インフルエンサー・マーケティングにおけるエンゲージメントの明確化

― 体系的文献レビューと統合的次元フレームワーク ―

Abstract

As influencers have become widely popular on social media, engagement has emerged as a key metric for evaluating the effectiveness of influencer marketing. However, research on the conceptualization and measurement of engagement remains fragmented. The present study employed the PRISMA process for literature screening and a structured analysis of 18 studies between 2020 and 2025 using the Theory, Context, Characteristics, Methodology framework.

The screening and comparing process reveals three critical gaps in current research regarding theoretical frameworks and empirical methods: dimensional ambiguity in the conceptualization of engagement, unclear positioning of the transaction outcome, and inconsistent target objects. Research findings indicate that most studies have focused on behavioral engagement metrics, particularly easily quantifiable behavior such as likes and comments, whereas measurements of cognitive and emotional dimensions remain significantly underdeveloped. Some studies have incorporated purchase intention or behavior into the engagement framework, whereas others have considered these as outcomes or separate variables. Furthermore, studies vary in their target objects, with some emphasizing brands and others concentrating on influencers, thereby complicating the conceptual clarity of engagement. This review provides theoretical insights that deepen the understanding of engagement in influencer marketing research.

Translated Abstract

ソーシャルメディア・コミュニケーションにおいてインフルエンサーの普及の進展に伴い，エンゲージメントはインフルエンサー・マーケティングの効果を評価する主要指標として位置づけられるようになった。しかし，エンゲージメントの概念化と測定に関する研究は依然として断片的な状況にある。本研究では文献スクリーニングにPRISMAプロセスを採用し，2020年から2025年までの18件の研究を「理論・文脈・特性・方法」フレームワークを用いて文献レビューを実施した。

研究結果によれば，大半の研究は行動的エンゲージメント指標，特に「いいね」や「コメント」といった容易に定量化可能な行動に焦点を当てている一方，認知的・感情的次元の測定は著しく未発達である。購買意図や行動をエンゲージメント枠組みに組み込む研究もあれば，これらを結果変数や別個の変数として扱う研究もある。さらに，対象も研究によって異なり，ブランドを重視する研究もあればインフルエンサーに焦点を当てる研究もあり，エンゲージメントの概念的明確性を複雑化させている。本レビューは，インフルエンサー・マーケティング研究におけるエンゲージメント理解を深める理論的な示唆を提示する。

I.  Introduction

As independent content generators, influencers establish emotional connections and relationships with their followers on social platforms and persuade them through authentic imagination, thereby shaping their intentions and behaviors (Lee & Eastin, 2021; Lou & Yuan, 2019). The advancement of digitalization and the proliferation of social media have transformed the marketing landscape; influencer marketing has become a dominant strategy in digital communication. Furthermore, influencer marketing is an emerging and significant method of information dissemination that can influence follower and consumer behavior within social media environments (Gui & Huang, 2025), ultimately leveraging influencers to promote brands and products. Both theoretically and practically, influencer marketing research has emphasized engagement as a core concept for measuring user responses and interactions (Breves et al., 2021). In the social media context, engagement is a behavior-based construct encompassing consumers’ views, reactions, creation, and sharing of branded content (Giakoumaki & Krepapa, 2020). Engagement is widely employed to predict followers’ attention (Smith & Fischer, 2021), actual followers’ impulsive purchases (Luo et al., 2024), and to encourage actions that may lead to profits by verifying the effectiveness of content recommended by influencers (Cheung et al., 2022), which play a critical role in measuring the effectiveness of influencer marketing.

However, despite its widespread use and mention in influencer marketing research, the concept of engagement itself faces several theoretical and empirical conflicts. Definitions of its composition, the classification of the behavioral dimension, and the engagement target vary considerably across the previous literature, highlighting a lack of conceptual consistency. First, the dimensions are defined differently in various studies, which propose multidimensional classifications from cognitive, emotional, and behavioral perspectives, yet lack unified standards for dimensioning the concept. Second, since measurement methods are highly diverse, some studies have categorized transaction outcomes, such as purchases, into engagement classifications. Third, some studies have not clearly specified the target of engagement, whether it is the brand, the influencer, or the content itself. Therefore, to clarify the theoretical foundations and empirical measurement methods of the engagement concept, the present study employs a systematic review and analysis of existing literature and further clarifies the conceptual framework, measurement dimensions, and target subjects of engagement.

