How Instagram Influencers Affect the Value Perception of Thai Millennial Followers and Purchasing Intention of Luxury Fashion for Sustainable Marketing
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- How can an influencer affect followers’ value perception and purchase intention to mitigate the negative impacts via Instagram? and
- How can influencers on Instagram motivate Thai millennials’ purchasing intention of a luxury product?
2. Literature Review
2.1. Influencer Marketing in Luxury Fashion Consumption
2.2. Parasocial Interaction (PSI) and Mitigating Effect of Online Violence
2.2.1. Attractiveness of Instagram Influencers
2.2.2. Effect of PSI on Consumer Value Perception of Luxury Brands
2.2.3. Effect of PSI on Consumer Purchase Intention
3. Methodology
3.1. Data Collection and Samples
3.2. Analysis
3.3. Validation of Measures
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Descriptive Statistics
4.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
4.3. Structural Equation Modeling
4.4. Hypothesis Testing
5. Conclusions and Implications
Limitations and Future Research
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Variable | Standardized Factor Loading | Error Variances | t-Value | R2 | AVE | CR |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Social Attractiveness | 0.520 | 0.811 | ||||
SA1 | 0.670 | - | - | 45.0% | ||
SA2 | 0.690 | 0.060 | 16.539 * | 48.0% | ||
SA3 | 0.840 | 0.070 | 14.732 * | 70.0% | ||
SA4 | 0.660 | 0.070 | 12.866 * | 44.0% | ||
Physical Attractiveness | 0.560 | 0.835 | ||||
PA1 | 0.760 | - | - | 58.0% | ||
PA2 | 0.680 | 0.060 | 12.066 * | 67.0% | ||
PA3 | 0.820 | 0.090 | 10.581 * | 47.0% | ||
PA4 | 0.720 | 0.080 | 9.728 * | 52.0% | ||
Parasocial Interaction | 0.508 | 0.788 | ||||
PS1 | 0.650 | - | - | 42.0% | ||
PS2 | 0.700 | 0.060 | 16.934 * | 49.0% | ||
PS3 | 0.810 | 0.070 | 15.033 * | 65.0% | ||
PS4 | 0.610 | 0.070 | 11.716 * | 38.0% | ||
Social value | 0.578 | 0.846 | ||||
SV1 | 0.770 | - | - | 59.0% | ||
SV2 | 0.720 | 0.060 | 15.310 * | 52.0% | ||
SV3 | 0.780 | 0.020 | 45.593 * | 61.0% | ||
SV4 | 0.770 | 0.060 | 17.278 * | 59.0% | ||
Personal value | 0.518 | 0.810 | ||||
PV1 | 0.630 | - | - | 40.0% | ||
PV2 | 0.730 | 0.090 | 11.929 * | 54.0% | ||
PV3 | 0.720 | 0.080 | 12.085 * | 51.0% | ||
PV4 | 0.790 | 0.100 | 12.573 * | 64.0% | ||
Conspicuous value | 0.605 | 0.856 | ||||
CA1 | 0.840 | - | - | 71.0% | ||
CA2 | 0.650 | 0.060 | 13.715 * | 42.0% | ||
CA3 | 0.950 | 0.050 | 21.693 * | 90.0% | ||
CA4 | 0.630 | 0.050 | 14.043 * | 40.0% | ||
Purchase Intention | 0.627 | 0.870 | ||||
PI1 | 0.760 | - | - | 58.0% | ||
PI2 | 0.720 | 0.070 | 14.691 * | 52.0% | ||
PI3 | 0.870 | 0.060 | 20.102 * | 76.0% | ||
PI4 | 0.800 | 0.070 | 15.638 * | 64.0% |
References
- Khandual, A.; Pradhan, S. Fashion brands and consumers approach towards sustainable fashion. In Fast Fashion, Fashion Brands and Sustainable Consumption; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 37–54. [Google Scholar]
- Askegaard, S. Consumer Culture Theory (CCT); Cook, D.T., Ryan, M., Eds.; Wiley Blackwell: Chichester, UK, 2015; pp. 124–127. [Google Scholar]
- Pongsakornrungsilp, S.; Schroeder, J.E. Understanding value co-creation in a co-consuming brand community. Mark. Theory 2011, 11, 303–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wallace, B.P.; DiMatteo, A.D.; Bolten, A.; Chaloupka, M.Y.; Hutchinson, B.J.; Abreu-Grobois, F.A.; Mortimer, J.A.; Seminoff, J.A.; Amorocho, D.; Bjorndal, K.; et al. Global Conservation Priorities for Marine Turtles. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e24510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frederick, E.L.; Lim, C.H.; Clavio, G.; Walsh, P. Why we follow: An examination of parasocial inter-action and fan motivations for following athlete archetypes on Twitter. Int. J. Sport Commun. 2012, 5, 481–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stever, G.S.; Lawson, K. Twitter as a way for celebrities to communicate with fans: Implications for the study of parasocial interaction. N. Am. J. Psychol. 2013, 15, 339–354. [Google Scholar]
