sustainability

Article
Digital Influencers’ Attributes and Perceived Characterizations
and Their Impact on Purchase Intentions
Manuel Joaquim de Sousa Pereira 1, * , António Cardoso 2 , Ana Canavarro 3 , Jorge Figueiredo 4
and Jorge Esparteiro Garcia 5

1 Polytechnic Institute of Viana do Castelo, 4900-347 Viana do Castelo, Portugal

2 Department of Business and Communication Sciences, University Fernando Pessoa, 4294-004 Porto, Portugal;
ajcaro@ufp.edu.pt
3 IPAM Lab, IPAM/Europeia University, Rua Manuel Pinto de Azevedo, 748, 4100-320 Porto, Portugal;
anacanavarroster@gmail.com
4 Centre for Law, Economic and Environmental Studies (CEJEA), Lusiada University, 4369-006 Porto, Portugal;
jorgefig85@gmail.com
5 ADiT-LAB, Instituto Politécnico de Viana do Castelo, Rua Escola Industrial e Comercial Nun’Álvares,
4900-347 Viana do Castelo, Portugal; jorgegarcia@esce.ipvc.pt
* Correspondence: msousa.manuel@gmail.com

Abstract: Research into the role of digital influencers in marketing strategies is a rapidly developing
area that has attracted the interest of researchers and organizations. In recent years, organizations
have become increasingly interested in using digital influencers to promote their brands and dis-
seminate advertising messages with a high impact on their target audience. Digital influencers are
beginning to be used as models for sustainable consumption behavior (for example in the fashion,
food, and health sectors) by promoting environmental and sustainable values. By promoting sus-
tainable content and disseminating messages of environmental awareness, digital influencers can
help achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This study aims to identify the attributes
(attitude homophily, physical attractiveness, and social attractiveness) and perceived characteriza-
tions (trustworthiness, perceived expertise, and parasocial relationship) of digital influencers and
Citation: Pereira, M.J.d.S.; Cardoso, their impact on purchase intention among a sample of Portuguese consumers. It also aims to identify
A.; Canavarro, A.; Figueiredo, J.; the most relevant types of digital influencers according to their areas of influence (fashion, sports,
Garcia, J.E. Digital Influencers’ beauty, and cinema/TV/music) and their impact on purchase intention. For data collection, an
Attributes and Perceived
online questionnaire was developed and administered to a non-probabilistic convenience sample.
Characterizations and Their Impact
Only respondents who had experience purchasing a product or service after watching a YouTuber’s
on Purchase Intentions. Sustainability
advertisement (screening question) or following or searching for a digital influencer could complete
2023, 15, 12750. https://doi.org/
the questionnaire. A total of 243 valid questionnaires were received. The main findings are that the
10.3390/su151712750
attributes and perceived characterizations of digital influencers have a positive and significant impact
Academic Editor: on purchase intention. It was also found that digital influencers can enhance shopping experience
Wadim Strielkowski
and credibility, which has a strong impact on consumers’ purchase intentions. In terms of sector,
Received: 27 June 2023 the data show that the most important influencer in the ‘Fashion’ sector is Helena Coelho, in the
Revised: 11 August 2023 ‘Sports’ sector is Cristiano Ronaldo, in the ‘Beauty’ sector is Sara Sampaio, and in the ‘Music, TV,
Accepted: 14 August 2023 Cinema’ sector is Ricardo Araújo Pereira. This study can help companies use digital influencers more
Published: 23 August 2023 effectively in their digital marketing strategies, as credibility, experience, and parasocial relationships
have a strong impact on consumers’ purchase intention.

Keywords: digital influencers; influencer marketing; influencer attributes; perceived characteriza-

Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
tions; purchase intention
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
1. Introduction
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ The emergence of social media changed the communication paradigm, as the collab-
4.0/). orative and interactive nature of these media enabled ordinary citizens to take an active

Sustainability 2023, 15, 12750. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151712750 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2023, 15, 12750 2 of 17

role in the communication process. It became possible to create content and participate
in conversations within digital communities. In the context of this paradigm shift, the
emergence of the digital influencer as an influencer of the purchase decision assumes
particular importance in the study of new consumer behaviors, especially those that take
place in a digital environment.
The studies identified in the literature [1–4] indicate that the attractiveness and relia-
bility of sustainable digital influencers, as well as the quality and quantity of the content
they produce, tend to determine their communicative persuasiveness. The persuasive
effectiveness of the digital influencer in the intention to purchase sustainable products de-
pends on the engagement aroused, since the greater the persuasion capacity, the greater the
engagement, and, consequently, the greater the intention to purchase sustainable products.
Several studies [1–3] recognize the existence of ‘greenfluencers’. This is a type of
influencer specialized in promoting a sustainable lifestyle. These influencers are important
in educating and raising the awareness of their followers about environmental concerns and
sustainable consumption behaviors. The environmental experience of digital influencers
has an impact on the intention to purchase green products [5–8].
According to Jaiswal and Kant [9] when buying green products, consumers are simul-
taneously concerned about the ecological quality of the product and the environmental
consequences of their purchasing decision.
The results of the study by Wielki [10] show the growing importance of digital influ-
encers in the functioning of the digital promotion ecosystem and its impact on sustainable
development. In the fashion sector, digital influencers can be strategically used by com-
panies and brands to promote the consumption of sustainable clothing, especially in the
post-COVID-19 period when online sales among young people are increasing [4].
In order to determine the ‘state of the art’, a bibliographic search was conducted,
consisting of published scientific articles on the following topics: social media marketing;
influencer marketing; digital influencers and purchase intent; and neuromarketing tools,
advertising effectiveness, and social media.
This research aimed to identify the attributes (attitude, homophily, physical attractive-
ness, and social attractiveness) and perceived characterizations (trustworthiness, perceived
expertise, and parasocial relationship) of digital influencers and their impact on the pur-
chase intention of Portuguese consumers. Specifically, the aim was to (1) identify the most
important type of influencer; (2) identify the most relevant digital influencers according to
their sector of influence (Fashion, Sports, Beauty, and Cinema/TV/Music); (3) discover the
main attributes of influencers; (4) identify the most relevant perceived characterizations of
digital influencers; (5) evaluate consumers’ purchase intention.
The key research questions for this study were as follows: Do respondents trust digital
influencers? Do respondents have a homophilic attitude toward digital influencers? Do
respondents find digital influencers physically attractive? Is there a social affinity for digital
influencers? Do respondents think digital influencers have experience in their area of
influence? Do respondents recognize the digital influencer as an intimate conversation
partner (parasocial relationship)? Are respondents willing to buy products promoted by
digital influencers (purchase intention)?
In order to achieve the objectives and answer the research questions, a question-
naire was developed using Google Docs and distributed through the authors’ social net-
works, following a convenience sampling process. This process took place from 16 June to
6 November 2022 and consisted of closed-ended questions, evaluated with a five-point
Likert-type scale, where 1 means ‘I totally disagree’ and 5 means ‘I totally agree’ [11,12].
This article is structured as follows. Section 1 is the introduction. Section 2 is the litera-
ture review addressing topics such as social media marketing—concept and importance;
influencer marketing and digital influencers; neuromarketing tools, advertising effective-
ness, and social media; social media marketing, digital influencers’ attributes, perceived
characterizations, and purchase intent. Section 3 describes the methodology. Section 4
provides the analysis of the results, and Section 5 is the discussion. Section 6 describes
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12750 3 of 17

the theoretical and practical implications. Section 7 discusses the limitations and future
research, and Section 8 gives the conclusions.

