, E. Boyland, B. Kelly, and M. Buijzen. Marketing and Authenticity in Content Creation.” Australasian Marketing
2016. “Food Advertising and Eating Behavior in Children.” Current Opinion Journal 30: no. 4. https://doi.org/10.1177/1839334921 1011171.
in Behavioral Sciences 9: 26–31.
König, S., and E. Maier. 2024. “The Effect of Green Influencer Message
Freberg, K., K. Graham, K. McGaughey, and L. A. Freberg. 2011. “Who Are Characteristics: Framing, Construal, and Timing.” Psychology & Marketing
the Social Media Influencers? A Study of Public Perceptions of Personality.” 41, no. 9: 1979–1996.
Public Relations Review 37, no. 1: 90–92. https://doi.org/10.
Lapinski, M. K., and R. N. Rimal. 2005. “An Explication of Social Norms.”
1016/j.pubrev.2010.11.001.
Communication theory 15, no. 2: 127–147.
Gilboa‐Schechtman, E., H. Keshet, V. Peschard, and R. Azoulay. 2020. “Self
Lazarsfeld, P. F., B. Berelson, and H. Gaudet. 1944. The People's Choice: How
and Identity in Social Anxiety Disorder.” Journal of Personality 88, no. 1: 106–
The Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign. New York, NY:
121.
Columbia University.
De Gregorio, G., and C. Goanta. 2022. “The Influencer Republic: Monetizing
Lee, J. E., and B. Watkins. 2016. “Youtube Vloggers' Influence on Consumer
Political Speech on Social Media.” German Law Journal 23, no. 2: 204–225.
Luxury Brand Perceptions and Intentions.” Journal of Business Research 69,
Han, J., and G. Balabanis. 2024. “Meta‐Analysis of Social Media Influencer no. 12: 5753–5760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jbusres.2016.04.171.
Impact: Key Antecedents and Theoretical Foundations.” Psychology &
Leung, F. F., F. F. Gu, and R. W. Palmatier. 2022. “Online Influencer
Marketing 41: 394–426. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21927.
Marketing.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 50: 226–251.
Harff, D., C. Bollen, and D. Schmuck. 2022. “Responses to Social Media https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747‐021‐00829‐4.
Influencers' Misinformation About COVID‐19: A Pre‐Registered Multiple‐ Li, Y., and Y. Peng. 2021. “Influencer Marketing: Purchase Intention and Its
Exposure Experiment.” Media Psychology 25, no. 6: 831–850. Hendriks, H., Antecedents.” Marketing Intelligence & Planning 39, no. 7: 960–978.
D. Wilmsen, W. Van Dalen, and W. A. Gebhardt. 2020. “Picture Me Drinking:
Alcohol‐Related Posts by Instagram Influencers Popular Among Adolescents Lou, C. 2022. “Social Media Influencers and Followers: Theorization of a
and Young Adults.” Frontiers in Psychology 10: 497588. Trans‐Parasocial Relation and Explication of Its Implications for Influencer
Advertising.” Journal of Advertising 51, no. 1: 4–21.
Hofeditz, L., A. Nissen, R. Sch€utte, and M. Mirbabaie 2022. “Trust Me, I'm
an Influencer!‐A Comparison of Perceived Trust in Human and Virtual

1212 of 1214 Psychology & Marketing, 2025

Lou, C., and S. Yuan. 2019. “Influencer Marketing: How Message Value and Pittman, M., and A. Abell. 2021. “More Trust in Fewer Followers: Diverging
Credibility Affect Consumer Trust of Branded Content on Social Media.” Effects of Popularity Metrics and Green Orientation Social Media
Journal of Interactive Advertising 19, no. 1: 58–73. Influencers.” Journal of Interactive Marketing 56: 70–82.

