Exploring social media influencers’ moral dilemmas through role theory

ABSTRACT This study examines how social media influencers (SMIs) perceive their role in the complex relationships between brands, followers, and society, the moral dilemmas they face, and how they deal with them. The results show that SMIs find themselves in different roles depending on which stakeholders’ expectations they fulfil. Using role theory as a theoretical framework, we find that the conflicts between extended expectations (commitment, authenticity, and responsibility) lead to various moral dilemmas: non-disclosure, withholding negative experiences, lack of empathy, promotion of products without genuine experience, sharing opinions on socially relevant issues, and promotion of harmful products. Strategies for resolving these dilemmas which help SMIs manage their complex moral obligations include: spotlighting a role, downplaying a role, customizing a role, and resorting to a role.


Introduction
Brands are putting more and more money into social media influencers (SMIs) as an advertising channel, with expenditure for influencer marketing in the US alone having increased by more than 30% in 2020 (Insider Intelligence, 2022) and exceeding three billion dollars the year after (Statista.com, 2022).Many believe the growing popularity of influencer marketing is due to the shift of social interactions to social media platforms, where consumers demand content that is not staged (Lou & Yuan, 2019).However, SMIs have also come under public scrutiny due to their questionable practises and ethical concerns, such as SMIs' covert tobacco advertising to youth to circumvent government regulations (Kirkham, 2019).Moral concerns about SMIs' actions have been raised (Influence.co, n.d.), primarily because there is still no consensus on who is an influencer (Enke & Borchers, 2019) and what they should do.Scholars describe SMIs as opinion leaders (e.g.Boerman, 2020) with influence over many followers who mimic their attitudes and behaviours (Belanche et al., 2021), considering them more credible than traditional celebrities (Schouten et al., 2020), as prosumers − consumers who become producers (Archer et al., 2014;Leban et al., 2021), and even 'big sister' figures to their followers (Berryman & Kavka, 2017).
As SMIs grow, brands expect them to do very little besides professional content creation while maintaining an authentic relationship with their audience (Campbell & Farrell, 2020).Furthermore, while brands envision organic and unobtrusive promotion of their products (Dhanesh & Duthler, 2019;Ge & Gretzel, 2018), studies have confirmed that consumer expectations include transparency about the true content creator or content sponsor (e.g.Karagür et al., 2022), which seems to contradict brand expectations.Understanding how SMIs perceive their roles is important because expectations and emerging roles guide individuals in their daily lives.These roles correspond to behaviours, attitudes, and beliefs, and vice versa (Biddle, 2013).Consequently, a better understanding of the roles SMIs play in the marketplace makes research on influencer marketing more predictable (Şeşen, 2015) and advertising practitioners less confused about what SMIs should (not) do.
As Vrontis et al. (2021, p. 617) noted, most of the research on SMIs is still 'divergent, partial, and fragmented', leaving many gaps to be filled.Among other issues, there are questions about the roles SMIs take on as their fan base grows and brands reach out to them.While researchers acknowledge that SMIs' dual role in social media poses a moral hazard (e.g.Borchers & Enke, 2022;Cocker et al., 2021;Kozinets et al., 2010) as they evolve from content creators to entrepreneurs, there have been no explicit attempts to clarify how SMIs' role complexity is related to the moral dilemmas involved.
Previous research has determined the role of brands in the SMI-brand relationship (Nascimento et al., 2020) and recognized how SMIs transform from ordinary consumers to human brands 'through a continuous process of identity negotiation, adaptation, and reinterpretation with multiple stakeholders' (Erz & Christensen, 2018, p. 69).Even though researchers accept and acknowledge the dual role of SMIs (Borchers & Enke, 2022;Cocker et al., 2021;Wellman et al., 2020), so far the complexity of the SMIs' roles has been addressed explicitly from an entrepreneurial perspective (Mardon et al., 2023), inviting for more of a nuanced approach of their complex position in society.Extensive research has been conducted on followers, examining the effects, characteristics, and reactions related to the disclosure issue (see Vrontis et al., 2021); however, few authors have drawn systematic research on SMIs' morality (Borchers & Enke, 2022;Cocker et al., 2021;Leban et al., 2021;Wellman et al., 2020).Moreover, research on this topic has mostly been confined to limited insights from other industry actors (agencies, brands, followers) and thus did not consider the broader social context in which SMIs are situated.
Therefore, the aim of this study is to find answers to the following questions: RQ1: How do SMIs perceive their role given the expectations of different stakeholders?
RQ2: What moral dilemmas do SMIs face in relation to the expectations of different stakeholders?
RQ3: How do SMIs resolve moral dilemmas arising from different stakeholder expectations?
By seeking answers to these questions, our study makes several contributions.First, we identify how SMIs perceive their stakeholders' expectations.By using role theory as a theoretical foundation, we explain how these expectations lead to many roles that SMIs perform.In doing so, we draw attention to the underlying tensions that SMIs face daily as they attempt to meet the often-conflicting needs of various stakeholders.Second, by combining business ethics and role theory, we explain how SMIs' moral dilemmas arise under current conditions where influencer marketing is still largely unguided by formal guidelines.We propose that SMIs use various conflict resolution strategies as guiding principles when faced with a moral dilemma.This paves the way for exploring factors related to influencer morality that have not yet been addressed in the influencer marketing literature.Third, we contribute to the empirical aspect of influencer marketing research, which has so far mainly focused on the perspective of followers, by examining the perspective of the central actors in influencer marketing, i.e.SMIs themselves.