- Berne-Manero, C.; Marzo-Navarro, M. Exploring How Influencer and Relationship Marketing Serve Corporate Sustainability. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giles, D. Parasocial Interaction: A Review of the Literature and a Model for Future Research. Media Psychol. 2002, 4, 279–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daniel, E.; Jackson, E.C.C.; Westerman, D.K. The influence of social media influencers: Understanding online vaping communities and parasocial interaction through the lens of Taylor’s six-segment strategy wheel. J. Interact. Advert. 2018, 18, 96–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, X.; Men, J.; Xiang, L.; Yang, F. Role of technology attraction and parasocial interaction in social shopping websites. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 51, 102043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ballantine, P.W.; Martin, B.A. Forming parasocial relationships in online communities. ACR N. Am. Adv. 2005, 32, 197–201. [Google Scholar]
- Rubin, A.M.; Perse, E.M.; Powell, R.A. Loneliness, parasocial interaction, and local television news viewing. Hum. Commun. Res. 1985, 12, 155–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Núñez-Gómez, P.; Sánchez-Herrera, J.; Pintado-Blanco, T. Children’s Engagement with Brands: From Social Media Consumption to Brand Preference and Loyalty. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, G.; Du, W.; Yuan, H.; Jiang, Y. Promoting Reviewer-Related Attribution: Moderately Complex Presentation of Mixed Opinions Activates the Analytic Process. Sustainability 2021, 13, 441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sokolova, K.; Kefi, H. Instagram and YouTube bloggers promote it, why should I buy? How credibil-ity and parasocial interaction influence purchase intentions. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Veirman, M.; De Jans, S.; Van den Abeele, E.; Hudders, L. Unravelling the power of social media influencers: A qualitative study on teenage influencers as commercial content creators on social media. In The Regulation of Social Media Influencers; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Curiel, C.P.; Ferreira, L.C. Comunicación y social media en las empresas de moda Asos como caso de estudio. Prisma Soc. 2017, 18, 226–258. [Google Scholar]
- Ryu, E.A.; Han, E.K. Social Media Influencer’s Reputation: Developing and Validating a Multidimen-sional Scale. Sustainability 2021, 13, 631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, J.Y.; Jung, Y.J. The Study on the Strategies of Beauty Influencer Marketing: Mass Media vs. Social Media. Korean. J. Advert. 2017, 28, 47–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, W.B.; Choo, H.J. Impact of sincerity on consumer behavior in SNS fashion influencer: The mediated effect of influencer’s fANSHIP. Korean Soc. Cloth. Text. 2017, 13, 17–32. [Google Scholar]
- Hong, D.H.; Jeon, J.W. MCN (Multi Channel Network’s Branded Entertainment Content Effectiveness. Korean Acad. Soc. Public Relat. 2016, 20, 171–194. [Google Scholar]
- Manaf, A.M.A. Malaysian female users’ purchase intentions of celebrity-endorsed products on Insta-gram: A parasocial interaction perspective. J. Media Communication Research 2020, 12, 93–109. [Google Scholar]
- Lang, C.; Armstrong, C.M.J. Collaborative consumption: The influence of fashion leadership, need for uniqueness, and materialism on female consumers’ adoption of clothing renting and swapping. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2018, 13, 37–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, H.; Kim, Y.-K. An empirical test of the triple bottom line of customer-centric sustainability: The case of fast fashion. Fash. Text. 2016, 3, 453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Holbrook, M.B. Consumption experience, customer value, and subjective personal introspection: An il-lustrative photographic essay. J. Bus. Res. 2006, 59, 714–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vargo, S.L.; Lusch, R.F. Institutions and axioms: An extension and update of service-dominant logic. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 44, 5–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vigneron, F.; Johnson, L.W. Measuring perceptions of brand luxury. J. Brand Manag. 2004, 11, 484–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eckman, M.; Damhorst, M.L.; Kadolph, S.J. Toward a model of the in-store purchase decision process: Consumer use of criteria for evaluating women’s apparel. Cloth. Text. Res. J. 1990, 8, 13–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, H.-S. Consumer profiles of apparel product involvement and values. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. Int. J. 2005, 9, 207–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mike, S. Fashion brands like Chanel and Dior are starting to figure out YouTube. 2014. Available online: http://blogs.wsj.com/cmo/2014/09/10/fash-ion-brands-like-chanel-and-dior-are-starting-to-figure-out-youtube/ (accessed on 12 April 2021).
- Chu, S.-C.; Kamal, S.; Kim, Y. Understanding consumers responses toward social media advertising and purchase intention toward luxury products. J. Glob. Fash. Mark. 2013, 4, 158–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campbell, C.; Grimm, P.E. The Challenges Native Advertising Poses: Exploring Potential Federal Trade Commission Responses and Identifying Research Needs. J. Public Policy Mark. 2018, 38, 110–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lou, C.; Yuan, S. Influencer Marketing: How Message Value and Credibility Affect Consumer Trust of Branded Content on Social Media. J. Interact. Advert. 2018, 19, 58–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vinerean, S.; Opreana, A.M. Segmenting Customers Based on Key Determinants of Online Shop-ping Behavior. In International Economic Conference of Sibiu; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 385–400. [Google Scholar]
- Chu, S.-C.; Kamal, S.; Kim, Y. Re-examining of consumers’ responses toward social media advertising and purchase intention toward luxury products from 2013 to 2018: A retrospective commentary. J. Glob. Fash. Mark. 2019, 10, 81–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Horton, D.; Wohl, R.R. Mass communication and para-social interaction: Observations on in-timacy at a distance. Psychiatry 1956, 19, 215–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kassing, J.W.; Sanderson, J. Fan–Athlete Interaction and Twitter Tweeting Through the Giro: A Case Study. Int. J. Sport Commun. 2010, 3, 113–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perse, E.M.; Rubin, R.B. Attribution in Social and Parasocial Relationships. Commun. Res. 1989, 16, 59–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Labrecque, L.I. Fostering consumer–brand relationships in social media environments: The role of par-asocial interaction. J. Interac. Mark. 2014, 28, 134–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eyal, K.; Rubin, A.M. Viewer Aggression and Homophily, Identification, and Parasocial Relationships with Television Characters. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 2003, 47, 77–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Melović, B.; Jocović, M.; Dabić, M.; Vulić, T.B.; Dudic, B. The impact of digital transformation and digital marketing on the brand promotion, positioning and electronic business in Montenegro. Technol. Soc. 2020, 63, 101425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sriwilai, K.; Charoensukmongkol, P. Face it, don’t Facebook it: Impacts of social media addiction on mindfulness, coping strategies and the consequence on emotional exhaustion. Stress Health 2016, 32, 427–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Young, C.; Comb, S.H. An investigation of the factors which influence repurchase intentions to-wards luxury. J. Bus. Behav. Sci. 2016, 28, 62–69. [Google Scholar]
- Oe, H.; Sunpakit, P.; Yamaoka, Y.; Liang, Y. An exploratory study of Thai consumers’ perceptions of “conspicuousness”: A case of luxury handbags. J. Consum. Mark. 2018, 35, 601–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J.E.; Watkins, B. YouTube vloggers’ influence on consumer luxury brand perceptions and intentions. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 5753–5760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Veirman, M.; Cauberghe, V.; Hudders, L. Marketing through Instagram influencers: The impact of number of followers and product divergence on brand attitude. Int. J. Advert. 2017, 36, 798–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Purnamaningsih, P.; Rizkalla, N. The Role of Parasocial Interaction on Consumers’ Intention to Pur-chase Beauty Products (El Papel De La Interacción Parasocial En La Intención De Los Consumidores De Com-prar Productos De Belleza). Rev. CEA 2020, 6, 12, doiorg/1022430/242231821617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rubin, R.B.; McHugh, M.P. Development of parasocial interaction relationships. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 1987, 31, 279–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kurtin, K.S.; O’Brien, N.; Roy, D.; Dam, L. The development of parasocial interaction relationships on YouTube. J. Soc. Media Soc. 2018, 7, 233–252. [Google Scholar]
- Vigneron, F.; Johnson, L.W. A review and a conceptual framework of prestige-seeking consumer be-havior. Acad. Mark. Sci. Rev. 1999, 1, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
