Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Purpose The purpose of this study is to explore the impact of influencer type (human vs virtual) on consumer purchase intentions within the influencer marketing landscape, particularly focusing on Indian Gen Z consumers. Virtual influencers (VIs) have gained popularity in recent days. Despite research on human influencers (HIs), limited studies compare HIs and VIs or their effects on consumer behavior. This study addresses this gap by examining how influencer type influences purchase decisions, the mediating role of desire to mimic and the moderating effect of source credibility. Design/methodology/approach This study investigates the impact of influencer type (human vs virtual) on purchase intentions among Indian Gen Z consumers on Instagram, focusing on the mediating role of mimicry desire and the moderating effect of source credibility. A one-factorial between-subjects design assigned participants to either a VI or HI group. Data from 370 valid responses (51.08% male, 48.92% female graduates, median age 21) were analyzed using mediation and moderation analysis with the Lavaan package in R. Hypotheses tested explore how influencer type affects consumer intentions, mediated by desire to mimic and moderated by source credibility. Findings The findings reveal that the type of influencer significantly impacts consumer behavior, with HIs driving higher purchase intentions and desire to mimic compared to VIs. Dimensions like expertise, attractiveness and perceived similarity positively influence purchase intention, with participants more inclined to mimic influencers they find attractive and relatable. However, trustworthiness showed no significant effect on purchase intention or mimicry desire, suggesting that while trust is valued in influencer marketing, it may not directly shape consumer behavior. Research limitations/implications While this study provides valuable insights into the influence of influencer type on consumer behavior, there are limitations. First, focusing solely on Indian Gen Z on Instagram limits generalizability to other demographics, cultures or platforms like TikTok, YouTube or X, where user behaviors may vary. In addition, relying on self-reported data may introduce bias, as responses could reflect socially desirable behavior rather than actual intentions. The cross-sectional design, capturing data at a single time point, prevents assessment of long-term impacts or changes in preferences. Future research should explore diverse platforms and demographic groups and consider longitudinal studies to capture evolving consumer preferences. Practical implications This study offers valuable guidance for marketers working with social media influencers. Key findings suggest that HIs have a stronger impact on consumer behavior than VIs, indicating that campaigns involving real individuals might yield better results. While expertise is important, marketers should adopt a holistic approach, considering factors such as influencer attractiveness and perceived similarity to target audiences, which enhance relatability and desire to mimic. Trustworthiness, while traditionally valued, appears less critical for driving mimicry and purchase intention. Therefore, selecting influencers based on relatability, appeal and alignment with the target demographic is essential for maximizing campaign effectiveness and engagement. Originality/value This study stands out by exploring a relatively new area in influencer marketing: the impact of HIs versus VIs on consumer behavior, particularly within the context of Indian Gen Z audiences on Instagram. By examining both influencer types and incorporating the mediating role of desire to mimic and the moderating effects of source credibility, this study offers fresh insights into how influencer type influences purchase intentions. This originality provides valuable direction for brands navigating evolving influencer strategies, highlighting distinct influencer dynamics for driving consumer engagement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Patel et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: