WHEN AUTHENTICITY SIGNALING BACKFIRES: AN INVERTED RELATIONSHIP

Abstract

Purpose- This conceptual study develops a new framework for consumer behaviour by examining the unintended negative consequences of excessive authenticity signalling by digital creators, such as influencers. While prior research has largely emphasised the positive role of digital creators, including influencers and micro-celebrities, in building trust, credibility, and purchase intentions, this study explores whether repetitive and exaggerated authenticity claims may elicit adverse consumer responses. Methodology- This study adopts a conceptual approach and develops a research framework grounded in Trust-Commitment Theory and Signalling Theory. Drawing on these perspectives, the framework specifies the proposed relationships among authenticity signalling, authenticity fatigue, and consumer scepticism, and how these may erode trust through a series of theoretical propositions explaining how repeated signalling practices affect consumers’ opinions over time. In addition, the study proposes a multidimensional conceptualisation of authenticity fatigue within signalling theory. Findings- Grounded in Signalling Theory, which posits that greater signalling quantity can result in more favourable perceived outcomes, the proposed framework suggests that excessive authenticity signalling may paradoxically increase consumer scepticism and erode trust over time. Repeated exposure to authenticity-based persuasive messaging is also expected to generate authenticity fatigue, thereby weakening the persuasive value of authenticity cues, which may decrease online engagement, reduce the effectiveness of user-generated marketing, and potentially encourage negative electronic word of mouth. Collectively, these relationships indicate that authenticity may backfire when strategically overused in digital environments. Conclusion- This study contributes to the influencer marketing and consumer psychology literature by reframing authenticity as a persuasive signal whose value and effectiveness are not unlimited; excessive exposure may erode its persuasive power and lead to fatigue. The study identifies several key relationships, including the potential for excessive authenticity signalling to increase consumer scepticism, thereby weakening trust in brand-endorsed claims. Additionally, repeated exposure to authenticity-based persuasive cues may lead to authenticity fatigue, thereby reducing the persuasive effectiveness of authenticity appeals. These relationships suggest that authenticity does not function as an unlimited persuasive resource, as its effectiveness may decline when used repeatedly or strategically. Finally, the study provides a foundation for future empirical research examining the boundary conditions under which authenticity strengthens persuasion or backfires.

Keywords

• Consumer scepticism
• authenticity fatigue
• authenticity signalling
• consumer trust
• commitment-trust theory

References

1. Audrezet, A., de Kerviler, G., & Moulard, J. G. (2020). Authenticity under threat: When social media influencers need to go beyond self- presentation. Journal of Business Research, 117, 557–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.008
2. Berger, J., & Heath, C. (2007). Where consumers diverge from others: Identity signalling and product domains. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(2), 121–134. https://doi.org/10.1086/519142
3. Beverland, M. B. (2005). Crafting brand authenticity: The case of luxury wines. Journal of Management Studies, 42(5), 1003–1029. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00530.x
4. Beverland, M. B., & Farrelly, F. J. (2010). The quest for authenticity in consumption: Consumers' purposive choice of authentic cues to shape experienced outcomes. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5), 838–850. https://doi.org/10.1086/615047
5. Beverland, M. B., Lindgreen, A., & Vink, M. W. (2008). Projecting authenticity through advertising: Consumer judgments of advertisers’ claims. Journal of Advertising, 37(1), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367370101
6. Campagna, C. L., Donthu, N., & Yoo, B. (2023). Brand authenticity: literature review, comprehensive definition, and an amalgamated scale. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 31(2), 129–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2021.2018937
7. Casaló, L. V., Flavián, C., & Ibáñez-Sánchez, S. (2020). Influencers on Instagram: Antecedents and consequences of opinion leadership. Journal of Business Research, 117, 510–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.005
8. Chatzopoulou, E., & Navazhylava, K. (2022). Ethnic brand identity work: Responding to authenticity tensions through celebrity endorsement in brand digital self-presentation. Journal of Business Research, 142, 974–987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.01.020

