a world full of influences: a quantitative study on how

A world full of influences: A quantitative study on how Generation Z’s view of a brand’s trustworthiness are affected by Influencers wrongdoings.

Author: Johanna Samuelsson & Evelina Tornhed Supervisor: John Jeansson Examiner: Miralem Helmefalk Term: VT20 Subject: Business Administration III – Degree Project 15 credits Level: Bachelor of Science Course code: 2FE67E

Abstract Title: A world full of influences Authors: Johanna Samuelsson, Evelina Tornhed Supervisor: John Jeansson Examiner: Miralem Helmefalk Institution: Linnaeus University School Of Business & Economics Course: 2FE67E – Business Administration III – Degree Project 15 credits Problem definition: Along with a rapid growth of Internet usage new forms of communication and marketing have occurred. Influencer marketing have become a popular marketing form, but are brand’s aware of the risk it involves when collaborating with an influencer? This thesis examines how a brand’s trustworthiness can be affected by an influencer’s wrongdoing, in the perception of the critical generation - Generation Z. Purpose: Since Generation Z are a digital and critical generation who rely on influencers recommendations, but also value trustworthiness and transparency from a brand, we want to explore how Generation Z’s perceived trustworthiness of a brand change when an influencer connected to a brand makes a wrongdoing. Research question: This thesis consist of two research questions. RQ1: Can there be a relationship between an influencers trustworthiness and a brand’s trustworthiness in Generation Z’s perception? RQ2: How does an Influencers wrongdoing spill over on Generation Z’s perception of a brand’s trustworthiness depending on the brands reaction? Methodology: The study is based on a quantitative method with a deductive approach. The empirical data was collected through a online survey that was answered by 148 respondents. The data were then analyzed through SPSS. Hypotheses developed from the research questions were then accepted or rejected. Conclusion: The study resulted in that there is a weak relationship between Generation Z’s perception of an influencer’s trustworthiness and a brand’s trustworthiness. Furthermore, the findings from the survey resulted in that there is a negative spillover effect on brand’s trustworthiness regardless on how they act on an influencer’s wrongdoing. Key words: Generation Z, Influencer trustworthiness, brand trustworthiness, spillover effect

1

Acknowledgements We would like to express our special thanks of gratitude to several people who have helped us completing this study. Firstly we would like to thank our supervisor John Jeansson, who has provided us with useful knowledge and guidance throughout the writing process. We are grateful for your support and faith in us. In addition, we would like to direct a thank you to all of you taking your time participating in our research. Your opinions were highly appreciated and turned out useful in this study. Further, we would like to give our special thanks to our examiner Miralem Helmefalk who have contributed with knowledge and understanding of this quantitative research. An extra thank you to Miralem and our opponents for valuable feedback on our thesis which has helped us towards improving the study and has result in a thesis we are proud of. Lastly, the biggest and warmest thank to each other. Without each others support and teamwork this thesis would not be possible. 2020-05-22 Evelina Tornhed Johanna Samuelsson _________________ ____________________

2

Table of content

1. Introduction 5 1.1 Background 5 1.2 Problem discussion 7

1.2.1 Theoretical research gap 7 1.2.2. Managerial problem 8

1.3. Research questions 8 1.4 Purpose 8 1.5 Delimitations 9

2. Theoretical framework 10 2.1 Generation Z, Brands and Influencers 10

2.1.1 Generation Z 10 2.1.2 What is a brand? 11 2.1.3 Influencers 11

2.2 Trustworthiness 13 2.2.1 Competence 14 2.2.2 Benevolence 14 2.2.3 Integrity 14 2.2.4 Value alignment 15

2.3 Spillover effects 15 2.3.1 The meaning transfer model 16

2.4 Hypothesis development 18 2.4.1 Hypothesis 1 18 2.4.2 Hypothesis 2-4 19

3. Methodology 21 3.1 Research philosophy 21 3.2 Research approach 21 3.3 Research method 22 3.4 Research Design 23 3.5 Data source 23 3.6 Data collection method 23

3.6.1 Sampling 25 3.7 Operationalization and measurement 27 3.8 Data analysis 29 3.9 Quality of research 30

3.9.1 Validity 30 3.9.2 Reliability 31

3

3.10 Ethical considerations 31 3.10.1 Sustainability considerations 32

4. Results and discussion 33 4.1 Who are the respondents? 33 4.2 Hypothesis 1 36

4.2.1 Cronbach’s alpha 36 4.2.2 Correlation analysis 37 4.2.3 Hypothesis 1 analysis 38 4.2.4 Hypothesis 1 conclusion 39

4.3 Hypothesis 2 40 4.3.1 Hypothesis 2 analysis 41



4.6 Hypothesis conclusion 44

5. Conclusions 46 5.1 Research questions 46

5.1.1 RQ1 46 5.1.2 RQ2 47

5.2 Implications 47 5.2.1 Theoretical 47 5.2.2 Managerial 48 5.2.3 Social, ethical and sustainable 48

5.3 Limitations 48 5.4 Suggestions for further research 49

LIST OF REFERENCES 50 Books 50 Printed sources 50 Scientific articles 51

Appendix 57 APPENDIX 1 - Results in SPSS 57 APPENDIX 2 - The questionnaire 61 APPENDIX 3 - Work process 72

4

1. Introduction

The introduction chapter will give an insight of the background of this thesis. Further, it will discuss the theoretical and managerial problems that have been identified. The chapter will end with a presentation of the thesis research question and purpose. ______________________________________________________________________

1.1 Background

To stand out and create brand awareness in a world full of other brands aiming for the same goal could be a difficult job. When an influencer does a wrongdoing, such as breaking the marketing law, being arrested for drug use or make controversial statements it will in most cases reflect poorly on the influencers and reduce their trustworthiness. In this thesis we are examining on how these sorts of wrongdoings affects a retail brands trustworthiness from Generation Z’s perception. Since the introduction of the World Wide Web in the late 1980’s the usage of Internet has grown in a rapid pace. Internet and the World Wide Web opened a world of possibilities and communication, gave easy access to every information one might need and made the world smaller. Internet became popular fast, especially in Sweden. In 1993 1,7% of the Swedish population where internet users. Five years later the number of users had increased to 33% and year 2000 half of the Swedish population where internet users (Science Museum, 2019). In year 2019 98% of the Swedish household’s state that they have internet installed and 95% of the Swedish population claims that they are internet users (Internetstiftelsen, 2019). Due to the easy way of communication through Internet there has developed several platforms for social interaction on Internet that has a big part of our lives in 2020. The social network Facebook was the first forum that grew worldwide and made way for several others such as Instagram, Snapchat and YouTube. These forums along with several others are known as Social Media. In Sweden, 83% of the population states to be social media users and 65% uses social media on a daily basis (Internetstiftelsen, 2019). There is one generation that has been born into the digital world, who doesn’t know a life without internet and that sees social media as the number one communication platform, that takes influence from youtubers, Instagrammers and bloggers. They are called Generation Z (Budac, 2015). Generation Z are a unique generation since they are digital natives, they are critical and engaged in political and moral questions. They value authenticity and has no problem with being disloyal to a brand (Budac, 2015). A generations characteristics and divide is defined from what that generation has

5

experienced that differs them from other generations (Dimock, 2019). There is a divide in literature regarding when Generation Z was born, Seemiller and Grace (2017) states that in 1995 the Internet was born and so was Generation Z. Rothman (2016) argues that Generation Z was born roughly around 1995. Budac (2015) states that Generation Z are born on the latter part of the 90’s which is agreed upon throughout literature. When involving a well-known and likeable celebrity in a marketing campaign it creates a relationship to the consumer. The term Celebrity Endorsement, to use a celebrity as a marketing communication tool, isn’t a new phenomenon and has been a strategy used by companies since late nineteenth century when Queen Victoria was endorsing Cadbury’s Cocoa. Later on, during the evolvement of cinemas, commercial radio and commercial television, actors and pop stars became more and more popular to use as promotion for a brand (Zafer-Erdogan, 1999). Since social media has risen and gained tremendous grounds in the media landscape globally new forms of marketing and celebrity endorsement has been able to arise. Before social media the contact between celebrities and fans where distant and fans were passive recipients of celebrities’ lives (Chung & Cho, 2017). Today hence to social media everyone can share parts from their everyday life, even celebrities, which creates close relationships and also makes celebrities someone to relate to (Chung & Cho, 2017). But being a celebrity is no longer only something to become by being an actor, athlete or pop star; due to social media it’s today possible to become famous just by sharing your life and inspire those who follows you on social media (Jin, Muqaddam & Ryu, 2019). To work with creating content and inspire through social media you consider yourself an Influencer. An influencer gets hired and paid by brands to promote their products through the influencers channels which is known as Influencer Marketing (Interlaced Influencers, 2020). Influencer marketing had a total revenue of 800 million SEK in Sweden in 2018. The revenue was expected to reach 900 million SEK in 2019 and are most likely to reach 1 billion SEK in 2020 (Törnwall, 2019). Influencer marketing are successful since it’s based on the influencer’s authenticity and trustworthiness. Those who work as influencers are able to do it thanks to their followers who relies on the influencers judgement and what the influencers recommends. Credibility is the single most important thing for an influencer when it comes to gain followers but also to get collaborations with companies (Jones & Lucas, 2020).

6

https://www.emerald.com/insight/search?q=S.%20Venus%20Jin

https://www.emerald.com/insight/search?q=Aziz%20Muqaddam

https://www.emerald.com/insight/search?q=Ehri%20Ryu

1.2 Problem discussion

1.2.1 Theoretical research gap Influencer marketing is a fairly new marketing method and some research has been made on how influencers can affect brands in a negative way. More research has been made about the positive effects rather than the negative effects that an influencer has on a brand and on Generation Z’s purchase intentions. Since influencers are a form of celebrities it is possible to look into what sort of research that has been made on celebrity endorsement and how it can affect retail brands negatively (Spry, et. al., 2011; Angela, 2008; Page Winterich, et. al., 2018; Tzoumaka, et. al., 2014). Although there is research within endorsement such as celebrity endorsement, there is still an uncertainty regarding what it is that distinguish a celebrity from an influencer. One might be a famous actor but also popular on social media and one might only be famous for their social medias and this thesis will help to distinguish that line. Moreover, there has been made research about spillover effects and meaning transfer that is suitable to apply on this study (Ahluwalia, et. al., 2000; Sato, et. al., 2019; Yuan, et. al., 2019; Spry, et. al., 2019; McCracken, 1989; Campbell, Warren, 2012; Agrawal, Kamakura, 1995; Trimble, Rifon, 2006). Priporas, Stylos and Fotiadis (2017) and DuPont (2015) argues that Generation Z are a generation that has low loyalty to a brand and who adds great value to authenticity and trustworthiness. Research regarding Generation Z have shown that they are a generation that excludes a retail brand if the retail brand in some way are perceived as untrustworthy and that they value the opinions of influencers (Priporas, et.al., 2017; DuPont, 2015) but there is a theoretical gap regarding Generation Z’s perception of brand’s trustworthiness when being endorsed by an influencer who does a wrongdoing. The meaning transfer model (McCracken, 1989) has been frequently used in studies over the years (Trimble & Rifon, 2006). The model argues that the effect of a celebrity endorser depends on the meanings and associations the celebrity brings into the product endorsement and that what the celebrity brings with them spills over on the brand. Campbell and Warren (2012) found in their research how celebrities negative associations are more likely to transfer to a brand than their positive associations. There is a knowledge gap in previous research that has been made that the research presented in this thesis can fill. In contrast to other studies in the subjects of influencer marketing no examination has been done for influencer marketing and how influencer’s wrongdoings affects Generation Z’s attitudes towards brand’s

7

reputation. This study address the gap since it is targeting an area within influencer marketing that have not been explored yet. A theoretical gap has thus been acknowledged in the scientific research regarding theoretical findings and concepts regarding Generation Z’s attitudes and feelings towards brand’s reputation in relation to influencer’s wrongdoings. The thesis will provide a conceptual framework of Generation Z’s trust towards a brand in relation to influencers wrongdoings. 1.2.2. Managerial problem Interactive Advertising Bureau in Sweden (IAB Sweden) whom is the trade organization for organizations within digital marketing in Sweden are emphasizing the importance of that brands and advertisers make sure that Influencers they collaborate with are following the marketing law, pay their taxes and to ensure that they are not being lured by an influencer such as through fake followers (IAB, 2019). It indicates that the industry is aware of issues that can occur with influencer marketing. However, IAB Sweden do not mention if the factors stated affect brands trustworthiness but are rather focusing on the loss of ROI (Return on Investment) for brands. The damage of influencers wrongdoings will not only affect the ROI for brands but will also have a spillover effect for the endorsed brand’s trustworthiness. Generation Z is one of the largest generations who is today’s and tomorrow's consumers. If Generation Z perceive a brand’s trustworthiness as low, the risk is that the brand loose Generation Z as consumers which is bad for revenue since Generation Z is such large generation whom will have a great buying power for many years to come.