2. Literature Review
2.1. Social Media Marketing—Concept and Importance
The emergence of social media platforms over the years has led to a paradigm shift
in consumers’ online behavior, changing the way they interact with each other and with
brands [13].
In particular, the interactive nature of these media has transformed consumers from
passive observers of content to active participants who now actually create large amounts
of content through their online conversations, interactions, and behaviors [14]. Central to
this shift has been the concept of consumer engagement, which recognizes that customers
co-create value through these interactions [15].
Prahalad and Ramaswamy [16] note that the change in the role of the consumer from
‘isolated’ to ‘connected’ has allowed them to stop being passive and become active in their
expressions towards companies. With the emergence of social networks, there has been
a real ‘revolution in user-generated content, global community and the publication of
consumer opinion’ [17].
Promotional strategies in these social media are among the main strategies imple-
mented by communication agencies and companies. In fact, in a survey carried out with
companies, 98% of them stated that communication in these media is ‘very effective’ for
increasing their presence and economic growth in today’s competitive market [18]. In
addition, these communication channels allow companies to engage in a timely manner
and establish direct contact with their end customers, at a relatively low cost and with
high efficiency compared to traditional media [19], making them relevant for companies of
all sizes.
A social media marketing (SMM) strategy refers to an organization’s set of integrated
activities that transform social media communications (networks) and interactions (influ-
ences) into useful strategic means to achieve desired marketing outcomes [20]. In addition,
relationship marketing has taken on a new dimension with this social media revolution [21].
The interest of organizations in social networks stems from the numerous benefits
that organizations can achieve, such as reducing costs, increasing profitability, sharing
knowledge, and building commercial partnerships [22]. However, when it comes to
knowing whether social networks should be managed by professionals in the field, it is
argued that social networks should be seen as a central element in a company’s marketing
mix and as such should be managed by a professional manager in the field [21].
In the same vein, Tuten and Solomon [23] even stated that a new ‘P’ has emerged over
time and has been added to the traditional marketing mix with the introduction of social
networks, resulting in the five ‘Ps’, namely product, price, promotion, distribution, and
participation in social media marketing. They defined the fifth ‘P’ as the application of
social media technologies to create an environment in which the intended value is created
to meet stakeholder needs.

2.2. Influencer Marketing and Digital Influencers

According to Glucksman [24] it is now possible to find people to represent companies
through branded content on social media accounts such as Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter,
and YouTube. An effective influencer strategy is no longer an option, but a requirement
to compete in today’s marketplace [25]. Consumers are looking to other consumers to
influence their purchasing decisions.
The rise of social media has given rise to the influencer boom. Influencer marketing
has changed the way brands interact with consumers, especially when it comes to lifestyle
brands. Today’s consumers are distrustful of traditional advertising and can ignore it more
easily, making it essential to find new communication strategies that engage consumers [26].
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12750 4 of 17

Social media influencers represent a new breed of independent third-party endorsers

who shape audience attitudes through blogs, tweets, and the use of other social media
channels [27]. Most importantly, consumers choose to follow influencers because they are
‘genuine, open and relatable’ [25].
In effect, the past decade has seen the emergence of new influencers through the
adoption of digital platforms. These individuals, referred to as digital influencers, have
linked their public recognition to the production of content on social media [28]. Acting as
true advertisers, they promote the goods, services, and ideas of the brands that hire them,
thus attempting to persuade individuals to consume the products.
Digital influencers are ordinary users with a high number of followers on their dig-
ital channels, and due to this high number of followers, they are able to monetize their
audiences by introducing sponsored content in their photos, videos, or texts [26,29].
Broadly speaking, there are three main types of digital influencers [30]: (1) Celebrities:
Perform significant functions outside of digital platforms, such as models, actors, athletes,
or presenters, and are seen more as a channel for disclosure or endorsement in co-creation
with brands; (2) Influencers: Profiles with a larger number of followers present more general
topics such as behavior, daily life, fashion, and beauty. They also work on co-creating
content with brands; (3) Micro-influencers: Smaller profiles that typically cover niche topics
and also co-create content with brands.
In turn, according to Samyroad [31] there are differences between influencers according
to their profile (experts, trend-seekers, celebrities, professional YouTubers, and consumers
themselves). (1) Experts: These are the profiles that have professional knowledge of what
they are talking about. They can be technicians, personal shoppers, professional make-up
artists, etc. (2) Celebrities: They are public figures who have a large number of followers
and use their social networks to be closer to their fans. (3) Trend-seekers: They are the ones
who are always up to date. They are trend hunters who are always the first to find out
what is coming and look for it to show their audience. (4) Professional YouTubers: The
professional YouTuber is an online personality who posts videos on the YouTube video-
sharing platform and usually has their own personal YouTube channel. They develop this
activity as a profession, become celebrities, and create their own brand. Many YouTubers
also work with brands and sponsors to monetize their content and earn money from their
popularity. (5) Consumers: Consumers can also be influencers, thanks to their interest in
sharing opinions or recommendations with their followers.
Usually, in the negotiation process with brands, influencers send a press kit with some
performance data about their publications on social networks, such as average interaction
and reach [30].
To know how digital influencers participate in the production of content, Sette and
Pedro [32] found that digital influencers consider the development of creative, innovative,
and quality content as a strategic exchange with brands; they are also involved in the
production of content during the different stages of message development, in collaboration
with these same brands.
In summary [33] more and more brands are investing in influencer marketing, believ-
ing that greater selectivity is being awakened by digital influencers, seeking to increase
their credibility with their followers.

2.2.1. Neuromarketing Tools, Advertising Effectiveness, and Social Media

Neuromarketing is a promising field of study that aims to analyze issues related
to advertising effectiveness, product appeal, and, more generally, how to create more
effective marketing strategies [34] (Neuroimaging and physiological tools can provide
important information about the neural responses of consumers’ brains. The study of brain
processes and regions involved in consumer purchase intention enriches the development
and evaluation of any marketing strategy. Specifically, in advertising research, brain
processes such as emotions, feelings, motivation, reward, attention, and memory need to
be considered [35].
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12750 5 of 17

Social media managers can also use neuromarketing insights to inform their social
media strategies. Neuromarketing is becoming increasingly important in predicting user
behavior through biometric measurements, so it can be an essential tool for developing
content that engages organizations and their audiences [36].
Indeed, it is no secret that for a brand to realize the full marketing potential of social
media, it must present a unique voice and personality through which it can communicate
and connect with its consumers [37].
Neuromarketing research in social media can assure companies of information on
how their communication efforts are perceived by the audience in terms of emotional
engagement, memory retention, purchase intention, novelty, awareness, and attention [38].
What about the attention and emotions that influencers can evoke in their followers?
Are neuromarketing tools capable of measuring these dimensions? A study [39] carried
out in June 2019 in a laboratory at the Complutense University of Madrid, with a sample
of 19 girls aged between 11 and 16 concluded that consumers perceive influencers’ recom-
mendations as more trustworthy, less commercial, and more natural than traditional digital
advertising. The results show that the videos that showcase influencers’ content are the
ones that generate the most attention peaks.