Mallipeddi, R. R., S. Kumar, C. Sriskandarajah, and Y. Zhu. 2022. “A Prichard, I., E. Kavanagh, K. E. Mulgrew, M. Lim, and M. Tiggemann. 2020.
Framework for Analyzing Influencer Marketing in Social Networks: Selection “The Effect of Instagram #Fitspiration Images on Young Women's Mood,
and Scheduling of Influencers.” Management Science 68, no. 1: 75–104. Body Image, and Exercise Behaviour.” Body image 33: 1–6.
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2020.3899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2020.02.002.

Marchand, A., A. Holler, and T. Dünschede. 2024. “Consumer Perceptions of Rogers, E. M. 1983. Diffusion of Innovations (4 th ed.). Glencoe, IL: The Free
Influencer Gifting.” Psychology & Marketing 41, no. 10: 2342–2354. Press.
Rossum, van Daan. 2024. Who Wants A Slice Of The $480 Billion Creator
Martin, K. D., and P. E. Murphy. 2017. “The Role of Data Privacy in
Economy Pie? https://www.flexos.work/learn/who‐wants‐aslice‐of‐the‐480‐
Marketing.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 45, no. 2: 135– billion‐creator‐economy‐pie.
155.
Sands, S., C. L. Campbell, K. Plangger, and C. Ferraro. 2022a. “Unreal
Martínez‐López, F. J., R. Anaya‐Sánchez, M. Fernández Giordano, and D. Influence: Leveraging Ai Influencer Marketing.” European Journal of
Lopez‐Lopez. 2020. “Behind Influencer Marketing: Key Marketing Decisions Marketing 56, no. 6: 1721–1747.
and Their Effects on Followers' Responses.” Journal of Marketing
Sands, S., C. Ferraro, V. Demsar, and G. Chandler. 2022b. “False Idols:
Management 36, no. 7–8: 579–607.
Unpacking the Opportunities and Challenges of Falsity in the Context of
McCracken, G. 1986. “Culture and Consumption: A Theoretical Account of Virtual Influencers.” Business Horizons 65, no. 6: 777–788.
the Structure and Movement of the Cultural Meaning of Consumer Goods.”
Journal of Consumer Research 13, no. 1: 71–84. Shepherd, D., K. Whitman, M. Button, and J. M. Wilson. 2023. “The Impact
of Deviant Social Media Influencers and Consumer Characteristics on
McPherson, M., L. Smith‐Lovin, and J. M. Cook. 2001. “Birds of a Feather: Purchasing Counterfeit Goods.” Deviant Behavior 44, no. 12: 1746–1760.
Homophily in Social Networks.” Annual Review of Sociology 27, no. 1: 415–
Shepherd, D. W. J., K. M. Whitman, and M. Button. 2021. Influencer Report:
444.
The Impact of Complicit Social Media Influencers on the Consumption of
Mori, M. 1970. “Bukimi No Tani [The Uncanny Valley].” Energy 7: 33. Counterfeit Goods in the UK. Report Prepared for the Intellectual Property
Office at University of Portsmouth, UK.
Mousas, C., D. Anastasiou, and O. Spantidi. 2018. “The Effects of Appearance
and Motion of Virtual Characters on Emotional Reactivity.” Computers in Smit, C. R., L. Buijs, T. J. van Woudenberg, K. E. Bevelander, and M. Buijzen.
Human Behavior 86: 99–108. 2020. “The Impact of Social Media Influencers on Children's Dietary
Behaviors.” Frontiers in Psychology 10: 2975. https://doi.
Norberg, P. A., D. R. Horne, and D. A. Horne. 2007. “The Privacy Paradox:
org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02975.
Personal Information Disclosure Intentions Versus Behaviors.” Journal of
Consumer Affairs 41, no. 1: 100–126. Solove, D. 2021. “The Myth of the Privacy Paradox.” George Washington Law
Review 89: 1.
Nunan, D. 2021. “Collection: Privacy and Research Ethics.” International
Journal of Market Research 63, no. 3: 271–274. Subramani, M. R., and B. Rajagopalan. 2003. “Knowledge‐Sharing and
Influence in Online Social Networks via Viral Marketing.” Communications of
Palmer, A. 2020. “Amazon Sues Two Influencers for Peddling Counterfeit
the ACM 46, no. 12: 300–307.
Goods on Instagram and TikTok.” CNBC. https://www.
cnbc.com/2020/11/12/amazon‐sues‐influencers‐for‐allegedlymarketing‐ Sundermann, G., and T. Raabe. 2019. “Strategic Communication Through
counterfeits.html. Social Media Influencers: Current State of Research and Desiderata.”
International Journal of Strategic Communication 13, no. 4: 278–300.
Parsons, C. A., L. E. Alden, and J. C. Biesanz. 2021. “Influencing Emotion:
Social Anxiety and Comparisons on Instagram.” Emotion (Washington, D.C.) Tanwar, A. S., H. Chaudhry, and M. K. Srivastava. 2024. “Social Media
21, no. 7: 1427–1437. Influencers: Literature Review, Trends and Research Agenda.” Journal of
Advances in Management Research 21, no. 2: 173–202. https://doi.org/
Pedalino, F., and A. L. Camerini. 2022. “Instagram Use and Body
10.1108/JAMR‐10‐2022‐0218.
Dissatisfaction: the Mediating Role of Upward Social Comparison with Peers
and Influencers Among Young Females.” International Journal of Thompson, J. K., L. J. Heinberg, M. Altabe, and S. Tantleff‐Dunn. 1999.
Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 3: 1543. Exacting Beauty: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment of Body Image
Disturbance. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Perkins, H. W., and A. D. Berkowitz. 1986. “Perceiving the Community Norms
https://doi.org/10.1037/10312‐000.
of Alcohol Use Among Students: Some Research Implications for Campus
Alcohol Education Programming.” International Journal of the Addictions 21, Thomson, M. 2006. “Human Brands: Investigating Antecedents to
no. 9–10: 961–976. Consumers' Strong Attachments to Celebrities.” Journal of Marketing 70, no.
3: 104–119.
Pilgrim, K., and S. Bohnet‐Joschko. 2019. “Selling Health and Happiness How
Influencers Communicate on Instagram about Dieting and Exercise: Mixed Tiggemann, M., and I. Anderberg. 2020. “Muscles and Bare Chests on
Methods Research.” BMC Public Health 19, no. 1: 1054. Instagram: The Effect of Influencers' Fashion and Fitspiration Images on