1.3. Research questions

Based on the problem discussion and background presented, following research questions for this thesis have been developed: RQ1: Can there be a relationship between an influencers trustworthiness and a brand’s trustworthiness in Generation Z’s perception? RQ2: How does an Influencers wrongdoing spill over on Generation Z’s perception of a brand’s trustworthiness depending on the brands reaction?

1.4 Purpose

Since Generation Z are a digital and critical generation who rely on influencers recommendations, but also value trustworthiness and transparency from a brand, we want to explore how Generation Z’s perceived trustworthiness of a brand change when an influencer connected to a brand makes a wrongdoing. We will achieve this through a survey offered to people within Generation Z through Facebook groups.

8

The survey will explore the relation between influencers wrongdoings and retail brands trustworthiness from Generation Z’s perception.

1.5 Delimitations

This thesis is limited to examine how Generation Z’s perception of a brands trustworthiness effects when an influencer does a wrongdoing. This thesis will not examine from a brand or an influencers perspective since we want to find how Generation Z view influencers and brands. The thesis focus on respondents within Generation Z in Sweden. The survey will be distributed through Facebook groups and not on other social forums due to difficulties that will be further explained in the method chapter and therefore the thesis will not include a perspective from those in Generation Z that doesn’t use Facebook. Furthermore, since we found it difficult to reach the younger part of Generation Z through social media, this thesis is limited to the older part of Generation Z (1995-2003).

9

2. Theoretical framework

The theoretical framework chapter starts with a description of research being made of the context of this thesis, Generation Z, Influencers and retail brands. Further on the theories that are central for conducting the thesis purpose are being presented. The theoretical chapter will end with a presentation of, and argumentation for, the hypotheses that are made based on the theory. ______________________________________________________________________

2.1 Generation Z, Brands and Influencers

2.1.1 Generation Z Generation Z is also known as the “iGeneration” since they are the first generation to grow up in a digital world and doesn’t know about a world without internet access (Cho, A. Bonn & Jin Han, 2018). Generation Z are different in relation to other generation in both their attitudes and way of life, mainly due to how their lives has formed by the digital world but also by growing up in a world with large economic crises, the growth of terrorism and climate changes whom have given the generation a negative and moderate view of the world around them (DuPont, 2015). Furthermore, DuPont (2015) states that Generation Z have experienced a great shift in how the world sees on taboo subjects, for example marijuana use, which gives the Generation Z’s a more open-minded outcome than other generations. Generation Z are known to be a generation with individuals with high education and intelligence, a strive for fulfilling and satisfying professional lives and are more confident than the former generation, Generation Y (Cho, et.al., 2018; Priporas, et. al., 2017). Generation Z is a large generation and in the U.S they are representing 25% of the population which is larger than both the post-World War II generation Baby Boomers and Generation Y (DuPont, 2015). Since Generation Z is constantly connected online, they have become the most marketing targeted generation in history (Budac, 2015). Through their multitasking way of life, Generation Z have become a self-aware generation that wants confirmation from others to add fuel to their self-image (Budac, 2015). Generation Z have a consuming pattern where they base their buying decisions on influencers and friends’ recommendations and what is trending on social media (Priporas, et.al., 2017). Priporas, et.al (2017) argue that Generation Z have high expectations on retail brand. Since they are easily bored, they demand an experience to stay interested in a brand and they have low brand loyalty compared to other generations. By being a generation with attitudes and behaviour formed of the world around them, Generation Z values transparency, honesty and authenticity in everything and also when it comes to brands (DuPont, 2015; Budac, 2014).

10

There is a divide in the literature regarding the age span for Generation Z (Rowlands, Nicholas, Williams, Huntington, Fieldhouse, Gunter, Whitney, Jamali, Moallem, Dobrowolski, & Tenopir, 2008; Geck, 2006; DuPont, 2015; Seemiller & Grace, 2017; Budac, 2015). Some argue that Generation Z are born as early as 1990 (Geck, 2006), some argue that the generation starts with those born in 1993 (Rowlands, et.al., 2008), some states that Generation Z starts around 1996 (DuPont, 2015) and some states that Generation Z are born in the latter part of the 90’s (Budac, 2015). Due to the divide within literature, 1995 to 2010 will be the ages that this thesis states as Generation Z. 2.1.2 What is a brand? Keller and Lehmann (2006) states that a brand have several functions. A core function of a brand is that it serves as a token for what the company are offering consumers. Furthermore, Keller and Lehmann (2006) argues that brands makes choices easier and promise a level of quality for a consumer. The customers experience with a product are reflected in the brand (Keller & Lehmann, 2006). Murphy (1988, p.4) states that: “The ingredients of a brand are the product itself, the packaging, the brand name, the promotion, the advertising and the overall presentation.” Melin and Urde (1991) have developed the Brand Pyramid whom describes the core of how a brand are constructed. The Brand Pyramid consist of three elements: Product, Positioning and Trademark. Initially, the process starts with making the consumer aware of the product and thereafter create associations to the brand. Lastly, the two first steps will create brand awareness with the target group. The three elements are controlled by the brand and with a perfect symbiosis between the elements a strong bond to the brand’s target group can be created (Melin & Urde, 1991). Byrne (2004) states a similar definition of brands as Murphy (1988) and argues that brands are not just their product or services, but rather their values and relationship with their consumers. Brands are a lasting impression and provides an expectation of the product or service from the brand (Byrne, 2004). Furthermore, Byrne (2004) claims that successful brands are not only providing great products or services, they are also able to communicate their values and generate those values in their products or services. 2.1.3 Influencers When a brand uses a well-known, likeable famous person to promote their products or services it is referred to as celebrity endorsement (Zafer-Erdogan, 1999). A celebrity endorser is an individual which perceived as a person whose credibility is based on expertise, trustworthiness and attractiveness (Spry, Pappu, Cornwell, 2011). The reason for using celebrity endorsement is to generate greater publicity (Pringle &

11

Binet, 2005). Celebrity endorsement as a communication tool will have an effect to the brand since the credibility to the endorser will transfer credibility to the brand. Higher credibility endorser would lead to higher credibility to the brand (Spry, et. al., 2011, p.886). Angela (2008) claims that the celebrity and the brand needs to be a good match in order to make sure that consumers interpretation happening immediately. Otherwise it could be difficult for the brand to assure the association between the brand and celebrity made by the consumers. The celebrity endorsers of the twenty-first century have been mentioned as digital media influencers (Kapitan & Silvera, 2016). There is similarity between traditional celebrity endorsers and social media influencers according to Bergkvist and Zhous (2016, p.644) definition: “A celebrity endorsement is an agreement between an individual who enjoys public recognition (a celebrity) and an entity (e.g., a brand) to use the celebrity for the purpose of promoting the entity”. According to Page Winterich, et. al., (2018) trustworthiness, expertise and credibility describes the effectiveness in celebrity endorsement. Silvera and Austad (2004) means that a consumer can be influenced by the endorser strongly if the endorser truly likes the product. Tzoumaka, et. al., (2014) and Page Winterich, et. al., (2018) argue that trustworthiness is the aspects of honesty and an individual's ability to trust the sender’s information. Page Wintrich, et. al., (2018) describe expertise the knowledge of the endorsement celebrities and therefore needs to be considered in the marketing planning process. Further the authors claim that the expertise and trustworthiness only is valuable for the consumers perceptions. According to Zhao, et. al., (2016) the social status is more important than the celebrity endorsers relevance and participation. Furthermore Khatri (2006) came to the conclusion that in several times endorsement of consumers works better than celebrity endorsers. The use of an influencer in marketing creates the opportunity for a brand to reach a smaller target group in a smaller amount of time and in a less expensive way than traditional advertising (Evans, Phua, Lim & Jun, 2017). Lin, Zhang and Huat Goh (2018) found when studying the value of an influencer endorser for generate product sales that if the influencer had more followers on social media the effect of online endorsement was stronger. Furthermore, the authors found evidence for counterproductive endorsement effort when the influencer to frequently was endorsing products. Jin, Muqaddam and Ryu (2019) findings in the study on the comparison of two groups; Instagram celebrity and traditional celebrity consumers exposed to the different groups shown different attitudes toward the endorsed brand. Consumers perceived the source from a Instagram celebrity more trustworthy and

12

https://www.emerald.com/insight/search?q=David%20H.%20Silvera

https://www.emerald.com/insight/search?q=Benedikte%20Austad




shown a more positive attitude toward the endorsed brand than those consumers exposed to a endorsed post from a traditional celebrity. Pedro, Mario and Marta (2019) argue that the congruence between the endorsed brand and the influencer has a stronger direct effect towards consumers attitude than attractiveness (familiarity and similarity) of the digital influencer. The result in the study also showed that both attractiveness and congruence tend to be effective in endorsement. Furthermore, the authors claim that between the digital influencer and the brands congruence is it important to also consider the attractiveness of the influencer due to the brand attitudes and the purchase intentions. Schouten P, Janssen and Verspaget (2020) compared the effectiveness using a social media influencer with use of a traditional celebrity endorser. By using four different marketing categories they manage to test their hypotheses in two experiments using celebrities and influencers. The results showed that consumers finds influencers more trustworthy than celebrities and that consumers can identify themselves to an influencer more than with a celebrity. Therefore the authors claims that influencers can be more effective as endorser than celebrities. Muda, Musa and Putit (2012) points out the risks that occurs for a brand when using celebrity endorsement. Muda, et. al., (2012) furthermore argues that if a celebrity gets negative exposure in media it will be expensive for the brand and exemplify it with how brands connected to Tiger Woods (golf player) lost millions of dollars in income when Woods infidelity scandal was exposed. Furthermore, Muda, et. al., (2012) argues that consumer can be skeptical when celebrities endorse products when they are paid to do it, especially since there is a risk according to the researchers that celebrities can get greedy and gets into partnership with several brands. If a celebrity gets greedy and endorse themselves with several brands their endorsement eventually lack credibility, Muda, et. al., (2012) argues, and consumers that sees the celebrity occur in several product endorsement will focus on the fact the celebrity gets paid to endorse the product rather than focus on the product itself. Furthermore, Muda, et. al., (2012) states that negative publicity gets more common regarding celebrities and the negative attribute it contributes with has the potential to spill over on the brand’s image.

2.2 Trustworthiness

Özer and Zheng (2017, p.497) argues that: “Trustworthiness is to behave voluntarily in a way not to take advantage of the trustor’s vulnerable position when faced with a self-serving decision that conflicts with the trustor’s objective.”

