A Meta-Analysis of Influencer Credibility and Purchase Intention: Comparing Human vs. Virtual Influencers and Individualistic vs. Collectivistic Orientation

The current study fills several research gaps by conducting a meta-analysis to evaluate (1) how overall influencer source credibility and its dimensions (expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness) impact purchase intention and (2) the moderating role of influencer type (virtual vs. human) and cultural orientation (individualistic vs. collectivistic) between influencer credibility and purchase intention. Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest, Google Scholar, and other academic sources were searched, most recently in July 2026. Eligible studies were English-language, peer-reviewed quantitative investigations published between January 2018 and July 2026 that reported sufficient statistics for effect-size estimation. Random-effects meta-analysis and mixed-effects meta-regression were conducted on 50 studies with 17,642 participants, contributing a total of 117 effect sizes. Positive pooled associations were found for overall credibility (r = 0.38, 95% CI [0.30, 0.47]), expertise (r = 0.38, 95% CI [0.28, 0.47]), trustworthiness (r = 0.30, 95% CI [0.23, 0.37]), and attractiveness (r = 0.26, 95% CI [0.19, 0.32]). Moderator analysis revealed that influencers’ overall-credibility association was stronger for virtual (r = 0.52) than human influencers (r = 0.32), whereas the trustworthiness association was stronger in individualistic (r = 0.42) than collectivistic cultures (r = 0.25). Substantial between-study heterogeneity and the absence of a formal study-level risk-of-bias assessment warrant caution. The findings support the relevance of Source Credibility Theory to influencer marketing while highlighting contextual differences in association with purchase intention. This study received no external funding and was not registered.