Princesses, Hold Your Heads Up

Every little girl is a princess. And then time passes and, quite suddenly, she isn’t one anymore. Or, she doesn’t feel like one, anyway. She is far too aware of her imperfections to continue to see herself as the elegant, beautiful, infallible creature that her four-year-old self believed that she would always be. But what causes this change in self-perception? What are these imperfections, and how were they never previously noticed? It’s simple: humans are social animals, and evolutionarily prone to compare ourselves to others, and we saw some others that society said we should emulate to be desirable. However, now that the use of image-altering software and apps have become ubiquitous in the last decade, these beings we constantly compare ourselves to are almost always photo-edited ideals – and therefore unattainable. This dissonance, caused by the ubiquitous availability and use of Photoshop, filters, and other image-editing applications by advertisers, influencers, and laypeople, paired with the culture of constant review and criticism promoted by social media, is causing a surge of mental and physical health issues among adolescents and young adults – especially women.

The rise of Instagram seemed to occur analogously to growing public outrage over the “sin of Photoshopping” (Dumenco, “Instagram”). In 2012, two years after the app’s launch and less than a month after Facebook purchased Instagram for $1 billion, the New York Times reported on a 14-year-old girl named Julia who submitted a petition to Change.org that urged Seventeen Magazine to “commit to printing one unaltered – real – photo spread per month” (Dwyer). Julia said that she thought many of her friends had bad body images because of the “perfect faces in fashion magazines” (Dwyer). “I look at the girls, and a lot of them, like, they don’t have freckles, or moles, anywhere on their bodies,” [Julia] said (Dwyer). In 2014, an attempt to pass the “Truth in Advertising Act,” formerly known as the “Self Esteem Act” occurred. The Act called for the regulation of the “industry wide practice of routinely and materially misrepresenting the appearance of people” for the sake of the health of the consumer (Dumenco, “Advertising”). Members of Congress that supported the Act cited several pieces of “research linking unrealistic depictions of human bodies in the media to eating disorders in both women and men”, and calling altered ads “deceptive and damaging” (Dumenco, “Advertising”). Indeed, the Truth in Advertising Act failed to pass, but the issues that inspired it have not only remained, but become worse with the exponential growth of multiple social media platforms and the wide availability of photo-editing technology to consumers themselves.

Today, young adults are plagued by the ubiquity of social media and the constant mental load it inflicts on them. A study by Mintel in 2019 found that, even though they realize that most people’s posts are edited to show only the positive aspects of their lives, about half of Gen Z adults say that social media makes them feel “left out” (Boesel 32). However, the perfectionism present in this generation that developed as a response to external and internal pressure to succeed continues to motivate social media users to post evidence of “seemingly perfect lives” online (Boesel 31). In addition, Gen Z teens, adults, and millennials are the generations most likely to worry about their appearance due to the “constant judgement” they feel due to the social expectation of constant, public updates on “where young people are, what they are wearing, etc.” (Boesel 31). Nearly a third of teen girls say they experience stress on a daily basis due to thinking about their appearance, along with 20% of Gen Z adults and 16% of millennials
(Boesel 31). 

Medical professionals have noticed the rise of these new and unrealistic beauty standards as well. A study published in early 2020 also identifies a growing trend of body dysmorphic disorder among adolescents, reporting that frequent social media use and “exposure to media images leaning toward thin body ideation is related to increased body image distress in women” (Himanshu). In addition, the study revealed that women were significantly more dissatisfied with their bodies than their male counterparts. Patients with body dysmorphia have increased instances of eating disorders, and report significant stress caused by feelings of discontent with at least one aspect of their bodies (Himanshu). The authors of the study urge teachers, parents, physicians, and legal guardians to “deem it important to nudge the youth in the right direction by intervening and helping to understand the shallowness and superficiality of body image representation in the media” (Himanshu). But the issue of body dysmorphia is not present in adolescents alone. 

In an article published in the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology in late 2019, Dr. Wang, an esthetician, discusses an alarming rise in what he terms “selfie dysmorphia”, a “social media‐induced dissatisfaction with appearance” caused by the use of filters and other photo-editing techniques among millennials (Wang). “Social media offers immediate feedback, adding to the culture of constant review and criticism,” he explains. “The inexorable cycle of sharing personal content and receiving feedback may exacerbate adverse effects on body image and psychological health” (Wang). Dr. Wang urges his colleagues to be on the lookout for patients who bring in “filtered selfies to demonstrate their desired appearance”, and asserts that all patients should be screened for unrealistic expectations formed by edited photos prior to approval for procedures (Wang). This literature is disturbing, and gives insight to the disordered thought processes caused by altered photographs that can lead people to extremes.

