| Literature DB >> 33167953 |
Frans Folkvord1,2, Elze Roes3, Kirsten Bevelander3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most studies on social influencer marketing techniques have focused on the promotion of unhealthy foods whereas little is known about the promotion of healthier foods. The present experimental study investigated whether a popular real versus fictitious fit influencer is more successful in promoting healthy food products. In addition, we examined the role of parasocial interaction as an underlying mechanism of healthy food product endorsement.Entities:
Keywords: Attitude; Healthy foods; Intention; Marketing; Public health; Social influencers
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33167953 PMCID: PMC7654141 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-020-09779-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Randomization checks of variables measured by experimental conditiona
| Variables | Fictitious fit influencer ( | Real fit influencer ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (y) | 23.44 (5.18) | 24.61 (6.79) | .231 |
| Sex ( | 3/74 | 5/72 | .468 |
| Education level (lower/middle/higher) | 15/42/20 | 21/42/14 | .525 |
| Time spend on Instagram (< 1 h/1-2 h/> 2 h p/d)%) | 67.5/35.1/10.4 | 58.5/29.9/11.7 | .250 |
aValues are in means ± SDs, minimum–maximum; bReflects the differences in total means between conditions by one-factor ANOVA or Pearson’s chi square test
Manipulation checks for the variables identification, congruency and similaritya
| Variables | Fictitious fit influencer ( | Real fit influencer ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identification | 1.180 (1.448) (0–5) | 2.740 (1.593) (0–7) | <.001 |
| Congruency | 4.390 (.934) (1–6) | 4.770 (.793) (2–6) | .008 |
| Similarity | 5.566 (1.727) (1–9) | 6.197 (1.930) (1–10) | .034 |
aMeans ± (SD), min-max