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

net/publication/342522253

The Effect of Influencer Marketing on Consumers’ Brand Admiration and

Online Purchase Intentions: An Emerging Market Perspective

Article  in  Journal of Internet Commerce · January 2020

DOI: 10.1080/15332861.2019.1700741

CITATIONS READS

126 13,204

2 authors:

Jay P Trivedi Ramzan Sama

Mudra Institute of Communications, Ahmedabad (MICA) Narsee Monjee institute of Management studies, Indore
27 PUBLICATIONS   433 CITATIONS    9 PUBLICATIONS   246 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Mobile Apps View project

Viral Marketing Messages View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jay P Trivedi on 29 June 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Effect of Influencer Marketing on Consumers’ Brand Admiration and
Online Purchase Intentions: An Emerging Market Perspective
Abstract

This paper focuses on consumer electronics products and observes the comparative effect of
celebrity vis-à-vis expert influencers on consumers' online purchase intentions. The mediating
role played by brand admiration and brand attitude between influencer marketing and online
purchase intentions are tested. The moderating role played by message involvement between
influencer marketing and brand attitude is also observed. The survey method was employed to
conduct this research, and data were collected from 438 respondents. The proposed hypotheses
were tested using structural equation modeling, hierarchical regression analysis, and Hayes
process method. The results submit that there is a definite advantage in choosing an expert
influencer over an attractive celebrity influencer while planning the marketing communications
of consumer electronics products. The mediating role of brand attitude and brand admiration
is empirically evident. The moderating effect of involvement is also established.

Keywords: Millennials; influencer marketing; brand attitude; brand admiration; Online

purchase intentions; message process involvement.

1.0 Introduction

India is the fastest-growing e-commerce market expanding at a rate of fifty-one percent, the
highest in the world (IBEF, 2019). Consumer electronics is the largest category, commanding
48% of the total e-commerce category sales in this lucrative market (IBEF, 2019). This online
retail revolution in India is driven by the active participation of millennial consumers, who
form the most significant consumer segment online (Trivedi and Trivedi, 2018). Consumer
electronics category marketers employ social media influencers to build an interactive
relationship with the millennial consumers’ as this cohort continues to lose interest in
traditional advertising (Odell, 2015; Fromm, 2018; Lou and Yuan, 2018, Cooley and Parks,
2019). However, few researchers have attempted to understand the effect of influencer
marketing on various facets of consumer behaviour (Godey et al., 2016; Lim et al., 2017; Lou
and Yuan, 2018). Also, choosing from among the domain expert influencers’ vis-à-vis an
attractive celebrity influencer is proving to be a conundrum for marketers (Wolfson, 2017; Hill
2018). From an academic perspective, few studies have attempted to compare the efficacy of
the two endorses, making this an essential addition to literature (Schouten et al., 2019). Also,
the effect of influencer marketing on the consumer-brand relationship is understudied
(Schouten et al., 2019). Such a study is crucial in today’s scenario where marketers are aiming
at developing an emotional relationship with their consumers. As the effectiveness of endorser
type varies with the product they endorse, choosing an appropriate influencer assumes a greater
challenge (De Veirman et al., 2017).

Hence, this research observes the comparative effect of an expert social media influencer vis-
a-vis' an attractive celebrity influencer's endorsement on the millennial consumer's brand
attitude, which further results in brand admiration, finally leading to online purchase intentions.
The moderating role of message process involvement between influencer endorsement and
brand attitude is observed. The mediating role played by brand attitude and brand admiration
between influencer endorsement and purchase intentions are also observed. This study is
focused on consumer electronics products as marketers in this category spend a significant
amount of their budgets on influencer marketing (Hallanan, 2018). Further, owing to the
availability of a wide array of latest technologies in the consumer electronics segment, it is
difficult for consumers to select the right product suiting their needs (Heitmann & Herrmann,
2007). This difficulty leads to their dependence on social media influencers for customized
suggestions.

India is home to the largest cohort of Gen Y (born after 1981, also referred to as millennials)
individuals. This consumer cohort spends about 11.2% of their monthly income on electronics,
the most among other generations (Kaur & Singh, 2007; Ahluwalia, 2018). This cohort
possesses high purchasing power, nurture aspirations, and play a crucial role in the purchase
decision-making process in the family (Khare and Rakesh, 2011; Adnan, Ahmad, and Khan,
2017). For these consumers, the internet and social media influencers have become a trusted
source for updated product information (Harish Kumar et al., 2018). Social media influencers
are “a new type of independent third party endorser who shape audience attitudes through
blogs, tweets, and the use of other social media” (Freberg et al., 2011). Influencers are present
across most digital media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube, to name
a few (Lou and Yuan, 2018; Trivedi, 2018; Harish Kumar et al., 2018).

Marketing literature has established a strong connection between involvement and formation
of brand attitude (Lutz et al., 1983; Lutz 1985, Trivedi 2018). White (2014) indicated that
millennials are more caring about their experiences and relationship with brands. Hence,
marketers have great value for factors leading to a strong consumer-brand relationship
(Karjaluoto et al., 2016). A strong consumer-brand relationship leads to higher sales, lower
price sensitivity, brand loyalty, and higher profitability (Franzen, 1999; Aaker &
Joachimsthaler, 2000).

Admired brands enjoy strong consumer-brand relationships leading to recurrent purchases and
better brand image (Aaker, Garbinsky, and Vosh 2012; Park et al., 2016). As brand admiration
is a relatively unexplored marketing construct, there is a need to explore its antecedents and
consequences further (Aaker et al., 2012; Park at al., 2016). This paper studies the effect of
influencers’ endorsement on brand attitude, further leading to brand admiration, finally
resulting in online purchase intentions.

The further sections of the paper are structured as follows: the literature review discusses the
extant studies related to the context of the present study and helps conceptualize the proposed
model. The methodology section highlights the sampling and data collection process. The data
analysis section tests the proposed hypotheses to draw conclusions and identify the potential
contribution to theory and practice.
2.0 Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

The extant research focused on the theory of reasoned action, source models, and brand
admiration for designing a proposed model that reflected the research objectives. The theory
of reasoned action has been factored in for this study because it explains the relationship
between attitude and behaviour. In this study, the researchers aim to unravel the relationship
between brand attitude and purchase intentions for consumer electronics products. The brand
attitude is proposed to be formed due to the stimuli of endorsement by an attractive celebrity
influencer or an expert influencer. Both these characteristics of the influencers i.e.,
attractiveness and expertise, are drawn from the source models available in extant literature.

