Research Article

How Virtual Celebrity Characteristics Drive Purchase Intention: Testing the Stimulus-Organism-Response Framework with Structural Equation Modeling

DOI:

10.3791/70685

⸱

March 3rd, 2026

 , 
1Seoul Business School, aSSIST University, 2Department of Management Information Systems, Dong-A University

In This Article

Summary

$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$ $$\longleftharp{xx}$$, $$\longrightharp{xx}$$,

In the context of the virtual celebrity experience, content quality most strongly drives satisfaction; satisfaction, in turn, increases purchase intention indirectly via loyalty. Personalization strengthens the satisfaction-loyalty link, so firms should prioritize emotion-evoking, narrative-consistent virtual celebrity content and personalized loyalty programs.

Abstract

$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$ $$\longleftharp{xx}$$, $$\longrightharp{xx}$$,

In recent years, firms have begun introducing virtual celebrities to promote their products and brands across various media channels. This research employs the stimulus-organism-response (SOR) framework to empirically investigate how virtual celebrity attractiveness factors, such as appearance, voice, and content quality, can influence consumer satisfaction, loyalty, and purchase intention. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) was used to test the hypotheses based on a sample of 249 participants who had engaged in virtual celebrity experiences. The findings indicate that content quality is the strongest predictor of user satisfaction and that satisfaction indirectly influences purchase intention through loyalty. Furthermore, personalization moderates the satisfaction-loyalty relationship, suggesting that personalized experiences would enhance the engagement of virtual celebrities and fans. The findings indicate that firms considering virtual celebrity campaigns should focus more on emotion-eliciting, narrative-consistent content rather than visual realism. Furthermore, investments in loyalty-building programs and personalized engagement solutions are necessary to transform consumer satisfaction into sustained behaviors.

Introduction

$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$ $$\longleftharp{xx}$$, $$\longrightharp{xx}$$,

Celebrity endorsement remains widely used, and firms increasingly adopt virtual celebrities across digital media channels1. Advances in AI and related technologies have diversified virtual celebrity forms and improved scalability and interaction2.

Virtual celebrities are hybrids of virtual characters and traditional celebrities3 and are defined here as digitally created personas that achieve public recognition and sustained attachment through recurring narrative-based interaction3,4. This study focuses on audiovisual virtual celebrities in consumer-facing digital marketing. Although firms increasingly rely on them to influence consumer behavior5, research has paid limited attention to how virtual celebrity experiences translate into satisfaction, loyalty, and purchase intention.

Prior work has examined behavioral, cognitive, and affective perspectives4, emphasizing credibility and authenticity6,7, perceived authenticity8, identity disclosure9, information quality10, and emotional responses11. Studies have also highlighted attractiveness cues such as appearance, voice, and content quality12, yet often fail to explain how these factors drive consumer outcomes13,14. As a result, favorable evaluations do not consistently translate into purchase intention, and evidence on the satisfaction–purchase relationship remains mixed.

To address this gap, this study examines how appearance, voice, and content quality shape satisfaction, loyalty, and purchase intention, while testing personalization as a moderator15,16 using the SOR framework.

This study contributes by conceptualizing virtual celebrity attractiveness as appearance, voice, and content17, clarifying loyalty as the key mechanism linking satisfaction to purchase intention18,19, and identifying personalization as an amplifier of the satisfaction–loyalty relationship20.

Stimulus-Organism-Response (SOR) framework
The SOR framework explains how environmental stimuli influence internal states and behavioral responses21 through a sequence of stimuli (S), organismic states (O), and responses (R). It has been widely applied in contexts such as the Metaverse, gaming, retail, advertising, e-commerce, and celebrity endorsement22,23,24,25,26,27,28. However, while SOR structures relationships among virtual celebrity attributes, evaluations, and outcomes, it does not fully explain how evaluations become behavioral intentions. Therefore, this study integrates relationship marketing and loyalty theory29 to clarify the satisfaction–loyalty–purchase intention mechanism.

Consumer responses to virtual celebrities are increasingly shaped by experiential cues such as audiovisual attractiveness and content engagement4,30. Appearance and voice influence initial impressions, while content quality sustains emotional and narrative engagement14,31. Although these factors foster positive evaluations, prior research shows that favorable perceptions alone may not drive purchase intention. Relationship constructs such as loyalty and commitment appear to convert positive experiences into behavioral intentions32,33. Accordingly, appearance, voice, and content quality are modeled as stimuli; satisfaction and loyalty as organismic states; and purchase intention as the behavioral response. Loyalty is conceptualized as psychological commitment, and purchase intention as the conative outcome.