13

Kharouf, Lund, and Sekhon (2014) states that trustworthiness is an attribute of a unit that may or may not be trusted. Ohanian (1990) argues that trustworthiness is how reliable and honest the unit that may or may not be trusted are perceived to be. Furthermore, Özer and Zheng (2017) states that trustworthiness is something that a company or individual can nurture by removing uncertainties in their actions that would be perceived as untrustworthy. Özer and Zheng (2017) argues that trustworthiness is complex and based on social norms and values. Furthermore, based on Caldwell and Clapham’s (2003) work, Kharouf, et. al., (2014) have found that there are six drivers of trustworthiness; consistency, competence, benevolence, communication, integrity and value alignment. Three of the six drivers stated by Kharouf, et. al., (2014) of trustworthiness is well supported within literature (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995; Lee & Turban, 2001; Caldwell & Clapham, 2003) and will be used as variables in this thesis, which is competence, benevolence and integrity. Kharouf, et. al., (2014) also mentions value alignment as a driver of trustworthiness whom will be the fourth variable in this thesis. 2.2.1 Competence Competence is when a trustor have faith in that a trustee is capable and reliable to fulfill the expectations from the trustor. When a trustor decides to trust a trustee the trustor have decided to believe in that the trustee will deliver as promised (Kharouf, et. al., 2014). Furthermore, Kharouf, et. al., (2014) states that competence can be able to minimize the perceived risk of trusting a trustee and that competence is an important factor in rebuilding the trust within the relationship if negative publicity would occur. 2.2.2 Benevolence Benevolence is a characteristic of the trustee and is based on the trustee’s willingness of doing good for the trustor and not doing an action for egoistical purpose (Kharouf, et. al., 2014; Mayer, et. al., 1995). Benevolence is an act of kindness and shows humaneness, as the trustee would choose mutual sharing with the trustor rather than maximizing its own profits (Kharouf, et. al., 2014; Mayer, et. al., 1995). 2.2.3 Integrity When a trustee shows integrity the trustee are standing for principles that the trustor perceive as important (Kharouf, et. al., 2014). Furthermore, a trustee’s integrity is an important component in building up the trustee’s trustworthiness if a case of negative publicity occurs. A trustee’s integrity is based on moral standards and the ability to meet the standards held by the trustor, such as having a company code of conduct (Kharouf, et. al., 2014).

14

2.2.4 Value alignment Value alignment is to what degree trustee and trustor have shared beliefs about what attitudes, behaviour and values that are right or wrong, significant or insignificant, good or bad. Furthermore, value alignment is when parties in a relationship have equal values which gives them similar perceived expectations regarding behaviour and actions within the relationship and therefore value alignment is important to build trust and a trustworthy image (Kharouf, et. al., 2014).

2.3 Spillover effects

A great body of research on spillover effects suggest that the effects could be either positive or negative (Sato, et. al., 2019; Yuan, et. al., 2019). A spillover effect is described as “the extent to which a message influences belief related to attributes that are not contained in the message” (Ahluwalia, et. al., 2000). Sato, et. al., (2019) mean that an athlete’s negative reputation affects consumers perception of the brand sponsoring the athlete. Yuan, et. al., (2019) indicate that poor performance by a team will have negative spillover effects on a brand sponsoring the team. Both Sato, et. al., (2019) and Yuan, et. al., (2019) examines on how various wrongful behaviour whether it’s performance or within an athlete’s personal life affect consumers perception of a brand connected to whomever made the fault. The research being made by Sato et.al (2019) and Yuan, et. al., (2019) are suitable to lift and apply on other areas such as Influencer Marketing since it emphasize how wrongful doing by an endorser affect the brand collaborating with the endorser. Sato, et. al., (2019) states that expertise and trustworthiness are the key factors for a succeed athlete sponsorship for a brand which is two of the factors of credibility within celebrity endorsement. When an athlete does a wrongdoing their level of untrustworthiness and incompetence that their wrongdoings creates increases and spillover on their endorsed brands. Sato, et. al., (2019) study show that consumers believes that untrustworthiness and incompetence are based on the severity of the wrongdoing. Sato, et. al., (2019) demonstrated that perceived athlete incompetence is negatively associated with consumers’ attitudes toward endorsed brands after surveys where answered by consumers about a fabricated performance-enhancing drug (PED) case applied on an athlete. Since a PED case is directly connected to the athlete’s expertise and incompetence, it made a greater impact than if it where the athlete’s untrustworthiness questioned on a brand’s untrustworthiness which was supported of the study (Sato, et. al., 2019). Furthermore, Sato, et. al., (2019) demonstrated that perceived incompetence toward endorsed brands spills over to competitor brands via endorsed brands. The case that

15

was presented, a PED scandal, made such impact on the perceived incompetence that it spilled over on a competitor brand which tells more on how much damage such scandals can cause. Sato, et. al., (2019) also conducted research regarding perceived untrustworthiness with the same PED scandal as outset and the hypothesis was rejected. Yuan, et. al., (2019) found when studying teams poor performances impact on sponsor brands that when a brands name is directly associated with the team it creates bad associations when hearing the brand name, for example an Chinese vintage car firm sponsored a Chinese team which changed their name to the car firms name and after that the team had poor presentations in competitive games. When hearing the brand name after the team’s poor performances, supporters immediately responded to it with responding to the brand name as “losers” or “weakness”. It shows that it’s a high risk when involving a brand name in the team's name since bad performance will give the brand name poor associations. Yuan, et. al., (2019) study also showed that actively participating supporters, called “Type A” person's, develop more negative associations to a brand when team have bad performance and “Type B” persons, those who are passive, doesn’t get such strong associations. Those findings indicate that you need to be involved and interested in the team to create negative feelings when wrongdoings occur. Yuan, et. al., (2019) made their study on teams’ performance on the Chinese market and states that the Chinese market will generate stronger negative feelings towards a sponsor brand connected to the team than a Western market would due to cultural differences. Therefore, the study should not be considered fully applicate on this study about Influencer Marketing which has a Western market approach but even though there are cultural differences the study contributes with valuable insights on consumers perception of brands. The study is also solely based on performance and not on for example team players mistakes in their personal lives. 2.3.1 The meaning transfer model McCracken (1989) argue by the meaning transfer model that cultural meanings pass on from celebrities to a product to the consumer who will use those products to apply the meanings from the celebrity on themselves (Figure 1). This means that opinions, previous work and attributes of a celebrity will be applied on a product by the consumer. Studies performed when using celebrities with positive images to endorse non-profit organizations showed that according to the meaning transfer model consumers applied the positive attributes of a celebrity on the non-profit organization (Trimble & Rifon, 2006).

16

Figure 1: Meaning movement and the endorsement process. Authors own contribution, adapted from McCracken (1989). A benefit of using a celebrity endorser is to create a personality to a brand so it is easier to build consumer relationships which in most cases are positive but can also create a great risk for a brand if choosing the wrong celebrity (Agrawal & Kamakura, 1995). Campbell and Warren (2012) has studied how celebrities negative association are more likely to transfer to a brand than their positive associations. Three studies were made, and the correspondent was given articles to read where different approaches on highlighting the celebrity’s attributes. For example, in the first study, one article described a celebrity with his positive attributes first and later on the negative ones were mentioned and vice versa in the next article. When performing a study giving a made-up watch brand a celebrity endorses with both admirable and less admirable attributes, consumers tended to see the watch brand as less clever and more arrogant when being endorsed by the celebrity. Even though the celebrity had good qualities, the negative ones gave a greater effect on consumers perception of the brand. Campbell and Warren (2012) also found that positive meanings about a celebrity endorser transfer to a congruent brand but not a incongruent, but negative meanings are applied by consumers to both congruent and incongruent brands. That implicates that whether a brand endorsed are suited for the celebrity’s identity or not the negative aspects of one's identity will apply on the brand either way. Further on Campbell and Warren (2012) concluded a study on how consumers see a brand if the celebrity endorser expressly tells that they are paid to endorse the brand. The study aimed on showing consumers outlook on brands if they knew an endorser didn’t came across as genuinely liking the brand. The study showed that a celebrity’s positive meanings only transferred to a brand if the celebrity made a genuine endorsement. Furthermore, the negative meanings transferred both if the celebrity was genuine or expressly said they only endorsed the brand because of the financial

17

gain. Campbell and Warrens (2012) three studies makes it obvious that if a consumer is aware of a celebrity negative meaning, they are more likely to transfer to a brand in any situation than the positive meanings.

2.4 Hypothesis development

Based on the preceding theoretical framework and the following hypotheses that are developed, the following conceptual framework for this thesis have been constructed:

Figure 2: Conceptual framework. Authors own contribution 2.4.1 Hypothesis 1 Kharouf, et. al., (2014) argues that there are six drivers of trustworthiness; consistency, competence, benevolence, communication, integrity and value alignment. This thesis will have Kharouf, et. al., (2014) theories as foundation but have decided not to use “consistency” and “communication” as drivers due to that they require a relationship between respondent - influencer and respondent - brand that have been adequate over time that would eliminate respondents within this thesis. Generation Z is a generation that gets easily bored of brands, find influencers and social media profiles to be trustworthy and that are a generation that are opinionated within moral questions (DuPont, 2015; Budac, 2014). We argue that those attributes makes Generation Z an interesting generation to study and to find how there is a relationship in the perception of influencers and brands trustworthiness based in the four drivers competence, benevolence, integrity and value alignment the following hypothesis have been developed:

18

Table 1: Hypothesis 1

Hypothesis Table Hypothesis 1

H1a: There is a significant positive relationship between Generation Z’s perception between an influencer’s competence and a brand’s competence.

H1b: There is a significant positive relationship between Generation Z’s perception between an influencer’s benevolence and a brand’s benevolence

H1c: There is a significant positive relationship between Generation Z’s perception between an influencer’s integrity and a brand’s integrity.

H1d: There is a significant positive relationship between Generation Z’s shared values with an influencer and with a brand.

H1: There is a significant positive relationship between Generation Z’s perception between an influencer’s trustworthiness and a brand’s trustworthiness.

2.4.2 Hypothesis 2-4 McCracken (1989), Campbell and Warren (2012), Yuan, et. al., (2019) and Sato, et. al., (2019) all argue that negative actions and attributes spills over and transfers from a endorser to a endorsed brand. As Campbell and Warren (2012) argued, celebrities negative associations will be applied to endorsed brand regardless of the situation and the positive association does not have as strong effect on the brand. Previous research that have been presented have not studied how the spillover effect would differ when the endorsed brands reacts to the wrongdoing in different ways, but rather it have been emphasizing the spillover effect itself. We estimate that the negative spillover effect of an influencer’s wrongdoing will be more significant if the endorsed brand does not react towards it and less significant if the endorsed brand reacts and takes action regarding their collaboration with the influencer. Furthermore, we argue that the negative spillover will have an effect on the brand’s trustworthiness. Based on the preceding discussion, two hypotheses have been developed. We expect that:

19

Table 2: Hypothesis 2-4

Hypothesis Table Hypothesis 2-4

H2: There is a significant effect on influencer’s trustworthiness after making a wrongdoing.

H3: Influencer’s wrongdoing will have a significant spillover effect on Generation Z’s perception of a brand’s trustworthiness if the brand reacts.

H4: Influencer’s wrongdoing will have a significant spillover effect on Generation Z’s perception of a brand’s trustworthiness if the brand does not react.

20

3. Methodology This chapter introduces the approaches and methods used in this report. The chapter describes the choice of a deductive approach and a quantitative method. Continuously the chapter present the data collection method and the sampling. This chapter as well gives an insight on the ethical and sustainability considerations taken in this report. ____________________________________________________________________

3.1 Research philosophy

Before doing research, it is necessary to make clear how the researchers views the world. These views can be categorized to epistemology, i.e. what the researcher believe is acceptable knowledge; ontology, i.e. how the researcher views the reality; axiology, i.e. the researchers view on values in research (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009). Positivism is a philosophy based on seeking secure knowledge were the knowledge can be used to make predictions. This thesis has the basis of the positivist research philosophy which originated in realism and seeking absolute knowledge (Campbell & Cowton, 2015). The ontological positivism view is objective and explanatory in order to answer the research questions which this study intended to be in order to increase the credibility (Campbell & Cowton, 2015; Bryman & Bell, 2015). Epistemologically the findings in this study are likely to be true but we cannot know for sure. The axiology is viewed from the post-positivism were the research attempt to be as unbiased as possible (Saunders et. al., 2009). Eriksson and Hultman (2014) further discuss the importance of the study being logically structured. To achieve this, the positivism and post-positivism philosophy is emphasized, meaning having a structured method.