2.2.2. Social Media Marketing, Digital Influencers Attributes, Perceived Characterizations,

and Purchase Intent
Balakrishnan et al. [40] investigated the impact of SMM on brand loyalty and purchase
intention and found that SMM, especially electronic word of mouth (WOM), online commu-
nities, and online advertising, has positive effects on brand loyalty and purchase intention.
In the same sense, Gautam and Sharma [41] emphasized that SMM and customer
relationships have a significant and positive impact on customers’ purchase intentions.
In turn, Sousa and Alturas [26] found that online media is very important for the
‘information research’ stage of the purchase decision process, with Facebook, YouTube, and
Instagram being the social networks with more users and more digital influencers.
It is important to note that SMM activities and customer experience (CX) can be
involved together. These two constructs are interrelated, as all the marketing activities
and/or experiences of the company perceived by the customer will influence the customer’s
response and will be involved in their analysis process prior to the purchase stage [42].
Purchase intention, in turn, is the customer’s desire to buy a product [43]. When
purchasing products, customers will seek relevant information/knowledge. Once a certain
amount of information/knowledge has been gathered, customers tend to analyze, consider,
compare, and finally make an effective purchase [42].
Balaban and Szambolics [44] warn that in today’s society dominated by digital commu-
nication, there is an ongoing discussion about the relevance of authenticity. They argue that
social media influencers (SMIs) always strive to remain authentic in their interactions with
followers and brands, but that promotional activities pose a challenge to their authenticity.
Nevertheless, policy regulations require social media influencers to disclose sponsored
content when using a form of native advertising [45].
With regard to the cosmetics industry, Nugroho et al. [46] developed an interesting
study that concludes a positive direct influence of social media influencers on the desire
to know more about the product. Also, according to this study, attributes such as attrac-
tiveness, credibility, expertise, and trustworthiness have a direct influence on the purchase
intention of Gen Z.
On the other hand, research on hotel services [47] showed that digital influencers are
more persuasive to their audience when they are rated as reliable and physically attractive.
The same is true when there is a one-way affective relationship between the endorser and
the audience. The public perception of the authenticity of social media influencers (SMIs)
is indeed a key driver of their persuasion as brand supporters.
Research by Lee and Eastin [48] suggests that perceived SMI authenticity is a multidi-
mensional construct consisting of sincerity, genuine endorsement, visibility, expertise, and
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12750 6 of 17

uniqueness. Each of the five dimensions has varying effects on consumers’ evaluation of
an SMI, willingness to follow an SMI, and intention to purchase products recommended by
SMIs [48].
The number of followers of digital influencers also has a positive impact on source
attractiveness and source trustworthiness, according to a study by Kay et al. [45]. This
study also found that the number of followers had a positive effect on consumers’ purchase
intention. When social media influencers have a large number of followers, consumers
perceive them as more attractive and trustworthy, which increases purchase intention.
In terms of brand awareness, it was observed that there is a perception of increased
awareness through actions with the use of digital influencers. These actions affect the in-
crease in followers on digital platforms and the increase in sales. As a result, the companies
involved are interested in continuing this type of partnership [49].
The studies of several [50–54] have identified three constructs and dimensions in the
area of influencer endorsement and advertising effectiveness. These are the following:
(1) influencer attributes (attitude homophily; physical attractiveness; social attractiveness),
(2) perceived characterizations (trustworthiness; perceived expertise; parasocial relation-
ship), and (3) purchase intentions.
In terms of the personal characteristics of influencers, they can be described and
explained as follows. Attitudinal homophily refers to the principle that contact between
similar people occurs at a higher rate than contact between dissimilar people [55] cited
in [54]. Physical attractiveness refers to the impact of appearance in advertising. Traditional
studies of physical attractiveness have analyzed the effects of the appearance of the model
in advertising [56]. Social attractiveness refers to the likeability of a speaker [51] This
attribute is related to the creation of emotions and brand love.
In turn, perceived characterizations (such as trustworthiness; perceived expertise;
parasocial relationship) are followers’ perceptions based on influencers’ attributes. Trust-
worthiness is related to the credibility of a source or person and the extent to which the
source is considered valid [57] cited in Masuda et al. [54]. Perceived expertise and au-
thenticity are usually accompanied by trustworthiness in predicting positive social media
marketing outcomes [51,52,54,58,59].
Parasocial relationships (PSRs) are the ongoing relationships that users develop with a
mediated performer. Originally studied in the field of traditional mass media communica-
tion, in these relationships, the user perceives the performer as an intimate interlocutor [60]
with similarities to face-to-face communication. In this sphere, the audience is free to
withdraw at any time, but there is involvement and mediated intimacy. According to
Masuda et al. [54] PSR has the greatest influence on purchase intention.
Purchase intention refers to the behavioral intentions of influencers’ followers [61]. It
is known that the perceived characteristics of influencers, generated from their personal
attributes, can generate purchase intentions [54].

3. Methodology
The aim of the research is to analyze how the attributes and characteristics of digital
influencers influence consumers’ purchase intentions.
Specifically, the research aims to (1) identify the most important type of influencer;
(2) identify the most relevant digital influencers according to their sector of influence
(fashion, sports, beauty, and cinema/TV/music); (3) discover the most important attributes
of influencers; (4) identify the most relevant characteristics of digital influencers; (5) evaluate
consumer purchase intention.
The overall research question was to investigate the role of digital influencers in
influencing consumer behavior (purchase intention) among a sample of the Portuguese
population. In this context, a number of more specific questions arose that the study
sought to answer: Do the respondents trust digital influencers? Do respondents have a
homophilic attitude toward digital influencers? Do respondents find digital influencers
physically attractive? Is there a social affinity with digital influencers? Do respondents think
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12750 7 of 17

digital influencers have experience in their sector of influence? Do respondents recognize

the digital influencer as an intimate conversation partner (parasocial relationship)? Are
respondents willing to buy products promoted by digital influencers (purchase intention)?
In order to achieve the objectives and answer the research questions, a questionnaire
was developed consisting of closed-ended questions rated on a 5-point Likert scale, where
1 means ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 means ‘strongly agree’ [11,12].
The questionnaire was based on and adapted from previous studies identified in the
literature (Table 1) [51–54,62,63] based on three constructs and dimensions: (1) influencer
attributes (attitudinal hominess; physical attractiveness; social attractiveness), (2) perceived
characterizations (trustworthiness; perceived expertise; parasocial relationship), and (3)
purchase intentions.

Table 1. Survey constructs and dimensions.

Constructs Dimensions No. of Items Author

Lou and Kim (2019) [50]
Attitude homophily 4
Masuda, Han, and Lee (2022) [54]
Sokolova and Kefi (2020) [51]
Influencer Attributes Physical attractiveness 4
Masuda, Han, and Lee (2022) [54]
Sokolova and Kefi (2020) [51]
Social attractiveness 4
Masuda, Han, and Lee (2022) [54]
Lou and Kim (2019) [50]
Sokolova and Kefi (2020) [51]
Trustworthiness 3
Schouten et al. (2020) [52]
Masuda, Han, and Lee (2022) [54]
Lou and Kim (2019) [50]
Perceived Characterizations Sokolova and Kefi (2020) [51]
Perceived expertise 4
Schouten et al. (2020) [52]
Masuda, Han, and Lee (2022) [54]
Lou and Kim (2019) [50]
Parasocial relationship 8 Sokolova and Kefi (2020) [51]
Masuda, Han, and Lee (2022) [54]
Casalo et al. (2017) [62]
Purchase Intentions Purchase Intentions 2
Masuda, Han, and Lee (2022) [54]

On the other hand, the independent variables include gender, age groups, activity,
influencer type, and the main Portuguese digital influencers by area (fashion, sports, beauty,
music). The identification of the main Portuguese digital influencers, by each of the 4 areas,
took into account the study by Marktest [64].
The questionnaire was created via Google Forms, and after a pre-test [12] with
12 students who did not register the need for adaptation, it was distributed via social media
platforms (Facebook, Messenger, Instagram, and WhatsApp) in June and November 2022.
As validated in the study by Masuda, Han, and Lee [54], only respondents who
answered yes to three screening questions (regularly use an influencer’s YouTube channel;
have experience buying products or services after watching a YouTuber’s video; subscribe
to at least one YouTube channel) or who followed or searched for a digital influence could
answer the questionnaire and complete the rest of the questionnaire [61].
The data collected through Google Forms were exported to SPSS 29 for data analysis
and statistical treatment. After collecting 286 questionnaires, 243 were validated as 43 did
not answer the screening questions.
The respondents are mostly female (64.6%), in the age group 20–29 (33.3%) and
<20 years (20.6%), with 135 employees (55.6%) and 108 students (44.4%). The vast major-
ity use digital platforms to shop online (91.2%), mainly ‘products and services’ (51.9%)
(Table 2).
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12750 8 of 17

Table 2. Sample.

