The Virtuous Cycle: Social Media Influencers’ Potential for Kindness Contagion

Introduction

If marketing is about allocating scarce resources (Alderson 1957), kindness is a product worthy of exchange in today's marketing systems. At a time of tumultuous pain and sorrow, a little kindness goes a long way. Certainly, nonprofits, such as Random Acts of Kindness (www.randomactsofkindness.org), and large corporations, such as Coca-Cola (e.g., Coca-Cola's World Kindness Day ¹ ), offer advice to everyday consumers to be kind in hopes of making the world a better place. The virality of these campaigns offers the promise that consumers also desire this kindness. However, the power and pocketbook of these organizations make spreading this message readily available. Yet, a new player in town may be in a unique position to spread this resource: social media influencers.

Social media influencers (SMIs or influencers) have increasingly become a medium for marketers to sell products and services. SMIs are commonly ordinary consumers turned celebrities, despite lacking professional and institutional status (McQuarrie, Miller, and Phillips 2013). Nevertheless, nearly 93% of marketers in the United States will use SMIs to help market their products (Santora 2022). In hopes of driving word-of-mouth (WOM) marketing (Kozinets et al. 2010), firms have recognized SMIs as novel actors to drive awareness (Hughes, Swaminathan, and Brooks 2019). Yet, what SMIs sell goes far beyond the marketized offerings, as they may be driven by not only monetary but also cultural and social motives (Campana, Van den Bossche, and Miller 2020; McQuarrie, Miller, and Phillips 2013). Social media has the potential to exacerbate comparison among users, which can lead to social withdrawal, loneliness, increased stress, and, ultimately, depression (Aalbers et al. 2019). SMIs are likely contributors to this contrast syndrome and its adverse effects (Chae 2018; Lee and Eastin 2020). However, if the virtues of individuals are the connecting fabric between micro- and macromarketing (Mick, Bateman, and Lutz 2009), how can the “marketing” of kindness spread from these micro players to benefit society?

We introduce the concept of kindness contagion and its prospect for SMIs. Conversation within marketing literature surrounding SMIs has concentrated on understanding how firms can utilize SMIs as a new promotional tool (e.g., Audrezet, De Kerviler, and Moulard 2020; Kay, Mulcahy, and Parkinson 2020; Moulard et al. 2015; Nascimento, Campos, and Suarez 2020). While understandably a critical topic, we align with others that marketers also have a greater role in society (Gundlach and Wilkie 2009; Lusch 2007; Sheth and Parvatiyar 2022). If kindness is a precursor to happiness, and happiness leads to longer life spans (Wooliscroft and Ganglmair-Wooliscroft 2018), an exploration into kindness deserves macromarketers’ evaluation. There is an opportunity to reverse this trend, specifically through kindness contagion. Kindness contagion is defined as the spread of kind acts or intentions from one person to another, resulting in the emulation of kindness by the receiver and observers (Tsvetkova 2015). Although the societal benefits of human kindness receive significant interdisciplinary scholarly interest, this vital concept is not commonly discussed in the marketing literature.

We highlight kindness as an underlying, albeit sometimes forgotten, tenet of the utilitarian ethics tradition (Hamrick 2002; Laczniak and Santos 2018) and as a normative opportunity to improve societal well-being. Kindness is a form of prosociality and actors engaging in kind acts do not expect reciprocity (Cotney and Banerjee 2019). While we are not focusing on the inherent complexity of religiosity, kindness is a common tenet for many cultures and religions (e.g., Buddhist, Christian, Judaism, and Islamic spiritual values) and may lead to happiness at a larger scale (Laczniak and Santos 2018). Kindness can be spread and has positive effects not only on those that observe but also on the giver (Hamilton 2010). SMIs have a significant impact on their followers as they have learned to harness the power of their social media platforms by fostering trusting relationships with their audience. As such, if SMIs have a powerful impact on society, we ask: How can SMIs utilize social media to promote kindness contagion?

To inform how SMIs can help generate kindness, we introduce a conceptual framework of SMIs’ cycle for kindness contagion. Our framework, informed by the collaboration of both parasocial (Horton and Wohl 1956; Schiappa, Gregg, and Hewes 2005) and construal level theories (Liberman and Trope 1998; Wilson, Crisp, and Mortensen 2013), points to how SMIs can build an intimate, trusting relationship with their followers, productive for kindness dispersion. Resultantly, the conceptual framework answers the continually important call to gain insight into how micro-level actors can influence society (Layton 2007). We conclude with a discussion of future research inspired by the SMIs’ kindness contagion framework.