To address the aforementioned research gaps, this study employs the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol to select and thoroughly screen relevant studies. By collecting and comparing 18 papers published over the past five years on related research topics, this study aims to identify the deficiencies in the theoretical foundations and dimensional classifications of engagement. The retained literature is then analyzed through the Theory, Context, Characteristics, Method (TCCM) framework.

This study constructs a comprehensive classification framework to address three theoretical gaps in the research on influencer marketing engagement. First, it introduces emotional and cognitive engagement metrics and emphasizes the importance of enriching the dimensions of engagement by combining them with behavioral factors. Second, it clarifies the theoretical positioning of transactional behaviors within engagement. Third, it resolves the inconsistencies in setting the engagement target object. This framework addresses inconsistencies and ambiguities in the previous literature regarding the composition of engagement dimensions, the relationship between behavioral engagement and transaction variables, and the ultimate target object of engagement. The findings provide theoretical clarification and methodological guidance for future research while offering more systematic strategic references for influencer marketing research.

II.  Theoretical Background of Engagement in Influencer Marketing

The social media environment emphasizes the importance of interactivity (Lim et al., 2022), thereby enabling users to participate and engage actively (Hollebeek et al., 2014), including the emotional and cognitive dimensions of engagement (Brodie et al., 2013). With respect to influencers, engagement verifies the effectiveness of their promotional content (Cheung et al., 2022). Meanwhile, content with a high engagement metric will be viewed by more users than that with a low engagement metric (Syrdal et al., 2023); high levels of engagement can result in predictable benefits. Additionally, followers can use engagement behavior metrics to evaluate influencers (Gui & Huang, 2025).

Engagement in influencer marketing differs significantly from that in traditional brand communication. First, the focus of engagement may target the influencer, the content, or the brand itself. Second, engagement depends on the social platforms; engagement metrics across platforms exhibit different functions, thereby undermining comparability. These distinct attributes increase the complexity of measurement methodologies in previous research, ultimately demanding a comprehensive synthesis review of this concept.

Recent systematic reviews of engagement behavior in influencer marketing (Aldlimi et al., 2025) have made valuable contributions by organizing engagement-related factors using the Antecedents, Decisions, Outcomes (ADO) framework. However, authors mention purchase intention as an outcome of engagement; they did not argue whether it can be viewed as a dimension of engagement. Meanwhile, distinguishing influencer engagement from brand engagement is inadequate, as it fails to reveal the complexity of the engagement concept fully.

Notably, in influencer marketing research, despite its importance, the engagement concept has received less academic attention than outcome variables, such as purchase intention and behavior. Therefore, it is necessary to systematically examine the definitions, classifications, and measurement methods of engagement in influencer marketing research. This study employs the PRISMA methodology and, drawing on the TCCM framework, analyzes and reviews the concept, dimensions, and subjects of engagement based on the relevant literature.

III.  Methodology

1.  PRISMA screening process

This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA protocol (Moher et al., 2009). The period from January 2020 to August 2025 was selected to capture significant findings in influencer marketing research over the past five years. In addition, this period was chosen to capture recent, relevant developments in influencer marketing engagement research. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using the Web of Science database, which provides extensive coverage of peer-reviewed journals across business, communication, and technology sciences, thus ensuring the academic rigor and relevance of the included studies. Keyword combination searches with the terms “influencer marketing engagement” and “influencer marketing engagement behavior” to obtain relevant literature. The initial search yielded 25 relevant studies. After the screening process was completed, seven papers focused on topics such as semantic analysis in engineering, therapeutic engagement, and semiconductor-related content were excluded for lack of relevance to the influencer marketing context.

2.  TCCM analytical framework

In this study, the TCCM framework was employed to organize the extracted literature (Paul & Rosado-Serrano, 2019), which categorizes literature based on the following elements: Theory, the theoretical foundations used; Context, including geographical and industrial aspects; Characteristics, encompassing attributes of influencers, followers, and platforms; and Method, encompassing research design and methodology.

Moreover, this review analyzes publications focused on influencer engagement as follows. First, using the TCCM framework, the basic information from each publication and the summarized engagement classification approaches were recorded. Next, the definitions and dimensions of engagement were extracted from each study. Finally, this study analyzed the relationship between engagement and the transaction outcome.