F %
Male 86 35.4
Gender Female 157 64.6
<20 50 20.6
20–29 81 33.3
30–39 30 12.3
Age Groups
40–49 49 20.2
50–59 22 9.1
>59 11 4.5
Worker 135 55.6
Activity
Student 108 44.4
Only products 95 39.1
Buy Through Only services 3 1.2
Digital Platforms Products and services 126 51.9
Do not buy 19 7.8

4. Analysis of Results
According to Samyroad [31] there are differences between influencers according to
their profile (experts, trend-seekers, celebrities, professional YouTubers, and consumers
themselves).
As shown in the following table (Table 3), the most important influencers in online
purchase decisions are mainly ‘Digital Influencers—Trend Seekers’ (35.8%) and ‘Experts’
(33.3%), followed by ‘Celebrities’ (9.5%) and ‘Professional YouTubers’ (8.2%).

Table 3. Influencer type.

F %
Professional YouTuber 20 8.2
Celebrity 23 9.6
Influencer Expert 81 33.3
Digital Influencer (trend-seekers) 87 35.8
Other 32 13.2

In terms of area of influence, we can see (Table 4) that the main influencer in the
‘Fashion’ field is Helena Coelho (22.2%), in the ‘Sports’ field is Cristiano Ronaldo (63.8%),
in the ‘Beauty’ field is Sara Sampaio (34.2%), and in the ‘Music, TV, Cinema’ field is Ricardo
Araújo Pereira (34.2%).

Table 4. Main digital influencer by area of influence.

Fashion Sports Beauty Music, TV, Cinema

F % F % F % F %
Pipoca mais doce 18 7.4 Cristiano Ronaldo 155 63.8 Sara Sampaio 83 34.2 Rita Pereira 31 12.8
Liliana Filipe 23 9.5 Pepe 9 3.7 Vanessa Martins 10 4.1 Cristina Ferreira 32 13.2
Helena Coelho 54 22.2 Ricardo Quaresma 2 0.8 Liliana Filipe 20 8.2 Daniela Ruah 26 10.7
Vanessa Martins 9 3.7 Renato Sanches 6 2.5 Mafalda Sampaio 10 4.1 Ricardo Pereira 5 2.1
Mafalda Sampaio 19 7.8 Luis Figo 12 4.9 Sofia Barbosa 18 7.4 Ricardo Ar. Pereira 83 34.2
Débora Rosa 6 2.5 André Gomes 3 1.2 Inês Rocha 22 9.1 David Carreira 7 2.9
Other 114 46.9 Other 56 23.0 Other 80 32.9 Other 59 24.3

Respondents show ‘attitude homophily’ (Table 5) toward the preferred digital influ-
encer (M = 3.23 > 2.5; Sd = 1.194), with 47% agreeing with the prepositions presented.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12750 9 of 17

Specifically, respondents agree (57.2%) that ‘this digital influencer shares my values’
(M = 3.44; Sd = 1.259).

Table 5. Attitude homophily (AH).

Strongly Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Agree

Cronbach’s Alpha: 0.928 1 2 3 4 5 M Sd
ITEMS
F (%) F (%) F (%) F (%) F (%)
AH1. This digital influencer and I have a lot 31 21 79 83 29
3.24 1.168
in common. (12.8) (8.6) (32.5) (34.2) (11.9)
38 32 88 65 20
AH2. This digital influencer and I are a lot alike 2.99 1.166
(15.6) (13.2) (36.2) (26.7) (8.2)
35 15 75 91 27
AH3. This digital influencer thinks like me 3.25 1.184
(14.4) (6.2) (30.9) (37.4) (11.1)
33 15 56 91 48
AH4. This digital influencer shares my values 3.44 1.259
(13.6) (6.2) (23) (37.4) (19.8)
34 20 75 83 31
TOTAL Mean 3.23 1.194
(13.9) (8.2) (30.9) (34.2) (12.8)
PCA = Factor 81.4 KMO = 0.818/Bartlett test = 798.071/Sig < 0.001

The scale shows very good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.0928), with
correlations between items ranging from 0.696 to 0.828 (p = 0.000). The exploratory factor
analysis carried out using the principal component analysis (PCA) method revealed the
existence of a factor that explains 82.4% of the total variance (KMO = 0.818; p < 0.001).
Regarding the dimension ‘physical attractiveness’ (Table 6), most respondents (43.6%)
agree with the prepositions presented (M = 3.43 > 2.5; Sd = 1.288). Specifically, they agree
(62.5%) that the preferred digital influencer is ‘handsome/pretty’ (M = 3.75; Sd = 1.281).

Table 6. Physical attractiveness (PA).

Strongly
Strongly Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree
Agree
Cronbach’s Alpha: 0.839 1 2 3 4 M Sd
5
Items
F (%) F (%) F (%) F (%) F (%)
25 10 56 61 91
PA1. I think this digital influencer is handsome/pretty 3.75 1.281
(10.3) (4.1) (23) (25.1) (37.4)
23 12 53 78 77
PA2. This digital influencer is somewhat attractive 3.72 1.229
(9.5) (4.9) (21.8) (32.1) (32.1)
PA3. I have a better relationship with this digital 49 26 73 61 34
3.02 1.316
influencer than with the others (20.2) (10.7) (30) (25.1) (14)
PA4. I think this digital influencer affects the way I see 42 19 65 71 46
3.25 1.329
myself (17.3) (7.8) (26.7) (29.2) (18.9)
34 17 62 68 62
TOTAL Mean 3.43 1.288
(13.9) (6.9) (25.6) (28) (25.6)
PCA = Factor 67.5 KMO = 0.730/Bartlett test = 436.020/Sig < 0.001

Cronbach’s alpha analysis shows good internal consistency (α = 0.839), with correlations
between items ranging from 0.443 to 0.756 and being significant (p = 0.000). The exploratory
factor analysis carried out using the principal component analysis (PCA) method revealed the
existence of a factor that explains 67.5% of the total variance (KMO = 0.730; p < 0.001).
The ‘social attractiveness’ (Table 7) of the digital influencer is rated positively by
respondents (M = 3.22 > 2.5; Sd = 1.335), with 38.6% agreeing with the statements presented.
The scale shows good internal consistency (α =0.891) and the correlations between the
items vary between 0.539 and 0.766 (p = 0.000). The exploratory factor analysis carried out
using the principal component analysis (PCA) method revealed the existence of a factor
that explains 75.4% of the total variance (KMO = 0.771; p < 0.001).
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12750 10 of 17

Table 7. Social attractiveness (SA).

Strongly
Strongly Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree
Agree
Cronbach’s Alpha: 0.891 1 2 3 4 M Sd
5
Items
F (%) F (%) F (%) F (%) F (%)
50 29 78 57 29
SA1. I think this digital influencer could be my friend 2.94 1.288
(20.6) (11.9) (32.1) (23.5) (11.9)
SA2. I want to have a friendly chat with this 41 19 54 67 62
3.37 1.386
digital influencer (16.9) (7.8) (22.2) (27.6) (25.5)
SA3. We could be able to establish a personal 52 23 81 49 38
2.99 1.336
friendship with each other (21.4) (9.5) (33.3) (20.2) (15.6)
SA4. This digital influencer would be pleasant to 31 7 35 75 95
3.81 1.330
be with (12.8) (2.9) (14.4) (30.9) (39.1)
43 20 62 62 56
TOTAL Mean 3.22 1.335
(17.7) (8.2) (25.5) (15.5) (23.1)
PCA = Factor 75.4 KMO = 0.771/Bartlett test = 617.259/Sig < 0.001

In general, as shown in the following table (Table 8), respondents seem to trust their
favorite digital influencer (M = 4.01; Sd = 1.183), with 77% agreeing with the statements
presented. Cronbach’s alpha analysis shows good internal consistency (α = 0.968), with
high (0.901 and 0.914) and significant (p = 0.000) correlations between items. Principal
component analysis (PCA) revealed the existence of a factor explaining 94.1% of the total
variance (KMO = 0.784; p < 0.001).