9. Cheah, C. W., Koay, K. Y., & Lim, W. M. (2024). Social media influencer over-endorsement: Implications from a moderated-mediation analysis. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 79, 103831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2024.103831
10. Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011). Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of Management, 37(1), 39–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310388419
11. Djafarova, E., & Trofimenko, O. (2019). ‘Instafamous’—Credibility and self-presentation of micro-celebrities on social media. Information, Communication & Society, 22(10), 1432–1446. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1438491
12. Dragolea, L.-L., Butnaru, G. I., Kot, S., Zamfir, C. G., Nuţă, A.-C., Nuţă, F.-M., Cristea, D. S., & Ştefănică, M. (2023). Determining factors in shaping the sustainable behavior of the generation Z consumer. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2023.1096183
13. Erkan, I., & Evans, C. (2018). Social media or shopping websites? The influence of eWOM on consumers’ online purchase intentions. Journal of Marketing Communications, 24(6), 617–632. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2016.1184706
14. Gilmore, J. H., & Pine, B. J. (2007). Authenticity: What consumers really want. Harvard Business School Press.
15. Guèvremont, A. (2015). Brand authenticity: Definition, measurement, antecedents, and consequences [Doctoral dissertation, Concordia University].
16. Huh, J., & Kim, N. L. (2024). Green as the new status symbol: Examining green signaling effects among Gen Z and Millennial consumers.
17. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 28(6), 1237-1255. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-07-2022-0159
18. Liu, H., Chanaka Jayawardhena, Shukla, P., Victoria-Sophie Osburg, & Vignesh Yoganathan. (2024). Electronic word of mouth 2.0 (eWOM 2.0) – The evolution of eWOM research in the new age. Journal of Business Research, 176, 114587–114587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114587
19. McKinsey & Company. (2025, June 9). State of Beauty 2025: Solving a shifting growth puzzle. McKinsey & Company.
20. Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299405800302
21. Morhart, F. M., Malär, L., Guèvremont, A., Girardin, F., & Grohmann, B. (2015). Brand authenticity: An integrative framework and measurement scale. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(2), 200–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.11.006
22. Moulard, J. G., Garrity, C. P., & Rice, D. H. (2015). What makes a human brand authentic? Identifying the antecedents of celebrity authenticity. Psychology & Marketing, 32(2), 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20771
23. Napoli, J., Dickinson, S. J., Beverland, M. B., & Farrelly, F. (2014). Measuring consumer-based Brand Authenticity. Journal of Business Research, 67(6), 1090–1098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.06.001
24. Obermiller, C., & Spangenberg, E. R. (1998). Development of a scale to measure consumer skepticism toward advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(2), 159–186. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp0702_03
25. Ridwan, N. H., Musa, C. I., & Haeruddin, M. I. M. (2025). Decision-making behavior of Generation Z in online purchases: A systematic literature review. Multidisciplinary Reviews, 8(12), 2025384. https://doi.org/10.31893/multirev.2025384
26. Rosenberg, H., Blondheim, M., & Sabag-Ben Porat, C. (2025). Who in the world is Generation Z? The rise of mobile natives and their socio- technological identity. Societies, 15(11), 314. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15110314
27. Ross, S. A. (1977). The determination of financial structure: The incentive-signalling approach. The Bell Journal of Economics, 8(1), 23–40. https://doi.org/10.2307/3003485
28. Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355–374. https://doi.org/10.2307/1882010
29. Taher, S. S., Chan, T. J., Zolkepli, I. A., & Sharipudin, M. N. S. (2022). Mediating role of parasocial relationships on social media influencers' reputation signals and purchase intention of beauty products. Romanian Journal of Communication and Public Relations, 24(3), 45–66. https://doi.org/10.21018/rjcpr.2022.3.348
30. Theocharis, D., & Tsekouropoulos, G. (2025). Sustainable Consumption and Branding for Gen Z: How Brand Dimensions Influence Consumer Behavior and Adoption of Newly Launched Technological Products. Sustainability, 17(9), 4124. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17094124
31. Twenge, J. M., & Martin, G. N. (2020). Gender differences in associations between digital media use and psychological well-being: Evidence from three large datasets. Journal of Adolescence, 79, 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2019.12.018 Um, N. (2022). Impact of parasocial interaction, perceived ad message authenticity, and match-up between brand and celebrity in evaluation of Instagram celebrity-based brand endorsement. Sustainability, 14(5), 2928. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052928
32. Zhu, L. (2025). Conceptualizing and measuring strategic authenticity? A reflective-formative second-order model. Journal of Business Research, 200, 115582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2025.115582