“HUMAN ENOUGH TO PERSUADE?” A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF VIRTUAL INFLUENCER AUTHENTICITY AND PARASOCIAL ATTACHMENT

Authors

  • Shahnaz Khumaira Universitas Tanjungpura

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31539/t78p8593

Keywords:

Virtual Influencer, Authenticity, Parasocial Relationship, Consumer Response, SLR

Abstract

This study aims to synthesize and map the development of research on virtual influencers by focusing on authenticity, parasocial relationships, and consumer behavioral responses. The background of this study arises from the growing use of virtual influencers in digital marketing and the need to understand their effectiveness compared to human influencers. The objective of this research is to identify key findings across existing studies using a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) guided by the PRISMA 2020 protocol. Literature searches were conducted across four major databases—Scopus, ScienceDirect, Emerald Insight, and Google Scholar—resulting in 107 articles. After title and abstract screening, duplicate removal, and full-text assessment, 30 articles met the inclusion criteria. The findings indicate that virtual influencer authenticity is constructed through persona consistency, narrative cues, and human-likeness. Parasocial relationships serve as a central psychological mechanism that mediates the influence of virtual influencers on trust, emotional engagement, and purchase intention. Consumer responses are strongly affected by credibility and identity congruence with the virtual influencer. In conclusion, the effectiveness of virtual influencers is shaped by a combination of narrative and psychological factors, and these insights provide a strong theoretical foundation for future research.

References

[1] Horton, D., & Wohl, R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction: Observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry, 19(3), 215–229.

[2] Davlembayeva, D. (2025). Virtual influencers in marketing: Social acceptance and implications. British Journal of Management.

[3] Juiher, R., & Ouaddi, B. (2025). Cybersecurity and trust issues in AI-driven influencer marketing. International Journal of Digital Advertising and Marketing.

[4] Koay, K. Y., et al. (2022). The role of source credibility in virtual influencer advertising. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics.

[5] Stein, A. (2024). Emotional and parasocial responses to virtual and human influencers. New Media & Society.

[6] Breves, P. (2025). Parasocial dynamics and influencer authenticity in digital spaces. Journal of Interactive Advertising.

[7] Djafarova, E. (2025). Authenticity perceptions and consumer responses to virtual influencers. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services.

[8] Hudders, L., & Lou, C. (2022). Human vs. virtual influencers: Credibility and persuasion outcomes. Journal of Advertising.

[9] Wang, X., et al. (2025). Self-congruence, credibility, and consumer responses toward virtual influencers. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management.

[10] Chen, X., et al. (2022). AI disclosure and consumer trust in digital advertising. Journal of Business Research.

[11] Yan, Z. (2024). Human-likeness effects on emotional engagement and persuasion. Journal of Business Research.

[12] AI and CGI Ads Redefining Consumer Engagement. (2025). Marketing Science Insights.

[13] Ananda, P. (2025). Virtual influencers and consumer behavioral responses. Sinergi International Journal of Communication Science.

[14] Pushparaj, T. (2023). Bibliometric analysis of virtual influencer studies. SSRN Electronic Journal.

[15] Navigating the Age of AI Influence. (2024). Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems.

[16] Lou, C. (2021). Influencer marketing and parasocial relationship formation. Current Opinion in Psychology.

[17] Lou, C., et al. (2023). Strength of parasocial relationships in human vs virtual influencers. Journal of Interactive Marketing.

[18] Lim, R. (2023). Social presence and engagement in virtual influencer content. Computers in Human Behavior.

[19] Gambetti, R., & Kozinets, R. (2024). Virtual influencer typologies and narrative authenticity. International Journal of Internet Marketing & Advertising.

[20] Kamaruddin, M., et al. (2023). Systematic literature review best practices: Search strategies and protocol. Journal of Information Science.

[21] Roy, D., et al. (2021). Reference management and review efficiency using Zotero. Journal of Scholarly Publishing.

[22] Ouzzani, M., et al. (2016). Rayyan: A web-based tool for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 5(210).

[23] Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222.

[24] Page, M. J., et al. (2021). PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration. BMJ, 372:n160.

[25] Lin, Y., et al. (2025). Anthropomorphism and social presence in virtual influencer advertising. Social Behavior and Personality.

[26] Kim, S., & Baek, T. (2025). Creepiness, authenticity, and consumer reactions to virtual influencers. Social Behavior and Personality.

[27] Yin, S., et al. (2025). Appearance cues and authenticity perceptions. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics.

[28] Communica. (2025). Parasocial relationship and influencer effectiveness. Communica Journal.

[29] Virtual Influencers vs Real Connections. (2025). Journal of Advertising.

[30] Brown, T., Chen, Y., & Patel, R. (2022). Authenticity cues and persuasion effectiveness. Journal of Advertising Research.

Downloads

Published

2026-01-10