The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Meta‐analysis of social media influencer impact: Key antecedents and theoretical foundations
Open accessAbstract
This meta‐analytic review offers a comprehensive framework for studying social media influencers by integrating multiple theoretical perspectives and measures. It analyzes 250 effect sizes from 53 studies, highlighting the significance of credibility, trustworthiness, and perceived expertise of social media influencers in shaping attitudinal outcomes. Source Credibility Theory emerges as the most robust explanatory framework, while Parasocial Interaction Theory and Congruity Theory also play essential roles. For behavioral outcomes, Source Credibility Theory and Congruity Theory remain influential, with moderate effects observed for homophily and variables from the two‐step flow model. Methodological diversity, geographical context, platform context, product context, and influencer type contribute to variations in effect sizes. These findings provide insights into social media influencer influence dynamics and guide future research. Moreover, they contribute to theory development by shedding light on the mechanisms and conditions underlying social media influencer influence on consumer attitudes and behaviors.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & the PRISMA Group* (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 · Cited by 37,554
Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.98.2.224 · Cited by 21,995
Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations across Nations
Bhagat, R. S., & Hofstede, G. (2002) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/4134391 · Cited by 21,664
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
(2019) · doi:10.1002/9781119536604 · Cited by 14,828
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x · Cited by 14,099
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2021) · doi:10.1002/9781119558378 · Cited by 9,799
Possessions and the Extended Self
Belk, R. W. (1988) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/209154 · Cited by 9,064
GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence
Balshem, H., Helfand, M., Schünemann, H. J., Oxman, A. D., Kunz, R., Brozek, J., Vist, G. E., Falck-Ytter, Y., Meerpohl, J., & Norris, S. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015 · Cited by 8,285
I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience
Marwick, A. E., & boyd, D. (2011) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444810365313 · Cited by 4,612
Cited by
Past, present, and future scene of influencer marketing in hospitality and tourism management
Polat, E., Çelik, F., Ibrahim, B., & Gursoy, D. (2024) · Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing · doi:10.1080/10548408.2024.2317741 · Cited by 73
Metadata
- Authors
- Han, J., & Balabanis, G.
- Venue
- Psychology & Marketing
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2023-10-21
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 394-426
- ISSN
- 0742-6046 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-6793
- OpenAlex
- W4387843112
- Cited by
- 259
- References
- 51
- FWCI
- 112.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Meta‐analysis of social media influencer impact: Key antecedents and theoretical foundations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/mar.21927
- The paper
- Han, J., & Balabanis, G. (2024). Meta‐analysis of social media influencer impact: Key antecedents and theoretical foundations. Psychology & Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21927
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