- Veblen, O. Hilbert’s. Monist 1903, 13, 303–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Segal, B.; Podoshen, J.S. An examination of materialism, conspicuous consumption and gender dif-ferences. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2013, 37, 189–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davies, I.; Lee, Z.; Ahonkhai, I. Do consumers care about ethical-luxury? J. Bus. Ethics 2012, 106, 37–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dittmar, H. Material possessions as stereotypes: Material images of different socio-economic groups. J. Econ. Psychol. 1994, 15, 561–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, J.B.; Colgate, M. Customer Value Creation: A Practical Framework. J. Mark. Theory Pr. 2007, 15, 7–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wiedmann, K.-P.; Hennigs, N.; Siebels, A. Measuring consumers’ luxury value perception: A cross- cultural framework. Acad. Mark. Sci. Rev. 2007, 7, 333–361. [Google Scholar]
- Wiedmann, K.P.; Hennigs, N.; Siebels, A. Value-based segmentation of luxury consumption be-havior. Psychol. Mark. 2009, 26, 625–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- D’Astous, A.; Ahmed, S.A. The importance of country images in the formation of consumer prod-uct perceptions. Int. Mark. Rev. 1999, 16, 106–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J.; Ko, E.; Megehee, C.M. Social benefits of brand logos in presentation of self in cross and same gender influence contexts. J. Bus. Res. 2015, 68, 1341–1349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eastman, J.K.; Goldsmith, R.E.; Flynn, L.R. Status consumption in consumer behavior: Scale devel-opment and validation. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 1999, 7, 41–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhan, L.; He, Y. Understanding luxury consumption in China: Consumer perceptions of best-known brands. J. Bus. Res. 2012, 65, 1452–1460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hofstede, G. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations across Nations, 2nd ed.; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Cheah, I.; Phau, I.; Chong, C.; Shimul, A.S. Antecedents and outcomes of brand prominence on willingness to buy luxury brands. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. Int. J. 2015, 19, 402–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Netemeyer, R.G.; Burton, S.; Lichtenstein, D.R. Trait Aspects of Vanity: Measurement and Relevance to Consumer Behavior. J. Consum. Res. 1995, 21, 612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cesare, A.; Gianluigi, G. Determinants of purchasing intention for fashion luxury goods in the Italian market: A laddering approach. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. 2011, 15, 123–136. [Google Scholar]
- Fionda, A.M.; Moore, C.M. The anatomy of the luxury fashion brand. J. Brand Manag. 2009, 16, 347–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sirgy, M.J. Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior: A Critical Review. J. Consum. Res. 1982, 9, 287–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neisser, U. The Perceived Self: Ecological and Interpersonal Sources of Self-Knowledge; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Belk, R.W. Possessions and the Extended Self. J. Consum. Res. 1988, 15, 139–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Souiden, N.; M’Saad, B.; Pons, F. A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Consumers’ Conspicuous Consumption of Branded Fashion Accessories. J. Int. Consum. Mark. 2011, 23, 329–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Cass, A.; Siahtir, V. In search of status through brands from Western and Asian origins: Exam-ining the changing face of fashion clothing consumption in Chinese young adults. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2013, 20, 505–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, A.J.; Ko, E. Do social media marketing activities enhance customer equity? An empirical study of luxury fashion brand. J. Bus. Res. 2012, 65, 1480–1486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spears, N.; Singh, S.N. Measuring Attitude toward the Brand and Purchase Intentions. J. Curr. Issues Res. Advert. 2004, 26, 53–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erkan, I.; Evans, C. The influence of eWOM in social media on consumers’ purchase intentions: An extended approach to information adoption. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 61, 47–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, D.H.; Chang, Y.P.; Luo, J.J. Understanding the influence of C2C communication on purchase decision in online communities from a perspective of information adoption model. Telemat. Inform. 2016, 33, 8–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stephens, D.L.; Hill, R.P.; Bergman, K. Enhancing the consumer-product relationship: Lessons from the QVC home shopping channel. J. Bus. Res. 1996, 37, 193–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bian, Q.; Forsythe, S. Purchase intention for luxury brands: A cross cultural comparison. J. Bus. Res. 2012, 65, 1443–1451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, B.; Kim, J.-H. Luxury fashion consumption in China: Factors affecting attitude and purchase intent. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2013, 20, 68–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bell, E.; Bryman, A.; Harley, B. Business Research Methods; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Nunnally, J.C.; Bernstein, I.H. The Assessment of Reliability. Psychom. Theory 1994, 3, 248–292. [Google Scholar]
- Bollen, K.A. Structural Equations with Latent Variables; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
- Jørgensen, F.; Boer, H.; Laugen, B.T. CI Implementation: An Empirical Test of the CI Maturity Model. Creat. Innov. Manag. 2006, 15, 328–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.J.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L.; Black, W.C. 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed.; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Dag, S. LISREL 8: User’s Reference Guide; Scientific Software International: Chicago, IL, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Barclay, D.; Thompson, R.; Higgins, C. The partial least squares (PLS) approach to causal modeling; Personal computer adoption and use as an Illustration. Technol. Stud. 1995, 2, 285–309. [Google Scholar]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teo, T.S.H.; Srivastava, S.C.; Jiang, L. Trust and Electronic Government Success: An Empirical Study. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2008, 25, 99–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, L.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. 1991, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barrett, P. Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2007, 42, 815–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berryman, R.; Kavka, M. ‘I Guess A Lot of People See Me as a Big Sister or a Friend’: The role of intimacy in the celebrification of beauty vloggers. J. Gend. Stud. 2017, 26, 307–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- My Thairath Application. Available online: https://www.thairath.co.th/entertain/news/1882357. (accessed on 12 June 2021).
n | % | n | % | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | Education | ||||
Male | 255 | 56.25 | High School | 5 | 1.25 |
Female | 105 | 26.25 | Bachelor’s degree | 116 | 29 |
LGBTQ | 60 | 15 | Master’s degree | 223 | 55.75 |
Prefer not to say | 10 | 2.5 | Doctoral degree | 56 | 14 |
Income per month (Thai baht) | Time spent on social media per day | ||||
<20,000 | 21 | 5 | <1 h | 20 | 5 |
20,000–30,000 30,000–40,000 >40,000 | 71 112 196 90 69 56 135 50 | 18 28 49 22.50 17.25 14 33.75 12.50 | 1–2 h 3–5 h 6–8 h 9+h Does an IG influencer(s) affect your considerations when buying luxury fashion? Yes No | 129 164 64 23 345 55 | 32.25 41 16 5.75 86.25 13.75 |
Followers on Instagram <500 501–600 601–700 701–800 >800 |
Variable | Cronbach’s Alpha |
---|---|
Social attractiveness | 0.814 |
Physical attractiveness | 0.844 |
Parasocial interaction | 0.811 |
Social value | 0.878 |
Personal value | 0.806 |
Conspicuous value | 0.856 |
Purchase intention | 0.877 |
Overall | 0.939 |
Variable | Mean | SD |
---|---|---|
Social Attractiveness | ||
SA1: Instagram influencers have many things in common with me. | 3.89 | 1.38 |
SA2: They are similar to me. | 3.85 | 1.24 |
SA3: They share my worth. | 3.96 | 1.20 |
SA4: They have thoughts and suggestions that are close to mine. | 3.81 | 1.25 |
Physical Attractiveness | ||
PA1: Instagram influencers look physically attractive. | 4.69 | 1.64 |
PA2: Their lifestyles are physically attractive. | 4.27 | 1.32 |
PA3: I think he/she is quite pretty or handsome. | 4.68 | 1.42 |
PA4: I think he/she is very sexy looking. | 4.51 | 1.36 |
Parasocial Interaction | ||
PS1: When you see an influencer use a product in daily life on their Instagram, you look forward to purchasing that functional product. | 3.69 | 1.20 |
