The Dark Side of Influencer Marketing: Parasocial Exploitation, Deceptive Disclosure, and Purchase Intention — A PLS-SEM Investigation

Abstract

Background: Influencer marketing has grown into a $32.55 billion global industry (Influencer Marketing Hub, 2025). While extant scholarship has documented substantial performance benefits, a critical and rapidly growing body of evidence documents systematic harmful practices: undisclosed or deceptively disclosed sponsorships, parasocial relationship exploitation, and psychological manipulation through commercial-personal content hybridization. The mechanisms through which these practices differentially affect consumer trust, purchase intention, and brand attitude have not been adequately modeled in a unified structural framework.

Objective: This study develops and empirically tests a PLS-SEM model of the Dark Side Influencer Marketing Effects (DSIME) framework, specifying the mechanisms through which perceived deceptive sponsorship disclosure (PDSD), parasocial exploitation perception (PEP), and influencer commercialization orientation (ICO) affect purchase intention (PI), brand trust (BT), and consumer skepticism (CS), mediated by parasocial relationship quality (PRQ) and moderated by advertising literacy (AL).

Method: A stratified quota sample of N = 358 active social media users (Mage = 26.8, SD = 6.4; 57.5% female) was surveyed online across four Spanish-speaking countries (México, Colombia, Argentina, España) between January and April 2025. Partial Least Squares SEM (PLS-SEM) with 5,000 bootstrap resamples was applied using SmartPLS 4.0. A CB-SEM confirmatory model was additionally estimated in AMOS 27 to assess absolute fit.

Results: The measurement model demonstrated excellent psychometric properties (all α ≥ .82; AVE ≥ .53; HTMT < .85; SRMR = .057). The structural model explained 63.8% of variance in Purchase Intention (R² = .638) and 55.2% in Consumer Skepticism (R² = .552). Parasocial Relationship Quality (PRQ) was the strongest predictor of Purchase Intention (β = .487, p < .001), while Perceived Deceptive Disclosure (PDSD) was the strongest predictor of Consumer Skepticism (β = .512, p < .001). PDSD significantly attenuated PI through CS (indirect β = −.187, 95% CI [−.241, −.133]). Advertising Literacy significantly moderated the PEP → CS path (β = .231, p = .002), amplifying skepticism among high-literacy consumers. Virtual influencer type emerged as a significant moderating variable in MGA.

Conclusions: Harmful influencer marketing practices operate through dual pathways: parasocial exploitation undermines purchase intention by degrading relationship quality, while deceptive disclosure augments consumer skepticism and indirectly reduces purchase intention. Advertising literacy amplifies rather than eliminates the protective effect of skepticism. Governance frameworks must target platform amplification of undisclosed sponsored content alongside consumer literacy programs.

Keywords: influencer marketing; parasocial relationships; deceptive disclosure; consumer skepticism; purchase intention; advertising literacy; PLS-SEM; dark patterns; virtual influencers; brand trust

Resumen (spanish)
El marketing de influencers ha crecido hasta convertirse en una industria global de $32.55 mil millones. Aunque la literatura ha documentado sus beneficios, un cuerpo crítico de evidencia documenta prácticas dañinas sistemáticas. Objetivo: Este estudio desarrolla y contrasta empíricamente un modelo PLS-SEM del marco de Efectos Oscuros del Marketing de Influencers (EOMIC). Método: Una muestra estratificada de N = 358 usuarios activos de redes sociales fue encuestada en cuatro países hispanohablantes. Se aplicó PLS-SEM con 5,000 remuestras bootstrap mediante SmartPLS 4.0. Resultados: El modelo estructural explicó el 63.8% de la varianza en Intención de Compra (R² = .638) y el 55.2% en Escepticismo del Consumidor (R² = .552). La Calidad de la Relación Parasocial fue el predictor más fuerte de la Intención de Compra (β = .487, p < .001), mientras que la Divulgación Engañosa Percibida fue el predictor más fuerte del Escepticismo del Consumidor (β = .512, p < .001). La Alfabetización Publicitaria moderó significativamente la ruta PEP → EC (β = .231, p = .002).

Palabras clave: marketing de influencers; relaciones parasociales; divulgación engañosa; escepticismo del consumidor; intención de compra; alfabetización publicitaria; PLS-SEM; patrones oscuros; influencers virtuales; confianza en marca

References:

Andonopoulos, V., Lee, J. J., & Mathies, C. (2023). Authentic isn't always best: When inauthentic social media influencers induce positive consumer purchase intention through inspiration. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 75, 103521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103521

Aw, E. C. X., & Chuah, S. H. W. (2023). How parasocial relationships and social media interactions work: Building brand credibility and loyalty. Spanish Journal of Marketing – ESIC, 28(1), 77–97. https://doi.org/10.1108/SJME-09-2022-0190

Boerman, S. C. (2020). The effects of the standardized Instagram disclosure for micro- and meso-influencers. Computers in Human Behavior, 103, 199–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.09.015

Digital Marketing Institute. (2024). 20 surprising influencer marketing statistics. Digital Marketing Institute.

Ekinci, Y. (2025). The dark side of social media influencers: A research agenda for analysing deceptive practices and regulatory challenges. Psychology & Marketing, 42(3), 512–531. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.22173

Federal Trade Commission. (2024). Guides concerning the use of endorsements and testimonials in advertising (16 CFR Part 255). U.S. Government Publishing Office.

Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1086/209380

Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). Sage.

Horton, D., & Wohl, R. R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction: Observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry, 19(3), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049

Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion. Yale University Press.

Influencer Marketing Hub. (2025). State of influencer marketing 2025: Benchmark report. Influencer Marketing Hub.

Lou, C., & Yuan, S. (2019). Influencer marketing: How message value and credibility affect consumer trust of branded content on social media. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 19(1), 58–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2018.1533501

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

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

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

Sands, S., Ferraro, C., Demsar, V., & Chandler, G. (2022). 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

Tanwar, A. S., Chaudhry, H., & Srivastava, M. K. (2024). Trends in influencer marketing: A review and bibliometric analysis. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 59(1), 23–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/10949968231175607

Tripopsakul, S., & Hoonsopon, D. (2025). Influencer credibility, parasocial relationships, and product involvement in purchase intentions. Emerging Science Journal, 9(4), 2132–2144. https://doi.org/10.28991/ESJ-2025-09-04-021