3.2 Research approach

There is two main research approaches called inductive and deductive approach. Bryman and Bell (2015) stated what separates the approaches and mean it is the hypotheses relevance in relation to the study’s purpose. They further explain an inductive strategy where the researcher aims to find new theories where the inductive reasoning goes from observations and theories are proposed towards the end of the research process as a result of observations. The authors also write that a deductive strategy is based on existing strategies and that the researcher instead describes the relationship between theory and research. The deductive approach used to describe the relationship between theory and research. The deductive approach can be viewed as linear due to it consist of steps that follows in a logical sequence. The first step is to collect theory and secondly

21

engender hypotheses from the collected theory and after gathering data the last step is to reject or confirm the hypotheses. (Bryman & Bell, 2015; Saunders et. al., 2009) Research that follows a deductive nature also has to consider that data being collected for the study is correct and to ensure that the data is usable to test the constructed hypotheses (Bryman & Bell, 2015; Malhotra, 2010). The authors also state that the findings based on the hypotheses do not need to be positive or negative relations and may act as contribution to a scientific field. In this report a deductive approach has been applied. Meaning that this study tests the theories of endorsed influencers wrongdoing affect trustworthiness among Generation Z apart from constructing new theories. This research has been conducted with hypotheses and ideas that have emerged from the theories it is based on. The theory chapter in this study establishes the relationship between influencers wrongdoings and Generation Z´s trust in a retail brand and results in proposed hypotheses. The use of already existing theories to deduct hypotheses makes it adequate using a deductive approach to the research of this study. The idea with deductive approach is according to Bryman and Bell (2015) to “make a contribution to theory” and through accept or reject the constructed hypotheses in this study this will be possible.

3.3 Research method

A qualitative method emphasizes words rather than the quantification of data. The purpose with a qualitative method is to attain a deeper understanding and an in-depth insight in the research area (Bryman & Bell, 2015). Furthermore Bryman and Bell (2015) describes the qualitative method focuses on gathering data and information from a few numbers of in-depth sources which open up to a discussion. Therefore the qualitative method is not considered as formal and objective as a quantitative method. This study will use a quantitative method thus from a deductive approach it is appropriate using a quantitative method since it starts with theory and then tests the hypothesis. Bryman and Bell (2015) mean that the main focus in a quantitative research is to explain why things are in a certain way and making use of this approach the data which is collected will be measurable. The measurability is helpful to distinguish the data in a comparable way using the same measurement standards. Bryman and Bell (2015) state that a whole population is rather impossible to conduct a research on and therefore the findings needs to be generalizable. They claim that the sample should be as representative for the population as possible and therefore a generalizable result is to aim for when conducting this research. Meaning this study

22

needs to strive for data that could represent the whole population to make the result generalizable. This will allow the researchers of this study to gather data from a large amount of the chosen sample.

3.4 Research Design

Deciding on a research design in a quantitative study ensures the gathering of correct data (Bryman & Bell, 2015). The research design presents which data were used in the data gathering process. A descriptive research purpose is to find an association between the variables by testing different hypotheses (Saunders et. al., 2016). To generalize the result of this study the researchers need to examine many cases and a research design that allows them to do this is called cross- sectional design. Bryman and Bell (2015); Saunders et. al., (2016) claimed that it will be easier to find variation in all variables the more cases examined and therefore achieve a generalizable result. The cross-sectional design, which can be referred to as a social survey, involves the collection of data on more than one case at a single point of time (Bryman & Bell, 2015) and was therefore suitable for this study.

3.5 Data source

The data collection could be primary or secondary sources. When conducting information from someone else it is a second hand source. For the research of this study secondary sources were not relevant due to the choice of a quantitative method which only will refer to first hands data. Secondary data was only used in this study to support the gathering of primary data. For example, to gather important information concerning age restrictions for participants in the research secondary data were used. Primary data is in contrast from secondary data first hand original sources (Bryman & Bell 2015). In this study primary data were gathered in a digital form of questionnaires in order to be able to either reject or confirm the hypotheses. Due to the lack of data and to identify the gap in theory within this research area primary data was in this research needed.

3.6 Data collection method

The research design for this study is cross-sectional and the research method was addressed to be suitable in order for the design and the purpose to gather adequate data. According to Bryman and Bell (2015) a survey research is the data collecting method which fall within the cross-sectional category of a quantitative method. Furthermore the authors describe a survey research where a form of questionnaires is a method where information is gathered. Therefore the data collection method, the

23

actual technique that is used to gather the data in this study is a digital form of questionnaire, also called self-completion questionnaire. The questionnaire were designed on Typeform and sent to the participants through Facebook (Social media platform). It is suitable due to the benefit of time as this study is time limited. This form is also suitable to construct a quantitative base of data since the method makes it possible to receive answers from many respondents at the same time (Bryman & Bell, 2015). Additionally the data collecting method with questionnaires acts as the respondents read and answer the question by themselves (Bryman & Bell, 2015). It is therefore suitable for this research as the data could be collected in a large amount in a short amount of time. The risk of being biased is limited since the authors cannot impact on the responses of the participants. This can also be an disadvantage because helping the respondents with the questions is not possible (Bryman & Bell, 2015). The convenience for the respondents is an advantage using questionnaires, the amount of time spent on the questions determine respondents themselves which will remove a stress factor (Bryman & Bell, 2015). Despite the many advantages for questionnaires as a data collection tool Saunders et. al. (2016) states that it can be difficult to precise the question in order to reach a generalizable result. In the construction of the questionnaire closed question were emphasized. Demographic question about the participants age were first asked to ensure the respondent was in the right target group of Generation Z and due to the difference in Facebook usage between the ages (Soi, 2018). Similarly, gender was asked about since both women, men and non-binary are using Facebook. A geographic question and a question about the participants educational level were asked to be able to make a broader analysis. How many influencers the participants is following on social media was asked and before the questions measuring the variables could be answered the participant had to write an influencer they follow and later on a brand. They were asked to think about this specific influencer and brand while answering the following questions to strengthen the emotional link to the brand and influencer and therefore the answer would be more reliable. Critically, this may cause differences in the strength of emotional level among the various respondents. The last part of the questionnaire was different scenarios where the influencer makes a wrongdoing. A likert scale was adapted to all questions with a scale from 1 to 7 where 1 is strongly disagree and 7 is strongly agree. To give the respondents answer options makes it sure what is being measured according to Bryman and Bell (2015). Furthermore the authors mean that an easy-to-follow design of the questionnaire help to minimize confusion and distraction for the respondents. It will also help the respondents to complete the questionnaire and therefor an easy-to-follow design was applied to the survey. Additionally an attractive layout with well visible questions

24

and answers was addressed due to enhance the response rate. According to DuPont (2015) Generation Z is a bored generation so the design was considered an important factor in order to reduce drop-off rate caused by a boring design or layout. In the cover letter (found in Appendix 2) information and instruction of how to fill in and answer the questionnaire were stated for the respondents to avoid confusion (Bryman & Bell, 2015). The survey were posted in Swedish since the aim was to reach Generation Z in Sweden. The benefit of posting the survey in Swedish is that it will generate a higher response rate since potential respondents that does not feel comfortable with their English skills could be eliminated if the survey were posted in English. Furthermore, potential respondents that are uncertain of their ability within the Swedish language were eliminated since the survey were not posted in English. The idea of posting the survey in both Swedish and English were discussed but the conclusion came to that if the survey were posted in both languages the survey would conduct of too much text that could be intimidating for potential respondents. The survey were translated from Swedish to English when the analysis of the responses were conducted. Information about the respondent has to be within a certain age span and follow at least one influencer was explained in the post on Facebook. The questionnaire were posted on the author's Facebook page and was then shared by other individuals. Facebook was chosen due to its ability of having a wide scope and reaching a large number of individuals (Soi, 2018). 3.6.1 Sampling The sampling is an essential part of the research and the sample choice is even more essential in a quantitative study. It is not possible to include all individuals in the research area of this study and therefore sampling is used. According to Bryman and Bell (2015) the population represents the specific group of individuals the research aimed to receive answers from and in this study the population is Generation Z. There are two different methods for sampling where probability sampling refer to randomness of respondents and within non-probability the respondents are chosen (Bryman & Bell, 2015). In this research a non-probability convenience sample was applied since the respondents were within a specific generation cohort and the survey were posted solely on Facebook. The respondent needed to be within the age range of Generation Z and follow at least one influencer on social media, therefore control questions were asked in the questionnaire in order to reach the targeted sample to assure this. Within non-probability sampling snowball sampling is a method where research participants recruit other participants to the survey. The method is often used when participants within a small population are difficult to access (Bryman & Bell, 2015). Snowball sampling was applied on this study because the advantage of “gathering snow” i.e. make the sampling larger and larger. The author posted the questionnaire on their personal Facebook page and asked people to share the

25

questionnaire with their friends and thus make the spread larger. The authors also posted the questionnaire in two Facebook groups where no men are part of the groups. This was made because many within the population, Generation Z where found in the groups and to reach a larger span in less time. The authors also posted the questionnaire on their Instagram (Social media platform) but this did not receive any answers because it was to advanced and time-consuming for people to follow the link to the survey. For the authors to spread the questionnaire on Instagram it was required to have a company-profile which is a cost. The sampling units or the sample size in a quantitative study is commonly decided due to time and cost (Bryman & Bell, 2015). The precision will increase the larger the sample of the population is and due to this and the time limit the sample size had to be considered. According to Bryman and Bell (2015) the sample and the population can never fully conform but the difference will be smaller when the sample size is larger. Using a large sample size as possible will avoid big differences in the research. Bryman and Bell (2015) mean that a disadvantage using snowball sampling is that the method is time consuming and this research had to consider a time limit. To decide the sample size needed for this survey following formula was used: 50 + (8 x P) (where P = number of predictor variable) therefor the calculated sample size was: 50 + (8 x 6) = 98. Hennig and Cooper (2011) claims that a survey that should be able to define the correlations between the variables need to have at least 100 participants and therefore the minimum sample size to this research was set to be 100 and the actually sample size was N=148. The worldwide crisis of the pandemic Covid-19 made the sampling difficult due to the restrictions in Sweden (Krisinformation.se, 2020). Schools has been closed under the period this thesis was written and the education for high school and university students has been digitized. The survey was supposed to be sent to high school students in Växjö or Kalmar to reach a larger part of the population. According to Skolverket (Skolverket.se, 2020) is digitalization time-consuming and complex for the teacher so the authors of this thesis decided not to send it to already congested teachers. Wen et. al. (2005) suggest that people panicked in the period of time when a previous dangerous virus, SARS (Severe acute respiratory syndrome) resulted in a crisis. Enander (2018) claim that people’s behaviour and attitude change during a crisis. The consequence of the change in behaviour during the current pandemic of Covid-19 could be a reason to why the sampling in this period was hard. People might find the circumstances of the crisis more important than to answer a questionnaire in this period of time. 3.6.2 Pre-test To make sure that the survey, in this case questionnaire, was constructed in an understandable way and measured what it was supposed to measure a pre-test was

26

conducted (Bryman & Bell, 2015). Furthermore the authors mean when conducting a survey research the questions should be tested to assure the validity and reliability of the structure. Saunders et. al., (2016) argues about the importance of validity when conducting a questionnaire and if the questionnaire is considered valid, it needs to accurately measure the theory through the indicators. Therefore the questionnaire was pre-tested by an expert within the field and by potential respondents within the population. Pre-test was made to ensure the validity and in order to revise the questions to make the questions more understandable for both the participants who answer them and to the authors to analyze them. Due to the pre-test the respondents could provide valuable feedback for the questions and gave insights to the authors on what to develop and how to rephrase the questions to make the questionnaire as understandable for the respondents as possible.

3.7 Operationalization and measurement

According to Bryman and Bell (2015) an operationalization can be conducted once the theoretical framework, methodology research approach, research design, data source, collecting method and sampling is determined. To construct what and how to measure the concepts a operationalization is used (Saunders et. al., 2016). An operationalization enables the researchers to construct understandable questions, which are closely connected to theory (Bryman & Bell, 2015). Thereby the results would be valid and reliable. Table 1 presents the operationalization that gave form of the questionnaire for this research. The whole questionnaire is found under Appendix 2: The questionnaire. Before the questions supposed to measure the variables were asked the participants had to answer control questions. Age was asked about as a control variable in the survey due to the importance of sampling the right target group of generation Z. A question about how many influencer (from 1 to 20 or more) the participants follow on social media was asked as a control question and as a question to analyze. Furthermore demographic and geographic questions were asked: Gender, educational level and size of the city the respondent come from. The following questions had answer options using a likert scale. A likert scale gives the participants the chance to respond the questions using a numerical scale (Bryman & Bell, 2015). Using a likert scale also makes it easier when transferring the collected data into SPSS (Statistical package for the social sciences). This study adapted the likert scale where 1 is “strongly disagree” and 7 is “strongly agree”. Question 16-19 that measures the spillover effect was presented as scenarios and the respondents would have to answer according to a likert scale where 1 is “no trustworthiness” and 7 is “fully trusted”.

