Unveiling Behind-the-Scenes Human Interventions and Examining Source Orientation in Virtual Influencer Endorsements

A growing number of computer-generated virtual influencers are being used as alternatives to human endorsers in brand advertising. Because these virtual influencers are not real people, who gets the credit when the endorsement succeeds? And who takes the blame when they fail? In this study, we investigated how and to what extent consumers attribute responsibility to virtual influencers, as well as the behind-the-scenes human interventions (i.e., influencer company, endorsed brand) based on an internal versus external causality for endorsement failure and success—and how their attributions differ compared to human influencer cases. We also examined consumers' attitudes and behavioral intentions toward influencers and endorsed brands under the given situations. We conducted a 2 (type of influencer: human versus virtual) × 2 (endorsement outcome: success versus failure) × 2 (locus of causality: influencer versus brand) between-subjects online experiment. The results showed that virtual influencers were attributed less blame for an endorsement failure caused by an influencer's misbehavior than human influencers. However, virtual influencers' companies and endorsed brands were attributed significantly more responsibilities than their human counterparts. Finally, we discuss the theoretical and practical implications in this paper.