IV.  Results

1.  TCCM analysis

A total of 18 core studies were ultimately selected, covering diverse platforms (e.g., Instagram, TikTok, YouTube), influencer types (e.g., virtual, human, pet), research methodologies (e.g., experiments, questionnaires, content analysis, interviews), and theoretical frameworks. This review identifies key trends and challenges in current research, thereby confirming the definitions and classifications of engagement that this paper aims to verify and highlight.

(1)  Theory

The theoretical foundations of influencer engagement are diverse and fragmented. A relatively large number of the collected studies employ Parasocial Interaction and Relationship Theory to explain the emotional bonds between influencers and their followers (Kumar et al., 2024; Looi et al., 2025; Odoom, 2025; Waltenrath, 2024). This theory posits that users perceive influencers as illusion friends (Horton & Wohl, 1956), thereby enhancing trust in the influencer and engagement. Meanwhile, the Persuasion Knowledge Model is also frequently used (Chen et al., 2021; Kay et al., 2023; Looi et al., 2025; Myers et al., 2024; Waltenrath, 2024), which posits that individuals (followers) can develop persuasion knowledge, which influences their evaluation of marketing messages and subsequent behavioral intentions. Moreover, the Source Credibility Model (Akhtar et al., 2024; Cao et al., 2025; Gu & Duan, 2024; Jang et al., 2021; Kay et al., 2023; Waltenrath, 2024) emphasizes that influencers themselves attribute significant impact.

(2)  Context

The contextual dimension encompasses environmental factors, such as national and regional contexts, product categories, and so on. Influencer marketing research exhibits significant contextual diversity, ultimately reflecting variations in its application across geographic regions and industry backgrounds.

The geographic coverage of the studies ranges from China (Cao et al., 2025; Chen et al., 2021; Gu & Duan, 2024), Pakistan (Mir & Salo, 2025), India (Tarabieh et al., 2024), and America (Argyris et al., 2020; Looi et al., 2025) to international samples. The industries examined include fashion (Syrdal et al., 2023), tourism (Jang et al., 2021), food and health (Abell & Biswas, 2023), and so on. In conclusion, influencer marketing is highly adaptable across geographic regions and industries, exerting varying effects on engagement.

(3)  Characteristic

The characteristics of influencers, their followers, and the platforms they use vary widely. Several studies have focused on virtual influencers (Cao et al., 2025; Looi et al., 2025), pet influencers (Myers et al., 2024), micro influencers (Syrdal et al., 2023), and macro influencers (Mir & Salo, 2025; Waltenrath, 2024).

While some studies have considered the generational demographics of followers, such as Gen Z (Cao et al., 2025) and millennials (Atiq et al., 2022), follower characteristics are often underexplored.

As influencer marketing relies on social media platforms, the reviewed literature mainly focuses on Instagram (Abell & Biswas, 2023; Argyris et al., 2020; Atiq et al., 2022; Jang et al., 2021; Kay et al., 2023; Looi et al., 2025; Waltenrath, 2024), which is the most studied platform, followed by TikTok (Kumar et al., 2024), Weibo and WeChat (Chen et al., 2021; Gu & Duan, 2024), Airbnb (Akhtar et al., 2024), and so on.

(4)  Methodology

Different studies have adopted a range of quantitative and qualitative approaches, including experiments, surveys, structural equation modeling (SEM), and text mining. Among these, questionnaire surveys and SEM are the most commonly used methods for exploring relationships between variables (Atiq et al., 2022; Cao et al., 2025; Chen et al., 2021; Gu & Duan, 2024; Mir & Salo, 2025; Odoom, 2025; Tarabieh et al., 2024; Trivedi, 2021).

Additionally, this research also identified natural language processing (Syrdal et al., 2023) and experimental designs (Abell & Biswas, 2023), which enrich the methodological approaches in influencer marketing research.

2.  Research gaps in influencer marketing engagement

By employing the TCCM approach, this study summarized foundational theories under Theory; considered geographic categories under Context; compared the operationalization of influencer type, follower demographics, and platform under Characteristics; and contrasted research designs and analytical methods under Methodology. By comparing the TCCM results, this review organizes existing research findings across each TCCM section and identifies several patterns of inconsistency. These inconsistencies point to three research gaps that hinder theoretical development and measurement clarity in engagement research within influencer marketing, as differences and inconsistencies in recent studies have disrupted the theoretical definition of engagement and complicated empirical analysis.