2.1 Attitude towards the Brand (AB) and Purchase Intentions (PI)

According to the theory of reasoned action (TRA) proposed by Ajzen and Fishbein (1980),
attitude towards the behavior is one of the critical determinants of behavioral intentions.
Attitude is defined as “an internal evaluation of an object such as branded product.” Kotler and
Armstrong (1996) explained the brand attitude as “an individual's favorable or unfavorable
evaluation for a specific brand or product in the market.” As reported in multiple studies,
attitude towards the brand (AB) is an established mediator between advertising stimuli and
multiple marketing variables like purchase intentions (Gresham & Shimp, 1985; Mackenzie et
al., 1986; Trivedi, 2018). Thus the study of attitude is important in marketing and advertising
studies to predict consumer purchase intentions (Oliver, 1980; Shih, 2004; Kobia and Liu,
2017; Evans& Bang, 2018). PI is defined as “the consumer's propensity of buying the brand in
the future (Yoo et al., 2000).” Most studies in the area of consumer behaviour submit that
purchase intention is the function of attitude toward the brand (Bennett & Harrell, 1975;
Mackenzie et al., 1986; Flaherty & Pappas, 2000).

Consumers are slow in changing their attitude as it is formed over a period through experiences
(Boone & Kurtz, 2002). Few researchers have studied the effect of influencer marketing on
attitude towards the brand (AB) and purchase intentions (PI). Attractive celebrities or domain
experts are the key influencers employed by marketers to build a consumer-brand relationship
(Lim et al., 2017; Trivedi, 2018).

2.2 Expert Influencers (EI) and Attractive celebrity Influencers (ACI)

Source models play a crucial role in explaining the impact of endorsements on consumer
behavior. Source trustworthiness and expertise are the critical dimensions of the source
credibility model (Hovland & Weiss, 1953). This seminal study defined source expertise as
"the extent to which a communicator is perceived to be a source of valid assertions." The source
attractiveness model (McGuire, 1985) defined attractiveness as the consumer's perceived
likability, familiarity, and similarity with the endorser. Multiple studies conducted using both
these models submit that perceived source credibility and attractiveness influences consumer
behaviour (Hovland & Weiss, 1953; McGuire, 1985; Meenaghan, 1995; Rashid et al., 2002).

However, there exist varied opinions about the effectiveness of endorsements in extant
research. One school of thought has established the crucial role played by expert endorsers
towards influencing consumer behaviour (Ohanian, 1990; Biswas et al. 2006; Bhatt et al., 2013;
Tzoumaka et al., 2016). Contrary to these results, the second school of thought posits that an
attractive celebrity has a more significant impact on consumer behavior (McGuire, 1985;
Trivedi, 2018).

However, it is noteworthy that the extant research conducted to observe the effectiveness of
endorsements has not taken into account the uniqueness of social media influencers (Lim et al.,
2017; Trivedi, 2018). Freberg et al. (2011) posited that social media influencers are unique
third-party endorsers who use digital media channels to shape public attitudes. Moreover, few
researchers have focused on observing the effectiveness of social media influencers on the
consumer-brand relationship (Lou and Yuan, 2018). Moreover, the efficacy of each endorser
type varies with the product being endorsed (De Veirman et al., 2017). Here, the researchers
intended to observe the comparative effect of an attractive v/s expert influencer on consumer’s
brand attitude from the perspective of consumer electronics products. Hence the following
hypothesis are proposed:

H1: Expert influencers (EI) exhibit a significant and positive effect on brand attitude (AB).

H2: Attractive celebrity influencers (ACI) exhibit a significant and positive influence on brand
attitude (AB).

2.3 Message process involvement (MPI)

Consumers' motivation to process the information on exposure to a stimulus is termed as

message process involvement (Baker and Lutz, 2000). Message process involvement is an
important factor influencing advertising processing (Muehling & Laczniak, 1993). Krugman
(1965) argued that consumers' involvement with the message affects the response to
advertisements. Celsi and Olson (1988) established that higher message involvement leads to
an increase in advertisements' attention and higher cognitive efforts. Petty and Cacioppo (1986)
proposed the ELM (Elaboration Likelihood Model) model and posited that the higher
involvement results in the message being processed through the central route. On the other
hand, low involvement situations lead to the increased influence of other dimensions of
advertisement such as endorsers and advertising milieu.

Higher message involvement leads to shaping consumer attitudes (Greenwald and Leavitt,
1984; Fernando et al., 2016). Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann (1983) established the
moderating role of message process involvement in advertisements. Their study established
that message involvement moderates the relationship between advertising stimuli and
consumer attitude. A study by Muehling et al. (1991) established the moderating role of
involvement from the advertising message perspective. Hence it can be presumed that the level
of consumers’ involvement will alter the effectiveness of the advertising stimuli.

However, the above research studied the moderating role of involvement from the perspective
of traditional advertising stimuli and not from the perspective of digital marketing
communications and influencer marketing. It is noteworthy that consumer involvement and
attitude towards traditional and digital marketing communications are different (Kaplan and
Haenlein, 2010).

Hence, the researchers wanted to confirm the moderating role played by MPI between the
influencer endorsement and formation of brand attitude, leading to the formation of the
following hypothesis:

H3A: MPI positively strengthens the relationship between expert influencer marketing and
brand attitude (AB).

H3B: MPI positively strengthens the relationship between attractive celebrity influencer
marketing and brand attitude (AB).

2.4 Brand Admiration (BA)

In highly competitive markets, an established brand proves to be a strong competitive

advantage, helping create consumer pull. The enduring success of popular brands like Google,
Disney, Apple, and Nike is due to the admiration endowed upon them by their consumers (Park,
Macinis, & Eisingerich, 2016). These companies are the market leader in their segment and
enjoy strong brand equity, indicating their success. Park et al. (2016) posited that brand
admiration is an important measure of consumer-brand relationship and established brand
love(BL), brand trust(BT), and brand respect(BR) as the three key elements of brand
admiration. Albert, Merunka, & Florence (2009) defined brand love as “customers' passionate
affection towards the brand.” Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) referred to brand trust as “the
readiness of an average customer to rely on the capacity of the brand to perform its committed
function.” Corebrand (2013) report describes brand respect as “the level of familiarity and
favourability of the brand among the consumers.”

Karjaluoto et al. (2016) established that brand love is a stronger predictor of the consumer-
brand relationship as compared to other affective variables like brand attitude and preference.
Batra et al. (2012) submitted that loved brands are difficult to replace, and consumers feel
distressed in the unavailability of these brands and are ready to pay a premium for a loved
brand (Thomson et al., 2005). A feeling of psychological affinity with the brand, a positive
attitude towards the brand, and positive brand experiences are a few notable and established
antecedents to brand love (Alex et al., 2012).As per the commitment-trust theory posited by
Morgan and Hunt (1994), trust is an important element in the development of a long-lasting
consumer-brand relationship. Kabadayi (2012) posited that brand trust is the function of the
direct experiences of consumers in dealing with the brand. Delgado- Ballester & Aleman
(2005) argued that brand trust has positive effects on brand equity and purchase intentions,
which further leads to a competitive advantage for a brand. Thus brand trust plays a vital role
in the company's success (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) established
that brand trust has a significant impact on two dimensions of brand loyalty, i.e., behavioral
and attitudinal loyalty.

