Virtual Influencer’s Apologies?: The Different Perceptions of Moral Violation and Apology Between Virtual and Human Influencers in Brand Endorsements

Understanding how people perceive virtual humans compared to real ones is important. Based on the mind perception theory, this study investigated whether moral responsibility attribution and trust dynamics differ between virtual influencers (VIs) and human influencers (HIs) during endorsement scandals. In a between-subjects experiment using US-based participants from CloudResearch (N = 167), we found that although participants viewed VIs as having less mind and moral agency, they still attributed similar levels of blame and perceived wrongdoing to both VIs and HIs. Interestingly, apologies in VI endorsement were found to be more effective in trust repair than HI endorsement, especially when VI apologized. The study offers insights into how people morally evaluate virtual agents and highlights the implications for brands using VIs in advertising and crisis communication strategies.