Celebrity endorsement
Celebrity endorsement is a widely used marketing strategy34 in which recognized individuals promote products or services35. Its use has expanded globally1,36,37, particularly with the rise of social media influencers37. Computer-generated influencers have emerged as alternatives to human endorsers37, operating primarily through digital platforms38.

Extensive research has examined endorsement effectiveness39,40, proposing models such as source credibility41, meaning transfer35, extended source attractiveness42, celebrity-brand fit43, and process-transfer effects44. These frameworks emphasize credibility, attractiveness, symbolic meaning transfer, and brand congruence45, providing a foundation for understanding endorsement mechanisms in virtual contexts.

Virtual celebrity
Recent studies examine AI-generated influencers, VTubers, and virtual brand ambassadors across digital environments46, emphasizing interaction, personalization, and authenticity. Media richness theory suggests richer media enhance communication effectiveness47, and virtual characters exemplify such richness through immersive, multi-sensory interaction48, influencing emotional and social responses49.

Although “virtual celebrity” encompasses various digital personas50, this study focuses on visually embodied audiovisual virtual celebrities with stable identities and recurring content. Prior research frames their influence through behavioral, cognitive, and affective perspectives4. Behavioral research examines engagement and purchase behavior32,51; cognitive research highlights credibility, authenticity8, identity disclosure9,52, and information quality10; affective research emphasizes emotional attitudes11.

Virtual celebrity characteristics
Building on source credibility theory, research has examined anthropomorphism, attractiveness, trustworthiness, expertise, and parasocial interaction in virtual contexts1,32,53. Anthropomorphism positively shapes consumer responses54,55 and aligns with the Computers Are Social Actors paradigm56, extended to media agents57, chatbots58, and virtual influencers. However, virtual celebrities vary in realism4, and uncanny valley theory suggests near-human representations may evoke discomfort59.

Technological advances have shifted virtual celebrities toward dynamic, content-generating agents, increasing the importance of experiential attributes such as content quality and voice expressiveness. Research has examined synthetic voice14, facial appearance13, appearance–voice congruence60, audiovisual attractiveness30, and responses to computer-generated faces61.

This study conceptualizes virtual celebrity attractiveness through appearance, voice, and content. Physical attractiveness influences social evaluation62, consistent with the halo effect62, and is expected to enhance satisfaction. Content quality represents the narrative and experiential dimension of virtual celebrity output and is conceptually distinct from service quality63,64,65.

Satisfaction
Satisfaction reflects consumers’ cognitive and emotional evaluation of whether experiences meet expectations66,67 and is shaped by perceived performance relative to expectations68,69. It has been widely studied in online contexts70 and is central to performance assessment71. Attractiveness influences satisfaction in service settings72,73, and voice attractiveness has shown similar effects74. Accordingly, appearance, voice, and content quality are expected to shape satisfaction in virtual celebrity contexts.

Accordingly, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H1: The Appearance attractiveness of virtual celebrities positively influences consumer satisfaction.
H2: Voice attractiveness of virtual celebrities positively influences consumer satisfaction.
H3: Content quality of virtual celebrities positively influences consumer satisfaction.

Loyalty
In this study, loyalty is conceptualized as attitudinal loyalty, reflecting a consumer’s psychological commitment and bond with the virtual celebrity rather than actual repeat behavior19,33. Loyalty represents a willingness to maintain the relationship despite barriers75 and has been widely examined as an outcome of satisfaction across online settings67,76, tourism77, and VTuber endorsement contexts33. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H4: Consumer satisfaction with virtual celebrities positively influences loyalty to virtual celebrities.

Purchase Intention on the goods and services endorsed by virtual celebrities
Purchase intention reflects a consumer’s likelihood and readiness to purchase a product or service67,78,79 and is influenced by factors such as satisfaction, trust, loyalty, and enjoyment78. Loyalty has been shown to strongly predict purchase intention80. In virtual celebrity contexts, research has examined purchase intention effects8,52 and the mediating role of satisfaction between attractiveness and purchase intention81,82. Accordingly, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H5a: Consumer satisfaction positively influences purchase intention indirectly through loyalty.
H5b: The direct relationship between satisfaction and purchase intention is non-significant when loyalty is included in the model.
H6: Consumer loyalty toward virtual celebrities positively influences purchase intention.

Personalization (personalized service)
Interactivity originates from sociology and refers to relationship-based communication83, often enabled through technology84. AI has strengthened interactive marketing through personalized services46, making personalization central to digital marketing effectiveness85. Personalization involves tailoring content or interaction to individuals to improve outcomes86 and support engagement and value co-creation87. Advances in big data and digital traces enable firms to personalize communication using behavioral histories and self-disclosed user information88,89,90.