1213 of 1214
Men's Body Image.” Body image 35: 237–244. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.bodyim.2020.10.001.
TIME Staff. 2018. The 25 Most Influential People on the Internet. Time; Time.
https://time.com/5324130/most‐influential‐internet/.

Uzunoğlu, E., and S. Misci Kip. 2014. “Brand Communication Through Digital
Influencers: Leveraging Blogger Engagement.” International Journal of
Information Management 34, no. 5: 592–602. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.04.007.

Valkenburg, P. M., and J. Peter. 2013. “The Differential Susceptibility to

Media Effects Model.” Journal of Communication 63, no. 2: 221–243.

Vrontis, D., A. Makrides, M. Christofi, and A. Thrassou. 2021. “Social Media

Influencer Marketing: A Systematic Review, Integrative Framework and
Future Research Agenda.” International Journal of Consumer Studies 45, no.
4: 617–644.

Willoughby, J. F., L. Couto, S. Kang, et al. 2024. “An Exploratory Content

Analysis of the Use of Health Communication Strategies and Presence of
Objectification in Fitness Influencer Social Media Posts.” Health
Communication 39, no. 5: 888–895.

Ye, G., L. Hudders, S. De Jans, and M. De Veirman. 2021. “The Value of

Influencer Marketing for Business: A Bibliometric Analysis and Managerial
Implications.” Journal of Advertising 50, no. 2: 160–178.

1214 of 1214 Psychology & Marketing, 2025

1215 of 1214
1216 of 1214 Psychology & Marketing, 2025
1217 of 1214