27

Table 3: Operationalization table.

Dependent variable

Independent variable

Definition Type of measurement

Questions

Trustworthiness

Trustworthiness is an attribute of a unit that may or may not be trusted (Kharouf, et. al., 2014)

Likert scale: 1= Strongly disagree 7= Strongly agree

Q6, Q11, Q16A, Q17A, Q18A, Q19A

Competence Competence is an important factor in rebuilding the trust within the relationship if negative publicity would occur (Kharouf, et. al., 2014)


Q7, Q12

Benevolence Benevolence is a characteristics of the trustee and is based on the trustee’s willingness of doing good for the trustor and not doing an action for egoistical purpose (Kharouf, et. al., 2014; Mayer, et. al., 1995)


Q8, Q13

Integrity When a trustee shows integrity the trustee are standing for principles that the trustor perceive as important (Kharouf, et. al., 2014)


Q9, Q14

28

Value Alignment

Value alignment is when a trustee and trustor have shared beliefs about what attitudes, behaviour and values that are right or wrong (Kharouf, et. al., 2014).


Q10, Q15

Negative spillover effect when brand does not react

Influencers wrongdoings

Wrongful doing by an influencer affect the brand collaborating with the influencer. (Sato, et. al., 2019; Yuan, et. al., 2019)

Likert scale: 1= No trustworthiness 7= Fully trusted

Q16B, Q17B, Q18B, Q19B

Negative spillover effect when brand reacts

Influencers wrongdoings

Whether a brand endorsed are suited for the influencers identity or not negative aspects of the influencers identity will apply on the brand either way (Campbell & Warren, 2012)

Likert scale: 1= No trustworthiness 7= Fully trusted

Q16C , Q17C, Q18C, Q19C

3.8 Data analysis

Bryman and Bell (2015) states that the information collected from a study must be transformed into data. From a quantitative research perspective, it means that the findings must be quantified. When transforming the information, coding is implemented were all information is processed into numbers to be able to measure them. Furthermore, Bryman and Bell (2015) states that there is three ways to analyze data; univariate analysis (analyzing a single variable at a time), bivariate analysis (analyzing relationships between two variables) and multivariate analysis (analyzing relationship between three or more variables).

29

In the software were the survey for this research were conducted (Typeform) it was possible to generate the results into a Excel file. In Excel coding of demographics were made from “female” to 1, “male” to 2 and so on. The questions with a Likert scale response were already coded in the generated report. After the coding were concluded the Excel file exported to the statistical software SPSS. In SPSS univariate analysis (frequency tables) of the demographic findings from the survey were conducted. Furthermore, the bivariate analysis Spearman’s rho and Paired sample t-test were conducted of the answers of the survey questions.

3.9 Quality of research

To assure the quality of this research the criterions of validity and reliability was considered and ensured in this study. This will be explained in further detail. 3.9.1 Validity According to Bryman and Bell (2015) validity is one of the most important criterions of quality when conducting a research. Internal validity is known as causality and is a measurement of variables and if they affect the outcome of the conclusion (Bryman & Bell, 2015). A pre-test before sending out the questionnaires made sure that the questions were measuring the stated variables and therefore this validity was achieved. Bryman and Bell (2015) mean that the criterion validity depends on the conducted measurement and if it can be applied on other studies. Saunders et. al. (2016) discuss the criterion validity and state that researchers can adopt measurements from previous studies to ensure validity. Bryman and Bell (2015) and Saunders et. al. agree that adopting the criterion validity will increase the validity for the study. This criterion was achieved through the operationalization where the connection between variables and related question is presented. According to Bryman and Bell (2015) in order to contain high quality the study has to be applicable to other studies with other context than this study to strive for generalizability. This is called external validity and using a representative sample of the population this form was achieved (Bryman & Bell, 2015). Additionally the samples in this research was involved in a natural stance and not arranged which made this research achieve ecological validity. According to Bryman and Bell (2015) ecological validity signify this study applicable on social reality. According to Bryman and Bell (2015) content validity refer to the representativeness of the content of all aspects included in the research. To ensure the content validity an expert within the field of quantitative methods were used to consolidating with and made it possible to rearrange the questions to be even more suitable to the research area.

30

3.9.2 Reliability In addition to validity another quality criterion applied to this research is reliability. Bryman and Bell (2015) state different main parts of reliability where one of them refers to the consistency in the research over time, stability. Bryman and Bell (2015) mean that stability facilitate internal reliability which refer to the correlation in order to strive for a high internal reliability. To assure this the questions asked in the questionnaire is correlated and do not generate different answers from the respondents. A statistical method to measure the internal reliability is Cronbach’s alpha and is a useful measurement when analyze data in a quantitative research (Saunders et. al., 2016). Cronbach’s Alpha measure the correlation between answers in the survey and shows the coefficient value with the correlation between consistency with the value between 0 to 1 (Bryman & Bell, 2015). According to Bryman and Bell (2015) a preferably value is between 0.6 and 0.8. If the correlation is below 0.6 the question should be revised or rejected. In the empirical findings chapter the results of Cronbach’s alpha is presented. Bryman and Bell (2015) argued that the questions of the survey need to refer to the inter-observer consistency in order to get a consistent research. Because there are more than one researcher of this survey subjective interpretations has a potential to occur resulting in problem of inconsistency (Bryman & Bell, 2015). To achieving a valid and reliable result the conducted pre-test is important and valuable. Similar to reliability is replicability and although replicating a study is rare in business research it is important (Bryman & Bell, 2015). Bryman and Bell (2015) mean that replication could be done in order to find more evidence and results. They further discuss replication as a concept meaning the research is as transparent to be replicated with the same result. Therefor the idea and concept of replication was viewed as a tool in this research study to assure reliability and validity.

3.10 Ethical considerations

When studies involve humans Bryman and Bell (2015) claims that ethical issues will occur, and the researchers of the study need to understand the importance of ethical principles. The present ethical behaviour is divided by Bryman and Bell (2015) into four parts which will be further discussed. Potential harm is the first ethical issue Bryman and Bell (2015) address and the authors claims that it is difficult to define the participants emotions which makes it difficult to dispose if the respondents being harmed. To include needed information to the participants before this survey being answered will minimize the risk of the

31

participants being harmed. The second ethical principle is the lack of informed consent (Bryman & Bell, 2015). In the information handed out before the participants answered the survey the participants got the information about the possibility to access the data which consider this ethical principle. Additionally, the participants were informed about the ability to be anonymous which also will minimize the risk of invasion of privacy, which according to Bryman and Bell (2015) is the third ethical principle. The last principle Bryman and Bell (2015) writes about is “the action of withholding the main reason for the conduction of research” which was taken into consideration and sorted out in the information letter and there was provided a truthful analysis and interpretation of data. Vetenskapsrådet (2020) also mention four principles important to take in consideration when conducting research in Sweden. They are called information requirement, consent claim, the confidentiality requirement and the utilization requirement and are similar to the ethical principles mention by Bryman and Bell (2015). The population in this research extends to people under 18 years old and therefore no questions of ethical sensitive character is asked. Furthermore, all the participants was informed about their participation being voluntary and their right to cancel the participation. 3.10.1 Sustainability considerations Sustainability will be considered in this study but is not a core topic of the study. The report is written digitally, and nothing is printed on paper. The selected method of a survey with questionnaires will be constructed on an online forum and then sent through social media groups on Facebook instead of printing paper and sending the questionnaires by mail. It is a more sustainable method because of no paper consumption, also carbon dioxide emissions will not be released because no transport of the questionnaires is necessary. One of the authors writing this report is living in Växjö and because of the situation of Covid-19 no travel is required to Kalmar for seminars (Which otherwise would have been done by train due to environmentally conscious). Energy consumption is also taken in considerations and some examples is that the authors always turn of lights and remove cord from wall sockets when not being used.

32

4. Results and discussion This chapter will present the empirical findings from the survey together with a analysis of those findings based in the theoretical framework. ______________________________________________________________________

4.1 Who are the respondents?

In our survey we asked the respondents questions to guarantee that they were suited for the study. The respondents needed to fill in their gender, birth year, geographic position, educational level and how many influencers they follow on social media. The questions about birth year and influencers were particular important for the study since the respondents were asked to be within Generation Z and to follow at least one influencer. In total there were 151 respondents, due to a technical error 3 respondents were invalid since they didn’t tell their birth year, therefore N=148. In the survey we asked the respondents to write down the influencer and the brand that they have closest to heart and to think about throughout the survey. Those answers will not be presented since they were solely intended to make the respondent have an influencer/brand in mind when conducting the survey. We generated a report to Excel that we later used to conduct our findings in the statistical software SPSS.

Table 4: Bar chart for the variable birth year

33

The year that were representing the largest part of the respondents (35.1%) were 1995, followed by 1996 (18.2%) and 1997 (14.9%). There were only 1.4% that were born in 2003 and the years from 2005 to 2010 had no respondents. We argue that the reason why there is no respondents born between 2005 and 2010 is since they are too young to be active in the Facebook groups that we shared the survey in. Furthermore, they are too young to be in our personal networks where we also shared the survey. The birth year that had the biggest representation (1995-1997) are also the age groups whom we have the largest representation of in our own personal networks.

Table 5: Bar chart of the variable gender When asked which gender they identify as, the respondents were given four alternatives: Female, Male, Other and Prefer not to answer. 141 of the respondents, 95.3%, identify themselves as female and 7 of the respondents, 4.7%, identify as male. There were no respondents who chose the alternative “Other” or “Prefer not to answer”. We decided to post the survey in several Facebook groups and in our personal networks. In two Facebook groups men are not allowed to be members which might be the main reason why the representation of females are so high. Furthermore, research shows that female are more likely to participate in surveys than men (Curtin, Presser, & Singer, 2000; Singer, van Hoewyk, & Maher, 2000). The decision to post the survey in the two groups without male members with the knowledge of that we would get less answers from men were well thought about and the weight of reaching to the right age span were heavier than gender.

34

Table 6: Bar chart for the variable geographic. 43.2% or 64 of the respondents answered that they live in a city with more than 100 000 residents. 30.4% (45) of the respondents lives in a city with 50 000 - 100 000 residents, 17.6% (26) lives in a city with 20 000 - 50 000 residents and the smallest area represented, cities with less than 20 000 residents, were chosen by 8.8% (13). The reason for that cities with more than 100 000 residents have the highest representation can be connected to education level where university education have high representation. Universities in Sweden are often situated in larger cities. Another explanation would be that the Facebook groups where we shared the survey have a higher representation of those who live in cities with more than 100 000 residents.

Table 7: Pie chart of the variable education level.

35

The education level that had the highest representation was University education, with 79 respondents (53.4%). High school education had 59 respondents (39.9%) and Primary school education 10 (6.8%). As mentioned earlier we had no representation from those born in 2005 to 2010. The oldest in that age span have just turned 15 years and if there would be more representation from those 15 years and younger “primary school education” would have a larger representation since you graduate primary school in Sweden when you are 15-16 years old. 53% of the respondents have education in university level which confirms Priporas, et. al., (2017) statement that Generation Z are a highly educated generation.

Table 8: Bar chart of the variable influencers. To be able to participate in the survey the respondent needed to follow at least one Influencer on social media. The respondents were given alternatives from 1 to “More than 20”. The most common number were 10 and “More than 20” whom both had 26 respondents (17.6%). 9, 16, 17, 19 and 20 only had 1 respondent each (0.7%) whereas 11, 14 and 18 had 0 respondents. Generation Z are a generation who is seen as digital natives that are spending their life on social media and who follows many influencers (DuPont, 2015; Priporas, et. al., 2017) which our findings confirms.