Table 8. Trustworthiness (Trust).

Strongly Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Agree

Cronbach’s Alpha: 0.968 1 2 3 4 5 M Sd
Items
F (%) F (%) F (%) F (%) F (%)
20 5 32 81 105
Trust1. I feel this digital influencer is honest 4.01 1.180
(8.2) (2.1) (13.2) (33.3) (43.2)
Trust2. I consider this digital influencer 20 7 27 89 100
4.00 1.177
trustworthy (8.2) (2.9) (11.1) (36.6) (41.2)
20 5 32 79 107
Trust3. I feel this digital influencer truthful 4.02 1.183
(8.2) (2.1) (13.2) (32.5) (44)
20 6 30 83 104
TOTAL Mean 4.01 1.18
(8.2) (2.4) (12.4) (34.2) (42.8)
PCA = Factor 94.1 KMO = 0.784/Bartlett test = 908.923/Sig < 0.001

Respondents consider their digital influencer to be an ‘expert’ (Table 9) in their area

of activity and influence (M = 3.89 > 2.5; Sd = 1.178), with the majority (73.5%) agreeing
with the statements made. In particular, they agree (77.4%) that the preferred digital
influencer is experienced enough to make judgments about their area of expertise (M = 4.00;
Sd = 1.189). The scale has good internal consistency (α = 0.944) with high (0.765 and 0.907)
and significant (p = 0.000) correlations between items. Principal component analysis (PCA)
revealed the existence of a factor that explains 85.7% of the total variance (KMO = 0.836;
p < 0.001).
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12750 11 of 17

Table 9. Expertise (Exp).

Strongly Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Agree

Cronbach’s Alpha: 0.944 1 2 3 4 5 M Sd
Items
F (%) F (%) F (%) F (%) F (%)
22 9 41 108 63
Exp1. I think this digital influencer knows a lot 3.74 1.154
(9.1) (3.7) (16.9) (44.4) (25.9)
Exp2. This digital influencer is competent to
22 6 35 90 90
make assertions about things that this digital 3.91 1.194
(9.1) (2.5) (14.4) (37) (37)
influencer is good at
Exp3. I consider this influencer an expert on 20 7 39 87 90
3.91 1.176
his/her are (8.2) (2.9) (16) (35.8) (37)
Exp4. I consider this influencer sufficiently
20 8 27 85 103
experienced to make assertions about 4.00 1.189
(8.2) (3.3) (11.1) (35) (42.4)
his/her area
21 7 36 93 86
TOTAL Mean 3.89 1.178
(8.6) (3.1) (14.6) (38.1) (35.6)
PCA = Factor 94.1 KMO = 0.836/Bartlett test = 965.187/Sig < 0.001

The study shows that the respondents evaluate the dimension ‘parasocial relationship’
positively (M = 3.5 > 2.5; Sd = 1.334), as 58.6% agree with the statements presented (Table 10).
Specifically, respondents agree (72%) that ‘this influencer makes me feel comfortable’ (M
= 3.89; Sd = 1.230) and agree (67.5%) that ‘I try to follow this influencer on the social
networks/channels and means in which he shares digital content’ (M = 3.74; Sd = 1.359).
The scale has good internal consistency (α = 0.939) in the sense that the correlations between
the items vary between 0.442 and 0.845 and are significant (p = 0.000). Principal component
analysis (PCA) revealed the existence of a factor that explains 70.9% of the total variance
(KMO = 0.836; p < 0.001).

Table 10. Parasocial relationship (PSR).

Strongly
Strongly Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree
Agree
Cronbach’s Alpha: 0.939 1 2 3 4 M Sd
5
Items
F (%) F (%) F (%) F (%) F (%)
24 5 39 81 94
PSR1. This influencer makes me feel comfortable 3.89 1.230
(9.9) (2.1) (16) (33.3) (38.7)
PSR2. I try to follow this influencer in the 31 15 35 77 85
3.70 1.344
next publications (12.8) (6.2) (14.4) (31.7) (35)
PSR3. I try to follow this influencer on the social
30 17 32 71 93
networks/channels and means by which he/she 3.74 1.359
(12.3) (7) (13.2) (29.2) (38.3)
shares digital content
PSR4. This influencer seems to understand the kind of 34 22 69 74 44
3.30 1.264
things I want to know (14) (9.1) (28.4) (30.5) (18.1)
PSR5. If I saw a story about this influencer in a 54 31 63 60 35
2.96 1.359
newspaper or magazine, I would read it (22.2) (12.8) (25.9) (24.7) (14.4)
36 28 43 79 57
PSR6. I constantly follow this influencer’s posts 3.38 1.354
(14.8) (11.5) (17.7) (32.5) (23.5)
PSR7. I try to follow this influencer’s publications on 40 23 42 73 65
3.41 1.401
social networks and YouTube (16.5) (9.5) (17.3) (30) (26.7)
30 18 42 62 91
PSR8. I would like to meet this influencer in person 3.68 1.365
(12.3) (7.4) (17.3) (25.5) (37.4)
35 20 45 72 71
TOTAL Mean 3.50 1.334
(14.4) (8.2) (18.8) (29.6) (29)
PCA = Factor 94.1 KMO = 0.918/Bartlett test = 1705.222/Sig < 0.001
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12750 12 of 17

Most respondents (43.2%) agree that they will buy products or services recommended
by their favorite digital influencer in the future (M = 3.14; Sd = 1.251). Thus, as can be
seen in the following table (Table 11), the data show that respondents ‘will buy products or
services recommended by this digital influencer’ (M = 3.16; Sd = 1.219) and ‘are likely to
buy products or services after watching this digital influencer’ (M = 3.12; Sd = 1.283). The
purchase intention scale has good internal consistency (α = 0.922). The correlation between
the items is high (0.856) and significant (p = 0.000). Principal component analysis (PCA)
revealed the existence of a factor that explains 92.8% of the total variance (KMO = 0.500;
p < 0.001).

Table 11. Purchase intention (PI).

Strongly Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Agree

Cronbach’s Alpha: 0.922 1 2 3 4 5 M SD
Items
F (%) F (%) F (%) F (%) F (%)
PI1. I think I will buy products or services 37 23 75 79 29
3.16 1.219
recommended by this digital influencer (15.2) (9.5) (30.9) (32.5) (11.9)
PI2. I will probably buy products or services 43 22 75 68 35
3.12 1.283
after watching this digital influencer (17.7) (9.1) (30.9) (28) (14.4)
40 23 75 73 32
TOTAL Mean 3.14 1.251
(16.4) (9.4) (30.9) (30.1) (13.2)
PCA = Factor 94.1 KMO = 0.500/Bartlett test = 318.122/Sig < 0.001

All correlations (Table 12) between the variables are positive and significant (p < 0.01).
In particular, the correlation between ‘trustworthiness’ and ‘competence’ (r = 0.839) stands
out. The data also show strong correlations between attitude homophily and parasocial
relationships (r = 0.781), between expertise and parasocial relationships (r = 0.781), between
trustworthiness and parasocial relationships (r = 0.779), between physical attractiveness
and parasocial relationships (r = 0.778), and between social attractiveness and parasocial
relationships (r = 0.757). The data also show that all dimensions are positively and significantly
correlated with ‘Purchase Intentions’: PSR (r = 0.713), PA (r = 0.640), AH (r = 0.626), Trust
(r = 0.596), Exp (r = 0.578), SA (r = 0.565).