Prior studies show that personalization moderates key relationships such as quality–satisfaction91, trust–satisfaction16, and technology adoption under privacy concerns92, as well as other relational pathways24,25,26,27. In this study, personalization is treated as a contextual moderator shaping how satisfaction and loyalty translate into purchase-related outcomes. The following hypotheses are proposed:
H7a: Perceived personalization strengthens the relationship between satisfaction and loyalty.
H7b: Perceived personalization strengthens the relationship between satisfaction and purchase intention.
H7c: Perceived personalization strengthens the relationship between loyalty and purchase intention.

Conceptual research model
Figure 1 presents the conceptual model grounded in the stimulus–organism–response framework: appearance, voice, and content (stimuli) influence satisfaction and loyalty (organism), with purchase intention (response) arising primarily through loyalty. Personalization strengthens the satisfaction–loyalty relationship and is modeled as a moderator of selected structural paths.

Virtual celebrity influence path model diagram: stimuli-organism-response with variables CAA, CVA, CCA.
Figure 1: Research model based on the stimulus–organism–response framework. Conceptual model illustrating the relationships among virtual celebrity attributes (appearance, voice, and content quality) as stimuli, organismic variables (satisfaction and loyalty), and behavioral outcome (purchase intention). Personalization is modeled as a moderator of the satisfaction–loyalty relationship. Indirect effects through loyalty are depicted. Note. CAA = Characteristic appearance attractiveness; CVA = Characteristic voice attractiveness; CCA = Characteristic content attractiveness; LO = loyalty; PE = Personalization; PI = Purchase Intention; SA = Satisfaction. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Protocol

$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$ $$\longleftharp{xx}$$, $$\longrightharp{xx}$$,

The study qualified for exemption from full ethical review under institutional minimal-risk guidelines, as it involved an anonymous online survey with no personally identifiable information collected. An informed consent form describing the study purpose, voluntary participation, anonymity, and data usage was presented at the beginning of the survey, and only consenting participants proceeded.

1. Sample size determination

The final sample (N = 249) was determined based on statistical power requirements for PLS–SEM. The maximum number of predictors for a single endogenous construct was six (three virtual celebrity characteristics and three control variables for satisfaction; satisfaction, interaction term, and controls for loyalty). Power analysis indicated that detecting a medium effect size (f2 = 0.15) at α = 0.05 and 0.80 power required approximately 97 observations. The achieved sample size exceeded this threshold, ensuring adequate power for structural, mediation, and moderation analyses.

2. Participant recruitment and screening

Participants were recruited via an online research panel using purposive nonprobability sampling to ensure prior experience with virtual celebrities. Eligibility was restricted to individuals aged 18 or older. Screening and attention-check items were included, and invalid responses were excluded. Data collection concluded once the target sample size was reached.

3. Standardized definition and survey instructions

Participants were provided with a standardized definition of virtual celebrities as digitally created audiovisual personas with stable visual identity, voice, and recurring narrative content. They were instructed to respond based on their actual experiences.

4. Survey Instrument development and administration

Validated measurement scales were adapted to the virtual celebrity context (Table 1) where all constructs were measured using 7-point Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). The questionnaire included sections on appearance, voice, content quality, satisfaction, loyalty, personalization, purchase intention, and demographics. Platform controls prevented duplicate submissions.

Table 1: Measurement items and sources. Measurement items used for each construct include appearance attractiveness, voice attractiveness, content quality, satisfaction, loyalty, personalization, and purchase intention. Sources of scale adaptation are provided. Please click here to download this Table.

5. Data preparation and cleaning

Data were exported in CSV format. Incomplete, failed-screening, and failed attention-check responses were removed. The cleaned dataset was imported into PLS–SEM software for analysis.

6. Measurement and structural model evaluation

All constructs were specified as reflective. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (≥ 0.70). Convergent validity was evaluated using AVE (≥ 0.50), and discriminant validity was assessed using the Fornell–Larcker criterion and HTMT (< 0.90).

Structural paths were specified according to the conceptual model. Multicollinearity was assessed using Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) < 5.0. Bootstrapping with 5,000 subsamples generated path coefficients, t-values, p-values, 95% confidence intervals, and effect sizes (f2).

  1. Mediation analysis
    Sequential mediation (virtual celebrity attributes → satisfaction → loyalty → purchase intention) was tested using bootstrapped indirect effects (5,000 subsamples) with 95% confidence intervals.
  2. Moderation analysis
    Interaction terms tested the moderating effects of personalization. Bootstrapping estimated moderation coefficients and effect sizes, and interaction plots illustrated conditional effects.
  3. Predictive relevance
    Predictive performance was assessed using blindfolding and/or out-of-sample procedures. Q2_predict values, RMSE, and MAE were compared against a linear benchmark model. Predictive relevance was supported when Q2_predict > 0 and PLS errors were lower than the benchmark.
  4. Reporting and verification
    All reliability, validity, structural, mediation, moderation, and predictive results were compiled for reporting. Outputs were cross-checked against software results to ensure accuracy and consistency.