The complexity of SMIs' role and morality
At the core of one of the earliest definitions of SMIs was the notion that they are independent third-party influencers and that they are perceived as credible because their followers believe they produce genuine content (Lou & Yuan, 2019).Unlike traditional celebrities, SMIs get closer to their audience by providing insight into their seemingly uncensored private lives and, in turn, gain legitimacy to be opinion leaders and salespeople for the brands they endorse (Berryman & Kavka, 2017).Due to the disclosure of their daily activities, people consider SMIs as close friends (Jin & Muqaddam, 2019), unlike traditional media figures who have never been so close to their audience (Silva et al., 2020).Ironically, brands saw this production of genuine content by SMIs as an opportunity to regain consumer trust (Turcotte et al., 2015).They use SMIs and their social capital to influence people's attitudes, decisions, and behaviours (Boerman, 2020).However, brands often make little effort to align their communications with existing SMIs' content, and hire SMIs to incorporate them into their on-going campaigns (Silva et al., 2020).Over time, SMIs have exhibited a form of evolutionary professionalization in which they began as ordinary consumers but became celebrities in the digital environment through identity negotiation, adaptation, and reinterpretation with multiple stakeholders (Erz & Christensen, 2018).By scrutinizing well-established social roles within consumer communities, they provoked substantial changes in an otherwise highly embedded economic surrounding (Mardon et al., 2023).SMIs can achieve a similar status to traditional celebrities (Nascimento et al., 2020), but this comes at a cost: the bigger and more powerful SMIs are, the more their actions are scrutinised by their followers, and they can be seen as insincere (Martínez-López et al., 2020) and blamed for the negative consequences of their behaviour (Sanders et al., 2018).
In the early stages of research on SMIs' morality, studies examined followers and the issue of disclosure predominated (e.g.van Dam & van Reijmersdal, 2019), and the notion that immoral behaviour took place was more implied than explicitly stated.Other potential moral concerns related to influencer marketing, and more immediate research of SMIs' morality were referred to as one of the neglected aspects of brand communication in social media (Voorveld, 2019).There were also other cues that influencer marketing could breed a fruitful ground for immoral behaviour.For example, Audrezet et al. (2020) found that SMIs experience tension when trying to balance their authenticity and brand content in their posts.Mardon et al. (2018) also noted this tension among followers, as members of the 'tribe' may feel betrayed when SMIs prioritise financial gain over tribal interest.
To date, few studies have examined influencer morale from the SMIs' perspective.For example, Archer et al. (2014) showed that, from the bloggers' perspective, the moral issues involved in blogging concern the privacy of their family, friends, and themselves.A qualitative study conducted by Leban et al. (2021) on high-net-value Instagram millennial influencers explained how SMIs reconcile morality and a luxurious lifestyle.Their findings suggest that reconciliation between these two poles is achieved by SMIs creating different personas for themselves.Similarly, in examining SMIs' morality, Wellman et al. (2020) showed that travel influencers rely on their authenticity as a moral framework when producing sponsored content.This idea is based on two core principles -being true to oneself (one's brand) and being true to one's audience.Insisting on authenticity allows influencers to do their work in a way that is not inherently immoral, even in the absence of official guidelines, regulations, or professional association codes of conduct.Cocker et al. (2021) analysed follower responses to sponsored content and defined five moral responsibilities expected of SMIs: honest and unbiased reviews, organic content overcoming sponsored content, informative and/or entertaining value of content, avoiding over-saturation with the same brand, and endorsement of products they genuinely use and like.Borchers and Enke (2022) further deepened the discussion of influencer morality by introducing additional moral issues and organising the field of SMI industry ethics.The authors also noted that the role of SMIs depends on the stakeholder (Borchers & Enke, 2022).When working with clients, they act as advertisers or PR managers, while when producing non-sponsored content, they act as journalists.In sum, previous studies suggest that influencer morality is determined by authenticity and is related to role construction.The current study draws on these notions to deepen the understanding of moral dilemmas in influencer marketing.

