The Mediating Role of Source Credibility in the Relationship Between AI Influencers’ Perceived Anthropomorphism and Purchase Intention

Öz

In this study, the concept of artificial intelligence influencers (AIIs), which are developed using the technology of artificial intelligence (AI) and computer graphics, represents communication actors on social media platforms. A cross-sectional survey design was employed in order to investigate the impact of anthropomorphism and the credibility of AIIs on purchasing intention. As part of the study’s framework, a sample comprising 421 Instagram users between 18 and 34 years old was considered. For analysis, the data were analyzed using regression analysis, structural equation modeling, and the use of Hayes’ PROCESS macro. As revealed by the findings, it emerged that the role of the credibility of AIIs served as a mediator for anthropomorphism and purchase intention. In this respect, the study contributes to research on AI-mediated influencer communication and interactive marketing

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Artificial Intelligence Influencers
• Source Credibility
• Purchase Intention
• Anthropomorphism
• Social Media.

Kaynak Güvenilirliğinin Yapay Zekâ Etkileyicilerinin Algılanan Antropomorfizmi İle Satın Alma Niyeti Arasındaki İlişkide Aracı Rolü

Öz

Yapay zekâ (YZ) teknolojileri ve bilgisayar tarafından üretilmiş görüntülerle oluşturulan yapay zekâ etkileyicileri (YZE), sosyal medya platformlarında iletişim aktörleri olarak işlev görmektedir. Bu çalışmada, algılanan antropomorfizm ve YZE’lerin kaynak güvenilirliğinin satın alma niyeti üzerindeki etkisinin incelenmesi için kesitsel anket tasarımı kullanılmıştır. Araştırma kapsamında; 18-34 yaş arası 421 Instagram kullanıcısından oluşan bir örneklem analiz edilmiş ve verilerin değerlendirilmesinde regresyon analizi, yapısal eşitlik modellemesi ve Hayes’in PROCESS makrosu kullanılmıştır. Sonuçlar, antropomorfizm ve satın alma niyeti arasındaki ilişkide kaynak güvenilirliğinin bir aracı değişken olarak işlev gördüğünü göstermiştir. Bu yönüyle çalışma; YZ aracılı etkileyici iletişim ve etkileşimli pazarlama araştırmalarına katkı sağlamaktadır

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yapay Zekâ Etkileyicileri
• Kaynak Güvenilirliği
• Satın Alma Niyeti
• Antropomorfizm
• Sosyal Medya.

Kaynakça

1. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall.
2. ━━━━━━. (2000). Attitudes and the attitude-behavior relation: Reasoned and automatic processes. European Review of Social Psychology, 11(1), 1-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779943000116
3. Appel, G., Grewal, L., Hadi, R., & Stephen, A. T. (2020). The future of social media in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48(1), 79-95.
4. Asquith, P. J. (1984). The inevitability and utility of anthropomorphism in description of primate behaviour. In R. Harré & V. Reynolds (Eds.), The meaning of primate signals (pp. 138-174). Cambridge University Press.
5. Audrezet, A., & Koles, B. (2023). Virtual influencer as a brand avatar in interactive marketing. In C. L. Wang (Ed.), The Palgrave handbook of interactive marketing (pp. 353-376). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14961-0_16
6. Bartneck, C., Kulić, D., Croft, E., & Zoghbi, S. (2009). Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1(1), 71-81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-008-0001-3
7. Belanche, D., Casaló, L. V., & Flavián, M. (2024). Human versus virtual influences, a comparative study. Journal of Business Research, 173, 114493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114493
8. Blanton, R., & Carbajal, D. (2022). Not a girl, not yet a woman: A critical case study on social media, deception, and Lil Miquela. In Information Resources Management Association (Ed.), Research anthology on usage, identity, and impact of social media on society and culture (pp. 894-909). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-6307-9.ch047