7. Troubleshooting and modifications

If screening failures were high, eligibility criteria and instructions were refined. If reliability (CR < 0.70) or AVE (< 0.50) fell below thresholds, poorly performing indicators were removed while maintaining theoretical coherence. Multicollinearity issues (VIF above limits) were addressed by reassessing construct specifications. If mediation or moderation effects were non-significant, sample size or operationalization was re-evaluated. Bootstrapping used 5,000 subsamples to ensure stable estimates.

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Results

$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$ $$\longleftharp{xx}$$, $$\longrightharp{xx}$$,

Table 2 summarizes the demographic characteristics of the final sample (N = 249), including gender, age, education level, and frequency of engagement with virtual celebrities. The sample showed balanced gender representation (52.6% female) and consisted primarily of young to middle-aged adults with relatively high educational attainment. Engagement frequency was concentrated in the weekly–monthly range, with fewer users per day. When included as a control variable, usage frequency did not significantly a...

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Discussion

$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$ $$\longleftharp{xx}$$, $$\longrightharp{xx}$$,

This study examines how virtual celebrity characteristics influence satisfaction, loyalty, and purchase intention within an SOR framework, with personalization as a moderator. Three key insights emerge: content quality is the strongest driver of satisfaction relative to appearance and voice; satisfaction influences purchase intention only indirectly through loyalty (indirect-only mediation); and personalization strengthens the satisfaction–loyalty relationship but does not directly affect purchase intention.

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Disclosures

$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$ $$\longleftharp{xx}$$, $$\longrightharp{xx}$$,

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgements

$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$ $$\longleftharp{xx}$$, $$\longrightharp{xx}$$,

This work was supported by research funding from aSSIST University.

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Materials

List of materials used in this article
NameCompanyCatalog NumberComments
Qualtrics
Version: N/A		Qualtrics, LLCN/ASurvey coding, https://www.qualtrics.com/
Prolific
Version: N/A		ProlificN/AOnline survey pannel provider, https://www.prolific.com/
SmartPLS
Version: 4.0.1		SmartPLS GmbHN/APLS-SEM analysis,https://www.smartpls.com/
ChatGPT
Version: 5.2		OpenAIN/AEnhancing readability and grammar check, https://www.chatgpt.com/