Roberts (2004) submitted that brands earn consumers’ respect owing to good performance,
finally resulting in building a positive reputation. Lai et al. (2013) submitted that brand respect
leads to the formation of goodwill for the seller. Kapferer (2012) suggested that respected
brands reduce the quantum of risk for the consumer in a purchase situation. Earlier studies have
reported risk as a potent threat to the consumer decision-making process. Some studies have
reported a significant correlation between brand respect and purchase intentions (Frei &
Shaver, 2002; Zacchilli et al., 2009). Thus BL, BR, and BT are the three elements forming the
construct of brand admiration. All these three elements are essential together because love
needs to be accompanied by trust and respect to be sustainable and long-lasting (Eisingerich,
2017). Aaker et al. (2012) established that admired brands motivate consumers to purchase
more from the brand.

However, as brand admiration is a relatively new variable indicating a strong consumer-brand

relationship, it is important to identify its antecedents and consequences (Aaker et al., 2012;
Park et al., 2016). Hence, the researchers here intend to observe the relationship between AB
and BA, leading to the following hypothesis:

H4: Brand Attitude (AB) has a significant impact on brand admiration (BA).

Drawing from the literature elaborated above, the researchers intended to observe the impact
of BA on PI, leading to the following hypothesis:

H5: Brand admiration (BA) has a significant impact on online purchase intentions (PI).

The relationship between source models (attractiveness and expertise) and purchase intentions
is mediated by brand attitude (Lafferty & Goldsmith, 1999). This suggests that source
characteristics (attractiveness and expertise) will not have a significant effect on purchase
intentions directly. However, source characteristics will positively effect brand attitude, which
will further result in purchase intentions. On these lines, the researchers here wanted to observe
if AB and BA, play a mediating role between influencer marketing and PI, leading to the
following hypothesis:

H6a: AB mediates the relationship between EI, ACI, and PI.

H6b: BA mediates the relationship between EI, ACI, and PI.

Figure 1: Author’s Proposed Model

 Expert
Influencer
Online
Attitude Brand
Purchase
towards Admiration
Intention
the brand

Attractive
Celebrity
influencer
= Direct Impact

= Moderating Effect
Message (Source: Author’s proposed model)
Process
Involvement

3.0 Methodology

3.1 Data and Sample

This research focused on consumer electronics products like mobile phones, laptops, and other
electronics accessories. The researchers employed a descriptive research design to conduct the
study. Hence, the researchers created an online structured questionnaire (Google forms) and
administered it to respondents using social media platforms like Facebook. The questionnaire
was administered to respondents in India. This because India is the world's number one country
in terms of usage of Facebook (World's most populated social media platform) and also ranks
second in the world in terms of internet users (Statista, 2019). The questionnaire was
administered in English.

To begin with, there were three filter questions to identify the appropriate respondents. First,
the choice of respondents was restricted in the age group of 24-38 years as this cohort
constitutes a significant online population in India and also confirmed to the definition of Gen
Y (born between 1981-1995) (Solka et al., 2011). Also, the urban markets report the highest
internet penetration (65%) in India compared to rural markets (20%), as reported by IAMAI
(Agrawal, 2018). Hence responses were requested from consumers residing in urban India
only. The third filter question required the respondent to fill the questionnaire only if they
followed influencers on social media platforms and had purchased at least one electronics
product through an e-commerce platform after exposure to influencer content promoted by the
marketer. These three filter questions assured the researchers of obtaining responses from the
most significant online consumer cohort in the Indian market.
438 responses were obtained after giving sufficient time to the respondents. Of these responses,
17 were found inappropriate on account of missing responses to most questions. Hence data
analysis was performed using 421 responses. This number is sufficient to conduct the study,
following Slovin’s formula for calculating the sample size.

Slovin’s formula n= N/ (1 + N * E2)

Here, n = sample size, N = total population, and e = margin of error. The current research
determines the sample size with a 95% confidence level, thus allowing only a 5% margin of
error. Internet and Mobile Marketing Association of India (IAMAI) reported 500 million
internet users in India in June 2018. Hence, based on Slovin's formula, the ideal sample size
should have been 385. Hence the number of responses in this research is suitable in quantum.

Of the 438 respondents, 46% (n=201) of the consumers were in the age group of 24-30 years,
and 54% (n=237) were in the age group of 31-38 years. 67% (n=293) of the respondents were
male and the balance 33% (n=145) were females. Further, 33% (n=144) of the respondents had
completed graduation, 65% (n=285) had completed post-graduation, and 2 % (n=9) of the
consumers were either pursuing a doctorate or had completed it. The detailed demographics of
the consumers are reported in the below table. 29% (n= 127) of the respondents were single
and 71% (n=311) were married. From the household income (in INR) perspective, 4% (n=18)
of the respondents fell in the slab below INR 5, 00,000 while 54% (n=237) of the respondents
belonged to the 5, 00,001-10, 00,000 slab and 42% (n=183) of the respondents made above
INR 10, 00,001.

3.2 Measures, Face Validity and Statistical software

Seven-point Likert scales ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” were adapted
from previous studies to develop the instrument used in this survey. Only AB was measured
using a semantic differential scale.

Scales for EI and ACI were drawn from a survey conducted by Ohanian (1990). The scale to
measure MPI was drawn from Muehling et al. (1993). A study done by Biehal et al. (1992)
helped adapt a scale to measure AB. The scale to measure PI was drawn from Trivedi (2018).
The scale to measure brand love was drawn from Karjaluoto et al. (2016). Brand trust was
measured by adapting a scale from Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001). Brand respect was
measured using a scale from a study conducted by Cho (2011).

Before the final questionnaire was sent to the respondents, it was sent to two experienced
researchers to determine its face validity. The comments received from this exercise helped in
improving the readability of the instrument, and hence face validity was confirmed. There were
34 items in the instrument in addition to the demographics and three filter questions. Data
analysis was conducted using SPSS, AMOS, and Ms-Excel.
4.0 Data Analysis

4.1 Reliability and Validity

Cronbach's alpha was used to assess scale reliability. Each variable exhibited an alpha value
above 0.70 and hence, admissible (Nunnally, 1978). The need for conducting factor analysis
was observed by testing the KMO and Bartlett's test of sphericity. KMO value obtained was
0.808, and Bartlett's test of sphericity was significant. This established the need for conducting
factor analysis. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) test exhibited factor loadings of each item
of each variable to be above 0.60 and hence, acceptable (Hair et al., 1998). The presence of
multicollinearity issue was tested by examining the variance inflation factor (VIF) values
(Harrison, 1998). The VIF values were observed for each variable in the study. The highest
VIF value observed was 1.22, negating the presence of multicollinearity issues (Grewal et al.,
2004).