9. Brud. (2023). Brud company official website. https://www.brud.fyi/ Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752-766. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752
10. Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(3), 460-473. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.3.460
11. Chang, Y. T., Yu, H., & Lu, H. P. (2015). Persuasive messages, popularity cohesion, and message diffusion in social media marketing. Journal of Business Research, 68(4), 777-782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.11.027
12. Chen, Q., Yin, C., & Gong, Y. (2025). Would an AI chatbot persuade you: An empirical answer from the elaboration likelihood model. Information Technology & People, 38(2), 937-962. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-10-2021-0764
13. Chiluwa, I. E., & Samoilenko, S. A. (Eds.). (2019). Handbook of research on deception, fake news, and misinformation online. IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-8535-0
14. Ciechanowski, L., Przegalinska, A., Magnuski, M., & Gloor, P. (2019). In the shades of the uncanny valley: An experimental study of human-chatbot interaction. Future Generation Computer Systems, 92, 539-548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2018.01.055
15. Council of Higher Education. (2025a). İstanbul’daki vakıf ve devlet üniversitelerinde okuyan öğrenci sayıları [Number of students enrolled in foundation and state universities in Istanbul] [Data set]. https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/
16. Council of Higher Education. (2025b). Yükseköğretim istatistikleri bülteni [Higher education statistics bulletin]. https://veriyonetim.yok.gov.tr/documentFiles/17768717381.B%C3%BClten20252026.pdf
17. Creasey, M. C., & Vázquez Anido, A. (2020). Virtual influencing: Uncharted frontier in the uncanny valley [Master’s thesis, Lund University]. Lund University Publications. https://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9015731
18. Cyr, D., Head, M., Lim, E., & Stibe, A. (2018). Using the elaboration likelihood model to examine online persuasion through website design. Information & Management, 55(7), 807-821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2018.03.009
19. Dabiran, E., Farivar, S., Wang, F., & Grant, G. (2024). Virtually human: anthropomorphism in virtual influencer marketing. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 79, Article 103797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2024.103797
20. Darner, A., & Arvidsson, N. (2019). Virtual influencers: Anonymous celebrities on social media: A qualitative study of virtual influencers, a new phenomenon on social media [Bachelor’s thesis, Jönköping University]. DiVA. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1335875/FULLTEXT01.pdf
21. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
22. Djafarova, E., & Davies, J. (2025). Exploring the impact of virtual vs. human influencers on purchase intentions in the fashion/beauty industry. Journal of Digital Economy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdec.2025.11.001
23. Doğan Erdinç, E., & Uzunçarşılı Soydaş, A. (2024). Tekinsiz vadi teorisi bağlamında yapay zeka etkileyicileri [Artificial intelligence influencers in the context of the uncanny valley theory]. Selçuk İletişim, 17(1), 1-38. https://doi.org/10.18094/josc.1390778
24. Ferraro, C., Sands, S., Zubcevic-Basic, N., & Campbell, C. (2024). Diversity in the digital age: How consumers respond to diverse virtual influencers. International Journal of Advertising, 43(8), 1342-1365. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2023.2300927
25. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley.
26. ━━━━━━. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. Psychology Press.
27. Franke, C., Gröppel-Klein, A., & Müller, K. (2023). Consumers’ responses to virtual influencers as advertising endorsers: Novel and effective or uncanny and deceiving? Journal of Advertising, 52(4), 523-539. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2022.2154721
28. Gambino, A., Fox, J., & Ratan, R. A. (2020). Building a stronger CASA: Extending the computers are social actors paradigm. Human-Machine Communication, 1, 71-85. https://doi.org/10.30658/hmc.1.5
29. Grand View Research. (2024). Virtual influencer market size, share & trends analysis report, 2025-2030. Retrieved from https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/virtual-influencer-market-report
30. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
31. Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15(4), 635-650. https://doi.org/10.1086/266350
32. Jauffret, M.-N., & Aubrun, F. (2022). The biodigital rises: A new digital brand challenge. In M. Kurosu (Ed.), Human-computer interaction: Technological innovation (pp. 268-277). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05064-0_20
33. Kemp, S. (2024, February 23). Digital 2024: Turkey. DataReportal. Retrieved from https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2024-turkey
34. Khogeer, Y. K. (2013). Brand anthropomorphism: The literary lives of marketing mascots [Doctoral dissertation, University of Liverpool]. University of Liverpool Repository. https://doi.org/10.17638/00016193
35. Kim, H., & Park, M. (2023). Virtual influencers’ attractiveness effect on purchase intention: A moderated mediation model of the product-endorser fit with the brand. Computers in Human Behavior, 143, Article 107703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107703
36. ━━━━━━. (2024). When digital celebrity talks to you: How human-like virtual influencers satisfy consumer’s experience through social presence on social media endorsements. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 76, Article 103581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103581
37. Lee, W.-K. (2012). An elaboration likelihood model based longitudinal analysis of attitude change during the process of IT acceptance via education program. Behaviour & Information Technology, 31(12), 1161-1171. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2010.547219
38. Li, H., Lei, Y., Zhou, Q., & Yuan, H. (2023). Can you sense without being human? Comparing virtual and human influencers endorsement effectiveness. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 75, Article 103456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103456