References

$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$ $$\longleftharp{xx}$$, $$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
  1. Erdogan, B. Z. Celebrity endorsement: A literature review. J Mark Manag. 15 (4), 291-314 (1999).
  2. Yu, J., Dickinger, A., So, K. K. F., Egger, R. Artificial intelligence–generated virtual influencer: Examining the effects of emotional display on user engagement. J Retail Consum Serv. 76, 103560(2024).
  3. Hoang, T. D., Su, Y. Virtual Celebrities and Consumers: A Blended Reality: How Virtual Celebrities are Consumed in the East and West. [Master’s Thesis]. , Copenhagen Business School. Copenhagen, Denmark. (2019).
  4. Yan, J., Xia, S., Jiang, A., Lin, Z. The effect of different types of virtual influencers on consumers’ emotional attachment. J Bus Res. 177, 114646(2024).
  5. Bowen, J. T., Chen, S. L. The relationship between customer loyalty and customer satisfaction. Int J Contem Hosp Manag. 13 (5), 213-217 (2001).
  6. De Brito Silva, M. J., De Oliveira Ramos Delfino, L., Alves Cerqueira, K., De Oliveira Campos, P. Avatar marketing: A study on the engagement and authenticity of virtual influencers on instagram. Soc Netw Anal Min. 12 (1), 130(2022).
  7. Chaihanchanchai, P., Anantachart, S., Ruangthanakorn, N. Unlocking the persuasive power of virtual influencer on brand trust and purchase intention: A parallel mediation of source credibility. J Mark Commun. 32 (3), 1-23 (2024).
  8. Lee, H., Shin, M., Yang, J., Chock, T. M. Virtual influencers vs. Human influencers in the context of influencer marketing: The moderating role of machine heuristic on perceived authenticity of influencers. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 41 (10), 1-18 (2024).
  9. Muniz, F., Stewart, K., Magalhães, L. Are they humans or are they robots? The effect of virtual influencer disclosure on brand trust. J Consum Behav. 23 (3), 1234-1250 (2024).
  10. Engström, J. Virtual influencers: Antecedents and typologizing. The SAGE Handbook of Social Media Marketing. , Sage. London. 276-292 (2022).
  11. Na, Y., Kim, Y., Lee, D. Investigating the effect of self–congruity on attitudes toward virtual influencers: Mediating the effect of emotional attachment. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 40 (18), 5534-5547 (2024).
  12. Stevenage, S. V., Neil, G. J., Hamlin, I. When the face fits: Recognition of celebrities from matching and mismatching faces and voices. Memory. 22 (3), 284-294 (2014).
  13. Suk, H., Laine, T. H. Influence of avatar facial appearance on users’ perceived embodiment and presence in immersive virtual reality. Electronics. 12 (3), 583(2023).
  14. Higgins, D., Zibrek, K., Cabral, J., Egan, D., Mcdonnell, R. Sympathy for the digital: Influence of synthetic voice on affinity, social presence and empathy for photorealistic virtual humans. Comput Graph. 104, 116-128 (2022).
  15. Anggraini, J. D., Adiwijaya, M., Herjanto, H. The moderating role of personalization on attitude–emotion–behavior (aeb) model. Indones Manag Account Res. 23 (2), 137-156 (2024).
  16. Hassan, N., Abdelraouf, M., El–Shihy, D. The moderating role of personalized recommendations in the trust–satisfaction–loyalty relationship: An empirical study of AI–driven e-commerce. Future Bus J. 11 (1), 66(2025).
  17. Gao, Y., et al. Trust in virtual agents: Exploring the role of stylization and voice. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph. 31 (5), 3623-3633 (2025).
  18. Vinoi, N., Shankar, A., Abdullah Alzeiby, E., Gupta, P., Agarwal, V. Unveiling customer intentions: Exploring factors driving engagement with hospitality virtual influencers. J Hosp Mark Manag. 34 (3), 325-354 (2025).
  19. Liu, C., Zhang, Y., Zhang, J. The impact of self–congruity and virtual interactivity on online celebrity brand equity and fans’ purchase intention. J Prod Brand Manag. 29 (6), 783-801 (2020).
  20. Honora, A., Wang, K. –Y., Chih, W. –H. Gaining customer engagement in social media recovery: The moderating roles of timeliness and personalization. Internet Res. 34 (6), 1963-1991 (2024).
  21. Mehrabian, A., Russell, J. A. The basic emotional impact of environments. Percept Mot Skills. 38 (1), 283-291 (1974).
  22. Abumalloh, R. A., Halabi, O., Nilashi, M. The relationship between technology trust and behavioral intention to use metaverse in baby monitoring systems’ design: Stimulus–organism–response (sor) theory. Entertain Comput. 52, 100833(2025).
  23. Ting, M. P., Min, C. D. What drives user churn in serious games? An empirical examination of the TAM, SOR theory, and game quality in Chinese cultural heritage games. Entertain Comput. 52, 100758(2025).
  24. Su, Y., Teo, P. C. A literature review on the impact of SOR theory on the retail industry and its applicability in studying blockchain technology's influence on consumer loyalty. Int J Acad Res Bus Soc Sci. 15 (3), 142-165 (2025).