Thereafter, the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using the maximum-
likelihood estimation. The CMIN/DF value was 1.679, GFI value was 0.937, AGFI value was
0.901, CFI value was 0.915, the TLI value was 0.927, RMSEA value was 0.06, and SRMR
value was 0.06. Chin et al. (1995) submitted that the CMIN/DF value should be less than 3.
Hair et al. (1998) submitted that the values for TLI, GFI, AGFI, and CFI should be more than
0.90 for a good model fit. Hair et al. (1998) also submitted that the value for SRMR should be
less than 0.1. Browne and Cudeck (1993) submitted that the value for RMSEA should be less
than 0.1. Hence the model fit indices were in the acceptable range. Factor loading for two items
was observed to be less than 0.60 and was neglected in further analysis. Post removal of these
two items, Cronbach's alpha was calculated, and each variable exhibited the alpha value of
more than 0.70. Table-1 demonstrates the post CFA, Cronbach's alpha, and factor loadings.

Thereafter the convergent and discriminant validity were examined (Bagozzi & Edwards,
1998). The average variance extracted (AVE) and composite reliability (CR) values were above
0.5 and 0.7, respectively, and hence acceptable (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Table-1 exhibits
the AVE and CR values of each variable. Further, discriminant validity was also established as
the square root of the AVE value of each variable was observed to be higher than its correlation
value with other variables (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Table-2 exhibits the values establishing
discriminant validity.

4.2 Common Method Bias (CMB) and Non-response Bias

The researchers had conducted the study using a structured questionnaire as the only
instrument. Hence it was important to detect if common method bias (CMB) is impacting the
data. Harman's single factor test was conducted, and therein, a single factor accounted for 22%
of the variance, negating the possibility of common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
Further, the researchers confirmed the absence of CMB by using the common latent factor
method. Regression weight for the two models, viz. one with the CLF and the other without
the CLF exhibited delta less than 0.20, confirming the absence of CMB. Non-response bias
was established as no difference in response to any variables was observed between the early
and late respondents of the survey (Armstrong and Overton, 1977).
4.3 Structural Model Assessment

Structural equation modeling (SEM) using maximum-likelihood estimation was conducted to

test the proposed hypothesis. This because SEM can directly measure the relationship between
latent and observed variables (Hair et al., 2009). The CMIN/DF value was 1.619, GFI value
was 0.948, AGFI value was 0.912, the CFI value was 0.921, the TLI value was 0.938, the
RMSEA value was 0.06, and SRMR value was 0.05. The results helped establish a good fit
between data and the model. Thereafter, the hypotheses were tested using SEM. Both EI (p =
0.000, Beta Value (β) = 0.675) and ACI (p = 0.013, β = 0.375) exhibited a significant impact
on AB. Further, AB (p = 0.000, β = 0.604) exhibited a significant impact on BA. Further BA
(p = 0.000, β = 0.740) exhibited a significant influence on the PI as exhibited in Table-3.

4.4 Moderation Analysis

Thereafter, hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to observe the moderating role
played by MPI between the independent variables and AB. This method was selected as it is
more suitable in cases when the data is non-categorical (Hood et al., 2015; Chen et al., 2016).
Holmbeck (2002) submitted that moderation is established in cases when the interaction
variable (created by the interaction between standardized independent variables and
moderating variable) exhibits a significant impact on the dependent variable (in this case-AB).

The moderating role of MPI between EI and AB was tested. As such, as exhibited in Table-4,
Section A, model -1, the effect of EI (p = 0.000, Beta Value (β) = 0.668) on AB was found to
be significant. The R-squared value was 0.416. In model-2, MPI (p = 0.012, β = 0.368) also
exhibited a significant effect on AB. Here the R-squared value was 0.448. In the model-3, an
interaction item (p = 0.000, β = 0.671) is introduced which also exhibited a significant influence
on AB. The R-squared value for this model is 0.483. The R-squared value increases steadily
from Model-1 to Model-3, indicating the moderating effect (Aiken & West, 1991). The results
suggest that MPI moderates the relationship between EI and AB, as exhibited in Table-4,
section A.

Further, the moderating role of MPI between ACI and AB was tested. As exhibited in Table-
4, section B, ACI (p = 0.008, β = 0.380) exhibited a significant effect on AB in model 1. The
R-Squared value was 0.397. MPI (p = 0.012, β = 0.367) exhibited significant influence on AB
and the R-Squared value was 0.448. In model-3, a moderator item was created, and its effect
on AB was tested. The moderator item (p = 0.000, β = 0.501) exhibited a significant effect on
AB, indicating the moderating effect. The results suggest that MPI moderates the relationship
between ACI and AB, as exhibited in Table-4, section-B.

4.5 Mediation Analysis

The mediation effect was confirmed using the Hayes process method using the bootstrapping
method (Hayes, 2009). The bootstrapping method is accepted as a comparatively stronger
method for testing mediating effects (Shrout and Bolger, 2002).

The direct effect of EI on PI was not significant (p = 0.328). However, the indirect effect of EI
on PI mediated by brand attitude and brand admiration was significant. For AB as the mediator,
the absence of zero value between the bootstrapped lower level confidence interval (LLCI)
(0.073) and upper-level confidence interval (ULCI) (0.173) confirmed the mediation effect.
Similarly, in the case of BA as the mediator, the absence of zero value between the bootstrapped
LLCI (0.037) and ULCI (0.141) confirmed the mediation effect.

The direct effect of ACI on PI was not significant (p = 0.074). However, the indirect effect of
ACI on PI mediated by brand attitude and brand admiration was significant. For AB as the
mediator, the absence of the zero value between the bootstrapped LLCI (0.042) to ULCI
(0.116) confirmed the mediation effect. Similarly, in the case of BA as the mediator, the
absence of zero value between the bootstrapped LLCI (0.012) and ULCI (0.202) confirmed the
mediation effect.

5.0 Discussion and Conclusion

The objective of this study was to observe the comparative effect of an attractive celebrity
influencer vis-à-vis, an expert influencer on consumers' choice of electronics products. The
results obtained here indicate that consumers give more weight to an expert influencer’s
opinion compared to that of an attractive celebrity influencer while choosing electronics
products.

The researchers observed the impact of an expert influencer vis-à-vis an attractive celebrity
influencer on brand attitude (AB), which further influences brand admiration (BA) and finally
resulting in online purchase intentions. Both EI (expert influencers) and ACI (attractive
celebrity influencers) exhibited a significant impact on AB, thus leading to the acceptance of
H1 and H2. These results are similar to Trivedi (2018) and Lim et al. (2017). However, these
two studies did not focus on observing the impact of influencer marketing from the context of
the consumer electronics industry, making the current results a unique contribution. Moreover,
the beta values obtained indicate a stronger effect of EI as compared to ACI. Although these
results contradict the findings suggested by Trivedi (2018), it is noteworthy that both the studies
were conducted for different product categories. While the research by Trivedi (2018) reported
higher efficacy of attractive celebrity influencers in fashion products marketing, this study
established the effectiveness of expert influencers over celebrity influencers in the consumer
electronics products marketing.

Further, AB exhibited a significant effect on BA, leading to the acceptance of H4. This result
established brand attitude as an antecedent to a relatively new marketing variable, brand
admiration (Aaker at al., 2012), making this a novel contribution. The impact of BA was
significant on online PI (purchase intention), leading to acceptance of H5. Aaker et al. (2012)
and Eisingerich (2017) had proposed brand admiration as an antecedent to purchase intentions.
The result obtained in this study supports their proposition. The moderating role of MPI
between expert influencer marketing and brand attitude (AB) was also observed. The
moderating role of MPI between attractive celebrity influencer and brand attitude was also
tested. The results are exhibited in Table-4 and validate the moderating role played by MPI in
both the stated relationships. As such, these results concur with the findings of Petty et al.
(1983) and Fernando et al. (2016), thus accepting H3A and H3B. However, it is noteworthy
that the role of message involvement in this study was observed from the perspective of
influencer marketing, making this a unique contribution. Further, the mediating role played by
AB and BA was also established, leading to acceptance of H6a and H6b. Multiple studies
focused on marketing communications have proposed brand attitude as a mediating variable
(Mackenzie et al., (1986); Aaker et al., (2012); Lim et al. (2017); and Trivedi (2018)). The
results obtained in the current research supports these findings. Notably, this study established
the mediating role played by BA, thus unraveling the role of this relatively new variable in the
consumer-brand relationship. Further, the results obtained in this study are unique as the focus
here was on studying the effectiveness of influencer marketing from an emerging market
perspective.

6.0 Contribution to Theory

This study contributes to theory from three perspectives. Firstly, this paper contributes to the
understanding of consumer behavior towards influencer marketing in an emerging market like
India. There are limited studies that have explored the effect of influencer marketing on various
facets of consumer behaviour (Godey et al., 2016; Lou and Yuan, 2018). For marketing of the
consumer electronic products, this paper empirically establishes the importance of an expert
influencer compared to an attractive celebrity influencer. As the usage of influencer marketing
gains steam across the globe, this study confirmed the role played by influencer marketing
towards the formation of brand attitude, brand admiration(affective variable) and purchase
intentions- PI (conative variable), which is a significant contribution to the extant
understanding of influencer marketing.

Further, this study unravels the role played by brand admiration, a relatively new variable
(Aaker et al., 2012; Eisingerich, 2016) in the consumer decision-making process. The findings
establish brand attitude (AB) as an antecedent to brand admiration (BA) and also empirically
validates BA as an antecedent to online PI. Notably, BA exhibits a strong consumer-brand
relationship (Park, Macinis, & Eisingerich, 2016). Further, this study also established brand
admiration as a mediator, thus exploring this relatively new variable from multiple dimensions.

Lastly, this paper also establishes the moderating role played by message process involvement
(MPI) between communication stimuli (here influencer marketing) and brand attitude,
supporting the earlier results obtained by Petty et al. (1983) and Fernando et al., (2016).
However, as this study observed the moderating role of involvement from the perspective of
influencer marketing, the result is an incremental addition to the theory of involvement.

7.0 Contribution to Practice

From the perspective of practice, this study highlights the importance of working with an expert
influencer in consumer electronics marketing. Further, as involvement moderates the
relationship between influencer endorsement and brand attitude, it is important that influencers
ensure that they help their followers with authentic and updated product information, which
increases consumer involvement and also strengthens brand attitude. The brand attitude thus
formed, results in brand admiration among the millennial cohort and further leads to online
purchase intentions. This is a significant insight as it may help marketers achieve a higher
return on influencer marketing investments. It is also noteworthy that brand admiration
indicates a strong consumer-brand relationship. This study indicates that for the marketing of
consumer electronics products, expert influencers will help marketers create a strong
consumer-brand relationship, which may give brands, sustainable competitive advantage in
highly competitive emerging markets.

8.0 Limitations and Future Scope

It is important to note that the role played by influencers in marketing communications is

understudied. This is arguably one of the first studies focused on observing the effect of
influencer marketing on consumer behaviour from the perspective of consumer electronics.
However, there are a few limitations to this study. As data is drawn from millennials, it is not
representative of all consumer cohorts in a largely populated country like India. The effect of
influencers is expected to vary with the product category under consideration. Hence, future
studies can focus on other emerging categories in the e-commerce market like wearables,
online furniture, and jewellery, among others. An increasing number of marketers are aiming
at understanding the behavior of gen z as online shoppers. Hence a study focused on the effect
of influencer marketing on gen z is an emerging area of study. Future research can also focus
on moderators like gender and higher-income groups. Also, the data collected for this study
was cross-sectional. A longitudinal study can help observe the long term impact of influencer
marketing on consumer behaviour. Future researchers can also look at observing the impact of
influencer marketing on other important variables like brand equity, brand loyalty, and brand
recall. The effect of marketing communication varies with the consumers' product involvement
making this an interesting moderator in future models involving influencers. From a cultural
perspective, endorsement effectiveness studies have exhibited varying results. Hence a cross-
cultural study comparing influencer effectiveness in emerging vis-a-vis developed markets will
be an interesting addition to the extant literature on influencer marketing.

References

Aaker, J. L., Garbinsky, E. N., Vohs, K. D. 2012. Cultivating admiration in brands: Warmth,
competence, and landing in the golden quadrant. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(2):191–
194. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2011.11.012.

Aaker, D. A., and Joachimsthaler, E. 2000. The brand relationship spectrum: The key to the
brand architecture challenge. California management review 42 (4):8–23.
doi:10.1177%2F000812560004200401.
Adnan, A., Ahmad, A., and Khan, M. N. 2017. Examining the role of consumer lifestyles on
ecological behavior among young Indian consumers. Young Consumers 18 (4):348-377.
doi:10.1108/YC-05-2017-00699.

