Social media influencers are becoming increasingly important to the advertising world. As individuals who use their extensive following to endorse products, create trends and ultimately drive purchase intentions, influencers are often seen as role models, especially as pertains to body image. As such, we conduct experimental research to examine how influencer size (0 vs. 14) affects attractiveness perceptions, perfectionist expectations, and purchase intentions. Drawing on self-determination theory we find that perfectionism toward others is the underlying mechanism for the effects of motivation and size. Societal and managerial implications are discussed.

In recent years, there has been increased attention on the portrayal of women in the media. Photoshopped images of unrealistic female forms have been perceived to have negative impacts on the self-esteem of those exposed (Groesz 2002). Based on the idea that seeing unrealistic body images can put undue pressure on women and impact their self-esteem, some governments have gone as far to propose and or pass legislation that ban or require disclosures on such images in advertising. For example, multiple attempts have been made to pass the Truth in Advertising Act in the U.S., which would severely restrict the ability to digitally alter ad (Navamanikkamm 2017). Meanwhile. France passed a law in 2017 mandating that if a model’s physical person has been digitally altered in an ad it must include a disclaimer indicating that the ad has been retouched (Lubitz 2015). Recently, Israel out of concern about eating disorders at a societal level, passed legislation requiring a disclaimer in any ad whether a model is photoshopped to look thinner. The Israeli law also mandates that a threshold body mass index be met for a model to be included in an ad. With the United Kingdom’s Advertising Standards Authority also banning some campaigns due to exaggerated retouching, it is clear that photoshopping of models in advertising is under scrutiny (Sweney 2017). Several companies have also taken a stand on photoshopping of ads. These include Aerie Lingerie, CVS Drugstores, Dove, and Britain’s ASOS, all of whom has committed to having realistic images in their ads and reducing or eliminating retouching (Horwath 2016; Zillman 2017; Bomey 2018). In spite of the increased attention being paid to photoshopping of ads by regulators, companies, and some in the public, research on the topic has been relatively sparse. This paper aims to summarize what is known about the societal and managerial implications of digital retouching and offers future research directions designed to make advances in these areas. To this end, this paper begins by reviewing work in three areas related to photoshopping of ads. The first topic addressed is whether edited images of unrealistic standards have a negative impact on the viewer. Secondly, we examine what is known about the implications of including disclosures and disclaimers on the consumers psyche, (i.e. do these warnings negate the implied negative consequence of the edited images). Finally, the impact such disclosure labels have on ad effectiveness and purchase intention is considered. To ensure the full scope of pertinent material was covered, articles were targeted via databases such as ABI/ Inform, Business Source Premier, EBSCO and Google Scholar. Because of the paucity of articles, no time limitations were placed on the search. A variety of combinations of relevant search terms were used (e.g., retouching, advertising, body image, women, photoshop etc.). As key articles were identified, the sources they cited were also reviewed in relation to the purpose stated above. Our review of the literature finds a virtually universal consensus finds that idealized imagery, often characterized by very thin or “ideal” models is directly correlated to an increased risk of body dissatisfaction (Groesz 2002). Several of these studies draw on social comparison theory (Gulas 2000; Myers 2009) is commonly used as a theoretical explanation underlying this effect, with experimental studies being used to provide empirical evidence. Prior studies have tested several types of disclaimers. These studies have generally found that disclaimer do not mitigate the negative impact that the exposure to idealized image has on the consumer (Cragg 2017) Based on this research, apparently, women feel social pressure to live up to idealized images even if a disclaimer is included in the ad. However, it should be noted that only a limited number of studies have tested this effect, and additional types of disclaimers from different sources need to be tested before drawing firm conclusions. As for advertisement effectiveness, specifically product attitude and purchases intent, studies have found that advertisements using “normally attractive models” in comparison to “highly attractive models” tend to produce better results (Tsai and Chang 2007). Notably, the presence of a disclaimer does not appear to either increase or decrease the effectiveness of ad based on the extant research (Semaan, Gould and Kocher 2012; Schirmer et al., 2018). The literature does raise some questions about the needed prominence of a disclaimer to have an impact, suggesting that often times “fine print messages” are largely unnoticed in relation to a more prominent alternative (Black & Watson 2013). Notably, there is some evidence that including a “retouch-free” versus a “retouched” disclaimer does increase attitudes toward the brand and purchase intention (Cornelis and Peter 2017). The literature reviewed has limitations such as uncorroborated studies, limited sample sizes, and narrowly focused demographics in some studies. While it has generally been established that highly attractive model usage and idealized retouched imagery has a negative effect on consumer body image, there is insufficient research on the implications of disclaimers and disclosers. It is suggested that additional research is needed on the effects of various disclaimer types directly related to various levels of image re-touching (as opposed to product warnings) on consumer buying behavior and ad effectiveness (see Schirmer et al., 2018). There is some evidence that consumers are accepting of minor photoshopping of ads, such as changing the background or “fixing” a blemish, but that more major retouching such as making a model appear to have different facial features, thinner legs, or larger breasts is viewed as problematic. As such, future experimental research should focus on different levels of retouching. There is also a clear need to test different wording of disclaimers as well as disclaimers from different sources (e.g. government vs. non-profit, vs. company itself). Future research should focus on a wide cross-section of women. It should also test multiple product categories, including those beauty related vs. not beauty related.