  25. Li, X., Liu, Z., Chen, Y., Ren, A. Consumer avoidance toward message stream advertising on mobile social media: A stimulus–organism–response perspective. Information Technology & People. 38 (1), 23-47 (2025).
  26. Chang, H. H., Eckman, M., Yan, R. N. Application of the stimulus–organism–response model to the retail environment: The role of hedonic motivation in impulse buying behavior. Int Rev Retail Distrib Consum Res. 21 (3), 233-249 (2011).
  27. Kalam, A., Goi, C. L., Tiong, Y. Y. The effects of celebrity endorser on consumer advocacy behavior through the customization and entertainment intention–a multivariate analysis. Young Consum. 26 (1), 1-35 (2025).
  28. Zhou, T., Ma, X. Examining generative AI user continuance intention based on the SOR model. Aslib J Inf Manag. , (2025).
  29. Hussain, M., Javed, A., Khan, S. H., Yasir, M. Pillars of customer retention in the services sector: Understanding the role of relationship marketing, customer satisfaction, and customer loyalty. J Knowl Econ. 16 (1), 2047-2067 (2025).
  30. Akhtar, N., Siddiqi, U. I., Gugnani, R., Islam, T., Attri, R. The potency of audiovisual attractiveness and influencer marketing: The road to customer behavioral engagement. J Retail Consum Serv. 79, 103807(2024).
  31. Thielsch, M. T., Hirschfeld, G. Facets of website content. Hum Comput Interact. 34 (4), 279-327 (2019).
  32. Kim, H., Park, M. Virtual influencers’ attractiveness effect on purchase intention: A moderated mediation model of the product–endorser fit with the brand. Comput Hum Behav. 143, 107703(2023).
  33. The impact of VTuber endorsements on consumer satisfaction and brand loyalty in digital marketing. Hsu, K. K., Hung, W. –H. Proc Int Conf Electron Bus. (ICEB 2024), Zhuhai, China, , (2024).
  34. Shah, Z., Olya, H., Monkhouse, L. L. Developing strategies for international celebrity branding: A comparative analysis between Western and South Asian cultures. Int Mark Rev. 40 (1), 102-126 (2023).
  35. Mccracken, G. Who is the celebrity endorser? Cultural foundations of the endorsement process. J Consum Res. 16 (3), 310-321 (1989).
  36. Jun, M., Han, J., Zhou, Z., Eisingerich, A. B. When is celebrity endorsement effective? Exploring the role of celebrity endorsers in enhancing key brand associations. J Bus Res. 164, 113951(2023).
  37. Ozdemir, O., Kolfal, B., Messinger, P. R., Rizvi, S. Human or virtual: How influencer type shapes brand attitudes. Comput Hum Behav. 145, 107771(2023).
  38. Schouten, A. P., Janssen, L., Verspaget, M. Leveraged marketing communications. Ch. 12, 208-231 (2021).
  39. Khan, S., Sookhai, S. Reviewing the impact of country–of–origin on consumer purchase intention: The role of celebrity endorsement in existing literature. J Manag SMEs. 18 (2), 897-918 (2025).
  40. Schimmelpfennig, C., Hunt, J. B. Fifty years of celebrity endorser research: Support for a comprehensive celebrity endorsement strategy framework. Psychol Mark. 37 (3), 488-505 (2020).
  41. Hovland, C. I., Weiss, W. The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opin Q. 15 (4), 635-650 (1951).
  42. Frank, B., Mitsumoto, S. An extended source attractiveness model: The advertising effectiveness of distinct athlete endorser attractiveness types and its contextual variation. Eur Sport Manag Q. 23 (4), 1091-1114 (2023).
  43. Thomas, T., Johnson, J. The impact of celebrity expertise on advertising effectiveness: The mediating role of celebrity brand fit. Vision. 21 (4), 367-374 (2017).
  44. Chan, K., Fan, F. Perception of advertisements with celebrity endorsement among mature consumers. J Mark Commun. 28 (2), 115-131 (2022).
  45. Arora, N., Prashar, S., Tata, S. V., Parsad, C. Measuring personality congruency effects on consumer brand intentions in celebrity–endorsed brands. J Consum Mark. 38 (3), 251-261 (2021).
  46. Gao, Y., Liu, H. Artificial intelligence–enabled personalization in interactive marketing: A customer journey perspective. J Res Interact Mark. 17 (5), 663-680 (2023).
  47. Daft, R. L., Lengel, R. H. Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Manage Sci. 32 (5), 554-571 (1986).
  48. Boyd, D. E., Koles, B. An introduction to the special issue “Virtual reality in marketing”: Definition, theory and practice. J Bus Res. 100, 441-444 (2019).
  49. Chen, H., Lou, C., Wang, Y., Lee, Y. Social virtual influencer effectiveness: Environmental factor and source trust. Soc Mark Q. , 15245004251342800(2025).
  50. Shen, Z. Shall brands create their own virtual influencers? A comprehensive study of 33 virtual influencers on instagram. Humanit Soc Sci Commun. 11 (1), 1-14 (2024).
  51. Lee, J., Kim, H. The moderating role of homophily and need for uniqueness in the relationship between anthropomorphism of virtual influencer and intention to imitate and word of mouth. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 41 (5), 1-12 (2025).
  52. Lim, R. E., Lee, S. Y. ”You are a virtual influencer!”: Understanding the impact of origin disclosure and emotional narratives on parasocial relationships and virtual influencer credibility. Comput Hum Behav. 148, 107897(2023).
  53. Kuo, Y. –H., Le, S. B. H. Authenticity meets aesthetics: Physical attractiveness as the equalizer for virtual and human influencers. Asia Pac Manag Rev. 30 (2), 100359(2025).
  54. Epley, N., Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J. T. On seeing human: A three–factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychol Rev. 114 (4), 864(2007).
  55. Dabiran, E., Farivar, S., Wang, F., Grant, G. Virtually human: Anthropomorphism in virtual influencer marketing. J Retail Consum Serv. 79, 103797(2024).
  56. Nass, C., Steuer, J., Tauber, E. R. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. (CHI ’94). ACM. , 72-78 (1994).
  57. Gambino, A., Fox, J., Ratan, R. A. Building a stronger casa: Extending the computers are social actors paradigm. Hum Mach Commun. 1, 71-85 (2020).
  58. Gu, C., Zhang, Y., Zeng, L. Exploring the mechanism of sustained consumer trust in ai chatbots after service failures: A perspective based on attribution and casa theories. Humanit Soc Sci Commun. 11 (1), 1-12 (2024).
  59. Mori, M. The uncanny valley. Energy. 7 (4), 33-35 (1970).
  60. Alimardani, M., De Roode, R., Vaitonyte, J., Louwerse, M. M. Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents. (IVA ’24). , Glasgow, United Kingdom. 1-7 (2024).
  61. Miller, E. J., Foo, Y. Z., Mewton, P., Dawel, A. How do people respond to computer–generated versus human faces? A systematic review and meta–analyses. Comput Hum Behav Rep. 10, 100283(2023).
  62. Dion, K., Berscheid, E., Walster, E. What is beautiful is good. J Pers Soc Psychol. 24 (3), 285(1972).
  63. Bíziková, V., Psotová, E. Visitor profile of enological tourism in Slovakia: Implications of the regional analysis of the demand for wine–themed experience stay. J Infrastruct Policy Dev. 8 (11), 8072(2024).
  64. Lampropoulos, G. Combining artificial intelligence with augmented reality and virtual reality in education: Current trends and future perspectives. Multimodal Technol Interact. 9 (2), 11(2025).
  65. Sumi, R. S., Kabir, G. Satisfaction of e-learners with electronic learning service quality using the SERVQUAL model. J Open Innov Technol Mark Complex. 7 (4), 227(2021).
  66. Giese, J. L., Cote, J. A. Defining consumer satisfaction. Acad Mark Sci Rev. 1 (1), 1-22 (2000).
  67. Hellier, P. K., Geursen, G. M., Carr, R. A., Rickard, J. A. Customer repurchase intention: A general structural equation model. Eur J Mark. 37 (11/12), 1762-1800 (2003).
  68. Suchánek, P., Králová, M. Customer satisfaction and different evaluation of it by companies. Econ Res. 31 (1), 1330-1350 (2018).
  69. Gajewska, T., Zimon, D., Kaczor, G., Madzík, P. The impact of the level of customer satisfaction on the quality of e-commerce services. Int J Prod Perform Manag. 69 (4), 666-684 (2020).
  70. Hill, N., Brierley, J. How to Measure Customer Satisfaction. , Routledge. London. (2017).
  71. Grigoroudis, E., Siskos, Y. Customer Satisfaction Evaluation: Methods for Measuring and Implementing Service Quality. , Springer. New York. (2009).
  72. Söderlund, M., Julander, C. –R. Physical attractiveness of the service worker in the moment of truth and its effects on customer satisfaction. J Retail Consum Serv. 16 (3), 216-226 (2009).
  73. Koernig, S. K., Page, A. L. What if your dentist looked like Tom Cruise? Applying the match-up hypothesis to a service encounter. Psychol Mark. 19 (1), 91-110 (2002).
  74. Hey Alexa … Examining Factors Influencing the Educational Use of AI-Enabled Voice Assistants During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Rohan, R., Pal, D., Funilkul, S. in 15th International Conference on Knowledge and Smart Technology (KST), , 1-6 (2023).
  75. Oliver, R. L. Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. , 2nd ed, Routledge. New York. (2014).
  76. Ariff, M. S. M., Yun, L. O., Zakuan, N., Ismail, K. The impacts of service quality and customer satisfaction on customer loyalty in internet banking. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 81, 469-473 (2013).
  77. Nieves–Pavón, S., López–Mosquera, N., Jiménez–Naranjo, H. The factors influencing STD through SOR theory. J Retail Consum Serv. 75, 103533(2023).
  78. Dutta, B. Exploring the factors of consumer repurchase intention in online shopping. Int J Comput Sci Inf Secur. 14 (12), 520(2016).
  79. Seiders, K., Voss, G. B., Grewal, D., Godfrey, A. L. Do satisfied customers buy more? Examining moderating influences in a retailing context. J Mark. 69 (4), 26-43 (2005).
  80. Malik, M. E., et al. Importance of brand awareness and brand loyalty in assessing purchase intentions of consumer. Int J Bus Soc Sci. 4 (5), 167-171 (2013).
  81. Kim, H. –R., Yang, H. –M. The mediating effect of life satisfaction on relation between perceived physical attractiveness and health–promoting lifestyle in korean adults. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 18 (15), 7784(2021).