Agarwal, S. 2018. Internet users in India expected to reach 500 million by June: IAMAI. The
Economic Times. Available at: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/internet/internet-
users-in-india-expected-to-reach-500-million-by-june-iamai/articleshow/63000198.cms.

Ahluwalia, A.2018. Millennials to redefine India’s consumption story: report. Available at:
https://www.livemint.com/Consumer/vj5e3v3uGyQR9KRwcvNBvN/Millennials-to-redefine-
Indias-consumption-story-report.html accessed on March, 2019.

Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., Reno, R. R. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions, Sage.

Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M. 1980. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour.

Albert, N., Merunka, D.,Valette-Florence, P. 2009. The feeling of love toward a brand: Concept
and measurement. Advances in Consumer Research Volume 36, eds. Ann L. McGill and
Sharon Shavitt. Duluth, MN : Association for Consumer Research 300-307.

Alex, N. J., & Joseph, A. (2012). Hedonic Versus Utilitarian Values: The Relative Importance
of Real and Ideal Self to Brand Personality and Its Influence on Emotional Brand
Attachment. Vilakshan: The XIMB Journal of Management, 9(2).

Armstrong, J. S.,Overton, T. S. 1977. Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of

marketing research 14 (3):396-402. doi:10.1080/00913367.1990.10673198.

Baker, W. E., Lutz, R. J. 2000. An empirical test of an updated relevance-accessibility model

of advertising effectiveness’, Journal of Advertising 29 (1):1-14.
doi:10.1080/00913367.2000.10673599.

Bagozzi, R. P., Edwards, J. R. 1998 A general approach for representing constructs in

organizational research. Organizational research methods 1 (1):45-87.
doi:10.1177/109442819800100104

Batra, R., Ahuvia, A. and Bagozzi, R. P. 2012. Brand love. Journal of Marketing. 76 (2):1–16.
doi:10.1509/jm.09.0339

Bennett, P. D., and Harrell, G. D. 1975. The role of confidence in understanding and predicting
buyers' attitudes and purchase intentions. Journal of Consumer Research 2 (2):110-117.
doi:10.1086/208622

Bhatt, N., Jayswal, R. M., and Patel, J. D. 2013. Impact of celebrity endorser's source credibility
on attitude towards advertisements and brands. South Asian Journal of Management 20 (4):74.

Biehal, G., Stephens, D., and Curio, E. 1992. Attitude toward the ad and brand choice. Journal
of Advertising 21 (3):19-36. doi:10.1080/00913367.1992.10673373.
Biswas, D., Biswas, A., and Das, N. 2006. The differential effects of celebrity and expert
endorsements on consumer risk perceptions. The role of consumer knowledge, perceived
congruency, and product technology orientation. Journal of advertising 35 (2):17-31.
doi:10.1080/00913367.2006.10639231.

Boone, L.E.and Kurtz, D.L. 2002. Contemporary marketing. 10th ed. Hinsdale, IL: The Dryden
Press.

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. 1993. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sage focus
editions, 154, 136-136.

Celsi, R. L., and Olson, J. C. 1988. The role of involvement in attention and comprehension
processes. Journal of consumer research 15 (2):210-224. Doi: 10.1086/209158

Chen, Y. S., and Huang, S. Y. 2017. The effect of task-technology fit on purchase intention:
The moderating role of perceived risks. Journal of Risk Research, 20 (11):1418-1438.
Doi:10.1080/13669877.2016.1165281

Chaudhuri, A., and Holbrook, M. B. 2001. The chain of effects from brand trust and brand
affect to brand performance the role of brand loyalty. Journal of marketing 65 (2):81-93.
Doi:10.1509/jmkg.65.2.81.18255.

Cho, E. 2011. Development of a brand image scale and the impact of love marks on brand
equity. Ph.D. thesis, lowa state university. doi:10.31274/etd-180810-4450.

Corebrand Report 2013. The corebrand top 100 brand power ranking 2012. Retrieved from
https://www.sustainablebrands.com/digital_learning/white-paper/corebrand-top-100-
brandpower-rankings-2012 accessed on march, 2019.

Delgado-Ballester, E., and Luis Munuera-Alemán, J. 2005. Does brand trust matter to brand
equity. Journal of product & brand management 14 (3):187-196.
doi.org/10.1108/10610420510601058

Cooley, D., & Parks-Yancy, R. 2019. The Effect of Social Media on Perceived Information
Credibility and Decision Making. Journal of Internet Commerce, 1-21.

De Veirman, M., Cauberghe, V., & Hudders, L. 2017. Marketing through Instagram
influencers: the impact of number of followers and product divergence on brand
attitude. International Journal of Advertising, 36(5), 798-828.

Eisingerich, A. 2017. Brand admiration: how to build a business that people love. Retrieved
from https://www.imperial.ac.uk/business-school/knowledge/marketing/brand-admiration-in
March 2019.

Evans, N. J., and Bang, H. 2018. Extending Expectancy Violations Theory to Multiplayer
Online Games: The Structure and Effects of Expectations on Attitude Toward the Advertising.
Attitude Toward the Brand, and Purchase Intent. Journal of Promotion Management 1-20.
doi:10.1080/10496491.2018.1500411.
Fernando, A. G., Sivakumaran, B., & Suganthi, L. (2016). Message involvement and attitude
towards green advertisements. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 34(6), 863-882.

Flaherty, K. E., and Pappas, J. M. 2000. Implicit personality theory in evaluation of brand
extensions. Psychological reports 86(3):807-818. doi:10.2466/pr0.2000.86.3.807.

Franzen, G. 1999. Brands & advertising: How advertising effectiveness influences brand
equity. Admap.

Frei, J. R., and Shaver, P. R. 2002. Respect in close relationships: Prototype definition, self‐
report assessment, and initial correlates. Personal relationships 9 (2):121-139.
doi:10.1111/1475-6811.00008.

Freberg, Karen, Kristin Graham, Karen McGaughey, and Laura A. Freberg 2011. Who are the
social media influencers? A study of public perceptions of personality. Public Relations
Review 37 (1):90-92. doi:10.1016.2010.11.001.

Fromm, J. 2018. Under the Influence: How to engage younger consumers through social media.
Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/jefffromm/2018/06/26/under-the-influence-
how-to-engage-younger-consumers-through-social-media/#62dec63c2753 accessed on July
2018.

Fornell, C., and Larcker, D. F. 1981. Structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. doi:10.1177/002224378101800313.

Greenwald, A. G., and Leavitt, C. 1984. Audience involvement in advertising: Four levels.
Journal of Consumer research 11 (1):581-592. doi:10.1086/208994.