Table 12. Correlations.

M SD (AH) (PA) (SA) (Trust) (Exp) (PSR) (PI)

Attitude Homophily (AH) 3.23 1.194 - 0.710 ** 0.699 ** 0.692 ** 0.654 ** 0.781 ** 0.626 **
Physical attractiveness (PA) 3.43 1.288 - 0.664 ** 0.669 ** 0.686 ** 0.778 ** 0.640 **
Social attractiveness (SA) 3.22 1.335 - 0.657 ** 0.648 ** 0.757 ** 0.565 **
Trustworthiness
4.01 1.18 - 0.839 ** 0.779 ** 0.596 **
(Trust)
Expertise
3.89 1.178 - 0.781 ** 0.578 **
(Exp)
Parasocial relationship
3.50 1.334 - 0.713 **
(PSR)
Purchase intention
3.14 1.251 -
(PI)
** The correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

5. Discussion
This study was able to identify the relationship between the attributes and perceived
characteristics of digital influencers and their impact on purchase intent. Likewise, it was
possible to identify the type of influencer by area of influence (fashion, sports, beauty, and
cinema/TV/music).
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12750 13 of 17

As identified in previous studies [51–54,62,63] this study revealed that respondents

have a ‘homophily attitude’ and trust digital influencers who are considered experts in
their area of influence. Similarly, they positively evaluate the physical characteristics and
social attractiveness of digital influencers, and it is evident that they positively evaluate the
‘parasocial relationship’.
Although the literature does not make a clear distinction between the personal charac-
teristics of influencers and the characterizations of followers, the study has adopted the
distinction made in the study by Masuda, Han, and Lee [54], as mentioned above.
Thus, and in the same sense as the evidence identified in the literature [50–54], in terms
of the personal attributes of digital influencers, the study revealed the existence of ‘attitude
homophily’ regarding the preferred digital influencer. Similarly, ‘physical attractiveness’
and ‘social attractiveness’ are attributes of digital influencers that are positively rated
by respondents.
Regarding the ‘perceived characteristics’ of digital influencers, similar to other stud-
ies [50–52,54] it was possible to verify that respondents trust their digital influencers and
recognize their perceived expertise, considering them as intimate conversation partners
(parasocial relationship—PSR).
Most respondents believe they will purchase products or services recommended by
their favorite digital influencer in the future. The results show that the purchase intention
induced by an influencer is influenced by ‘personal attributes’ (attitude homophily (AH),
physical attractiveness (PA) and social attractiveness (SA), ‘perceived characteristics’ (trust-
worthiness, perceived expertise, parasocial relationship), which confirms the conclusions of
the research by Masuda, Han, and Lee [54] which presents trustworthiness as a determinant
of followers’ purchase intention. They also suggest that PSR may play a more important
role in influencing followers’ behavioral intentions.
The results of this study are consistent with the findings of Lee et al. [25] and Nugroho
et al. [46]. According to their studies, parasocial interaction (PSI) positively influences the
intention to purchase a recommended fashion product.
This result is in line with the findings of Gomes, Marques, and Dias [61], who showed
that the attributes of the digital influencer and the quality of the content can positively
influence the intention to purchase the products recommended by the influencer.
They also support the research of Adrielly and Marconi Freitas [47], who showed
that digital influencers are more persuasive to their audience when they are perceived
as trustworthy and physically attractive. According to Lee and Eastin [25] influencer
authenticity (sincerity, genuine endorsements, visibility, experience, and uniqueness) has
varying effects on consumers’ evaluation, willingness to follow the influencer, and intention
to purchase the products and services they recommend.
However, it was not possible to analyze whether there are significant effects of gender
or age, as well as the psychological state of the ‘digital follower’ respondents in the
composition of the PSR. These issues could be explored in future studies.

6. Theoretical and Practical Implications

Previous research on digital influencers in Portugal is scarce, as the topic is new. The
international studies identified in the literature show the importance and interest of the
topic for both academics and organizations, but recognize the need to develop and deepen
research in this area of knowledge.
Based on this research need, this study sought to analyze and understand the identifi-
cation of perceived attributes and characteristics of digital influencers and their impact on
purchase intention among a sample of Portuguese consumers. It also aimed to identify the
most relevant types of Portuguese digital influencers according to their areas of influence
(fashion, sports, beauty, and cinema/TV/music) and their impact on purchase intention.
The data obtained are consistent with the studies identified in the literature, namely
the works of [51,54,62,63], as it was found that purchase intention is correlated with
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12750 14 of 17

the attributes of the digital influencer and their characteristics. In particular, ‘perceived
experience’ and ‘parasocial relationship’ appear to influence purchase intention.
Considering the influence of attributes and perceived characteristics of digital influ-
encers on purchase intention, information can be provided to companies and advertising
agencies to identify the most relevant influencers, taking into account their target audi-
ence and area of influence. This study can help companies use digital influencers more
effectively in their digital marketing strategies, as credibility, experience, and parasocial
relationship have a strong impact on consumer purchase intention.
This research can be used by companies and influencers to understand how con-
sumers feel about digital influencers, what makes a campaign effective, and why some
collaborations fail.

7. Limitations and Future Research

The findings suggest that digital influencers can be crucial in the effective develop-
ment of marketing campaigns with commercial companies and social organizations (e.g.,
promoting social causes), given the relationships they have with their followers and the
trust consumers have in them.
Based on the insights, findings, and limitations of this research, several lines of future
research can be explored. This study used a small sample (nonprobability convenience
sample), which makes it impossible to generalize the conclusions. This research is limited
to the responses of the Portuguese sample and the scales used in this study. In the future, it
is recommended that the questionnaire be applied to a larger sample, with different age
groups and other geographical areas (comparing regions, countries, genders, etc.). It would
also be interesting for future research to evaluate the impact of neuromarketing tools on
advertising effectiveness and social media.
Collaborations between digital influencers and organizations from different sectors
(profit and non-profit) to produce videos and content that communicate specific messages
from brands and social causes can be promising. YouTubers’ videos, narratives, and other
content can be complemented by posts on other social media platforms such as Facebook,
Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter, and TikTok.
Another interesting area, based on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), would
be to evaluate the use of digital influencers in promoting health and adopting healthier
and more sustainable consumption habits. Similarly, it would be interesting to create new
areas for future research, such as how digital influencers can develop creative skills and
innovative solutions to continue conquering the public.
In terms of data analysis, it will be opportune in the future to expand the sample and
use structural equation models to determine the impact between dimensions.

8. Conclusions
The advent of social media has changed the communication paradigm. Consumers
are no longer passive and isolated observers but are constantly connected and active in
their interactions with companies and the world at large. Through social networks, a
true revolution has taken place through the creation of content produced by consumers
themselves and their organization into digital communities.
In the context of social media and today’s consumer distrust of traditional advertising,
the figure of the digital influencer is emerging, who acts as a real advertiser, spreading the
goods, services, and ideas of the brands that hire them.
The literature shows [1,2,5–9] that the persuasive ability of sustainable digital in-
fluencers depends on the personal characteristics of the influencers (for example, their
attractiveness) and the content they produce. Trust in the digital influencer generates
greater engagement, having a positive and significant impact on sustainable product inten-
tions.
Influencers’ ability to persuade their audiences increases when they are perceived as
trustworthy and physically attractive.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12750 15 of 17

The public’s perception of the authenticity of social media influencers (SMIs)—a mul-
tidimensional construct consisting of sincerity, genuine endorsement, visibility, expertise,
and uniqueness—is one of the main drivers of their persuasiveness as brand advocates,
with varying effects on the evaluation, followership, and intention to purchase the products
they recommend. In this sense, the most important influencers in online purchase decisions
are mainly the ‘Digital Influencers’ and the ‘Expert’.
In terms of areas of intervention, the main influencer in the Fashion sector is Helena
Coelho; in the Sports sector, it is Cristiano Ronaldo; in the Beauty sector, it is Sara Sampaio;
and in the Music, TV, and Cinema sector, it is Ricardo Araújo Pereira.
The results of the study show that the purchase intention induced by the digital
influencer is influenced by the ‘attributes of the influencer’ and by the ‘perceived character-
istics’. Specifically, it is possible to verify that purchase intention is influenced by ‘attitude
homophily’, the ‘physical and social attractiveness’ of the influencer, ‘trustworthiness’,
‘perceived expertise’, and ‘parasocial relationship’. It is this last dimension (parasocial
relationship) that has the strongest influence on purchase intention (r = 0.713).
On the other hand, parasocial relationship (PSR) is positively and significantly corre-
lated with all other dimensions (r > 0.757).
Also noteworthy is the correlation that exists between the perceived expertise dimen-
sion and trustworthiness (r = 0.839), showing that recognition of the digital influencer’s
experience influences trust in the influencer.
Further research is needed to understand consumer perceptions of the use of digital
influencers for advertising purposes.

