Influencers warp a person's expectation biases by offering a consistent message triggering a type of compliance. It's social signaling.
If the influencer is transparent about their association with a product/person it increases their credibilty and lowers any risk aversion the audience may feel. The choice is simplified because a "authority" offers what is usually not a subjective opinion.
Beats headphones is a great example of a middle ground product that has an over-sized reach based on the perception of their quality since "famous person" wears them.
Kylie Jenners makeup? Bargain bin stuff they slap a new wrapper on and charge Lauder pricing.
Credibility economically is seen as Bayesian updating (rational) but it's more akin to a belief updating system (irrational).
Thanks for taking the time to comment. I actually agree with several parts of what you're saying, but I think we're discussing two different levels of the same phenomenon.
You're absolutely right that influencers can shape expectations, create social signaling, and reduce uncertainty. Those are well-established mechanisms in consumer behavior. It is a foundation for advertising. Where I think we differ is in explaining WHY those mechanisms become so powerful in influencer marketing compared to traditional advertising.
You mention that disclosure of a commercial relationship increases credibility and reduces perceived risk. I agree that transparency is important. However, one of the central characteristics of influencer marketing is that consumers often DON't KNOW whether a recommendation is genuinely personal or commercially motivated. Even though culture increasingly requires sponsored content to be disclosed, research (and, as Abdullah mentioned during the podcast,) suggests that disclosures are still inconsistent and often insufficient for consumers to fully recognize persuasive intent.
That distinction matters because traditional advertising begins from a completely different psychological starting point. When people see a television commercial or a banner ad, they immediately recognize that the company is trying to persuade them. Consumers activate what persuasion researchers call their "persuasion knowledge" and evaluate the message accordingly.
With influencers, however, that initial frame is often absent. Instead of processing the message as advertising, many consumers first process it as a recommendation from someone they know, follow, and have developed a relationship with over time. My buddy told me! Whether that relationship is entirely rational is another discussion, but psychologically, it functions as a form of social relationship.
This is where concepts like authenticity and parasocial relationships become important. Our research suggests that consumers are not simply responding to repeated exposure or social compliance. Rather, authenticity helps build a parasocial relationship, which increases trust, and trust changes how consumers evaluate recommendations. In other words, trust isn't just another outcome. It becomes the lens through which later product information is interpreted.
This is why influencer marketing often performs differently from traditional advertising. It's not merely because influencers have credibility or because they reduce risk. It's because the recommendation frequently enters the consumer's decision process before being categorized as advertising in the first place.
Ironically, your point about disclosure actually reinforces this distinction.
If every influencer consistently disclosed every paid relationship in a highly visible and unmistakable way (and consumers always processed those disclosures correctly), influencer marketing would likely become much more similar to traditional advertising. The persuasive advantage would diminish because consumers would begin evaluating the message with the same skepticism they typically apply to advertisements.
So I don't think we're necessarily disagreeing. I think your explanation focuses on what happens AFTER consumers recognize a commercial relationship, whereas my research focuses on what happens BEFORE that recognition occurs (if it occurs at all) and how authenticity and perceived personal connection shape the development of trust. Those are complementary explanations rather than competing ones, but I would argue that the latter helps explain why influencer marketing is fundamentally different from conventional advertising in the first place.
I'm looking at this as a Behavioral Economist, so the updating feature is where my viewpoint is anchored.
Influencer marketing has these predictable distortions in how consumers calibrate their confidence. Rather than using the new knowledge in an improved manner, people increase their risk-taking, sometimes at a uncalculated future cost. The feeling of having made a decision in some decisive manner feels like empowerment, when it's more akin to herding.
Remove the complexity of decision making and influencers lean into their credibility to make that choice feel safe. That Affect Heuristic, where the consumer feels positive about their choice, only increases the influencers credibility.
You're correct, we're looking at the cause/effect of incentive design. I believe your paper uses Self-Determination Theory as a factor, the autonomy-supportive design factors overlapping the financial incentives. I would be adding in the behavioral/psychological needs of the outcome to the mix. I think that's where we're deviating, how we're measuring that intrinsic motivation.
As i listen. I want to say i think parasocial relationships are a major primer for many of the issues we have today. Much like most things there can be a sense od community, but it also allows for unhealthy one sided assumptions.
What’s authenticity vs credibility?