4.2 Hypothesis 1

4.2.1 Cronbach’s alpha In the survey, question 6-10 treated the subject of influencers trustworthiness and question 11-15 treated the subject of brand’s trustworthiness. To be able to measure the

36

reliability of our concepts we decided to group them to “Influencer trustworthiness” and “Brand trustworthiness”. According to Malhotra (2010) an acceptable result on the internal validity of Cronbach’s alpha is a result between 0.6 and 1. All of the values when conducting Cronbach’s alpha for this research had a value above 0.6 which makes them reliable and accepted. Find the 𝛼 (Cronbach’s alpha) value for each variable in Appendix 1. Table 9: Cronbach’s alpha

Cronbach’s alpha Influencer trustworthiness N of items

0.822 5

Cronbach’s alpha Brand trustworthiness N of items

0.865 5

4.2.2 Correlation analysis In H1 the perception of influencers and brands trustworthiness were analyzed with the four drivers of trustworthiness: Competence, Benevolence, Integrity and Value Alignment. To make the result as accurate as it can be and to have an equal pattern throughout, an adjustment of one survey question were made. Influencer Benevolence were reverse scaled in its format in the survey and the rank was changed from 1 to 7, 6 to 2 and so on in Excel before it were transferred to SPSS. Bryman and Bell (2015) states that when conducting a bivariate analysis it is concerned with analyzing two variables to see if there is a relationship between them. Spearman’s rho is used to analyze two ordinal variables where the coefficient correlation will in the majority of cases have a r-value between 1 and -1 (a perfect relationship). The closer to 1 or -1 a coefficient is, the stronger the relationship. But an absolute perfect relationship is not common. When a relationship indicates to be weak, the coefficient lies close to 0. Relationships between 0 and 1 is described as positive relationships which means that if one variable increases, the other one does as well. A relationship between -1 and 0 is therefore described as a negative relationship; when one variable increases, the other one decreases and vice versa (Bryman and Bell, 2015). A relationship is generally considered strong if the r-value exceeds 0.7. If a r-value lies between 0 and 0,5 it is considered very week or week (Moore, Notz & Flinger, 2013). To secure the statistical significance (p < 0.05) of Spearman’s rho a test of the p-value were conducted, the closer the p-value lies to 0 the more confident one can be of the analysis statistical significance (Bryman and Bell, 2015).

37


Correlation N R p

Competence 148 0.276** 0.001

Benevolence 148 0.055 0.504

Integrity 148 0.305** 0.000

Value alignment 148 0.301** 0.000

** = Significant if p < .01

The result being presented in Table 7 are interpreted as follows:

● There were a significant positive correlation between Competence Influencer and Competence Brand (r=0.276, N=148, p=0.001)

● There were a not significant positive correlation between Benevolence Influencer and Benevolence Brand (r=0.055, N=148, p=0.504)

● There were a significant positive correlation between Integrity Influencer and Integrity Brand (r=0.305, N=148, p=0.000)

● There were a significant positive correlation between Value Alignment Influencer and Value Alignment Brand (r=0.301, N=148, p=0.000)

4.2.3 Hypothesis 1 analysis In H1a Generation Z’s perception of an influencer’s and a brand’s competence were correlated. The findings suggest that there is a significant positive relationship, but it is weak (r = 0.276). Kharouf, et. al., (2014) states that competence is a way of minimizing the risk for the trustee (influencer/brand) to be perceived as untrustworthy. Furthermore, the perception of competence is based on that the trustor (Generation Z) believe that the trustee are capable of perform in align with the trustor’s expectations (Kharouf, et. al., 2014). Our findings suggest that when Generation Z find an influencer competent, they also find a brand competent. Also, when Generation Z find an influencer incompetent, they find a brand incompetent. The weak correlation could be explained by Generation Z’s trust towards a brand in general are weak and that they find influencers to be a trustworthy source (DuPont, 2015). Furthermore, Generation Z tends to be disloyal towards a brand and therefore their expectations on a brand’s performance could be explained by that there is not something Generation Z give much thought about or find important.

38

H1b were rejected since the correlation were insignificant (r = 0.055). When there is no correlation there is no relationship between the variables. Benevolence which was measured in H1b are a characteristic of the influencer/brand that shows that they are willing to do good for the trustor. It is an act of kindness and shows that sharing profits is more important than own profits (Kharouf, et. al., 2014). Based on our findings, we argue that benevolence is a characteristic that is hard for Generation Z to see in influencers and especially brands. Generation Z is a critical generation whom are formed by the world they have grown up in where economic crises have been critical and they do not find brands trustworthy (DuPont, 2015; Budac, 2014). We argue based in those characteristics, that Generation Z is critical towards a brand’s willingness of sharing their profits with others. H1c had the strongest positive correlation (r = 0.305) and were accepted. H1d had a positive correlation (r = 0.301) and were accepted. We argue that the perception of an influencer’s/brand’s integrity and value alignment are similar since they have similar characteristics which were supported by our findings since the r-value were very close in H1c and H1d. Furthermore, we argue with basis in Kharouf, et. al., (2014) description of integrity and value alignment, and in our findings, that there is a positive correlation but it is weak since as described earlier, Generation Z have low brand loyalty and do not trust brand’s in the same extent as they trust an influencer (DuPont, 2015; Budac, 2014). We argue that since the respondents were asked to think about influencers and brands close to their heart, integrity and value alignment were expected to be positively correlated since moral standards and shared beliefs about what attitudes, behaviour and values that are right or wrong, significant or insignificant, good or bad are important for Generation Z to like an influencer or brand (Kharouf, et. al., 2014; Priporas, et.al., 2017) 4.2.4 Hypothesis 1 conclusion The purpose of conducting a correlation analysis of the four drivers of trustworthiness between an influencer and a brand where to find if Generation Z’s perception of an influencer’s and a brand’s trustworthiness have a connection. In turn, those findings will give an important insight of how a brand’s trustworthiness will increase or decrease in relation to an influencer’s trustworthiness and is useful to be aware of for a brand. With support of the collected data and the results of the correlation analysis, H1 were rejected. Kharouf, et. al., (2014) among others (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995; Lee & Turban, 2001; Caldwell & Clapham, 2003) identified drivers of trustworthiness is supported by the collected data in this thesis. The findings suggest that there is a correlation between an influencer’s and a brand’s competence (H1a), integrity (H1c) and value alignment (H1d) in Generation Z’s perception and H1a, H1c and H1d are accepted. H1b (benevolence) did not have significant positive correlation. Even though

39

H1 were rejected, the findings suggest that there are a positive correlation between an influencer’s trustworthiness and a brand’s trustworthiness. Benevolence is as stated, something Generation Z find hard to see in a brand. Even though the respondents were asked to think about a brand that they had close to heart, the findings did not have strong positive correlations which could be explained by Generation Z’s critical thinking and that they are cautious to find something fully trustworthy because of their negative experiences of the world around them (DuPont, 2015).

4.3 Hypothesis 2

The questions asked in the survey connected to H2, H3 and H4 were 4 different scenarios were the influencer made a wrongdoing and the respondents were to take stand in their perception of trustworthiness towards the influencer and the brand. Every respondent had to answer to all 4 scenarios. The respondents were presented with a scenario where it in the first sentence was made clear that an influencer and a brand has a collaboration so the connection between the influencer and the brand is established for the respondent. Further, a scenario where the influencer makes a wrongdoing is presented. Every scenario had basis in one of the four drivers of trustworthiness (competence, benevolence, integrity and value alignment). Scenario 1 was based on competence, scenario 2 on benevolence, scenario 3 on integrity and scenario 4 on value alignment. In Scenario 2 - Benevolence, (see Appendix 2) for example, the respondents read about how an influencer and a brand has a collaboration were a part of the profit goes to charity, later it were revealed in media that the influencer had not donated the money but had used them for his/her own gain. After reading the scenario the respondents were to take stand on a Likert scale from “1. No trustworthiness” to “7. Fully trusted” within 3 statements: 1. “The influencer’s trustworthiness is…”, 2. “The brand does not react and does nothing about the influencer’s actions. The brand’s trustworthiness is…” and 3. “The brand reacts and oversees their collaboration with the influencer. The brand’s trustworthiness is…”. The purpose of presenting three different statements after the respondents have read the scenarios is to examine how the respondent’s perception of an influencers trustworthiness effects by the wrongdoing. Furthermore, when presenting different outcomes from the brand (does not react/does react) the purpose is to find if there will be a negative spillover effect of the influencer’s wrongdoing depending on how the brand reacts or if their reaction can prevent a negative spillover effect. To find how the perception of the influencer and brand, we had to compare the mean of how their trustworthiness were perceived before the scenario were presented with the mean of the trustworthiness after the scenario were presented.

40

In H2 the influencer’s trustworthiness mean from H1 were compared with the mean from the influencer’s trustworthiness from the four scenarios through a Paired sample t-test. Before conducting the paired sample t-test, all four drivers were computed into a new variable where every respondent got a average mean for Influencer Trustworthiness and Influencer Trustworthiness after wrongdoing. A Paired sample t-test are appropriate to use when the aim are to see the statistical difference between two time points, two conditions, two measurements or between a matched pair (Kent State University, 2020). The data must be continuous (interval or ratio level) and the sample must be related, meaning the the respondents in each sample are the same (Kent State University, 2020). We argue that a Paired sample t-test are the right measurement to use for our findings since we want to find how the trustworthiness have changed after a wrongdoing have been presented. Furthermore, we have measured the trustworthiness before a wrongdoing were presented and therefore have data suitable to be compared.


Paired Samples Test

Influencer trustworthiness - Influencer trustworthiness after wrongdoing

Paired Differences

Mean Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

95% confidence interval of the difference Lower Upper

t df Sig. (2-tailed)

3.17905

1.30542 .10730 2.96699 3.39111 29.626 147 .000

4.3.1 Hypothesis 2 analysis The findings shows that H2 are accepted. The influencer trustworthiness were significant higher before the wrongdoing, t(147)=29.63, p = <.05. The mean for the influencer’s trustworthiness before the wrongdoing were 5.43 (SD = 1.08) and after the wrongdoing 2.25 (SD = .83). Before the wrongdoing, the influencer had a mean that was very high (maximum 7) which decreased to very low after the wrongdoing (minimum 1) were presented for the respondents. Priporas, et.al, (2017) argues that Generation Z find influencers trustworthy and to give reliable recommendations, which our findings supports. Furthermore, DuPont (2015) and Budac (2014) states that Generation Z values authenticity and honesty which our findings support by showing how much the mean for an influencer’s trustworthiness decreases after the respondents

41

were presented with scenarios in which the influencer lacked in competence, benevolence, integrity and value alignment. Our findings suggest that even if Generation Z find influencers trustworthy in general, they are true to their own personal values and opinions and their trustworthiness towards an influencer will change if the influencer makes a wrongdoing.

4.4 Hypothesis 3

In H3 the spillover effect from an influencer’s wrongdoing on a brand’s trustworthiness if they reacted to the wrongdoing were examined through a Paired Sample T-test. As in H2, all four drivers were computed into new variables: Brand trustworthiness and Brand trustworthiness if it reacts on wrongdoing.


Paired Samples Test

Brand trustworthiness - Brand trustworthiness if it reacts on wrongdoing

Paired Differences

Mean Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean



.43074 1.33879 .11005 .21326 .64822 3.914 147 .000

4.4.1 Hypothesis 3 analysis The findings shows that H3 are accepted. The brand’s trustworthiness were significant higher before the wrongdoing, t(147)=3.91, p = <.05. The mean for the brand’s trustworthiness before the wrongdoing were 5.46 (SD = 1.11) and after the wrongdoing 5.03 (SD = 1.2). Even though H3 are accepted, the means of the two variables are close to each other which suggest that the negative spillover effect of the influencer’s wrongdoing can be prevented if a brand reacts on the situation and takes actions regarding their collaboration with the influencer. The brand’s trustworthiness after the wrongdoing have a mean that still are high (5.03 on a scale of 1 to 7) which suggest that the brand’s reaction on the wrongdoing have made it able for them to maintain their trustworthiness. The respondents only got to know that the brand reacted on the situation and looked over their collaboration with the influencer, but not how they would proceed. The outcome of H3 might have been different if the respondents got more details about how the brand reacted. Yuan, et. al., (2019) and Sato, et. al., (2019) argues that a endorsers negative attributes spillover on endorsed brand and that a

42

endorsers negative attributes are more likely than their positive ones to spillover on the brand. Furthermore, Sato, et. al., (2019) states that a endorsers negative reputation effects consumers perception of the endorsed brand. Our findings support the literature and also gives a great addition to it, since we argue that a great negative spillover effect can be prevented by the brand if they reacts and takes action regarding their collaboration.