Author Contributions: We declare that the authors, M.J.d.S.P. and A.C. (António Cardoso), con-
tributed to the conceptualization; methodology and software, A.C. (António Cardoso); Validation,
M.J.d.S.P. and A.C. (António Cardoso); Formal analysis and investigation, A.C. (Ana Canavarro);
Resources and Visualization, J.F., Supervision and Administration, J.E.G. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all individuals involved in
the study.
Data Availability Statement: The data that support this research can be seen at this link: https:
//forms.gle/tTegyAkEpwPjJMvr6 (accessed on 20 June 2023).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Pittman, M.; Abell, A. More Trust in Fewer Followers: Diverging Effects of Popularity Metrics and Green Orientation Social
Media Influencers. J. Interact. Mark. 2021, 56, 70–82. [CrossRef]
2. Jalali, S.S.; Khalid, H.B. The Influence of Instagram Influencers’ Activity on Green Consumption Behavior. Bus. Manag. Strategy
2021, 12, 78–90. [CrossRef]
3. Yıldırım, S. Do green women influencers spur sustainable consumption patterns? Descriptive evidences from social media
influencers. Ecofeminism Clim. Change 2021, 2, 198–210. [CrossRef]
4. Johnstone, L.; Cecilia Lindh, C. Sustainably sustaining (online) fashion consumption: Using influencers to promote sustainable
(un)planned behaviour in Europe’s millennials. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2022, 64, 102775. [CrossRef]
5. Saima; Khan, M.A. Effect of Social Media Influencer Marketing on Consumers’ Purchase Intention and the Mediating Role of
Credibility. J. Promot. Manag. 2020, 27, 503–523. [CrossRef]
6. Zafar, A.U.; Shen, J.; Ashfaq, M.; Shahzad, M. Social media and sustainable purchasing attitude: Role of trust in social media and
environmental effectiveness. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 63, 102751. [CrossRef]
7. Onofrei, G.; Filieri, R.; Kennedy, L. Social media interactions, purchase intention, and behavioural engagement: The mediating
role of source and content factors. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 142, 100–112. [CrossRef]
8. Zheng, R.; Li, Z.; Na, S. How customer engagement in the live-streaming affects purchase intention and customer acquisition,
E-tailer’s perspective. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2022, 68, 103015. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12750 16 of 17

9. Jaiswal, D.; Kant, R. Green purchasing behaviour: A conceptual framework and empirical investigation of Indian consumers.
J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2018, 41, 60–69. [CrossRef]
10. Wielki, J. Analysis of the Role of Digital Influencers and Their Impact on the Functioning of the Contemporary On-Line
Pro-motional System and Its Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7138. [CrossRef]
11. Pestana, M.H.; Gageiro, J.N. Análise de Dados para Ciências Sociais: A Complementaridade do SPSS; Edições Sílabo: Lisbon, Portugal,
2014.
12. Malhotra, N. Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation; Pearson Education: London, UK, 2019.
13. Dolan, R.; Conduit, J.; Frethey-Bentham, C.; Fahy, J.; Goodman, S. Social media engagement behavior: A framework for en-gaging
customers through social media content. Eur. J. Mark. 2019, 53, 2213–2243. [CrossRef]
14. Malthouse, E.C.; Haenlein, M.; Skiera, B.; Wege, E.; Zhang, M. Managing customer relationships in the social media era:
Introducing the social CRM house. J. Interact. Mark. 2013, 27, 270–280. [CrossRef]
15. Bijmolt, T.H.A.; Leeflang, P.S.H.; Block, F.; Eisenbeiss, M.; Hardie, B.G.S.; Lemmens, A.; Saffert, P. Analytics for Customer
Engagement. J. Serv. Res. 2010, 13, 341–356. [CrossRef]
16. Prahalad, C.K.; Ramaswamy, V. O Futuro da Competição: Como Desenvolver Diferenciais Inovadores em Parceria com os Clientes;
Elsevier: Brazil, 2004; 303p.
17. Smith, T. The social media revolution. Int. J. Mark. Res. 2009, 51, 559–561.
18. Scarano, G. Social Media Emergence Shakes Up Celebrity Marketing. Sourc. J. 2016. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/
trade-journals/social-media-emergence-shakes-up-celebrity/docview/2273274535/se-2?accountid=177838 (accessed on 20 June 2023).
19. Kaplan, A.M.; Haenlein, M. Users of the World, Unite! The Challenges and Opportunities of Social Media. Bus. Horiz. 2010, 53, 59–68.
[CrossRef]
20. Li, F.; Larimo, J.; Leonidou, L.C. Social media marketing strategy: Definition, conceptualization, taxonomy, validation, and future
agenda. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2020, 49, 51–70. [CrossRef]
21. O’Brien, C. The Emergence of the Social Media Empowered Consumer. Ir. Mark. Rev. 2011, 21, 32–40.
22. Neti, S. Social media and its role in marketing. Int. J. Enterp. Comput. Bus. Syst. 2011, 1, 1–15.
23. Tuten, T.L.; Solomon, M.R. Social Media Marketing; Sage Publications Ltd.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2015.
24. Glucksman, M. The Rise of Social Media Influencer Marketing on Lifestyle Branding: A Case Study of Lucie Fink. Elon J.
Undergrad. Res. Commun. 2017, 8, 77–87.
25. Lee, J.A.; Eastin, M.S. Perceived authenticity of social media influencers: Scale development and validation: An international
journal. J. Res. Interact. Mark. 2021, 15, 822–841. [CrossRef]
26. Sousa, A.D.; Alturas, B. Importância dos influenciadores digitais na decisão de compra de gadgets e na construção da imagem
das marcas. Rev. Ibérica Sist. Tecnol. Informação 2020, E34, 133–144.
27. Freberg, K.; Graham, K.; McGaughey, K.; Freberg, L.A. Who are the social media influencers? A study of public perceptions of
personality. Public Relat. Rev. 2011, 37, 90. [CrossRef]
28. Hwang, K.; Zhang, Q. Influence of parasocial relationship between digital celebrities and their followers on followers’ purchase
and electronic word-of-mouth intentions, and persuasion knowledge. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2018, 87, 155–173. [CrossRef]
29. Abidin, C. Visibility labour: Engaging with Influencers’ fashion brands and #OOTD advertorial campaigns on Instagram.
Media Int. Aust. 2016, 161, 86–100. [CrossRef]
30. Limongi, R.; Dias, A.P.C.; Barbosa da Silva, A.L.; Santos de Oliveira, D.; Bandeira de Lâmonica Freire, O. From off to on in the
wholesale fashion market: The potential of digital influencers. Adm. Ensino Pesqui. 2021, 22, 125–150. [CrossRef]
31. Samyroad Tipos de Influencers. Aprenda Tudio Sobre Eles. 2021. Available online: https://samyroad.com/pt-br/blog/
marketing-de-influencia/marketing-de-influenciadores/tipos-de-influencers-aprende-tudo-sobre-eles (accessed on 12 Septem-
ber 2022).
32. Sette, G.; Pedro, Q.B. To what extent are digital influencers creative? Creat. Innov. Manag. 2020, 29, 90–102. [CrossRef]
33. Santiago, J.K.; Castelo, I.M. Digital influencers: An exploratory study of influencer marketing campaign process on instagram.
Online J. Appl. Knowl. Manag. (OJAKM) 2020, 8, 31–52. [CrossRef]
34. Alsharif, A.H.; Salleh, N.Z.M.; Abdullah, M.; Khraiwish, A.; Ashaari, A. Neuromarketing Tools Used in the Marketing Mix: A
Systematic Literature and Future Research Agenda. SAGE Open 2023, 13, 21582440231156563. [CrossRef]
35. Alsharif, A.H.; Salleh, N.Z.M.; Al-Zahrani, S.A.; Khraiwish, A. Consumer Behaviour to Be Considered in Advertising: A
Sys-tematic Analysis and Future Agenda. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 472. [CrossRef]
36. Vences, N.A.; Díaz-Campo, J.; Rosales, D.F.G. Neuromarketing as an emotional connection tool between organizations and
audiences in social networks. A theoretical review. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 1787. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
37. Micu, A.; Capatina, A.; Micu, A.E.; Geru, M.; Aivaz, K.A.; Muntean, M.C. A new challenge in digital economy: Neuromarket-ing
applied to social media. Econ. Comput. Econ. Cybern. Stud. Res. 2021, 55, 133–148.
38. Constantinescu, M.; Orindaru, A.; Pachitanu, A.; Rosca, L.; Caescu, S.C.; Orzan, M.C. Attitude evaluation on using the neuro-
marketing approach in social media: Matching company’s purposes and consumer’s benefits for sustainable business growth.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 7094. [CrossRef]
39. Ferrer-López, M. Neuromarketing y la medición del efecto de la publicidad de influencers en adolescentes. Rev. Mediterránea
Comun. 2020, 11, 241–259. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12750 17 of 17