Role theory and moral dilemmas
Previous research on SMIs has implied the existence of more roles within their specific social position (e.g.Cocker et al., 2021;Mardon et al., 2018).Hence, role theory is proposed as the theoretical framework of the study.Role theory bridges the gap between individual behaviour and social structure.It proposes that individuals in complex social systems are subject to a set of expectations that result in roles associated with social positions (Biddle, 2013).A role is a set of expectations and duties that a person faces and fulfils (Biddle, 2013).Consequently, each role carries norms and behaviours that are appropriate to it.Roles can be dysfunctional when the person taking on a role experiences role conflict (Kahn et al., 1964).Role conflict occurs when an individual experiences conflicting or inconsistent expectations associated with multiple roles or with a single role (Biddle, 2013), and as such can lead to numerous dysfunctional outcomes.
Role theory has implications for business ethics.Expectations (in the form of a role) that others have of a focal person (i.e. the role actor) direct that person's behaviour.This behaviour then affects both the role sender (i.e. the person holding the expectation, usually someone the role actor regularly has interaction with), role actor, and their relationship (Beu et al., 2003;Katz & Kahn, 1978).As Kohlberg and Kramer (1969) explain, social approval is key for most adult people, so they try to conform to the roles and expectations of others when making moral decisions.In this sense, moral behaviour is also a result of responding to expectations that others have of the individual (Frink & Klimoski, 1998).Awareness of the consequences of our actions for others and ascribing responsibility to ourselves are essential prerequisites for the activation of one's moral norms and moral behaviour (Schwartz, 1968).However, divergent roles can lead to role conflicts and create fertile ground for unethical behaviour masked in role morality -behaving differently in a role (Gibson, 2003).
When talking about role morality in organisations with a clear code of conduct, individuals usually agree to financial and reputational constraints (Gibson, 2003), but SMIs are not direct employees whose behaviour depends directly on the employer's values.When someone is unfamiliar with the values of those who hold them accountable, they fall back on their own value system to resolve a moral dilemma (Brief et al., 1991).Using only one's own value system can pave the way to the moral dilemma: a dilemma in which a decision-maker must choose between two or more mutually exclusive moral values or duties (Kvalnes, 2019).
It is prudent to apply role theory to the context of SMIs' morality for several reasons.First, influencer marketing is a relatively new phenomenon that is causing SMIs to redefine their roles outside of existing knowledge boundaries (Vrontis et al., 2021) and challenge embedded social roles (Mardon et al., 2023).Role theory has the potential to explain how the presence of multiple sets of expectations for a position in a social structure (in this case, the position of SMI) affects the person performing a role and what this may lead to.Second, SMIs can be considered boundary spanners because they operate at the periphery of an organisation and represent the nexus between business entities (i.e.endorsed brands) and the environment (i.e.followers and society) (Weatherly & Tansik, 1993), and role theory has been used in research to describe and understand the work situations of boundary spanners (Singh & Rhoads, 1991).Third, role theory is often used to understand ethical issues in business (e.g.Gibson, 2003) because people try to fulfil the roles and expectations of others (Trevino, 1986), and this constant monitoring promotes their (un)ethical behaviour.

Sampling and procedure
The study followed an inductive design with qualitative interviews.This method is a powerful tool to understand individuals' thoughts, beliefs, and experiences (DeJonckheere & Vaughn, 2019), when the scope of the topic was not entirely new, but neither too narrow nor too broad (Guest et al., 2013).Because the study targeted typical cases (Flick, 2007), the criteria for determining suitable respondents were formed according to recent definitions of SMIs as 'content creators with many followers on social media platforms such as Instagram, Snapchat, and YouTube.They share tastes and information with other individuals in various fields, including fashion, beauty, hobbies, and everyday life, as well as provide product reviews' (Jun & Yi, 2020, p. 803), who have 'built a sizable social media network of followers and thereby have acquired the potential to exert their influence over their followers' (Ki et al., 2020, p. 1).
On the above-mentioned bases, we chose SMIs who (1) had gained their popularity on social media (i.e. were not traditional celebrities or were not celebrities before receiving sponsorship deals), (2) had at least three years of influencing experience, and (3) earned money from paid sponsorships.Instagram sponsorships were included in this study because both practitioners (Linkr, 2020) and researchers (e.g.Vrontis et al., 2021) agree that Instagram is most commonly used for SMI research because it is the most strategic channel for SMI marketing campaigns.
Convenience sampling was used, starting with SMIs that met the three criteria mentioned above and that the researchers or their acquaintances had previously had contact with (e.g. during a professional conference on SMIs), and then continuing with other SMIs that were recommended by the respondents (always ensuring that they met the three criteria).This study was conducted with Croatian-speaking SMIs whose followers are located in Croatia and neighbouring countries.None of these countries have specific guidelines regarding SMIs, as in the United States or the United Kingdom.The language of the interviews was Croatian, and the transcripts were initially coded in Croatian.Sections of the transcripts were then translated for the purposes of this paper.After interviewing 10 SMIs, data saturation was achieved as SMIs' responses were similar in terms of repetition of moral dilemmas and strategies, so data collection was completed.The main characteristics of all respondents are presented in Table 1, based on the data at the time the interviews were conducted.
Given the COVID-19 restrictions in April 2021, all interviews were conducted via Google Meet.The interviews lasted about an hour and provided the researchers with 108 pages of transcripts.As Leban et al. (2021) noted, it can be challenging to obtain detailed opinions from SMIs regarding moral issues within their line of work.Therefore: (1) we assured respondents that their identities would remain anonymous throughout the research process and would only reveal those parts of the conversations that could not be used to trace their identities; and (2) we exchanged information about the purpose of our research and SMIs' general view of their work before discussing specific issues such as relationships with followers and brands, moral dilemmas, and SMIs' opinion of them, and at the end, left time for the respondents to explain topics that they considered important.

Analysis
All interviews were transcribed and analysed with the MAXQDA Analytics Pro software.In order to develop an understanding of a meta-narrative about the stories, data transcripts were coded.Rather than adopting an a priori coding system, an inductive approach to categorization was used, allowing themes to emerge from the data (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006).Thus, following the logic of role theory, roles were formed based on the stakeholders' perceived expectations.The analysis followed the logic of the 'hermeneutic circle' (Thompson, 1997) to allow researchers to move simultaneously from intratextual material (i.e. the experience of a single influencer) to intertextual material (i.e. the experience between influencers).This was done to ensure that the issues that emerged were not idiosyncratic but had their basis in the respondents' first-hand experiences.Initial codes were suggested by the researcher who conducted the interviews, and these codes were discussed among the authors to understand what each of the codes stands for and excludes, and which codes are relevant to focus on in subsequent rounds of analysis.There were three additional rounds of analyses with different analysis units.In the first round, the analysis units were respondents and we looked for different expectations to identify the roles.In the second round, the moral issues they mentioned were the unit of analysis, and we looked for moral dilemmas resulting from conflicting expectations.To identify relevant moral dilemmas, each issue was subjected to three main questions: 1) does the issue have a moral dimension, i.e. does it have negative consequences for others?2) is there a conflict between the expectations of different interest groups, i.e. are there two or more mutually exclusive moral values or duties?3) is the issue related to SMIs' collaborations with brands?In the third round, we looked for conflict resolution strategies and used moral dilemmas as units of analysis.In each of these rounds, the principal researcher identified possible codes that were discussed among researchers, and then at least 20% of the text was analysed by two researchers, using a codebook, but allowing both researchers to remain open to possible new insights (related to the goal of each analysis round).There were some differences in how researchers understood the data.The researchers discussed the differences, and then the principal researcher coded the text using a new codebook.