First, dimensional ambiguity has been observed within Characteristics and Methodology. Previous studies have alternately defined engagement as a multidimensional construct or conflated it, and some have used behavioral counts as engagement. These inconsistencies occur across different platforms, influencer types, and research methods, leading to results that are not comparable across studies and undermining construct validity.

Second, methodological analyses have revealed inconsistent treatment of transactional outcomes as either components of engagement or as consequences. The relationship between purchase-related outcomes and engagement needs to be clarified as either causal or separate.

Third, analyses across Theory, Characteristics, and Methodology have revealed that the object of engagement is inconsistently specified. Brand-oriented engagement is conceptualized as brand attitudes or consumption measures; influencer-oriented engagement is typically understood as social interaction or relational metrics; and content-oriented engagement refers to consumption or communication effects. These distinct object-oriented indicators affect the choice of foundational theories.

In summary, current research on engagement in influencer marketing faces the following three research gaps (RG) listed in Table 1. Each RG is briefly described, with the following sections providing a detailed discussion on each gap.

Table 1　Existing research gap

(1)  Dimensional ambiguity in engagement conceptualization

Brodie et al. (2013) proposed that consumer engagement should encompass cognitive, emotional, and behavioral dimensions. However, most studies have primarily focused on behavioral indicators, further defining engagement as platform functionalities such as likes, comments, shares, and retweets (Fan et al., 2023; Kay et al., 2023; Onofrei et al., 2022), and sometimes associating them with influencers’ follower counts (Myers et al., 2024; Syrdal et al., 2023). This definition method simplifies engagement into solely quantifiable social media actions (Giakoumaki & Krepapa, 2020; Kay et al., 2023). However, the concept of engagement encompasses not only users’ direct behavioral reactions to content but also deeper cognitive and emotional involvement (Brodie et al., 2013); these two dimensions have been neglected in previous literature. Although some studies have mentioned engagement as a multidimensional concept, existing research dimensions are often conflated. Current studies still focus on behavioral engagement, with limited exploration of the mechanisms underlying cognitive and emotional interactions (Akhtar et al., 2024). Ultimately, focusing solely on behavioral engagement risks overlooking cognitive and emotional participation, thereby limiting the understanding of engagement.

Moreover, the behavioral dimension itself suffers from definitional confusion, with some studies including continuous subscriptions (Kim & Baek, 2022) and recommendations (Leong et al., 2024; Wongkitrungrueng & Assarut, 2020) within the scope of engagement. Therefore, to enhance theoretical understanding and diversify measurement methods, future research should systematically examine the multidimensional composition of engagement.

Furthermore, the choice of the measurement scale may cause bias in assessing engagement within influencer marketing. The measurement of engagement is mainly divided into two approaches: the widespread use of self-reported Likert scales in SEM studies, as well as reliance on platform dataset analysis. Both approaches can decrease the validity and comparability of engagement measurements across studies, potentially overlooking the different aspects of engagement, such as cognitive and emotional dimensions.

(2)  Unclear positioning of transactional outcomes

Whether the transaction outcome, such as purchase intention and behavior, can be considered a composition of engagement remains a significant point of disagreement in the previous literature. Some studies have incorporated transaction outcomes into engagement (Chen et al., 2021; Gu & Duan, 2024), subsequently arguing that purchasing behavior reflects users’ deep involvement, while others have treated engagement and purchase intention as two separate variables (Kim & Baek, 2022; Onofrei et al., 2022) and considered engagement as extending beyond mere purchase (Giakoumaki & Krepapa, 2020). Moreover, some studies treat purchase intention as an extension of engagement (Cao et al., 2025; Tarabieh et al., 2024; Trivedi, 2021).

This research considers purchase intention and behavior as consumer responses, distinct from engagement, as a consumer outcome. In influencer marketing contexts, user purchase decisions are often jointly influenced by parasocial relationships, influencer attributes, and content, thereby evoking emotional resonance (Lou & Yuan, 2019; Sokolova & Kefi, 2020), which can lead to changes in purchase behavior. Moreover, the effectiveness of influencer marketing cannot be measured solely by commercial results. Therefore, clarifying the positioning of purchase intention and behavior within the engagement is crucial, as it can help standardize the theoretical concept and empirical research.