  82. Zhang, Y., He, J., Li, J. The role of flow experience in virtual influencer marketing: Insights into aesthetic, entertainment and parasocial influences on purchase intention. J Fash Mark Manag. 29 (6), 1109-1129 (2025).
  83. Blumer, H. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. , University of California Press. Berkeley, CA. (1986).
  84. Quiring, O., Schweiger, W. Interactivity: A review of the concept and a framework for analysis. Communications - J Comm Res. 33 (2), 147-167 (2008).
  85. Casaca, J. A., Miguel, L. P. The influence of personalization on consumer satisfaction: Trends and challenges. Data-Driven Marketing for Strategic Success. , 256-292 (2024).
  86. Modersitzki, N., Phan, L. V., Mcdonald, S., Wright, A. G., Renner, K. –H. Personality psychology is getting personal: Advancing the field through personalization. Eur J Pers. 39 (1), 08902070251316915(2025).
  87. Manser Payne, E. H., Dahl, A. J., Peltier, J. Digital servitization value co–creation framework for ai services: A research agenda for digital transformation in financial service ecosystems. J Res Interact Mark. 15 (2), 200-222 (2021).
  88. Winter, S., Maslowska, E., Vos, A. L. The effects of trait–based personalization in social media advertising. Comput Hum Behav. 114, 106525(2021).
  89. Dijkstra, A. The psychology of tailoring-ingredients in computer-tailored persuasion. Soc Pers Psychol Compass. 2 (2), 765-784 (2008).
  90. Lee, J., Kim, C., Lee, K. C. Exploring the personalization–intrusiveness–intention framework to evaluate the effects of personalization in social media. Int J Inf Manag. 66, 102532(2022).
  91. Trivedi, J. P., Trivedi, H. Investigating the factors that make a fashion app successful: The moderating role of personalization. J Internet Commer. 17 (2), 170-187 (2018).
  92. Scortzaru, A. The moderating effect of personalization on the influence of consumer privacy concerns on mobile technology adoption. , Capella University. (2022).
  93. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance–based structural equation modeling. J Acad Mark Sci. 43, 115-135 (2015).
  94. Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M. PLS–SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. J Mark Theory Pract. 19 (2), 139-152 (2011).
  95. Chin, W. W. Pls–graph user’s guide. 15, CT Bauer College of Business, University of Houston, USA. 1-16 (2001).
  96. Henseler, J., Hubona, G., Ray, P. A. Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: Updated guidelines. Ind Manag Data Syst. 116 (1), 2-20 (2016).
  97. Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M. When to use and how to report the results of PLS–SEM. Eur Bus Rev. 31 (1), 2-24 (2019).
  98. Shmueli, G., Ray, S., Estrada, J. M. V., Chatla, S. B. The elephant in the room: Predictive performance of PLS models. J Bus Res. 69 (10), 4552-4564 (2016).
  99. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., Aiken, L. S. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. , Routledge. (2013).
  100. Sipos, D. The effects of AI–powered personalization on consumer trust, satisfaction, and purchase intent. Eur J Appl Sci Eng Technol. 3 (2), 14-24 (2025).
  101. Yao, Y., Meng, D., Wei, X. Empirical analysis of influencer attributes and social satisfaction effects on purchase intentions in Chinese social media. Sci Rep. 15 (1), 18860(2025).
  102. Rakovic, M. Comparative analysis of human and virtual influencers: The mediating role of perceived attractiveness and parasocial interaction in purchase intentions. , Tilburg University Tilburg. The Netherlands. (2023).
  103. Kong, H., Fang, H. Research on the effectiveness of virtual endorsers: A study based on the match-up hypothesis and source credibility model. Sustainability. 16 (5), 1761(2024).
  104. Huang, X., Chandra, A., Depaolo, C., Cribbs, J., Simmons, L. Measuring transactional distance in web-based learning environments: An initial instrument development. Open Learn. 30 (2), 106-126 (2015).
  105. Kim, C., Costello, F. J., Lee, J., Lee, K. C. Metaverse-based distance learning as a transactional distance mitigator and memory retrieval stimulant. Inf Process Manag. 62 (1), 103957(2025).
  106. Thielsch, M. T., Hirschfeld, G. Facets of website content. Hum Comput Interact. 34 (4), 279-327 (2019).
  107. Davlembayeva, D., Chari, S., Papagiannidis, S. Virtual influencers in consumer behaviour: A social influence theory perspective. Br J Manag. 36 (1), 202-222 (2025).
  108. Wang, Q., Long, S., Zeng, Y., Tang, L., Wang, Y. The creative behavior of virtual idol fans: A psychological perspective based on moa theory. Front Psychol. 14, 1290790(2023).

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Reprints and Permissions

Request permission to reuse the text or figures of this JoVE article

Request Permission

Tags

Content QualityConsumer SatisfactionCustomer LoyaltyPersonalization EffectsMediation AnalysisPredictive Performance

Related Articles