Should I suggest this YouTube clip? The impact of UGC source credibility on eWOM and purchase intention
Abstract
Purpose In spite of the increasing organic and interactive marketing activities over social media, a general understanding of the source credibility of voluntary user-generated content (UGC) is still limited. In line with the social identity theory, this paper examines the effects of consumers' perceived source credibility of UGC in YouTube videos on their attitudes and behavioral intentions. Additionally, source homophily theory is included to predict the antecedent of source credibility. Design/methodology/approach Three hundred and seventy two Generation Y respondents were interviewed using snowball sampling. Data were analyzed with component-based structural equation modeling technique of partial least squares-structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Findings Findings confirmed that perceived source credibility indirectly affects purchase intention (PI) and electronic word-of-mouth via attitude toward UGC. Besides, perceived source credibility mediates the effect of perceived source homophily on attitude toward UGC. Practical implications Since today's consumers have begun to trust and rely more on UGC than company-generated content on social media when making purchase decisions, companies may reconsider democratizing certain aspects of their branding strategies. Firms may fine-tune their marketing communication budgets – not only just by sponsoring public figures and celebrities but also by nurturing coproductive engagements with independent content creators who are ordin…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
An overwhelming 80% of studies focusing on platform-specific influencer marketing were centred on only two platforms: Instagram and/or YouTube.
“Furthermore, our examination underscored that an overwhelming 80% of studies focusing on platform-specific influencer marketing were centred on only two platforms: Instagram and/or YouTube (Fakhreddin and Foroudi 2022;Muda and Hamzah 2021;Sokolova and Kefi 2020).”
From Influencer Marketing and Tourist Behaviour: A Systematic Literature Review of Attitudes, Intentions and Behaviours in Tourism (2026) · cites this paper as Muda and Hamzah 2021
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 89 · Cited by 225
- Authors
- Muda, M., & Hamzah, M. I.
- Affiliations
- Universiti Teknologi MARA System (MY)
- Venue
- Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2021-06-15
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 441-459
- ISSN
- 2040-7122 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3170157520
- Cited by
- 225
- References
- 89
- Citations by year
- 2026: 28 · 2025: 58 · 2024: 62 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 47.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Marketing and Social Media
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Consumer Behavior and Marketing Influence
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Consumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and Identification
- Keywords
- user-generated content, source credibility, electronic word of mouth, purchase intention, social identity theory, YouTube videos, millennials, micro-influencers, prosumers, brand ambassadors, social media marketing
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