MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412691699 · doi:10.3390/admsci15080294

Influencing Beauty Perceptions: Role of TikTok Influencer Information Adoption in Shaping Consumer Views of Cosmetic Product Quality

2025· article· en· W4412691699 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamed Ben Arbia, Myriam Ertz, Aws Horrich, Olfa Bouzaâbia

Bibliographic record

VenueAdministrative Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Marketing and Social Media
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProduct (mathematics)BeautyBusinessQuality (philosophy)MarketingPerceptionAdvertisingAestheticsPsychologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research examines how influencer information spreads and is accepted by consumers, focusing on a Tunisian sample of social media users, and how these effects percolate into consumers’ perception of the quality of cosmetic products. Drawing on the Information Adoption Model (IAM), this study develops a conceptual framework adapted to the social media landscape, particularly the TikTok platform. To test this framework, we conducted a survey targeting 285 consumers using a non-random sampling frame, primarily through Facebook and Instagram. The findings suggest that consumers perceive influencer information as useful when they believe it is credible and of high quality. Interestingly, while high-quality information tends to lead to influencer information adoption, credibility alone does not guarantee adoption. Additionally, our study emphasizes the role of influencer information usefulness in driving its adoption. One notable discovery is the link between influencer information adoption and consumers’ perceptions of the quality of cosmetic products. However, this correlation does not hold equally for both genders, thus suggesting a moderation effect between gender and influencer information processing in this context.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.740

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.091
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.336 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdministrative SciencesSame topicDigital Marketing and Social MediaFrench-language works237,207