Look Who’s Talking: Celebrity Causes vs. AI-Powered Advocacy
Is a celebrity’s endorsement truly helpful for a given cause? It depends on how authentic they seem. Despite the rise of AI-powered influencers, people still tend to trust their fellow humans, even if their motives are partly driven by profit.
According to recent research by University of Florida College of Journalism and Communications doctoral student Fanjue Liu and alumna Leping You, virtual influencers have yet to overcome their artificial nature in digital advocacy. Their research explored how people perceived influencers’ authenticity and motives in social media posts urging climate change action.
After decades of brands’ success with celebrity spokespeople, organizations have embraced this tactic for advocacy. However, most people believe that influencers, celebrity or otherwise, are paid to share certain messages. This raises questions about their authenticity, which could dilute their advocacy’s impact.
Could virtual influencers specially made to promote a cause be more effective than their human counterparts?
The researchers proposed that human influencers would be seen as more authentic due to their potential for altruism. Because virtual influencers were artificially built for the cause, they would be considered less sincere.
However, the novelty of AI-powered influencers might balance out this deficit in authenticity. As virtual influencers become more advanced, their autonomy might give them an advantage over human spokespeople who typically have egoistic motives.
The team conducted four complementary studies in which participants read news articles featuring the influencer’s Instagram posts about climate change. While all influencers were virtual or fictional, they were presented as either human or AI-powered to each test group. The control group received no details either way.
After comparing participants’ rankings of the influencer’s motives, authenticity and novelty, the team found that human influencers were perceived as more self-interested. However, they also were considered more authentic. Even if people think celebrity spokespeople may be egoistically motivated, they tend to find them more relatable than an influencer who’s crafted to further a cause.
AI’s novelty factor did not moderate these effects as the researchers hypothesized. Moreover, the virtual influencers’ lack of autonomy had no significant effect on how participants perceived their motives or authenticity.
While the public may remain skeptical of celebrity spokespeople’s sincerity, the authors suggest this may not detract from their efforts as much as expected. Virtual influencers might be less egoistic, but authenticity is what drives action, and that remains a uniquely human attribute.
Cause advocacy is tricky, especially in the digital realm. The researchers suggest that people appreciate the human behind the message — both their altruistic and egoistic motives. Rather than replace human spokespeople, AI-powered influencers offer an inherently selfless perspective that can complement and enhance advocacy efforts.
The original article, “From virtual voices to real impact: Authenticity, altruism, and egoism in social advocacy by human and virtual influencers,” was published in the October2024 issue of Technological Forecasting & Social Change.
Authors: Fanjue Liu and Leping You.
The summary was written by Rachel Wayne.