SMIs' roles
SMIs emphasize that being an influencer requires juggling expectations from three different stakeholders: brands, followers, and society.According to role theory, respondents form underlying roles to meet each set of expectations.Therefore, SMIs perceive their social position as an entanglement of several roles.To a certain extent, these roles correspond to narratively constructed personas that Leban et al. (2021) found as an abstraction of SMIs' identity, allowing them to resolve identity conflicts.However, in the current paper, the basis for building a projected identity through roles is the expectations of other stakeholders rather than the need to reconcile their own taste regimes.These expectations are formed at two levels: simple expectations and extended expectations.Simple expectation is 'an expectation involving a single modal reaction about one characteristic of an object person' (Biddle, 2013, p. 144), and extended expectation is what two or more simple expectations yield as 'referenced characteristics of those that precede it' (Biddle, 2013, p. 146).

Brand-related roles
Respondents of this study agree that followers are their bedrock, which echoes the findings by Wellman et al. (2020).However, most of them started to perceive themselves as SMIs when brands started working with them.The results show that SMIs play at least two roles in relation to brands and their expectations: a professional Committed Business Partner and a resourceful and underappreciated Jack-of-all-trades.The expectations contained in these roles converge to commitment as an extended expectation.
As Committed Business Partners, SMIs primarily feel that they are expected to act professionally and take the agreed responsibilities seriously in exchange for compensation.The focus of the agreement is usually that an SMI should represent a brand positively and strengthen brand awareness and image.These agreements are often also enforced by the contracts.In the role of a Committed Business Partner, SMIs are often expected to be mercenaries or billboards, giving up any autonomy in content creation to strictly adhere to a script that a brand prepares as part of an overall campaign.At the same time, such staged content must appear organic and real.Previous research suggests that inhibiting creative freedom suppresses SMIs' motivation to create content (Audrezet et al., 2020) and SMIs consider their own work inauthentic (Wellman et al., 2020).Our research confirms these results: Indeed, I need the directions.But it cannot be honest if they tell me word by word what to say or return the video seven times before authorizing it.(Kimmy) The second brand-related role, Jack-of-all-trades, is associated with SMIs feeling that they need to deliver much more than what is stated in the contract or much more than what would be required of a normal Committed Business Partner.In order to remain competitive, SMIs as a Jack-of-all-trades must offer the entire package of services: They want us because they can pay less.If they paid a make-up stylist, an editor, a photographer, a hair stylist (. ..), it would be a few thousand euros campaign.This way, it is a few thousand kunas [seven times less].(. ..).I am a photographer, a cook, a community manager.(Martina) Additionally, as a Jack-of-all-trades, SMIs feel they are expected to provide a means of communication for brands that cannot use other means of communication, such as cigarettes.Being omnipresent and always at their best is a way to be appreciated by brands.Finally, a Jack-of-all-trades is still often expected to work for payment-in-kind rather than money, as if they are doing it because they enjoy the lifestyle and not because it is their job.

Follower-related roles
When SMIs have a large enough follower base, they become interesting for brands, and in order to build a large follower base, they need to consider followers' expectations.These expectations are closely related to moral responsibility, reported by Cocker et al. (2021) as a generally accepted set of rules that SMIs must follow to avoid perceived transgressions.To meet all of these expectations, SMIs play at least three distinct roles: as a Close Friend, an Entertainer and a Reliable Reviewer.While the three follower-related roles involve different expectations, these expectations converge towards authenticity as an extended follower expectation.
As a Close Friend, SMIs maintain a close bond with their followers.To create a close bond, SMIs feel that followers expect them to share much of their personal lives, including sometimes the most intimate details, and while this makes them vulnerable, it also shows that they are ordinary people with real struggles.Insisting on closeness and reliability with their followers was also recognized in a recent study by Mardon et al. (2023), where they identified vloggers enacted in a Friend role.As Close Friends, SMIs must also meet the expectation of empathy.That said, followers expect SMIs to be mindful of real-life problems and adjust their content accordingly.For example, to empathise with those who lost jobs or even loved ones during the COVID-19 pandemic, SMIs needed to tone down the content of lavish, carefree living and luxury.
The second role SMIs play in relation to followers is as an Entertainer.All respondents agree that their fanbase expects them to draw attention away from reality and into a world of entertainment.Although SMIs need to be aware of real-world events (as explained in the previous role), followers expect SMIs' online spaces not to become too real, but rather to provide a shield from serious and often negative things they may encounter through other communication channels.Additionally, as an Entertainer, an SMI is expected not to have too much sponsored content, which is similar to what Cocker et al. (2021) found as a transgression of over-endorsement.
Finally, SMIs are expected to be Reliable Reviewers, with respondents citing their credible product reviews as a major reason people follow them.
Today the most valuable thing is human recommendation, because a person gives a face to the brand or service and Google Ads can never do that.(Luka) SMIs believe that followers turn to them to get reliable reviews because they get lost in many sources of information available online.These results confirm previous findings that transparency, sincerity (Borchers & Enke, 2022), authenticity (Wellman et al., 2020), and honest and unbiased reviews (Cocker et al., 2021) are of the greatest value to SMIs' followers.