4.5 Hypothesis 4

In H4 the spillover effect from an influencer’s wrongdoing on a brand’s trustworthiness if they did not react to the wrongdoing were examined through a Paired Sample T-test. As in H2 and H3, all four drivers were computed into new variables: Brand trustworthiness and Brand trustworthiness if it does not react on wrongdoing.


Paired Samples Test

Brand trustworthiness - Brand trustworthiness if it does not react on wrongdoing

Paired Differences

Mean Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean



3.24887

1.45615 .11969 3.01233 3.48542 27.143 147 .000

4.5.1 Hypothesis 4 analysis The findings shows that H4 are accepted. The brand’s trustworthiness were significant higher before the wrongdoing, t(147)=27.143, p = <.05. The mean for the brand’s trustworthiness before the wrongdoing were 5.46 (SD = 1.11) and after the wrongdoing 2.20 (SD = .91). Yuan, et. al., (2019) states that when a brand involves their brand name or are highly associated with a endorser, the severity of when a wrongdoing spillover on a brand will make the brand name associated with something negative. Furthermore, Muda, et. al., (2012) states that there is a risk of using a famous endorser, since their negative attributes or actions have the possibility to spillover on a brand’s image. Our findings support the literature and H4 shows how large the spillover effect of a endorser’s wrongdoing might be. Furthermore, we argue that there is a great reduction of a brand’s trustworthiness if they do not react on the influencer’s wrongdoing. With

43

basis in our findings in H3 and H4 we argue that the spillover on a brand’s trustworthiness when an influencer makes a wrongdoing will be significant however the brand reacts which suggest that Generation Z finds a wrongdoing so severe that it will have a spillover effect on the brand. However, our findings shows that if a brand decides to not react on the situation that occurs, the spillover effect on their trustworthiness will be far more significant than if they would react. We argue that it is of high importance that a brand is careful in whom they are collaborating with and that they will do a thorough research before collaborating with an influencer. Furthermore, we argue based on our findings that a brand should be well prepared to react and take actions if the influencer would make a wrongdoing, so the brand have a possibility to reduce the spillover effect.

4.6 Hypothesis conclusion

Table 14: Hypothesis conclusion

Hypothesis Accepted/rejected

H1: There is a significant positive relationship between Generation Z’s perception between an influencer’s trustworthiness and a brand’s trustworthiness.

Rejected

H1a: There is a significant positive relationship between Generation Z’s perception between an influencer’s competence and a brand’s competence.

Accepted

H1b: There is a significant positive relationship between Generation Z’s perception between an influencer’s benevolence and a brand’s benevolence.

Rejected

H1c: There is a significant positive relationship between Generation Z’s perception between an influencer’s integrity and a brand’s integrity.

Accepted

H1d: There is a significant positive relationship between Generation Z’s shared values with an influencer and with a brand.

Accepted

44

H2: There is a significant effect on influencer’s trustworthiness after making a wrongdoing.

Accepted

H3: Influencer’s wrongdoing will have a significant spillover effect on Generation Z’s perception of a brand’s trustworthiness if the brand reacts.

Accepted

H4: Influencer’s wrongdoing will have a significant spillover effect on Generation Z’s perception of a brand’s trustworthiness if the brand does not react.

Accepted

45

5. Conclusions This thesis final chapter will begin with an in-depth answer to our research questions with basis in the previous chapter. Furthermore, the reader will find theoretical, managerial and sustainable implications. The chapter ends with recommendations from the authors, reflection of the thesis limitations and suggestions for further research. ______________________________________________________________________

5.1 Research questions

As stated in the beginning of this thesis, to stand out and create brand awareness in a world full of other brands aiming for the same goal is a tough job for a marketer. Furthermore, with the rapid growth of digitalization and new forms of marketing as influencer marketing there are many unexplored territories brands are forced to dive into. The aim of this thesis was to explore how Generation Z, the digital generation, will perceive a brand’s trustworthiness if an influencer collaborating with the brand makes a wrongdoing. Those findings have the potential to be a valuable tool for marketers when throwing themselves into influencer marketing. With basis in four hypotheses we are able to answer our research questions. 5.1.1 RQ1 Can there be a relationship between an influencers trustworthiness and a brand’s trustworthiness in Generation Z’s perception? Within our theoretical findings we were able to identify four drivers of trustworthiness; Competence, Benevolence, Integrity and Value alignment. With support in those drivers, we were able to measure Generation Z’s perception of an influencer’s and a brand’s trustworthiness through a online survey. Through our findings from the survey we are able to say that there is a relation between Generation Z’s perception of an influencer’s and a brand’s trustworthiness. Even though we had to reject the hypothesis connected to the research question, three out of four measured drivers indicated a positive correlation between influencer’s and brand’s trustworthiness. The results of the study shows that Integrity and Value alignment are those drivers that have the most significant positive relationship of the four drivers. As stated in previous chapter, those drivers were expected to correlate positive since Generation Z are a opinionated and value driven generation. Even though there are a relation, it’s important to remark that the relation found were fairly weak. In conclusion, yes there are a relationship within three of the four drivers which makes us able to say that there is a relation between influencer’s and brand’s perceived trustworthiness.

46

5.1.2 RQ2 How does an Influencers wrongdoing spill over on Generation Z’s perception of a brand’s trustworthiness depending on the brands reaction? To find an answer to our second research question we developed three hypotheses with basis in our theoretical findings. The hypotheses aimed to find how the trustworthiness for an influencer and for a brand where affected after an influencer made a wrongdoing. Furthermore, the hypotheses aimed to find if there would be a change in how the trustworthiness were affected if the brand reacted to the situation in different ways. Our findings were very clear on how the influencers own trustworthiness were affected after making a wrongdoing and the trustworthiness decreased from strong to weak. Furthermore, if a brand did not react on the situation and did not do anything about the situation that occurred, their trustworthiness decreased in the same way as the influencers. However, if the brand reacted on the situation and did something about what had happened, there were a very little decrease in their trustworthiness. Those findings imply that there will be a spillover effect on the brand’s trustworthiness however they react on the situation, but they have the possibility to reduce the damage by reacting on the situation that occurred. As we have stated earlier within this thesis, Generation Z are a generation who are very opinionated and as our findings shows their perception of an influencer or brand’s trustworthiness are easily damaged if something happens that they don’t feel is aligned with their values and believes. Those findings suggest how important it is for a brand to make sure to cater Generation Z’s values if they want to have them in their consumer base. Furthermore, if a brand are prepared and able to react on an influencer’s wrongdoing, they have the possibility to control and reduce any harm on their own trustworthiness.

5.2 Implications

5.2.1 Theoretical Based on the existed field of research within influencer marketing there is research being made on both trustworthiness and spillover effect but not on the perspective of the perception of Generation Z, so this research has contributed to new and interesting knowledge to the academic field. This study contributes theoretically by developing a framework of important factors considering companies being careful when endorsed influencer makes a wrongdoing. Furthermore, the findings of this study show that there are other factors existing that are of importance, which have not been discussed in previous literature and can thereby be further developed.

47

5.2.2 Managerial The result of this research can contribute to knowledge for brands on how to manage influencers wrongdoing in perceptions of Generation Z to prevent a negative spillover effect to the brand. Considering that influencer marketing is an important marketing tool for marketers, this thesis contributes to valuable knowledge for marketers regarding the effect for a brand’s trustworthiness within a critical generation when collaborating with an influencer who makes a wrongdoing. It could also be a tool for how they should react if a negative situation with an influencer would occur. The research presented in this thesis will give managers an insight in how one of the most influential generation with great purchasing power can be managed. This thesis present how Generation Z’s perception of a brand if it’s not authentic and transparent which is something Generation Z values highly (DuPont, 2015). 5.2.3 Social, ethical and sustainable The first and probably the most dominant limitation for this study is the current pandemic of Covid-19 which have limited the ability for the researcher of this study to work and conduct the research in reality together due to restrictions of being home as much as possible and no unnecessary trips allowed in Sweden during this period. This pandemic also forced the survey to be digitized which could have been a factor to a smaller amount of respondents than in normal conditions. One positive thing about this pandemic is the idea of sustainability, for examples no travels has been required. Ethically, the Generation Z generates youths which can be seen as sensitive participant in a survey. This could have limited the respondents in the younger ages of Generation Z as well.

5.3 Limitations

The sampling method of this thesis was a non-probability sampling, using convenience and snowball sampling, it could be discussed regarding the external validity of the survey. By using convenience and snowball sampling, there could be a weak representation of the population. In addition, not everyone of the population had an equal chance to be participants because the limitations of dispersibility, which could make results more biased. This could be avoided if other methods had been chosen. Since the only qualification to participate was to be within a certain age span and follow at least one influencer on social media there was a broad range of possible participants. This means that the sample used represents a very large population, which made it a challenge to get a fully generalizable result.

48

Furthermore, the most significant limitation for this thesis were the large number of female participants. The survey were shared in several Facebook groups were two of them only allowed female members. The decision to share the survey were well thought about and since we argued that those groups allowed us to reach the right age span, the limitation of male respondents came in second hand. We had beliefs in that we would reach many male respondents in the other groups the survey were shared and through our personal networks, but unfortunately did not. Therefore, the results from the study are difficult to applicate on the total Generation Z from a gender point of view and the findings are limited in regards to that.

5.4 Suggestions for further research

The field of research regarding influencer marketing within Generation Z and more specifically the spillover effect for a brand when an influencer does a wrongdoing is still to a large extent unexplored. There is a great possibility for future research within this subject. It is suggested for future research to further investigate the factors that have been discussed in this study in order to reach a deeper understanding of Generation Z’s trustworthiness for brands using influencers who makes a wrongdoing that spill over on the brand. There is an opportunity for future researchers to formulate and design other variables to use within each factor to see if the result would have been different. Furthermore, the result can be strengthened and developed with a more extensive research that has more resources and utilizes probability-sampling in order to have more generalizable results. This research has used convenience and snowball sampling where a possible outcome is a biased result, therefore it is valuable to continue research about the subject. From a consumer perspective a more in-depth survey could be performed, and further research could extend the research and look into the perspective of brands or influencers. this study has not focus on the demographic and geographic questions so a suggestion for further research is to estimate these factors deeper to broad the knowledge about the generation Z and differences about the demographic and geographics. Since this study is a quantitative study a qualitative study or a mixed could get a more in-depth knowledge about the research area and is suggested for further research.

49

LIST OF REFERENCES

Books

Bryman, A. & Bell, E., 2015. Business Research Methods. 4th Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press Eriksson, L. T., & Hultman, J., 2014. Kritiskt tänkande: Utan tvivel är man inte riktigt klok. Stockholm: Liber. Moore, D. S., Notz, W. I, & Flinger, M. A. 2013. The basic practice of statistics (6th ed.). New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and Company. Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A., 2009. Research methods for business students. 5th edition. Pearson Education Limited. Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2016). Research methods for business students. 7th edition, Harlow: Pearson Education

Printed sources

Enander, A., 2018. Människors förhållningssätt till risker, olyckor och kriser. Myndigheten för samhällsskydd och beredskap (MSB). https://rib.msb.se/filer/pdf/28762.pdf Accessed: 2020-05-11 IAB Sweden, 2019. Influencer marketing, Best practice guide 2019 Version 3.0. Interactive Advertising Bureau Sweden. https://iabsverige.se/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Influencer-handbok-2019-1.pdf Accessed 2020-04-06 Interlaced Influencers, 2020. Vad är Influencer Marketing? https://interlaced.in/vad-ar-influencer-marketing Accessed 2020-04-01 Internetstiftelsen, 2019. Svenskarna och internet 2019. https://svenskarnaochinternet.se/app/uploads/2019/10/svenskarna-och-internet-2019-a4.pdf Accessed 2020-02-05 Krisinformation, 2020. https://www.krisinformation.se/ Accessed 2020-05-09