Benefits of Kindness

The benefits of human kindness on society is a topic that has received significant scholarly interest (e.g., Kearney et al. 2013; O’Connell, Deirdre, and Gallagher 2015; Otake et al. 2006). Kindness is defined as “benign tolerance; empathetic responsivity; and, principled proaction” (Rowland and Klisanin 2018, p. 3). Most cultures assume the presence of kindness, yet it only emerges through relationships and connections with others (Hamrick 2002). As a result, it is embodied through the experience of observing or engaging in kind acts. Kindness can be found in the form of small, effortless acts (e.g., smiling at a stranger, holding open a door for someone) as well as larger, more extensive actions (e.g., giving $5,000 to a stranger in need). Studies have shown that kindness has three main components, these being: simply the motivation for being kind to others, the recognition of being kind to others, and the actual enactment of kindness in one's daily life (Otake et al. 2006). These three components function phenomenologically, creating a virtuous circle where kindness is internalized and spread.

The depletion of kindness can negatively impact the body with outcomes of illness and negative well-being (Hamrick 2002). Yet, kindness can revert these adverse effects. Kindness behaviors are found to be correlated with positive well-being perceptions and outcomes (e.g., Alden and Trew 2013; Brethel-Haurwitz and Marsh 2014; O’Connell, Deirdre, and Gallagher 2015). Several studies indicate kindness can increase one's happiness, by releasing dopamine within the brain (Hamilton 2010), leading to decreases in stress (Kearney 2013) or lowering blood pressure (Hamilton 2010). Kindness can be spread in many ways, whether in person or through digital media. Kindness can be spread through consumers’ intentions and practices of kindness (Hamilton 2010), kindness meditation or reflection (Kearney et al. 2013), and teaching others proactive kindness (Cassidy, Brown, and Jackson 2013). Observing and engaging in kind practices move individuals emotionally and enhances empathy (Hamrick 2002). As a result, the kindness-driven emotion becomes contagious; kindness gains agency in the virtuous circle (Otake et al. 2006), improving mental and physical states (Hamrick 2002).

The potential for kindness contagion is nevertheless contingent upon underlying social relationships. Specifically, givers may achieve greater positive well-being effects when the act of kindness results from building social relationships (Aknin et al. 2013). For instance, in a study of generous, kind acts with a multiplayer online role-playing game, scholars uncovered that players receiving or viewing these acts were more likely to be more generous with others in return (Woo et al. 2015). Notably, the authors also identify that contagion, or replicated behavior, was absent if acts were not visible to others. As such, kindness internalization and contagion are not a given but are more likely in cases where social connections are present.

Importantly, kindness is felt not only by the receiver but also by the giver. The positive effects of kindness may be instantly internalized and may be affirmed by others through individualized actions such as a smile, a nod, a word of thanks, or in the online game case, reciprocity (Woo et al. 2015). Because kindness can relieve stress and can be contagious, it also has the potential to improve society as a whole.

SMIs’ Parasocial Relations and Construal Levels

SMIs act as “independent third-party endorsers who shape audience attitudes through blogs, tweets, and the use of other social media” (Freberg et al. 2011, p. 90). Historically, this emergent actor in the marketing system has been identified as a mediating actor to help facilitate brand and product promotion. Yet, with the wide span of influencer types and forms of impact, SMIs have the ability to impact society significantly and can influence large groups of consumers simply by connecting to their followers through social media, using parasocial interactions.

Parasocial interactions are defined as consumer experiences that are personal and reciprocal, although these experiences are often illusionary (Dibble, Hartmann, and Rosaen 2016). For example, over time and through multiple interactions, consumers have built parasocial relationships with theater performers, television performers, or celebrity endorsers where they feel a real connection; however, no real connection takes place. Therefore, parasocial theory recognizes the creation of this one-sided intimate relationship between a social media follower and an SMI (Kowalczyk and Pounders 2016). This parasocial relationship allows the followers to view the SMI as a friend, making consumers more likely to comply with the SMI's suggestions.

Nevertheless, to maintain this parasocial relationship with their followers, authenticity is crucial (Nandagiri and Philip 2018; Audrezet, De Kerviler, and Moulard 2020). Authentic relationships are perceived by consumers when a person or brand is true to oneself (Dwivedi and McDonald 2018; Luoma-aho et al. 2019) and are built on trust (Schallehn, Burmann, and Riley 2014). Although many SMIs use their platform to endorse products, it is evident that their impact could also easily be used to spread kindness contagion.

Taking a step closer, understanding how SMIs create these parasocial relationships can be informed by construal level theory. Construal level theory describes a relationship as mitigated between the psychological or social distance between a person's thoughts on an object, or in this case, the SMI. The relationship is potentially abstract or concrete, according to the distance one perceives. Larger distances create high-level construals that produce more abstract thinking and less personal connections to the object, while smaller distances create low-level construals that produce a more intimate connection. This will be unpacked further as we conceptualize the SMI kindness contagion cycle.

Conceptualizing the Kindness Contagion Cycle

Leveraging parasocial and construal level theories, a conceptual framework is offered to help inform how SMIs can engender kindness contagion. How an SMI's actions can lead to kindness is illustrated through a cycle (see Figure 1) that consists predominantly of four elements: the authenticity of the SMI, the parasocial relationship, the construal level, and, ultimately, genuine kindness. We conceptualize that the SMI's authenticity sparks a parasocial relationship that is made more intimate due to the construal level. This intimate relationship then allows for the spread of kindness both externally and internally, consequently restarting the cycle.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Social Media influencers’ cycle for kindness contagion.

Practice Getting Cozy: Minimizing the Distance and Construal Level

While consumers’ perceptions of SMIs’ kindness posts can facilitate an authentic relationship, not all posts may be perceived similarly. As such, we draw from construal theory to identify potential practices that may facilitate SMIs’ kindness contagion cycle. As a reminder, according to construal level theory, the aim is to engage in practices to reduce the perceived distance between the SMI and their followers, ultimately lowering the construal level. Authentic practices using social media images and videos allow SMIs to shift the perceived distance between the SMI and the audience to be closer (Wilson, Crisp, and Mortensen 2013). In other words, the authentic content and communication driven by an SMI shape the perceived distance. By closing the distance gap between the SMI and their audience, SMIs bring themselves closer to their audience (e.g., making the relationship more concrete and less abstract as understood from construal level theory). In turn, the consumer feels the personal and parasocial relationship forming. Once these relationships are built, the consumer feels intimate with the SMI, and the SMI now has the power to spread their message.

In complement to parasocial theory, construal theory helps inform how kindness can be spread. Central to both theories is the necessity for the influencers’ authenticity (Kowalczyk and Pounders 2016). Authenticity stems from raw content in which the audience is convinced the SMI is acting as their true self as opposed to scripted content. In other words, the content delivered must be perceived as being true to the influencer's true self to sustain trust. We propose that the parasocial relationship is made possible by lowering the construal level, which allows for the distant one-sided relationship to make the audience feel as though they have a close intimate relationship with the SMI.

Once the parasocial relationship is formed by the SMIs’ authenticity, lowering the construal level, an influential platform for kindness contagion is possible. Kindness can spread through the repetition of kind intentions (Hamilton 2010), kindness meditation (Kearney et al. 2013), and teaching others kindness (Cassidy, Brown, and Jackson 2013). Therefore, we suggest that SMIs, through the use of their parasocial relationships, can use their platform to post words of kind intentions, kind meditations, and how-to-be-kind videos to effectively influence kindness to their followers.

An SMI's ongoing practices can inform and reinforce the construal level. Liberman and Trope (1998) classify the types that lend to low- versus high-level construal levels. If the desire is to maintain a high construal level, abstract and decontextualized communication is recommended. Alternatively, if the preference is to maintain a lower construal level, specific and contextual communication is more beneficial. Because SMIs prefer a parasocial relationship, engaging in practices that foster low-level construals is recommended. We leverage Liberman and Trope's (1998) classification to help inform the practices in which to maintain the cycle of low-level construal kindness practices most optimally. Specifically, as indicated in Figure 2, low-level construal events are commonly concrete, incidental, contextual, non-schematic, and subordinate. Alternatively, high-level construal events (those that may not reinforce the cycle of kindness contagion), are likely abstract, central, decontextualized, schematic, and superordinate. In other words, content posted that presents a specific act of kindness in a natural form (e.g., “Today, I was lucky enough to work in the neighborhood garden and brought some of our surplus produce to the homeless shelter”) is likely to be more powerful than content that boasts kindness as the central tenet in a way that does not specify acts of kindness (e.g., “Kindness is good; let's be kind everyone”). ² The figure below offers additional examples and recommended practices for SMIs that wish to spread kindness and prompt kindness contagion.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

SMI low-level construal kindness practices and consumer responses.