Society-related roles
Guided by previous research (Cocker et al., 2021;Leban et al., 2021;Wellman et al., 2020), the study initially focused on followers' and brands' expectations, but the interviews revealed that SMIs also come under pressure from society as a third stakeholder group.This finding is comparable to a recent finding by Borchers and Enke (2022), who proposed social responsibility (e.g.supporting good causes and sustainable consumption) as a part of influencer industry ethics.However, their study focuses on industry-level influencer ethics rather than specific moral issues and the underlying role conflicts they emerge from.Respondents in this study believe that society expects SMIs to conform to social norms and act as a Role Model, and engage in public debate on issues with little or no broad consensus, thus acting like an Advocate.Society's extended expectation is that SMIs act responsibly to maintain their good reputation.
As a Role Model, society expects SMIs to conform to social norms because many young people follow their example.For example, SMIs feel that society expects them not to swear in their videos or glorify dangerous behaviours like excessive drinking or harmful products like cigarettes.In addition, some respondents feel that society expects them not to avoid harmful products entirely, but to acknowledge their existence and educate their followers about responsible behaviour: (. ..) parents don't do their job, so they expect us to raise children and although we're not here to raise their children, I'm very happy to take that responsibility in these negative situations.Of course, you will go out, you will try a cigarette, you will drink (. ..).They [young followers] need to be taught to try it in circumstances where they will be safe, where they will be comfortable, and in the company of the people they know.(Kimmy) Unlike the Role Model role, which is based on society's expectations of how SMIs create branded content, as Advocates, SMIs believe they are expected to participate in public conversations about non-branded matters, i.e. general issues, such as abortion and minority rights.While SMIs agree that they are expected to use their online space to raise awareness of these issues, some even feel compelled to take a stand and tell followers how to act on these matters.Table 2 shows how different stakeholder expectations produce different SMIs' roles.

Moral dilemmas and conflict resolution strategies
Faced with three sets of expectations from different stakeholders (followers, brands, society), the SMIs from our study addressed many issues they face on a daily basis.The regulatory framework that is supposed to guide them is inconsistent and there is no oversight over its implementation, so they must decide what is the right thing to do themselves.Our results reveal two main findings: (1) many of the moral dilemmas faced by SMIs are the result of conflicting extended expectations from different stakeholder groups, and (2) when faced with a moral dilemma, SMIs employ different strategies to resolve moral dilemmas and do their job.
We discovered that conflicting extended expectations (commitment, authenticity and responsibility) lead to an irreconcilable clash of values that makes it very difficult for SMIs to follow through simultaneously, and thus they face the following moral dilemmas: • Conflict between commitment and authenticity leads to moral dilemmas related to non-disclosure (making clear that content is sponsored), withholding negative experiences (not sharing bad product experiences), lack of empathy (pushing sponsored content while society is burdened with situations like pandemics and earthquakes), and promotion of products without genuine experience (promotion of products not normally used by SMIs).
• Conflict between commitment and responsibility leads to moral dilemmas related to opinion sharing on socially relevant topics (making public awareness of the topics of relevance for society like gay marriage) and the promotion of harmful products (promotion of products that society considers harmful such as cigarettes, alcohol, and casinos).
When faced with role conflict and moral dilemmas, SMIs use four different strategies to help them decide how to handle a moral dilemma: • Downplaying a role: a strategy of minimizing the overall importance and impact of one of the conflicting roles so that SMIs can avoid it (because the other conflicting role has already been intuitively prioritised).
• Spotlighting a role: a strategy to increase the importance of a single role to the point where it becomes the SMIs' duty to prioritise it (and consequently ignore the other, conflicting role).
• Customizing a role: a strategy to adjust one of the conflicting roles as the situation requires so that it is aligned with the original conflicting and intuitively prioritised role (allowing the SMIs to appear to be staying in both roles at the same time).
• Resorting to a role: a strategy to seek a solution in a third role, since neither of the two conflicting roles presents a clear preference for the SMIs.

Conflict of commitment and authenticity
The first conflict we identified is between commitment and authenticity.SMIs must juggle between meeting their brands' expectations through commitment and meeting their followers' expectations through authenticity.Most dilemmas come with this conflict because SMIs need to balance the person they initially introduced and promised their followers with a desire to monetize their social media efforts by customising the content to reflect the brands that support them.Moral dilemmas in which they find themselves deciding whether authenticity or commitment is more important to them are: nondisclosure, withholding negative brand experiences, lack of empathy, and promoting products without trying them.To handle these moral dilemmas, they use the following strategies: • Downplaying the follower-related roles Sometimes SMIs diminish the importance of transparency and authenticity, meaning they avoid a follower-related role.In these situations, they argue that only the SMIs' communication tone and choice of expressions allow followers to tell whether they are (dis) honest about product experiences and sponsorship deals.For example: It is easily seen when I am really enthusiastic about something and recommend something from the heart, and on the other hand, when I do it only because I need money at that moment.It's very easy to see the difference.(Kimmy, Pos.45) At first glance, downplaying follower roles may seem to resemble the roledistancing strategy found in Mardon et al. (2023).They describe role distancing as SMIs tactically dissociating themselves from the roles of Celebrity and Influencer, despite their behaviour point that is exactly what they are.While the main mechanism of both role-distancing and downplaying a role is similar -to minimize the importance of a certain role -there are two main differences.First, in the case of role distancing SMIs do it to deter others from a role, while by downplaying a role they are convincing themselves the role is not important.Kimmy's quote points to another important difference.Role distancing as portrayed in Mardon et al. (2023) focuses on victimizing the SMIs (they didn't mean to become famous or influential), while in the case of downplaying a role it is about shifting responsibility for SMIs' behaviour to followers who should be more attentive to subtle cues in SMIs' content.
The second argument used when SMIs downplay the expectation of authenticity to avoid follower-related roles is to present themselves as nothing more than another communication channel: If you are a consumer who buys things for eyelash growth, you won't go there to buy it now, based on my example.Now a new L'Oreal mascara was being advertised, one website published an article, if I'm going to buy it, I'm going to Amazon to see the reviews to see what it's like, (. ..), to get informed.The fact that our average consumer is not interested in Googling is again a topic for a new doctorate (. ..)I think it is his [follower's] responsibility to get additional information in addition to the information he received on Instagram.(Tina) Mentioning followers' 'responsibility to get additional information' in the context of SMIs' paid promotion shows the defensive attitude SMIs often demonstrate to downplay follower roles.This attitude, that followers should know better than follow SMIs' advice, also surfaced in the study by Wellman et al. (2020) but in a softer manner.Their respondent mentioned followers should seek more comprehensive reviews elsewhere because SMIs' opinion is too subjective.
• Spotlighting follower-related roles Sometimes SMIs choose follower-related roles because the expectations followers have of them align with the values they strongly hold themselves.For example, they believe it is not empathetic, and therefore it is wrong to promote a lavish branded lifestyle that ignores the fact that people are suffering the consequences of pandemics and earthquakes, or they believe it is necessary to be authentic to oneself and really promote products aligned with their genuine values.This strategy can be seen in a comment from a respondent opposed to eating meat: At a private gathering . . .I will not offer a steak, but rather make a vegetarian dish.And I transfer that to my networks, because I would feel hypocritical if I had an ad: 'Buy fresh chickens for 9.99'.(Luka) Insisting on a certain value system when doing business was common among respondents, and in this case a respondent labels it as hypocritical to do otherwise.However, it is worth mentioning the research was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic and two months after a big earthquake in Croatia, which might make respondents more empathetic and value-oriented.The latest findings related to hypocrisy on social media reveal there are a growing number of cases of 'authentifakes' -insisting on meeting someone's expectations to the point it becomes intentionally deceptive (Kikerpill, 2023).It is worth noting that 'authentifakes' on social media could start as spotlighting a follower-related role but end up customizing it.
• Customizing follower-related roles Some SMIs customize their follower-related roles and strive to remain as Committed Business Partners that produce positive branded content without leaving their followerrelated roles.What SMIs do within this strategy, rather than disclosing a sponsored nature of the content, is to use a disclaimer: a simple notion that says a product has worked for them, and taking a stance that it does not need to be disclosed because it is a genuine review that happens to be sponsored.Also, SMIs search through a brand's portfolio until they find a product they are happy with to review and withhold negative experiences of the brand's other products.This strategy represents customization of their followerrelated roles because, while remaining truthful, which is characteristic of the followerrelated role, they neglect the followers' expectation of full transparency and disclosure.For example: I recently received three types of cream from the same company, but they have three different lines.One cream was bad for me, maybe it's not for my skin type, while the other one is great.I'll advertise it because it suits me.I won't mention the other one.(Ivana) Although stated in a nonchalant manner, this quote summarizes the problem of omission, previously recognized in Wellman et al. (2020).Content omission posing as genuine authenticity is a frequent strategy for customizing follower-related roles.Talking about negative experiences with a product or service would be just as authentic but would not meet the brand's expectations.could do any good other than make them less favourable business partners, so they avoid society-related roles with arguments like: I will certainly not allow myself to somehow compromise myself and close the door to myself elsewhere, and I can close the door to myself elsewhere if I bring up some topics or my views.(Helena, Pos.32) • Spotlighting society-related roles Some respondents spotlight their society-related roles in the case of opinion sharing on socially relevant topics and the promotion of harmful products.They feel it is their duty to bring attention to difficult yet socially relevant topics as they want to give back to the society that created their influence.Regardless of their point of view (traditional vs. liberal) and the consequent problems such topics might pose (loss of cooperation or even legal proceedings), SMIs have been equally opinionated about them.They see themselves as important initiators for changes in people's behaviour and thus obligated to act in an overall responsible manner.SMIs who employ this strategy consider SMIs that promote products and habits such as drinking, smoking, drugs, or gambling to be responsible for imposing and supporting risky and dangerous behaviours that cause widespread harm to society: I refused clients like X betting shop.I refused because I don't think it would be ok for me since I am followed by a lot of children . . .those who have just started high school and they are still children, and I don't think that I can impose certain things on them now . . .It's not ok.(Marko) • Resorting to a follower-related roles Sometimes, when SMIs are faced with the dilemma of whether to promote harmful products, they seem torn and undecided as to whether they want to be Committed Business Partners or responsible Role Models.In such situations, they take on a third, follower-related role and reach for authenticity to resolve the conflict.In these situations, they either side with brands or society, whichever is more authentic.When they side with brands, they do not necessarily feel like they are doing the right thing, but they argue that presenting themselves as who they are is more important than hiding their true selves.Often such decisions are accompanied by the removal of young followers who might fall under the 'bad' influence from their community base, or tutorials on how to use potentially harmful products.But even when it comes to products whose effectiveness is still under-researched, or even dangerous when combined with medical treatment, some respondents find acceptable to promote them as long as they have experience with them or genuinely accept them as a philosophy (i.e. as long as they remain authentic): If they contacted me regarding CBD cannabidiol[a compound found in marijuana], which until recently was a taboo in Croatia, I would definitely agree because I believe it helps.In principle, everything that I believe and think helps a person to be better, I do it and share the awareness of it.(Martina) Figure 1 summarizes the main findings and presents the conflicts of stakeholders' extended expectations (commitment vs. authenticity and commitment vs. responsibility), moral dilemmas that emerge from these conflicts, and SMIs' resolving strategies.

Discussion
Business is permeated by moral dilemmas regardless of the position of the decision maker (Kvalnes, 2019), and influencer marketing is no exception.It was evident early on that it transcends existing normative models of PR that encourage genuine messaging and responsible advocacy.The purpose of this study was to clarify the role(s) of SMIs and to examine moral dilemmas arising from the tensions between extended expectations imposed by various stakeholder groups as well as conflict resolution strategies.In examining SMIs' moral issues, Borchers and Enke (2022) positioned the SMI industry at the intersection of PR, advertising and journalism.Our research has a different perspective: it looks at SMIs' dilemmas within each SMI as a person who needs to balance being authentic, committed and responsible.This grainier view allowed for a micro perspective on influencer morale.Using role theory (Katz & Kahn, 1978), we deepen our understanding of the currently under-researched perceptions of SMIs.We find support for our findings in the responses of 10 SMIs, who share several common role perceptions, moral dilemmas arising from role conflict, and conflict resolution strategies.This is consistent with the assumption that the principles guiding SMIs when trying to balance the production of sponsored content with making money are not well understood rather than being unethical (Wellman et al., 2020).
Instead of pre-focusing on a topic, this study uses an inductive approach.It allowed for the expansion of previous research by explaining what moral dilemmas SMIs encounter, why these dilemmas arise, and how SMIs direct their behaviour through four conflict resolution strategies.We built on the insights of Borchers and Enke (2022), which focused on moral issues faced by SMIs in their business role, by adding the expectations of other stakeholders (followers and society) and showing how this creates fertile ground for moral dilemmas.Similarly, Cocker et al. (2021) suggest that SMIs have some moral responsibility within their online community, and that a breach of this responsibility leads to transgressions, i.e. moral issues.Following this logic, the current research provides three main findings.It (1) determines the extended expectations that lead to moral dilemmas, (2) explains the richness of SMIs' social position, and (3) proposes strategies that guide SMIs when dealing with moral dilemmas.

Moral dilemmas
Dealing responsibly with moral dilemmas requires understanding and identifying them (Kvalnes, 2019), and this research takes our understanding a step further.The six moral dilemmas found in this study are: non-disclosure, withholding negative experiences, lack of empathy, promotion of products without genuine experience, opinion sharing on socially relevant topics, and promotion of harmful products.Previous research on SMIs' issues mainly relates to the dual role of SMIs as consumer marketers (Kozinets et al., 2010).This study builds on that by explaining how SMIs perceive tensions that lead to moral dilemmas.Moral dilemmas found in this study correspond to some extent to those found in previous research: promotion of products without genuine experience (Cocker et al., 2021), non-disclosure (Borchers & Enke, 2022;Cocker et al., 2021;Wellman et al., 2020), lack of empathy (Borchers & Enke, 2022), and withholding of negative experiences (Borchers & Enke, 2022;Wellman et al., 2020).However, opinion sharing on socially relevant topics and the promotion of harmful products have not yet been addressed, and represent a common moral dilemma for SMIs.Recognising moral issues is the beginning of most ethical decision-making models (e.g.Trevino, 1986), and this means that our results are a step to understanding the complex moral decision-making process of SMIs.The constant need to balance conflicting expectations makes it difficult for SMIs to make a moral decision that is perceived as correct across roles.This poses a problem because when moral dilemmas are common in a busy business environment, the moral dimensions of people's decisions are not recognised (Kvalnes, 2019).

Richness of SMIs' social position
Our findings are comparable to those of Nascimento et al. (2020) and Mardon et al. (2023), who recognised that the role of SMIs changes as their business grows, but they focused on either the relationship with brands or with followers.Our research shows the interplay of the multiple roles that SMIs play simultaneously, not just in relation to their business partners (Committed business partner, Jack-of-all-trades) and followers (Close Friend, Entertainer, Reliable Reviewer), but also society (Role Model, Advocate), which has largely been neglected in prior research.These roles are responses to the expectations of the different stakeholders (brands, followers, society), as perceived by the SMIs.
Previous research has suggested that SMIs need to nurture relationships with both followers (e.g.Belanche et al., 2021) and brands (e.g.Jin & Muqaddam, 2019), with the expectations of the two being in conflict (e.g.Borchers & Enke, 2022;Cocker et al., 2021;Mardon et al., 2023;Martínez-López et al., 2020).Our study shows that SMIs face expectations that are very difficult to meet simultaneously, as the expectations pertain not only to followers and brands but also to society.Similarly, Leban et al. (2021) have already stated that the projected self of SMIs needs to be adapted to the public.The results of our research show that SMIs seek to maintain a relationship with general society by meeting their expectations that they engage in responsible behaviour, and this brings a new perspective to influencer morality.This is comparable to the study by Borchers and Enke (2022), which identified three groups of actors, but all of them came from a business environment (SMIs, brands, intermediaries).In addition, we complement the proposition of Wellman et al. (2020), who explained SMIs' moral behaviour, which relies on authenticity, i.e. being true to oneself and one's followers, as the guiding principle for moral decisions.We propose that decision-making is much more complex as it involves an additional set of stakeholders, i.e. society, and multiple strategies that help SMIs to overcome the dilemmas they face.

Conflict resolution strategies
The fact that there is no control over the implementation of rare and vague rules for SMIs (e.g. the rules of certain platforms) shifts the responsibility for what should or should not be done onto the SMIs.People often make certain compromises when confronted with different role requirements (Gibson, 2003), and previous research implied SMIs do it by engaging in reconciliation of conflicted roles (Leban et al., 2021;Mardon et al., 2023).We found that strategies that guide SMIs when faced with a moral dilemma emerging from role conflicts are: spotlighting a role, downplaying a role, customizing a role, and resorting to a role.As these strategies focus on moral dilemmas, they largely differ in comparison to the four role negotiation strategies identified by Mardon et al. (2023), apart from role prioritisation, which has a similar undertone to our 'spotlighting a role'.Aware that adhering to community norms is critical to evaluating a third-party endorser (Kozinets et al., 2010) like themselves, SMIs use these strategies to decide what they see as a less immoral decision.This leads to SMIs interfering in selective role-switching depending on the specific situations, dilemmas and strategies they use.This approach allows them to feel better about engaging in behaviours that would otherwise make them feel guilty (Bandura, 2002) by following the logic of role morality, i.e. departing from the notion of right or wrong when in a role (Gibson, 2003).Similarly, Mardon et al. (2023) found that SMIs engage in role negotiation strategies to resolve dysfunctional role dynamics within their online community.The current study shows that such strategies have even greater potential as they enable SMIs to resolve role conflict even outside the online community and allow them to proceed without feeling guilty for not meeting stakeholders' expectations.

Practical implications
From a practical point of view, the contributions of this study are threefold.One is aimed at SMIs who, despite the lack of regulation and vague guidelines, try to earn a living as boundary spanners put between followers and brands.Our findings help SMIs become aware of the role they put at the forefront of any collaboration and the expectations that each role entails.This will allow them to strengthen their position as reputable business entities, maintain long-term relationships with their followers and align them with society's expectations.Brand managers using SMIs need to manage their expectations to help SMIs reduce role conflict: they should choose SMIs based on their genuine interest instead of forcing products on them, reduce interventions into sponsored content, and mind the balance between sponsored and organic content.Policymakers should facilitate the use of influencer marketing by creating a comprehensive and clear regulatory framework and control mechanisms based on real-world examples that would protect the interests of SMIs and all stakeholders involved and minimise the possibility of fraud.Also, more regulation is needed to prevent brands from using SMIs as an outlet for products whose promotion is restricted in other forms of advertising (e.g.cigarettes, alcohol, gambling).There is an important difference between SMIs and employees that must be considered when examining SMIs' morality.Typically, members of a certain professional group interfere in such situations and create codes of conduct that have the potential to reduce conflicting expectations that can lead to conflict.The moral level of the industry can then be raised, boundaries of acceptable behaviour defined, and immoral requests denied.

Limitations and future research
This study has two main limitations.First, the job of an influencer is still enigmatic, and the issue of morality is inherently sensitive, so the respondents' answers may not have been entirely candid.Secondly, all respondents spoke Croatian, and whose target groups and business deals are mainly focused on Southeast Europe.As this study examined the roles SMIs perceive and the moral dilemmas they face, it paved the way for further research to examine whether the expectations perceived by SMIs actually align with the actual expectations of brands, followers, and society members.Additionally, it would be interesting for future research to gain a more conclusive insight into the implications of role switching to meet stakeholder expectations.Further research should provide more valuable information on various moral dilemmas faced by SMIs depending on their industry or other characteristics.

Conclusion
Previous research on SMIs' morality has gone so far as to identify moral issues, however further insight is required.Tiptoeing around the unpleasant truth that the social position of SMIs contains at its core irreconcilable moral obligations does not do the field justice.In an attempt to push things further, our study has four main findings.First, by taking a step back into SMI research, we focus on SMIs to identify roles they believe they need to play to sustain their business, and explain how these roles compare to the expectations of different stakeholders.The roles are Committed Business Partner and Jack-of-all-trades for brands; Entertainer, Close Friend, and Reliable Reviewer for followers; Role Model and Advocate for society.Second, we apply role theory to the context of influencer marketing to better understand the interplay of these roles, role conflicts, and moral dilemmas.Third, this research shows that the moral dilemmas of SMIs go well beyond disclosing a relationship with a brand.We identify the critical moral dilemmas SMIs face every day when deciding whether or not to promote a product: non-disclosure, withholding negative experiences, lack of empathy, promotion of products without genuine experience, opinion sharing on socially relevant topics, and promotion of harmful products.Identifying moral dilemmas helps influencer marketing research open a new set of possibilities to explain factors related to each dilemma and its contextual variations.Fourth, we present four strategies as a guiding principle for role ethics that go beyond the need for authenticity: SMIs use spotlighting a role, downplaying a role, customizing a role, and resorting to a role to decide which stakeholder group to side with when confronted with a moral dilemma.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Conflict of stakeholders' extended expectations (commitment, authenticity, and responsibility), emerging moral dilemmas and strategies for resolving the conflict.

Table 1 .
Description of the sample.