Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41567445›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025

Persuasive differences between human and virtual influencers in health supplement advertising: evidence from eye-tracking.

Mengqi Du, Kyung Han You Ryu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Mengqi DuDepartment of Media and Communication Studies, Jeonbuk National University, Jeonju, Republic of Korea.
Kyung Han You RyuDepartment of Media and Communication Studies, Jeonbuk National University, Jeonju, Republic of Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Attention is scarce in fast-paced, visually saturated feeds-especially for trust-sensitive categories such as health supplements, where credibility relies on source cues. Eye-tracking shows how viewers engage with advertising elements, yet authenticity and perceived human-likeness vary between human and virtual endorsers. We posit that source type moderates whether attention translates into evaluation. To examine these effects, we investigate whether source type influences effectiveness, whether attention drives outcomes, and whether these relationships depend on source type. Methods: In a laboratory experiment with an East Asian university student sample ( Results: There are persuasive differences between human and virtual influencers. Virtual influencers tended to attract more visual attention, but this did not consistently correspond to more favorable outcomes. By contrast, human influencers were generally associated with more positive advertising attitudes and stronger purchase intentions. Attention to text and face appeared to be predictors of advertising effectiveness. Importantly, source type appeared to moderate the link between attention and outcomes: for human endorsers, greater face attention was associated with more favorable evaluations, whereas for virtual endorsers, similar levels of attention were not accompanied by comparable gains. Discussion: The findings shift focus from "who performs better" toward understanding "when and why" attention persuades. Attention influences persuasion through a processing fluency-based mechanism, operating via the ease with which the source is perceived as human-both visually and mentally. Eye-tracking complements self-reports by revealing processing before conscious awareness. The patterns yield preliminary hypotheses that human endorsers may better support credibility-intensive claims and suggest a testable framework for how attention could translate into persuasion, offering a starting point for future targeted evaluations.

Indexed as

advertising effectivenessauthenticityeye-trackinghealth supplement productshuman-likenessprocessing fluencyvirtual influencers

Identifiers

PMID41567445
PMCPMC12816186

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.