PS2: At first, you did not want to buy this product but when you saw they used it, you really wanted to buy it. | 3.73 | 1.12 |
PS3: I thought that socializing was not necessarily about using brand-name products, but when the influencer did it, I felt that the brand-name products were also a requirement for me. | 3.64 | 1.11 |
PS4: You decided to choose Gucci when you saw influencers used Gucci. | 3.64 | 1.16 |
Social Value | ||
SV1: Influencers can influence your luxury purchase decisions. | 3.63 | 1.14 |
SV2: For you, social status is really important. | 3.68 | 1.13 |
SV3: By using luxury brands (Gucci) similar to them, you think it can demonstrate your social status as an influencer. | 3.66 | 1.12 |
SV4: If you use Gucci, it can increase your social confidence. | 3.73 | 1.14 |
Personal Value | ||
PV1: Luxury goods improve your self-confidence. | 3.55 | 1.21 |
PV2: You would like to purchase items different to what others purchase to display your individuality, which can help to improve your image. | 3.55 | 1.16 |
PV3: You think you should signal your social standing and wealth by purchasing Gucci products. | 3.55 | 1.09 |
PV4: You think that luxury products can fulfil your intangible needs. | 3.61 | 1.20 |
Conspicuous Value | ||
CA1: When you purchase luxury brands, you want to display wealth but you do not care about the quality of the product. | 3.35 | 1.11 |
CA2: Sometimes you buy a product because most people use it, but you do not even think about its suitability. | 3.10 | 1.15 |
CA3: You believe that purchasing Gucci can differentiate you from non-prestigious groups. | 3.43 | 1.12 |
CA4: When Gucci launches a new seasonal collection, I usually buy the products even though this will impact my finances in the future, perhaps because the products will allow me to gain respect from others. | 3.35 | 1.09 |
Purchase Intention | ||
PI1: Purchasing a brand name increases your societal standing. | 3.58 | 1.10 |
PI2: If I see the Gucci brand when I go shopping, I will buy it. | 3.60 | 1.19 |
PI3: On special occasions, I will make an effort to buy Gucci for special people. | 3.55 | 1.12 |
PI4: In the coming years, I hope to buy luxury fashion products. | 3.62 | 1.20 |
Variable | Path | Variable | Coefficient | S.E. | t. | Sig. | R2 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
H1 | Parasocial interaction | ← | Social attractiveness | 0.440 | 0.060 | 6.886 | 0.000 * | 28.0% |
H2 | Parasocial interaction | ← | Physical attractiveness | 0.150 | 0.040 | 2.597 | 0.009 * | 28.0% |
H3a | Social value | ← | Parasocial interaction | 0.870 | 0.090 | 14.173 | 0.000 * | 75.0% |
H3b | Personal value | ← | Parasocial interaction | 0.890 | 0.080 | 10.941 | 0.000 * | 79.0% |
H3c | Conspicuous value | ← | Parasocial interaction | 0.690 | 0.080 | 10.670 | 0.000 * | 48.0% |
H4a | Purchase intention | ← | Social value | 0.330 | 0.070 | 4.078 | 0.000 * | 70.0% |
H4b | Purchase intention | ← | Personal value | 0.430 | 0.150 | 3.433 | 0.000 * | 70.0% |
H4c | Purchase intention | ← | Conspicuous value | 0.130 | 0.040 | 2.965 | 0.003 * | 70.0% |
H5 | Purchase intention | ← | Parasocial interaction | 0.030 | 0.220 | 0.153 | 0.879 | 70.0% |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. 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://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Jansom, A.; Pongsakornrungsilp, S. How Instagram Influencers Affect the Value Perception of Thai Millennial Followers and Purchasing Intention of Luxury Fashion for Sustainable Marketing. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8572. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158572
Jansom A, Pongsakornrungsilp S. How Instagram Influencers Affect the Value Perception of Thai Millennial Followers and Purchasing Intention of Luxury Fashion for Sustainable Marketing. Sustainability. 2021; 13(15):8572. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158572
Chicago/Turabian StyleJansom, Akawut, and Siwarit Pongsakornrungsilp. 2021. "How Instagram Influencers Affect the Value Perception of Thai Millennial Followers and Purchasing Intention of Luxury Fashion for Sustainable Marketing" Sustainability 13, no. 15: 8572. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158572
APA StyleJansom, A., & Pongsakornrungsilp, S. (2021). How Instagram Influencers Affect the Value Perception of Thai Millennial Followers and Purchasing Intention of Luxury Fashion for Sustainable Marketing. Sustainability, 13(15), 8572. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158572