Gresham, L. G., and Shimp, T. A. 1985. Attitude toward the advertisement and brand attitudes:
A classical conditioning perspective. Journal of advertising 14 (1):10-49.
doi:10.1080/00913367.1985.10672924.

Grewal, R., Cote, J. A., and Baumgartner, H. 2004. Multicollinearity and measurement error
in structural equation models: Implications for theory testing. Marketing science 23 (4):519-
529. doi:10.1287/mksc.1040.0070.

Godey, B., Manthiou, A., Pederzoli, D., Rokka, J., Aiello, G., Donvito, R., and Singh, R.
2016.Social media marketing efforts of luxury brands: Influence on brand equity and consumer
behaviour. Journal of business research 69 (12):5833-5841. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.181.

Hallanan, L. 2018. How 7 Electronics Brand Use Influencer Marketing in China. Retrieved
from https://www.parklu.com/electronics-brands-influencer-marketing-china/ accessed on
September, 2018.

Hair, J., Andreson, R., Tatham, R., and Black, W. 1998. Multivariate data analysis. 5th (ed)
Prentice-Hall Inc, Unites States of America.
Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE 2009. Multivariate Data Analysis. 7th Edition
Pearson Prentice Hall.

Hayes, A. F. 2009. Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new
millennium. Communication monographs 76 (4):408-420. doi:10.1080/03637750903310360.

Harrison, J. K., and Hubbard, R. 1998. Antecedents to organizational commitment among

Mexican employees of a US firm in Mexico. The Journal of Social Psychology 138 (5):609-
623. Doi:10.1080/00224549809600416.

Heitmann, M., Lehmann, D. R., and Herrmann, A. 2007. Choice goal attainment and decision
and consumption satisfaction. Journal of marketing research, 44(2):234-250.
Doi:10.15092Fjmkr.44.2.234

Hill, A. 2018. Brand Spokesperson Smack down: Famous Face vs. Social Media Rock star.
Retrieved from https://www.business.com/articles/brand-spokesperson-influencer-vs-
celebrity/ accessed on March, 2019.

Holmbeck, G. N. (2002). Post-hoc probing of significant moderational and mediational effects

in studies of pediatric populations. Journal of pediatric psychology, 27(1), 87-96.

Hovland, C. I., and Weiss, W. 1951. The influence of source credibility on communication
effectiveness. Public opinion quarterly, 15(4):635-650. doi:10.1086/266350

Hood, K. M., Shanahan, K. J., Hopkins, C. D., & Lindsey, K. K. 2015. The influence of
interactivity on visit and purchase frequency: the moderating role of website informational
features. Journal of Internet Commerce, 14(3), 294-315.

IBEF. 2019. Growth of e-commerce industry in India. Retrieved from

https://www.ibef.org/industry/ecommerce/infographic in April 2019.

Kabadayi, E. T., and Alan, A. K. 2012. Brand trust and brand affect: Their strategic importance
on brand loyalty. Journal of Global Strategic Management 11(6):81-88.

Kapferer, J. N. 2012. The new strategic brand management: Advanced insights and strategic
thinking. Kogan page publishers.

Kaplan, A. M., and Haenlein, M. 2010. Users of the world, unite! The challenges and
opportunities of Social Media. Business horizons 53(1):59-68.

Karjaluoto, H., Munnukka, J., and Kiuru, K. 2016. Brand love and positive word of mouth: the
moderating effects of experience and price. Journal of Product & Brand Management
25(6):527-537. Doi: 10.1108/JPBM-03-2015-0834

Kaur, P., and Singh, R. 2007. Uncovering retail shopping motives of Indian youth. Young
Consumers, 8 (2):128-138.
Khare, A., & Rakesh, S. 2011. Antecedents of online shopping behavior in India: An
examination. Journal of Internet Commerce, 10(4), 227-244.

Kotler, P. and Armstrong, G. 1996. Principles of marketing. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Kobia, C., & Liu, C. 2017. Why forward viral fashion messages? The moderating roles of
consumers’ fashion traits and message orientation. Journal of Internet Commerce, 16(3), 287-
308.

Krugman, H. E. 1965. The impact of television advertising: Learning without involvement.

Public opinion quarterly 29 (3):349-356. doi:10.1086/267335.

Kumar, H., Singh, M. K., and Gupta, M. P. 2018. Socio-influences of user generated content
in emerging markets. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 36 (7):737-749.
doi.org/10.1108/MIP-12-2017-0347.

Lafferty, B. A., & Goldsmith, R. E. 1999. Corporate credibility’s role in consumers’ attitudes
and purchase intentions when a high versus a low credibility endorser is used in the ad. Journal
of Business Research, 44(2), 109-116.

Lim, X. J., Cheah, J. H., and Wong, M. W. 2017. The impact of social media influencers on
purchase intention and the mediation effect of customer attitude. Asian Journal of Business
Research 7 (2):19. doi: 10.14707/ajbr.170035.

Lou, C., and Yuan, S. 2019. Influencer Marketing: How Message Value and Credibility Affect
Consumer Trust of Branded Content on Social Media. Journal of Interactive Advertising 1-16.
doi:10.1080/15252019.2018.1533501.

Lutz, R. J. 1985. Affective and cognitive antecedents of attitude toward the ad: A conceptual
framework. Psychological process and advertising effects: Theory, research, and application
45-63.

MacKenzie, S. B., Lutz, R. J., and Belch, G. E. 1986. The role of attitude toward the ad as a
mediator of advertising effectiveness: A test of competing explanations. Journal of marketing
research 23 (2):130-143. doi:10.1177/002224299405800302

McGuire, W. J. 1985. Attitudes and attitude change. The handbook of social psychology 233-
346.

Meenaghan, T. 1995. Advertising and development of marketing imaginary. Marketing

communications in Ireland 318-337.

Morgan, R. M., and Hunt, S. D. 1994. The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing.
Journal of marketing 58 (3):20-38. doi:10.1177/002224299405800302.

Muehling, D. D., Laczniak, R. N., and Stoltman, J. J. 1991. The moderating effects of ad
message involvement: A reassessment. Journal of Advertising 20 (2):29-38.
doi:10.1080/00913367.1991.10673211.
Muehling, D.D. and Laczniak, R.N. 1993. Advertising’s immediate and delayed influence on
brand attitudes: considerations across message-involvement levels. Journal of Advertising 17
(4):23–34. doi:10.1080/00913367.1988.10673126.

Nunnally, J. C. 1978. Psychometric Theory: 2d Ed. McGraw-Hill.

Odell, P. 2015. Special Report on Influencer Marketing. Retrieved from

http://cdn.chiefmarketer.com/wpcontent/uploads/2015/11/26966-CM-10232015-Special-
Report-PDF-Influencer-Marketing1.pdf in March 2019.