In terms of sustainability alone, consumers are faced with a staggering assortment of 463 different labels across 25 industry sectors, a number that is only expected to grow over time (Ecolabel Index 2016). Amid growing environmental concerns, research suggests that many consumers are unlikely to consider the consequences of their choices at the point of purchase, or if they attempt to do so, they generally do not have the information necessary to make more sustainable choices. Given the rise of ineffective green communication protocols and consumers’ concerns with environmental impacts associated with their purchases, this paper attempts to understand how the provision of sustainability labeling can influence comprehension and consumer decision-making. Utilizing the ambiguity theoretical framework (Einhorn and Hogarth 1985), we suggest that perceptions of sustainability will be influenced using an anchor comprising a plausible range based on consumers’ existing beliefs and internal points of reference (Broniarczyk and Alba 1994). That is, consumers revert to a pre-existing reference point, and the new information does not allow for much movement in perceptions. In an ambiguous situation in which consumers have limited knowledge of product sustainability, the perceived brand-based sustainability level is expected to allow consumers to establish an initial value of sustainability (Hogarth and Kunreuther 1992). Our findings suggest that providing environmental information can be a useful tool in assisting consumers in making sustainable decisions. Providing quantitative aggregated environmental impact information of products influences consumers’ perceived ambiguity, leading to evaluation of the brand. The perceived ambiguity derived from sustainability level provides an underlying mechanism in information processing. Given rising concerns about consumers ability to process sustainability information in an efficient manner, our findings suggest that one way to encourage consumers to better process the sustainability information is to mitigate perceived ambiguity. Enforcing disclosure initiatives that assess the environmental impact of products can provide benefit to firms—especially for product categories in which limited loyalty or differentiation exists. Sustainability disclosures appear to offer a mechanism that can help consumers make informed decisions. Furthermore, extrapolating the influence of disclosures on consumer evaluation and choice across the variety of product categories for which consumers routinely make purchases suggests the potential for dramatic increases in global sustainability.

The environmental consequences of consumerism are starting to demand change on the part of consumers, businesses, and the public sector. As consumer activity has been found to be a primary cause of environmental degradation and natural resources depletion, consumers need to become educated and involved in sustainability efforts (Sheth et al., 2011). In the current marketplace, however, consumers generally make purchase decisions without considering the environmental impact of those choices. This paper examines a sustainability claim, which allows consumers to consider the negative consequences of their decisions. Additionally, the consequences are communicated using message framings varying between the personal impact and company impact framing. This paper also considers differing levels of a consumer’s environmental involvement. Consistent with the theoretical concepts of social judgment, in conjunction with self-determination, the findings from this research offer an important expansion on prior work: here, the level of EI determined a boundary condition for the effects of sustainability labeling and message framing. While both groups of consumers evaluated the ad containing full information more favorably than the one with partial information, high-EI consumers preferred the ad focusing on the company’s impacts regarding the environment. Arguably, presenting the responsibilities of the company clarified and justified the use of the claim. However, extrinsic rewards and self-enhancement motives may not be key motivators for high-EI consumers. In fact, asking high-EI consumers to conserve nature and minimize their environmental impacts may be ineffective, since they typically respond more to their personal beliefs. Conversely, extrinsic rewards and recognition seem to be prime motivators for low-EI consumers. To encourage consumers to make more mindful consumption decisions, a communication tool that incorporates sustainability labeling and environmental impact framing seems to offer much promise. Indeed, the ability to connect environmental impacts with consumer choices appears to be an important determinant of the effectiveness of sustainability communication. If an ad fails to clearly convey to consumers the environmental impact of purchasing specific products, the provision of sustainability information on product packaging is of no practical value. A more transparent approach of presenting sustainability information may prove helpful to both consumers and the environment.