39. MacInnis, D. J., & Folkes, V. S. (2017). Humanizing brands: When brands seem to be like me, part of me, and in a relationship with me. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27(3), 355-374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2016.12.003
40. Maughan, J. (2018). Virtual influencers: What you need to know. Talking Influence. Retrieved from https://talkinginfluence.com/2018/11/13/virtual-influencers-what-you-need-to-know/
41. McGuire, W. J. (1969). The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 136-314). Addison-Wesley.
42. Mirowska, A., & Arsenyan, J. (2023). Sweet escape: The role of empathy in social media engagement with human versus virtual influencers. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 174, Article 103008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2023.103008
43. Molin, V., & Nordgren, S. (2019). Robot or human? The marketing phenomenon of virtual influencers: A case study about virtual influencers’ parasocial interaction on Instagram [Master’s thesis, Uppsala University]. DiVA. https://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:1334486
44. Montano, D. E., & Kasprzyk, D. (2008). Theory of reasoned action, theory of planned behavior, and the integrated behavioral model. In K. Glanz, B. K. Rimer, & K. Viswanath (Eds.), Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice (4th ed., pp. 67-96). Jossey-Bass.
45. Mori, M. (2012). The uncanny valley (K. F. MacDorman & N. Kageki, Trans.). IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 19(2), 98-100. https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2012.2192811 (Original work published 1970)
46. Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81-103. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00153
47. Neuman, W. L. (2020). Toplumsal araştırma yöntemleri: Nitel ve nicel yaklaşımlar [Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches] (Ö. Akkaya, Trans.; 2nd ed.). Siyasal Kitabevi.
48. Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers’ perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of Advertising, 19(3), 39-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1990.10673191
49. Ozan, E. (2024). Yayın içi video reklamlarına yönelik düşünceler açısından Y ve Z kuşakları arasındaki farklılıklar [Differences between Generations Y and Z in terms of opinions toward in-stream video advertisements]. İstanbul Nişantaşı Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 12(2), 457-474. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/nisantasisbd/article/1469189
50. Penttinen, V., Mouritzen, S. L. T., & Pedersen, S. (2023). Is she real? Leveraging real-life and virtual influencer marketing in brand communications. In V. Jeseo & J. Allen (Eds.), Welcome to the new normal: Life after the chaos: Proceedings of the 2023 AMS Annual Conference (pp. 32-43). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-49039-2_4
51. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(1), 69-81. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.1.69
52. ━━━━━━. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4964-1
53. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), 135-146. https://doi.org/10.1086/208954
54. Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people. Cambridge University Press.
55. Rickitt, R. (2000). Special effects: The history and technique. Billboard Books.
56. Sands, S., Campbell, C. L., Plangger, K., & Ferraro, C. (2022a). Unreal influence: Leveraging AI in influencer marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 56(6), 1721-1747. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-12-2019-0949
57. Sands, S., Ferraro, C., Demsar, V., & Chandler, G. (2022b). False idols: Unpacking the opportunities and challenges of falsity in the context of virtual influencers. Business Horizons, 65(6), 777-788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2022.08.002
58. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74.
59. Seeger, A.-M., Pfeiffer, J., & Heinzl, A. (2017). When do we need a human? Anthropomorphic design and trustworthiness of conversational agents. In SIGHCI 2017 proceedings (Paper 15). Association for Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/sighci2017/15
60. Sheehan, B., Jin, H. S., & Gottlieb, U. (2020). Customer service chatbots: Anthropomorphism and adoption. Journal of Business Research, 115, 14-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.04.030
61. Spada, E. C. (1997). Amorphism, mechanomorphism, and anthropomorphism. In R. W. Mitchell, N. S. Thompson, & H. L. Miles (Eds.), Anthropomorphism, anecdotes, and animals (pp. 37-49). State University of New York Press.
62. Srinivas, V. (2024). Transition from traditional celebrities to social media influencer: An empirical study of role of Instagram influencers on consumer purchase intention. Journal of Informatics Education and Research, 4(3). https://jier.org/index.php/journal/article/view/1451
63. Stein, C. M., Morris, N. J., & Nock, N. L. (2012). Structural equation modeling. In R. C. Elston, J. M. Satagopan, & S. Sun (Eds.), Statistical human genetics: Methods and protocols (pp. 495-512). Humana Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-61779-555-8_27
64. Şimşek, A. (Ed.). (2012). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri [Research methods in social sciences]. Anadolu Üniversitesi.
65. Turkish Statistical Institute. (2025). Geniş yaş gruplarına göre il nüfusları [Provincial populations by broad age groups] [Data set]. Retrieved from https://veriportali.tuik.gov.tr/tr/databrowser/tuik/categories/11/11_1/11_1_1/TR,DF_ADNKS_T35,1.1
66. Walters, T. (2019). How CGI influencers will impact the channel in 2019. Talking Influence. Retrieved from https://talkinginfluence.com/2019/02/25/how-cgi-influencers-will-impact-channel-2019/
67. Waytz, A., Epley, N., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2010). Social cognition unbound: Insights into anthropomorphism and dehumanization. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(1), 58-62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721409359302
68. Wiese, E., & Weis, P. P. (2020). It matters to me if you are human: Examining categorical perception in human and nonhuman agents. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 133, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.08.002