Ohanian, Roobina 1990. The Impact of Celebrity Spokesperson's Perceived Image on

Consumers' Intention to Purchase. Journal of Advertising Research 31(1):46-52.

Oliver, R. L. 1980. A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction

decisions. Journal of marketing research 17 (4):460-469.
doi:10.1177%2F002224378001700405.

Park, C. W., MacInnis, D. J., and Eisingerich, A. B. 2016. Brand admiration: Building a
business people love. John Wiley & Sons.

Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., and Schumann, D. 1983. Central and peripheral routes to
advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of consumer research,
10 (2):135-146. doi:10.1086/208954.

Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the
literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(5):879-903.

Rashid, M. Z. A., Nallamuthu, J., and Sidin, S. M. 2002. Perceptions of advertising and
celebrity endorsement in Malaysia. Asia Pacific Management Review 7 (4):535-553.
doi: 10.6126/APMR.

Roberts, K. 2005. Lovemarks: The future beyond brands. Power House Books.

Schouten, A. P., Janssen, L., & Verspaget, M. 2019. Celebrity vs. Influencer endorsements in
advertising: the role of identification, credibility, and Product-Endorser fit. International
journal of advertising, 1-24. DOI: 10.1080/02650487.2019.1634898

Shih, H. P. 2004. Extended technology acceptance model of Internet utilization behaviour.

Information & management 41 (6):719-729. doi:10.1016/j.im.2003.08.009.

Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. 2002. Mediation in experimental and non-experimental studies:
new procedures and recommendations. Psychological methods, 7(4), 422.

Statista. 2019. Digital population in India as of January 2019 (in millions). Retrieved from
https://www.statista.com/statistics/309866/india-digital-population/ in March 2019.
Solka, A., Jackson, V. P., and Lee, M. Y. 2011. The influence of gender and culture on
Generation Y consumer decision making styles. The international review of retail, distribution
and consumer research 21 (4):391-409. doi:10.1080/09593969.2011.596554.

Thomson, M., MacInnis, D. J., and Park, C. W. 2005. The ties that bind: Measuring the strength
of consumers’ emotional attachments to brands. Journal of consumer psychology 15 (1):77-91.
doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp1501_10.

Trivedi, J. P. 2018. Measuring the comparative efficacy of an attractive celebrity influencer

vis-à-vis an expert influencer-a fashion industry perspective. International Journal of
Electronic Customer Relationship Management 11 (3):256-271.
doi:10.1504/IJECRM.2018.093771.

Trivedi, J. and Trivedi, H. 2018. Investigating the Factors That Make a Fashion App
Successful: The Moderating Role of Personalization, Journal of Internet Commerce, DOI:
10.1080/15332861.2018.1433908

Tzoumaka, E., Tsiotsou, R. H., and Siomkos, G. 2016. Delineating the role of endorser's
perceived qualities and consumer characteristics on celebrity endorsement effectiveness.
Journal of Marketing Communications 22 (3):307-326. doi:10.1080/13527266.2014.894931.

White, C.C. 2014. Millennials’ Buying Habits May Save the Mall. Retrieved from
http://www.USATODAY.com in March 2019.

Wolfson, C. 2017. Macro vs. Micro Influencers. Retrieved from https://www.revolutiondig-

tal.com/article/macro-vs-micro-influencers in March 2019.

Yoo, B., Donthu, N., and Lee, S. 2000. An examination of selected marketing mix elements
and brand equity. Journal of the academy of marketing science 28 (2)195-211.
doi:10.1177/0092070300282002.

Zacchilli, T. L., Hendrick, C., and Hendrick, S. S. 2009. The romantic partner conflict scale: A
new scale to measure relationship conflict. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 26
(8):1073-1096. doi.10.1177/0265407509347936.
Appendix

Table 1: Post CFA, Cronbach's alpha, factor loadings, AVE, and CR

Alpha Factor
Variables and no. of items/variable in the instrument Value Loadings AVE CR
EI (Expert Influencers) 0.831 0.673 0.892
EI1 0.816
EI2 0.871
EI3 0.782
EI4 0.810
ACI (Attractive Celebrity Influencers) 0.923 0.769 0.930
ACI1 0.913
ACI2 0.906
ACI3 0.866
ACI4 0.819
MPI (Message Process Involvement) 0.860 0.705 0.905
MPI1 0.810
MPI2 0.884
MPI3 0.881
MPI4 0.779
AB (Attitude Towards the Brand) 0.798 0.778 0.913
AB1 0.898
AB2 0.911
AB3 0.836
BA (Brand Admiration) 0.905 0.669 0.966
BT (Brand Trust)
BT1 0.866
BT2 0.834
BT3 0.836
BT4 0.761
BL (Brand Love)
BL1 0.842
BL2 0.827
BL3 0.743
BL4 0.792
BL5 0.877
BR (Brand Respect)
BR1 0.786
BR2 0.832
BR3 0.821
BR4 0.782
BR5 0.847
PI (Purchase Intention) 0.881 0.808 0.927
PI1 0.866
PI2 0.931
PI3 0.899
 Table 2: Discriminant Validity

EI ACI MPI AB BA PI
EI 0.820
ACI 0.438 0.876
MPI 0.531 0.466 0.839
AB 0.547 0.413 0.525 0.882
BA 0.583 0.457 0.536 0.600 0.817
PI 0.522 0.436 0.419 0.447 0.618 0.898
(EI= Expert Influencers; ACI = Attractive Celebrity Influencers; MPI= Message Process
Involvement; AB= Attitude towards the Brand; BA = Brand Admiration; PI= Purchase
Intention)

Table-3: Regression -1 Results

Independent Dependent Beta

Hypotheses variable variable Value p Value Result
H1 EI AB 0.675 0.000
H2 ACI AB 0.375 0.013
H4 AB BA 0.604 0.000
H5 BA PI 0.740 0.000

Table – 4: The Moderation Analysis of Message Involvement

Independent Dependent Beta

p Value R2
Models Variable Variable Value
Value Hypothesis Result
Moderating role of
MPI between EI
Section A and AB H3A Supported

Model 1 EI AB 0.668 0.000 0.416

Model 2 MPI AB 0.368 0.012 0.448

Moderator
Model 3 (EI*MPI) AB 0.671 0.000 0.483
Moderating role of
MPI between ACI
Section B and AB H3B Supported

Model 1 ACI AB 0.380 0.008 0.397

Model 2 MPI AB 0.367 0.012 0.448

Moderator
Model 3 (ACI*MPI) AB 0.501 0.000 0.497

View publication stats