(3)  Inconsistency in the engagement target object

The inconsistency in the target objects of engagement reveals an overlooked issue in the previous literature. Reviewing influencer marketing research reveals that significant divergence exists regarding the target objects of engagement. Some studies have mainly focused on users’ responses to brand-related engagement (Mir & Salo, 2025; Odoom, 2025; Tarabieh et al., 2024; Trivedi, 2021). While others focus on engagement between the user (or follower) and the influencer (Abell & Biswas, 2023; Myers et al., 2024), engagement stems from parasocial relationships with influencers and depends on their attribute (Gui & Huang, 2025), and engagement with influencers is significantly greater than that with brands’ promotion (Lou et al., 2019). Moreover, depending on the content characteristics (Fan et al., 2023) or perceived value (Leong et al., 2024; Wongkitrungrueng & Assarut, 2020), engagement metrics on social media will also be influenced through influencer marketing.

Notably, many users are not followers of influencers but rather active participants on social media platforms; they are interested in specific content, which drives engagement. Characterized by a one-sided illusion of friendship, the follower–influencer relationship makes followers more susceptible to persuasion, thereby influencing their engagement. Moreover, differences in actual engagement metrics maintained on social media platforms, such as likes, comments, coins, gifts, shares, and retweets, can lead to variations. Furthermore, the dominant content formats (pictures, videos, or livestreams) on each platform affect the comparability of measurement methods. Future research should clarify the type of engagement subject and select appropriate theoretical perspectives and measurement tools accordingly.

V.  Discussion

The PRISMA process ensures transparency and comprehensiveness in screening, while the TCCM framework is used to conduct a structured analysis across theory, context, characteristics, and methodology. Based on 18 core previous studies, this research systematically reviews the definitions, dimensional classifications, and measurement methods of engagement in influencer marketing. The findings identify and emphasize three key research gaps: dimensional confusion, unclear positioning of transaction outcomes, and inconsistent engagement objects.

First, although behavioral engagement metrics are widely used to measure user engagement in influencer marketing, existing research primarily focuses on behavioral dimensions, such as likes, comments, and shares. By contrast, cognitive and emotional dimensions are often overlooked or inadequately operationalized.

Based on a systematic literature review and theoretical foundation, this paper follows the guidance of Brodie et al. (2013) and considers engagement as a three-dimensional structure comprising cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components. Specifically, cognitive engagement refers to users’ attentional focus and information processing regarding content or influencers, leading to comprehension, concentration, and information-seeking. Emotional engagement reflects users’ emotional responses and attitudinal responses, encompassing favorability, trust, and resonance. Behavioral engagement encompasses actual interactive actions on social media platforms, including likes, comments, shares, and clicks.

This three-dimensional framework facilitates the comprehensive capture and clarification of the constituent dimensions of engagement. Future research can leverage this framework to separately capture users’ cognitive, emotional, and behavioral engagement and explore the differential effects of each dimension on outcome variables, thereby clarifying whether the same antecedents have different effects on each type of engagement.

Second, purchase intention and actual purchase behavior exhibit significant conceptual differences. Some studies have incorporated purchase intention and behavior as part of engagement, whereas others have considered it as an outcome variable of engagement. To ensure clarity in dimensional definitions, this paper argues that purchase and engagement should not be conflated. Moreover, these represent distinct constructs, and transactional outcomes (purchase) should not be equated with non-transactional outcomes (engagement).

Future research should further examine the differential effects of the same antecedent on engagement and transaction outcomes. Moreover, the role of engagement in influencer marketing needs to be clarified, whether as a predictor variable, outcome variable, mediator, or moderator, to determine its effectiveness.

Third, existing research shows a significant difference in how the object of engagement is defined. Some studies have viewed engagement as users’ cognitive and emotional involvement in brands, while others have focused on interactions with influencers, and still others have considered users’ behavioral responses to specific content as the main object of engagement.