Discussion

While the call for responsible and sustainable marketing has been discussed when it comes to consumer well-being and how marketing practices impact society (Sirgy 2021; Varey 2010), new contexts are emerging that surround consumer well-being like luxury marketing (Azzari, Dadzie, and Baker 2022; Batat 2022; Pai, Laverie, and Hass 2022), online impulsive and compulsive behaviors (Olsen, Huu Khoi, and Tuu 2022), and additional macromarketing metrics (Sirgy 2021). We argue kindness is an additional rich area of consumer well-being that macromarketers should be investigating. To inform how influencers can help generate kindness, this paper introduces a conceptual framework of SMIs’ cycle for kindness contagion. SMIs have demonstrated the ability to gain a powerful impact on their followers. We submit that if social media can be a cause of increased depression, it can also be utilized to promote kindness contagion. Specifically, SMI marketing has the potential to impact consumers in a positive, neutral, or negative way, depending on the type of post shared with the world (Crolic et al. 2021). The proposed framework provides insights into how SMIs can build intimate, trusting, and positive relationships with their followers, foundational for kindness dispersion. Once this intimate relationship has been formed, the SMI can then use their platform to promote kindness by posting kind intentions and actions using social media stories and reels to teach their followers proactive kindness. We suggest that due to their intimate relationships with their followers, built upon the parasocial relationship and ultimately the reduced construal level, SMIs’ promotion of kindness will affect their followers by positively benefiting their well-being. The promotion of kindness should then internalize within the SMI, allowing for the same effects to occur in them as well, reinforcing these positive effects for the influencer and the perception of the influencers’ (now) authentic practices.

Building upon the important work of parasocial relationship theory (Schiappa, Gregg, and Hewes 2005), our advocacy of SMI kindness blends with construal level theory (Wilson, Crisp, and Mortensen 2013). Doing so enriches our understanding of the social psychology of SMIs and how SMI kindness can best propagate kindness contagion. Much of the influencer literature notes the necessity for authentic influencer branding, desired by the SMI themselves, the consumers, and even the marketers seeking to employ the services of the SMI (Audrezet, De Kerviler, and Moulard 2020). As such, our integrative conceptualization shows how leveraging low-level construal events for kindness contagion can also aid SMIs to communicate more authentically. Leveraging construal theory, we offer six authentic kindness practices in which SMIs are most likely to reinforce their kindness-embedded parasocial relationship (find these practices in Figure 2: three practices related to content creation and three related to consumer engagement).

Future Research

To guide future research in relation to SMIs’ kindness contagion, we have identified several research questions in Table 1. More research is required to empirically investigate our conceptualization, firstly by analyzing the impact of our recommended practices (see Figure 2). Empirical research of both qualitative and quantitative nature can evaluate the relationships suggested. There is opportunity within this research program to expand how the spread of kindness by influencers impacts overall consumer well-being. Further research can empirically investigate how SMIs’ characteristics impact the spread and cycle of kindness. The effectiveness of SMI communication can vary depending upon the influencers’ expertise and platform used (Hughes, Swaminathan, and Brooks 2019). There is a benefit in understanding the effects of the virtuous cycle from both the SMI and consumer perspectives. Inherently, we argue that there is anticipated social benefit for influencers and end consumers. Yet, if the work is potentially taxing for the SMI and begins to not feel authentic from the influencer's perspective (yet may be perceived as authentic by the receiver), what are the consequences? With the recent introduction and popularity of AI influencers (e.g., @lilmiquiela, @shudu.gram), this begs an important question: If an SMI is by definition non-human, can they still be perceived as authentic and be a proponent of kindness contagion?

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Kindness Contagion Future Research.