40. Balakrishnan, B.; Dahnil, M.; Yi, W. The impact of social media marketing medium toward purchase intention and brand loyalty
among generation Y. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 148, 177–185. [CrossRef]
41. Gautam, V.; Sharma, V. The Mediating role of customer relationship on the social media marketing and purchase intention
relationship with special reference to luxury fashion brands. J. Promot. Manag. 2017, 23, 872–888. [CrossRef]
42. Wibowo, A.; Shih-Chih Chen Wiangin, U.; Yin, M.; Ruangkanjanases, A. Customer behavior as an outcome of social media
marketing: The role of social media marketing activity and customer experience. Sustainability 2021, 13, 189. [CrossRef]
43. Dodds, W.B.; Monroe, K.B.; Grewal, D. Effects of Price, Brand, and Store Information on Buyers’ Product Evaluations. J. Mark.
Res. 1991, 28, 307–319.
44. Balaban, D.C.; Szambolics, J. A proposed model of self-perceived authenticity of social media influencers. Media Commun.
2022, 10, 235–246. [CrossRef]
45. Kay, S.; Mulcahy, R.; Parkinson, J. When less is more: The impact of macro and micro social media influencers’ disclosure. J. Mark.
Manag. 2020, 36, 248–278. [CrossRef]
46. Nugroho, S.D.P.; Rahayu, M.; Hapsari, R.D.V. The impacts of social media influencer’s credibility attributes on gen Z purchase
intention with brand image as mediation: Study on consumers of Korea cosmetic product. Int. J. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. (2147-4478)
2022, 11, 18–32. [CrossRef]
47. Adrielly, S.S.; Freitas da Costa, M. Appearances can (not) be deceiving: Purchase of hotel services endorsed by instagram digital
influencers. Rev. Bras. Mark. REMark 2021, 20, 52–77. [CrossRef]
48. Lee, J.A.; Sudarshan, S.; Sussman, K.L.; Bright, L.F.; Eastin, M.S. Why are consumers following social media influencers on Instagram?
Exploration of consumers’ motives for following influencers and the role of materialism. Int. J. Advert. 2022, 41, 78–100. [CrossRef]
49. Schünke, C.; Juliana, A.A.; Schreiber, D.; Schmidt, S.; Sandra, P.M. The contribution of digital influencers for co-creation of value
in fashion brands. Rev. Bras. Mark. REMark 2021, 20, 226–251. [CrossRef]
50. Lou, C.; Kim, H.K. Fancying the new rich and famous? Explicating the roles of influencer content, credibility, and parental
mediation in adolescents’ parasocial relationship, materialism, and purchase intentions. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 2567. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
51. Sokolova, K.; Kefi, H. Instagram and YouTube bloggers promote it, why should I buy? How credibility and parasocial interac-tion
influence purchase intentions. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 53, 101742. [CrossRef]
52. Schouten, A.; Janssen, L.; Maegan Verspaget, M. Celebrity vs. Influencer endorsements in advertising: The role of identification,
credibility, and Product-Endorser fit. Int. J. Advert. 2020, 39, 258–281. [CrossRef]
53. Woodroof, P.J.; Howie, K.M.; Syrdal, H.A.; VanMeter, R. What’s done in the dark will be brought to the light: Effects of influ-encer
transparency on product efficacy and purchase intentions. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2020, 29, 675–688. [CrossRef]
54. Masuda, H.; Han, S.; Lee, J. Impacts of influnecer attributes on purchase intentions in social media influencer marketing:
Medi-ating roles of charcaterizations. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2022, 174, 121246. [CrossRef]
55. Mcpherson, M.; Smith-Lovin, L.; Cook, J.M. Birds of a Feather: Homophily. Annu. Rev. Sociol 2001, 27, 415–444. [CrossRef]
56. Joseph, W.B. The credibility of physically attractive communicators: A review. J. Advert. 1982, 11, 15–24. [CrossRef]
57. Sternthal, B.; Phillips, L.W.; Dholakia, R. The persuasive effect of source credibility: A situational analysis. Public Opin Q. 1978, 42,
285–314. [CrossRef]
58. Chapple, C.; Cownie, F. An Investigation into Viewers’ Trust in and Response Towards Disclosed Paid-for-Endorsements by
YouTube Lifestyle Vloggers. J. Promot. Commun. 2017, 5.
59. Djafarova, E.; Rushworth, C. Exploring the credibility of online celebrities’ Instagram profiles in influencing the purchase
decisions of young female users. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 68, 1–7. [CrossRef]
60. Horton, D.; Richard Wohl, R. Mass communication and para-social interaction: Observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry
1956, 19, 215–229. [CrossRef]
61. Gomes, M.; Susana Marques, S.; Álvaro Dias, A. The impact of digital influencers’ characteristics on purchase intention of fashion
products. J. Glob. Fash. Mark. 2022, 13, 187–204. [CrossRef]
62. Casaló, L.V.; Flavián, C.; Ibáñez-Sánchez, S. Antecedents of consumer intention to follow and recommend an Instagram account.
Online Inf. Rev. 2017, 41, 1046–1063. [CrossRef]
63. Lou, C.; Yuan, S. Influencer Marketing: How Message Value and Credibility Affect Consumer Trust of Branded Content on Social
Media. J. Interact. Advert. 2019, 19, 58–73. [CrossRef]
64. Marktest. Figuras Públicas e Digital Influencers Edição. 2022. Available online: https://www.marktest.com/wap/a/n/id~289d.
aspx (accessed on 10 July 2023).

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.