These conceptual differences directly impact how engagement is defined as distinct factors in research, thereby limiting the generalizability of research findings. To enhance theoretical clarity and empirical comparability, future studies should clearly distinguish among three engagement objects: brand-, influencer-, and content-oriented, which can help identify the final marketing targets more effectively. Furthermore, by incorporating these three different oriented engagement variables (brand, influencer, and content) within the same study, this approach will facilitate a more comprehensive understanding of influencer marketing’s mechanisms. When constructing theoretical models, researchers should clearly define engagement and differentiate it during questionnaire design or data collection.

VI.  Conclusion

1.  Theoretical implications

First, informed by the literature review, this study proposes a comprehensive, multidimensional framework for engagement in object-oriented influencer marketing research. This study introduces a three-dimensional engagement framework encompassing cognitive, emotional, and behavioral dimensions, while clearly distinguishing between brand-, influencer-, and content-oriented engagement objects. This classification not only enhances conceptual clarity but also provides a more systematic theoretical framework for future research.

Second, this review highlights the confusion in previous research regarding the classification and measurement of engagement, underscoring the need to distinguish between transactional outcomes, such as purchase intention and behavior, and engagement in influencer marketing. Clarifying these definitions across dimensions provides a theoretical basis for measurement development and data collection.

Third, the results of the TCCM analysis revealed that contextual factors, including influencer type, cultural background, follower age cohort, and platform characteristics exert a significant influence on engagement. Moreover, this research finds that the parasocial phenomenon theory is widely used in research on engagement in influencer marketing. Moreover, research methodologies are becoming increasingly diverse, with questionnaires focused on follower-dominant, text mining, and mixed methods gaining increasing attention.

2.  Future research agenda

Based on the literature review, future studies can explore the following directions.

First, the scope of research on platforms and cultural contexts should be broadened. Current research has primarily focused on Instagram and TikTok within Western and East Asian cultural contexts. Future studies should strengthen cross-platform and cross-cultural comparative analyses, thereby considering the mechanisms that influence engagement across different social media environments to advance the development of influencer marketing research.

Second, future research should integrate longitudinal mixed-methods approaches to comprehensively capture dynamic shifts in influencer–follower relationships and uncover the causal pathways driving engagement in influencer marketing. Previous studies have primarily relied on cross-sectional data collection and SEM analysis, which lack longitudinal designs, further limiting the understanding of engagement formation.

Third, future research should construct theoretical models that integrate cognitive, emotional, and behavioral perspectives, establish standardized metrics for measuring engagement, and address negative factors, such as information overload and skepticism toward commercial content. This approach will support brands and influencers in developing more authentic and effective marketing strategies.

3.  Limitations

Although this study provides a systematic analysis through a literature review and theoretical integration, several limitations remain. First, the use of a single database limited the scope of the literature search, resulting in the exclusion of some relevant studies. Second, although the TCCM framework aims to systematically collect and organize research findings, it remains insufficient for explaining the underlying mechanisms of engagement. Future studies should incorporate additional literature review frameworks to deepen the understanding of the concept of engagement and its causal pathways.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by JST SPRING, Grant Number JPMJSP2148.

Ethics Declaration

This study is based on a systematic review of published literature and does not involve human participants or personal data; therefore, ethical approval and informed consent were not required.

Conflict of Interest

The author has no conflicts of interest to disclose regarding this manuscript.