Research Theme	Sample Research Questions
Kindness Practices	Which kindness practices are more likely to influence kindness contagion/virality? Do implicit versus explicit kindness acts spread differently? Which practices are more appropriate depending on the platform used? How do platform affordances impact the capacity for kindness contagion? Given the nature of social media content's shelf life, what is the longevity of SMIs’ kindness practices? How do kindness practices impact consumers’ and SMI's overall well-being? How is kindness measured?
Social Media Influencer (SMI) Characteristics	What leads SMIs to engage in kindness practices? What is the impact of kindness contagion if an SMI's kindness authenticity erodes? How does the size of the follower base impact kindness contagion? (i.e., mega-, macro-, mid-tier, micro-, and nano-SMIs) How do SMI's expertise and specialized context influence kindness contagion? How does the lifestyle category impact kindness contagion? Can non-human SMIs still be perceived as authentic? (e.g., computer-generated AI SMIs, pets)
Network Structure	Which network structures are optimal for kindness contagion? How do these differ from traditional WOM marketing tactics? Are followers of kindness-spreading SMIs dispersing content to intentionally or unintentionally spread kindness? (e.g., heuristics) How do consumer/follower values influence kindness dispersion and an SMI's form of communication?
Critical Review	How does authenticity dissonance impact the virtuous cycle? When does kindness contagion become muted? How do negative affirmations impact SMIs and their future practices? What are the potential negative consequences of the virtuous cycle? How can SMIs be authentically kind when motivated by monetary norms?
Kindness Marketing System	How else can this model be used to help support kindness contagion in the wider society? What roles does kindness play in a marketing system? What can we learn if we conceptualize kindness as a product, a service, or an actor within a larger marketing system? How are marketers influenced when they engage with SMIs that use kindness practices? Does kindness as a commodity benefit all actors in a marketing system? Which assortments of kindness behaviors are being cocreated? How is the value and meaning of kindness formed phenomenologically? What path dependencies necessitate kindness contagion?

Network externalities are of common importance for recognizing the potential for WOM, and this is likely a boundary condition for kindness contagion. Density and shape could impact the spread of kindness, just as it does with the potential for other influencer marketing (Park et al. 2018). The inherent values of SMI communities should also be considered. If the wider community values kindness, it may be more readily dispersed. Yet, network connections may be less accepting of new norms, such as kindness messages (Kozinets et al. 2010).

While the topic of authenticity is a common dialogue in influencer research, we see an opportunity for future investigation on how this perception of authenticity is enabled in a discussion of kindness. On the one hand, what is perceived as “authentic” kindness may engender positive effects. On the other hand, one must question whether “authentically” kind practices are possible if it is a common marketized mechanism. As such, authenticity dissonance may result in negative consequences, potentially leading to additional tensions for the influencers as social media platforms have commonly become entanglements of marketization (Drenten, Gurrieri, and Tyler 2020). Even in cases where SMIs fight for social change, monetization remains a driver. As such, can SMIs that wish to spread kindness break free of these monetary chains? Ultimately, kindness shrouded in implicit versus explicit forms may spread differently and is deserving of examination.

In marketing, if we are to aim toward well-being, not solely in monetary or economic terms, we should then turn toward functions that drive societal well-being. Joining the accord to recognize that happiness and well-being are possible beyond materialist ideology (Scott, Martin, and Schouten 2014), it may be fruitful to study kindness entangled within a marketing system. At the root of all marketing systems lies exchange. One may position kindness as an embedded product, service, or actor within existing exchange systems. With this lens, kindness is phenomenologically grounded in consumers’ individual experiences (Akaka, Vargo, and Schau 2015), as kindness may be valued and exchanged – not only based on reciprocity, but also in the context of a circular cocreation network (Figueiredo and Scaraboto 2016) that could impact the economy (e.g., brands offering financial support for SMIs kindness influence). In this perspective, kindness may be an intangible product that, when successfully exchanged, enhances well-being (Mele et al. 2023).

Conclusion

In summary, our concept of Social Media Influencers’ Cycle for Kindness Contagion extends our understanding of SMIs’ role in spreading kindness. We propose six optimal practices for SMIs to enhance kindness cycles based on parasocial and construal level theories (see Figure 2). Kindness contagion is a novel topic for macromarketing scholars; thus, we offer prospective research directions, including sample research questions to help inform future research (see Table 1). While recognizing the critiques of SMIs (e.g., Drenten, Gurrieri, and Tyler 2020; Hund and McGuigan 2019; Lawson 2021), we also point out an opportunity to shift the conversation forward. SMIs can greatly impact their followers as they harness the strength of their social media platforms. Research on this topic can contribute to the developing knowledge of positive consequences possible for SMIs beyond monetization (Kostygina et al. 2020; Yesiloglu and Costello 2020). In the same thread of encouraging leader communications to be compassionate (Shabbir, Hyman, and Kostyk 2021), kindness is a socially driven phenomenon. Through authentic kindness practices, SMIs can support a wider spread of positivity. Kindness contagion has important implications for the larger social system, including consumers, SMIs, and marketers who wish to support the spread of something beyond the marketization of sometimes unachievable and falsified lifestyles (Ferguson, Brace-Govan, and Welsh 2021).