50

https://rib.msb.se/filer/pdf/28762.pdf

https://iabsverige.se/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Influencer-handbok-2019-1.pdf

https://interlaced.in/vad-ar-influencer-marketing

https://svenskarnaochinternet.se/app/uploads/2019/10/svenskarna-och-internet-2019-a4.pdf

https://svenskarnaochinternet.se/app/uploads/2019/10/svenskarna-och-internet-2019-a4.pdf

https://www.krisinformation.se/

Science Museum, 2019. Internet. Tekniskamuseet.se. https://www.tekniskamuseet.se/lar-dig-mer/100-innovationer/internet/ Accessed 2020-02-05 Skolverket, 2020. Digitalisering i skolan - möjligheter och utmaningar. Skolverket.se. https://www.skolverket.se/download/18.6bfaca41169863e6a65d438/1553968018488/pdf3971.pdf Accessed 2020-05-09 Soi, 2018. Facebook, [Online], http://www.soi2016.se/sociala-medier/Facebook/ Accessed 202-04-24 Törnwall, M., 2019. Influencer marketing växer snabbt - spås spränga miljardvallen. Svenska Dagbladet. p. 5. Vetenskapsrådet, 2020. Forskningsetiska principer inom humanistisk-samhällsvetenskaplig forskning. Vetenskapsrådet.se. http://www.codex.vr.se/texts/HSFR.pdf Accessed 2020-05-04

Scientific articles

Agrawal, J. & Kamakura, W.A. 1995. The economic worth of celebrity endorsers: an event study analysis. Journal of Marketing. Vol. 59 No. 3. pp. 56-62. Ahluwalia, R. & Burnkrant, R. E., & Unnava, H. R. 2000. Consumer response to negative publicity: The moderating role of commitment. Journal of Marketing Research. 37. pp. 203–214. Angela, C., 2008. Brand communications in fashion categories using celebrity endorsement. Journal of Brand Management. 17(2). pp.146–158 Bergkvist L. & Zhou Qiang K., 2016. Celebrity endorsements: a literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Advertising. 35:4. 642-663 Budac, A. 2014. Strategic consideration on how brands should deal with Generation Z. Journal of Communication Management, 66, 6–14. Budac, A. 2015. NEXT GENERATIONS OF CONSUMERS – CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR BRANDS. Vìsnik. Kiïvsʹkogo Nacìonalʹnogo Unìversitetu ìmenì Tarasa Ševčenka. Ekonomìka, 6(171), pp.6–10.

51

https://www.tekniskamuseet.se/lar-dig-mer/100-innovationer/internet/

https://www.skolverket.se/download/18.6bfaca41169863e6a65d438/1553968018488/pdf3971.pdf

https://www.skolverket.se/download/18.6bfaca41169863e6a65d438/1553968018488/pdf3971.pdf

http://www.codex.vr.se/texts/HSFR.pdf

Byrne, K., 2004. Brand building blocks. Chartered Accountants Journal of New Zealand, 83(8), pp.53–55. Caldwell, C. & Clapham, S., 2003. Organizational Trustworthiness: An International Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 47(4), pp.349–364. Campbell, M.C. & Warren, C., 2012. A risk of meaning transfer: Are negative associations more likely to transfer than positive associations? Social Influence: Social Influence and Consumer Behavior, 7(3), pp.172–192. Campbell, D. & Cowton, C. J., 2015. Method issues in business ethics research: Finding credible answers to questions that matter. Business Ethics: A European Review, 24. Cho, M. & Bonn, M., 2018. Generation Z’s Sustainable Volunteering: Motivations, Attitudes and Job Performance. Sustainability, 10(5), p.1400. Chung, S. & Cho, H., 2017. Fostering Parasocial Relationships with Celebrities on Social Media: Implications for Celebrity Endorsement. Psychology & Marketing, 34(4), pp.481–495. Curtin, R., Presser, S. & Singer, E. 2000. The effects of response rate changes on the index of consumer sentiment. Public Opinion Quarterly 64: 413–428. Dimock, M., 2019. Defining generations: Where Millennials end and Generation Z begins. Pew Research Center, 17, 1-7. Dupont, S., 2015. Move Over Millennials, Here Comes Generation Z, Public Relations Tactics, 22(5), p. 19. Evans, N., Phua, J., Lim, J. & Jun, H. 2017. ‘Disclosing Instagram Influencer Advertising: The Effects of Disclosure Language on Advertising Recognition, Attitudes, and behavioural Intent’. Journal of Interactive Advertising. 17(2). pp.138–149. Geck, C., 2006. The Generation Z connection: teaching information literacy to the newest net generation. Teacher Librarian, 33(3), s.19–23.

52

Hennig, C. & Cooper, D. 2011, Brief communication: the relation between standard error of the estimate and sample size of histomorphometric aging methods, American journal of physical anthropology, 145(4), pp.658–64. Jin, S., Muqaddam, A. & Ryu, E. 2019. Instafamous and social media influencer marketing, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 567-579. Kapitan, S. & Silvera, D., 2016. From digital media influencers to celebrity endorsers: attributions drive endorser effectiveness. Marketing Letters. 27(3). pp.553–567 Keller, K. & Lehmann, D., 2006. Brands and Branding: Research Findings and Future Priorities. Marketing Science, 25(6), pp.740–759. Kharouf, H., Lund, D.J. & Sekhon, H.S., 2014. Building trust by signaling trustworthiness in service retail. Journal of Services Marketing, 28(5), pp.361–373. Khatri, P., 2006. Celebrity endorsement: A strategic promotion perspective. Indian Media Studies Journal. Vol.1 No.1. pp. 25-37. Mayer, R., Davis, J. & Schoorman, F., 1995. An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), pp.709–734. McCracken, G., 1989. Who is the celebrity endorser? Cultural foundations of the endorsement process. Journal of Consumer Research. 16(3). pp. 310–321. Murphy, J., 1988. BRANDING. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 6(4), pp.4–8. Lee, M.K.O. & Turban, E., 2001. A Trust Model for Consumer Internet Shopping. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 6(1), pp.75–91. Muda, M., Musa, R. & Putit, L. 2012. Breaking through the Clutter in Media Environment: How Do Celebrities Help? Procedia - Social and behavioural Sciences. 42(C). pp.374–382. Ohanian, R., 1990. Construction and Validation of a Scale to Measure Celebrity Endorsers' Perceived Expertise, Trustworthiness, and Attractiveness. Journal of Advertising, 19(3), pp.39–52.

53




https://www.emerald.com/insight/publication/issn/0263-4503

Ohanian, R., 1991. The impact of celebrity spokesperson’s perceived image on consumers intention to purchase. Journal of Advertising Research. Vol.31 No.1. pp. 46 – 53 . Pedro, T., Mario, A. & Marta, M., 2019. Antecedents and outcomes of digital influencer endorsement: An exploratory study. Psychology & Marketing . Vol. 36. No. 12. pp. 1267-1276. Pringle, H. & Binet, L., 2005. How marketers can use celebrities to sell more effectively. Journal of Consumer Behaviour. 4(3). pp.201–214. Priporas, C-V., Stylos, N. & Fotiadis, AK., 2017. Generation Z consumers' expectations of interactions in smart retailing: A future agenda. Computers in Human behaviour, 77 (1), pp. 374-381. Rothman, D., 2016. A Tsunami of learners called Generation Z. http://www. mdle. net/JoumaFA_Tsunami_of_Learners_Called_Generation_Z. pdf. Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., Williams, P., Huntington, P., Fieldhouse, M., Gunter, B., Whitney, R., Jamali, H. R., Moallem, T., Dobrowolski, T. & Tenopir, C., 2008. The Google generation: the information behaviour of the researcher of the future. Aslib Proceedings, 60(4), s. 290–310. Runyan, R., White, D., Goddard, L. & Wilbur, N., 2009. The effects of negative information transference in the celebrity endorsement relationship. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management. Vol. 37 No. 4. pp. 322-335. Sato, S., Ko, Y. J., Chang, Y., & Kay, M., 2019. How Does the Negative Impact of an Athlete’s Reputational Crisis Spill Over to Endorsed and Competing Brands? The Moderating Effects of Consumer Knowledge. Communication & Sport. 7(3). 385–409. Schouten P, A, Janssen, L & Verspaget, M., 2020. ‘Celebrity vs. Influencer endorsements in advertising: the role of identification, credibility, and Product-Endorser fit’. International Journal of Advertising. 39:2. 258-281. Seemiller, C. & Grace, M., 2017 Generation Z: Educating and Engaging the Next Generation of Students, About Campus, 22(3), pp. 21–26.

54

Silvera, D. & Austad, B., 2004. Predicting the effectiveness of celebrity endorsement advertisements. European Journal of Marketing. Vol. 38 No. 11/12. pp. 1509-1526. Singer, E., van Hoewyk, J., & Maher, M. P., 2000. Experiments with incentives in telephone surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 64: 171–188. Spry, A., Pappu, R. & Bettina Cornwell, T., 2011. Celebrity endorsement, brand credibility and brand equity. European Journal of Marketing. Vol. 45 No. 6. pp. 882-909. Trimble, C.S. & Rifon, N.J., 2006. Consumer perceptions of compatibility in cause related marketing messages. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing. Vol. 11 No. 1. pp. 29-47. Tzoumaka, E., Tsiotsou, R. & Siomkos, G., 2014. Delineating the role of endorser’s perceived qualities and consumer characteristics on celebrity endorsement effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Communications. pp.1–20. Urde, M., 1994. Brand Orientation - A Strategy for Survival. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 11(3), pp.18–32. Wen, Z., Huimin, G. & Kavanaugh, R.R., 2005. The Impacts of SARS on the Consumer Behaviour of Chinese Domestic Tourists. Current Issues in Tourism, 8(1), pp.22–38. Winterich, K.P., Gangwar, M. & Grewal, R., 2018. When Celebrities Count: Power Distance Beliefs and Celebrity Endorsements. Journal of Marketing, 82(3), pp.70–86. Yuan, S., Huo, C. & Malik, T., 2019. The negative spillover effect in sports sponsorship: An experiment examining the impact of team performance on sponsor’s brand trust. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship. Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 477-494. Zafer Erdogan, B., 1999. Celebrity Endorsement: A Literature Review. Journal of Marketing Management. 15 (4), 291–314. Zhang, Y., Lin, Y. & Goh, K., 2018. Impact of Online Influencer Endorsement on Product Sales: Quantifying Value of Online Influencer. PACIS 2018 Proceedings. 201. https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2018/201

55

https://www.emerald.com/insight/search?q=David%20H.%20Silvera

https://www.emerald.com/insight/search?q=Benedikte%20Austad


https://www.emerald.com/insight/search?q=Amanda%20Spry

https://www.emerald.com/insight/search?q=Ravi%20Pappu

https://www.emerald.com/insight/search?q=T.%20Bettina%20Cornwell


https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2018/201

Özer, Ö. & Zheng, Y., 2017. Trust and Trustworthiness. The Handbook of behavioural Operations. John Wiley & Sons Inc. Hoboken.

56

Appendix

APPENDIX 1 - Results in SPSS

Cronbach’s alpha for Hypothesis 1 Cronbach's α scale 0.822 Note. Of the observations, 148 were used, 0 were excluded listwise, and 148 were provided. Item Reliability Statistics

If item dropped

Cronbach's α

Trust influencer 0.748

Competence influencer 0.775

Benevolence influencer⁻ 0.870

Integrity influencer 0.766

Value influencer 0.768

⁻ reverse-scaled item

Cronbach's α 0.865 Note. Of the observations, 148 were used, 0 were excluded listwise, and 148 were provided. Item Reliability Statistics

57

If item dropped

Cronbach's α

Trust brand 0.835

Competence brand 0.848

Benevolence brand 0.847

Integrity brand 0.811

Value brand 0.837

Hypothesis 1

58

Hypothesis 2

Hypothesis 3

59

Hypothesis 4

60

APPENDIX 2 - The questionnaire

Translated from the original language Swedish to English:

61

APPENDIX 3 - Work process

Introduction: 50/50 Theoretical framework: 50/50 Method: 75% Evelina 25% Johanna

72

Empirical findings/analysis: 75% Johanna 25% Evelina Conclusion: 50/50 In conclusion, the thesis have been made with equal effort from both of us. Even if someone have made more in one chapter, the other one have helped out when there have been a problem on the road. Before starting with the thesis, we decided to work after a schedule and made one for almost every week to be able to see where we were in the process. We have set goals towards every PM so we could stay motivated throughout. We have worked together in almost every group project in these three years and know each other and how we prefer to work which have made the degree project easy in terms of the collaboration between us.

73

a world full of influences: a quantitative study on how

Documents