References

•  Abell,  A., &  Biswas,  D. (2023). Digital engagement on social media: How food image content influences social media and influencer marketing outcomes. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 58(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/10949968221128556
•  Akhtar,  N.,  Siddiqi,  U. I.,  Gugnani,  R.,  Islam,  T., &  Attri,  R. (2024). The potency of audiovisual attractiveness and influencer marketing: The road to customer behavioral engagement. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 79, 103807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2024.103807
•  Aldlimi,  T.,  Priporas,  C., &  Chang,  S. (2025). Engagement in influencer marketing: A systematic review of key drivers, behaviors, and future research directions. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, cb.2485. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.2485
•  Argyris,  Y. A.,  Wang,  Z.,  Kim,  Y., &  Yin,  Z. (2020). The effects of visual congruence on increasing consumers’ brand engagement: An empirical investigation of influencer marketing on Instagram using deep-learning algorithms for automatic image classification. Computers in Human Behavior, 112, 106443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106443
•  Atiq,  M.,  Abid,  G.,  Anwar,  A., &  Ijaz,  M. F. (2022). Influencer marketing on Instagram: A sequential mediation model of storytelling content and audience engagement via relatability and trust. Information, 13(7), 345. https://doi.org/10.3390/info13070345
•  Breves,  P.,  Amrehn,  J.,  Heidenreich,  A.,  Liebers,  N., &  Schramm,  H. (2021). Blind trust? The importance and interplay of parasocial relationships and advertising disclosures in explaining influencers’ persuasive effects on their followers. International Journal of Advertising, 40(7), 1209–1229. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2021.1881237
•  Brodie,  R. J.,  Ilic,  A.,  Juric,  B., &  Hollebeek,  L. (2013). Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Business Research, 66(1), 105–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.07.029
•  Cao,  N.,  Isa,  N. M.,  Perumal,  S., &  Chen,  C. (2025). Perceived value, consumer engagement, and purchase intention in virtual influencer marketing: The role of source credibility and generational cohort. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 20(2), 150. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer20020150
•  Chen,  K.,  Lin,  J. (Elaine), &  Shan,  Y. (2021). Influencer marketing in China: The roles of parasocial identification, consumer engagement, and inferences of manipulative intent. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 20(6), 1436–1448. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1945
•  Cheung,  M. L.,  Leung,  W. K. S.,  Yang,  M. X.,  Koay,  K. Y., &  Chang,  M. K. (2022). Exploring the nexus of social media influencers and consumer brand engagement. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 34(10), 2370–2385. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-07-2021-0522
•  Fan,  F.,  Chan,  K.,  Wang,  Y.,  Li,  Y., &  Prieler,  M. (2023). How influencers’ social media posts have an influence on audience engagement among young consumers. Young Consumers, 24(4), 427–444. https://doi.org/10.1108/YC-08-2022-1588
•  Giakoumaki,  C., &  Krepapa,  A. (2020). Brand engagement in self-concept and consumer engagement in social media: The role of the source. Psychology & Marketing, 37(3), 457–465. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21312
•  Gu,  C., &  Duan,  Q. (2024). Exploring the dynamics of consumer engagement in social media influencer marketing: From the self-determination theory perspective. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 587. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03127-w
•  Gui,  Y., &  Huang,  L. (2025). Willingness to share, comment, like: Mediating role of influencer credibility and parasocial relationship in gratifying Generation Z follower needs. Young Consumers, 26(6), 1046–1068. https://doi.org/10.1108/YC-01-2025-2385
•  Hollebeek,  L. D.,  Glynn,  M. S., &  Brodie,  R. J. (2014). Consumer brand engagement in social media: Conceptualization, scale development, and validation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28(2), 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2013.12.002
•  Horton,  D., &  Wohl,  R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction: Observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry, 19(3), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049
•  Jang,  W. (Eric),  Kim,  J. (Jay),  Kim,  S., &  Chun,  J. W. (2021). The role of engagement in travel influencer marketing: The perspectives of dual process theory and the source credibility model. Current Issues in Tourism, 24(17), 2416–2420. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1845126
•  Kay,  S.,  Mulcahy,  R.,  Sutherland,  K., &  Lawley,  M. (2023). Disclosure, content cues, emotions and behavioural engagement in social media influencer marketing: An exploratory multi-stakeholder perspective. Journal of Marketing Management, 39(7–8), 550–584. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2022.2118815
•  Kim,  M., &  Baek,  T. H. (2022). I’ll follow the fun: The extended investment model of social media influencers. Telematics and Informatics, 74, 101881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2022.101881
•  Kumar,  A.,  Rayne,  D.,  Salo,  J., &  Yiu,  C. S. (2024). Battle of influence: Analysing the impact of brand-directed and influencer-directed social media marketing on customer engagement and purchase behaviour. Australasian Marketing Journal. https://doi.org/10.1177/14413582241247391