Influencers warp a person's expectation biases by offering a consistent message triggering a type of compliance. It's social signaling.
If the influencer is transparent about their association with a product/person it increases their credibilty and lowers any risk aversion the audience may feel. The choice is simplified because a "authority" offers what is usually not a subjective opinion.
Beats headphones is a great example of a middle ground product that has an over-sized reach based on the perception of their quality since "famous person" wears them.
Kylie Jenners makeup? Bargain bin stuff they slap a new wrapper on and charge Lauder pricing.
Credibility economically is seen as Bayesian updating (rational) but it's more akin to a belief updating system (irrational).
Thanks for taking the time to comment. I actually agree with several parts of what you're saying, but I think we're discussing two different levels of the same phenomenon.
You're absolutely right that influencers can shape expectations, create social signaling, and reduce uncertainty. Those are well-established mechanisms in consumer behavior. It is a foundation for advertising. Where I think we differ is in explaining WHY those mechanisms become so powerful in influencer marketing compared to traditional advertising.
You mention that disclosure of a commercial relationship increases credibility and reduces perceived risk. I agree that transparency is important. However, one of the central characteristics of influencer marketing is that consumers often DON't KNOW whether a recommendation is genuinely personal or commercially motivated. Even though culture increasingly requires sponsored content to be disclosed, research (and, as Abdullah mentioned during the podcast,) suggests that disclosures are still inconsistent and often insufficient for consumers to fully recognize persuasive intent.
That distinction matters because traditional advertising begins from a completely different psychological starting point. When people see a television commercial or a banner ad, they immediately recognize that the company is trying to persuade them. Consumers activate what persuasion researchers call their "persuasion knowledge" and evaluate the message accordingly.
With influencers, however, that initial frame is often absent. Instead of processing the message as advertising, many consumers first process it as a recommendation from someone they know, follow, and have developed a relationship with over time. My buddy told me! Whether that relationship is entirely rational is another discussion, but psychologically, it functions as a form of social relationship.
This is where concepts like authenticity and parasocial relationships become important. Our research suggests that consumers are not simply responding to repeated exposure or social compliance. Rather, authenticity helps build a parasocial relationship, which increases trust, and trust changes how consumers evaluate recommendations. In other words, trust isn't just another outcome. It becomes the lens through which later product information is interpreted.
This is why influencer marketing often performs differently from traditional advertising. It's not merely because influencers have credibility or because they reduce risk. It's because the recommendation frequently enters the consumer's decision process before being categorized as advertising in the first place.
Ironically, your point about disclosure actually reinforces this distinction.
If every influencer consistently disclosed every paid relationship in a highly visible and unmistakable way (and consumers always processed those disclosures correctly), influencer marketing would likely become much more similar to traditional advertising. The persuasive advantage would diminish because consumers would begin evaluating the message with the same skepticism they typically apply to advertisements.
So I don't think we're necessarily disagreeing. I think your explanation focuses on what happens AFTER consumers recognize a commercial relationship, whereas my research focuses on what happens BEFORE that recognition occurs (if it occurs at all) and how authenticity and perceived personal connection shape the development of trust. Those are complementary explanations rather than competing ones, but I would argue that the latter helps explain why influencer marketing is fundamentally different from conventional advertising in the first place.
I'm looking at this as a Behavioral Economist, so the updating feature is where my viewpoint is anchored.
Influencer marketing has these predictable distortions in how consumers calibrate their confidence. Rather than using the new knowledge in an improved manner, people increase their risk-taking, sometimes at a uncalculated future cost. The feeling of having made a decision in some decisive manner feels like empowerment, when it's more akin to herding.
Remove the complexity of decision making and influencers lean into their credibility to make that choice feel safe. That Affect Heuristic, where the consumer feels positive about their choice, only increases the influencers credibility.
You're correct, we're looking at the cause/effect of incentive design. I believe your paper uses Self-Determination Theory as a factor, the autonomy-supportive design factors overlapping the financial incentives. I would be adding in the behavioral/psychological needs of the outcome to the mix. I think that's where we're deviating, how we're measuring that intrinsic motivation.
As i listen. I want to say i think parasocial relationships are a major primer for many of the issues we have today. Much like most things there can be a sense od community, but it also allows for unhealthy one sided assumptions.
That's true. How many are influenced positively or negatively by people they do not know