•  Lee,  J. A., &  Eastin,  M. S. (2021). Perceived authenticity of social media influencers: Scale development and validation. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 15(4), 822–841. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-12-2020-0253
•  Leong,  K. Y.,  Ho,  J. S. Y.,  Tehseen,  S.,  Yafi,  E., &  Cham,  T. H. (2024). The intangible values of live streaming and their effect on audience engagement. Journal of Marketing Analytics, 12(4), 990–1005. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41270-023-00247-1
•  Lim,  W. M.,  Rasul,  T.,  Kumar,  S., &  Ala,  M. (2022). Past, present, and future of customer engagement. Journal of Business Research, 140, 439–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.11.014
•  Looi,  J.,  Kim,  E., &  E,  Z. (2025). Sponsorship disclosure in virtual influencer marketing: Assessing users’ sentiment and engagement toward virtual influencer endorsements. Journal of Advertising Research, 65(3), 321–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/00218499.2025.2464300
•  Lou,  C.,  Tan,  S.-S., &  Chen,  X. (2019). Investigating consumer engagement with influencer- vs. brand-promoted ads: The roles of source and disclosure. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 19(3), 169–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2019.1667928
•  Lou,  C., &  Yuan,  S. (2019). Influencer marketing: How message value and credibility affect consumer trust of branded content on social media. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 19(1), 58–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2018.1533501
•  Luo,  X.,  Cheah,  J.-H.,  Hollebeek,  L. D., &  Lim,  X.-J. (2024). Boosting customers’ impulsive buying tendency in live-streaming commerce: The role of customer engagement and deal proneness. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 77, 103644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103644
•  Mir,  I. A., &  Salo,  J. (2025). Mapping content-driven engagement and attitudinal spillover effect of influencer marketing. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 19(3), 408–425. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-10-2023-0349
•  Moher,  D.,  Liberati,  A.,  Tetzlaff,  J., &  Altman,  D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. BMJ, 339, b2535. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535
•  Myers,  S.,  Sen,  S.,  Syrdal,  H., &  Woodroof,  P. (2024). The impact of persuasion knowledge cues on social media engagement: A look at pet influencer marketing. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 32(1), 43–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2022.2093224
•  Odoom,  R. (2025). Digital content marketing and consumer brand engagement on social media- do influencers’ brand content moderate the relationship? Journal of Marketing Communications, 31(4), 491–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2023.2249013
•  Onofrei,  G.,  Filieri,  R., &  Kennedy,  L. (2022). Social media interactions, purchase intention, and behavioural engagement: The mediating role of source and content factors. Journal of Business Research, 142, 100–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.12.031
•  Paul,  J., &  Rosado-Serrano,  A. (2019). Gradual internationalization vs born-global/international new venture models: A review and research agenda. International Marketing Review, 36(6), 830–858. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-10-2018-0280
•  Smith,  A. N., &  Fischer,  E. (2021). Pay attention, please! Person brand building in organized online attention economies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 49(2), 258–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-020-00736-0
•  Sokolova,  K., &  Kefi,  H. (2020). Instagram and YouTube bloggers promote it, why should I buy? How credibility and parasocial interaction influence purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 53, 101742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.01.011
•  Syrdal,  H. A.,  Myers,  S.,  Sen,  S.,  Woodroof,  P. J., &  McDowell,  W. C. (2023). Influencer marketing and the growth of affiliates: The effects of language features on engagement behavior. Journal of Business Research, 163, 113875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113875
•  Tarabieh,  S.,  Gil,  I.,  Galdón Salvador,  J. L., &  Faisal Ahmad AlFraihat,  S. (2024). The new game of online marketing: How social media influencers drive online repurchase intention through brand trust and customer brand engagement. Intangible Capital, 20(1), 103. https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.2515
•  Trivedi,  J. P. (2021). Effect of influencer marketing on online impulse purchase: The mediating role of consumer-brand engagement. Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations, 19(3), 49–64. https://doi.org/10.4018/JECO.2021070104
•  Waltenrath,  A. (2024). Consumers’ ambiguous perceptions of advertising disclosures in influencer marketing: Disentangling the effects on current and future social media engagement. Electronic Markets, 34(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-023-00679-8
•  Wongkitrungrueng,  A., &  Assarut,  N. (2020). The role of live streaming in building consumer trust and engagement with social commerce sellers. Journal of Business Research, 117, 543–556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.08.032

Yin Gui

Yin Gui is a Ph.D. student in the Graduate School of Business Administration at Kobe University. She received a Master of Arts in Business Administration from Kobe University in 2023. Her research focuses on influencer marketing, marketing communication, and consumer behavior research. She has presented her work at international conferences and journals such as Young Consumers.