Several companies have taken stands against image alteration in (somewhat transparent) attempts to sway consumers’ brand loyalties. Olay, for example, pledged in early 2020 to eliminate the practice of photo manipulation in their advertising by 2020. “Olay’s “Skin Promise” mark will appear on ads in the U.S. and Canada to show that the skin on women featured has not been retouched, the company said” (Graham). Olay’s senior communications specialist, Kate DiCarlo, cited the role of social media content perpetuating a culture of perfectionism as the cause for the campaign (Graham). Another article points out that this is likely a bid to remain relevant to young consumers by Procter & Gamble brands in the face of competing upstarts like Dollar Shave Club, but in general the campaign has been received well by the public (Cheng). Ironically, it was the possible requirement of a label to indicate retouched photos by the Truth in Advertising Act that received the most backlash from advertisers in 2014; now, six years later, Olay will seize an inverted version of that label and place it on their ads as a badge of honor (United States).

Some influencers are also pointing out the hypocrisy within their own industry. In late 2019, Cassey Ho, a fitness instructor and influencer, analyzed the photo manipulation patterns and physical attributes in the posts of the 100 most-followed women on Instagram, and then passed on the findings – heart-shaped lips, large butt, etc. – to her team’s artist (Schild). Ho requested that the artist edit some of her posts to mimic the 22 attributes that she had found, and the subtle but significant edits to the photos were, according to her fans, “eye-opening” (Schild). The majority applauded Ho for her honesty, but some criticized her for her new and improved “looks,” saying that they were offended by her exclusion of certain body types. Ho asserted that she did the experiment to shed light on social media beauty ideals and the common practices of similar influencers. "Videos and projects like these are so important because it brings to light what is actually happening so you can take a step back and think about how you are being affected by [social media]," Ho said (Schild). However, even though logically it is known that photo editing is common and often flies under the radar, the emotional effects of constant exposure to these unrealistic beauty standards tend to linger and fester.

I remember vividly times when I felt ugly – or rather, just not good enough – compared to photo-manipulated beauty ideals. Most recently, my friend was scrolling through Instagram and landed on a fitspiration account belonging to a woman with a rather large behind. He expressed his appreciation, then immediately asked how my workouts were coming. I know he meant it innocently, as I’d frequently expressed my frustration at my seeming inability to gain mass on my lower body, no matter how many hours I spent in the gym. But the direct comparison stung. I pointed out the curvy door frame behind the woman in the photo and the suspect wavy drape of her long hair near her hips. “See?” I said. “It’s fake.” He somewhat sheepishly replied, “Yeah, I know, but it still looks good.” 

Every woman has stories like this one. Every woman knows the distinct, bottomless, soul-crushing feeling of internalized inadequacy. Every woman has felt that they are simply not enough in the eyes of society. Whether it be a perfectly round butt, an incredibly tiny waist, or perfect, poreless skin, women hold themselves to impossible, increasingly lofty standards due to constant exposure by social media and the resulting expectations by both themselves and society. This is also clearly not an issue that is going away; in actuality, as we become more inundated by altered photos and posts, the cycle of comparison, worry, and self-hatred is likely to worsen. However, steps can be taken at all levels of the social media ladder to mitigate these harmful effects on consumers.

At the highest level, advertising professionals must condemn the use of image alteration to the point that it misleads consumers. This includes influencers! Daily users of social media sites, especially Tumblr and TikTok, report feeling personally connected to those that they follow (Poelking 53). Advertisers should condemn accounts that use too much image manipulation, and influencers should be mindful of the practice. And although this call to action utilizes an admittedly arbitrary benchmark, it is up to communicators to set reasonable guidelines that resonate with their own personal codes of ethics. After all, influencers are also consumers, and any consumer now has the ability to edit a photo to present the best possible version – or impossible version – of themselves. Thus, the first and most important step is realizing – and subsequently, consciously internalizing – that what one sees on social media does not reflect real life. By knowing what is causing internal dissonance, one can then begin to take conscious steps to avoid triggering social media images and move forward on the path to self acceptance in a world saturated with idealized falsehoods, and thereby wrest back control of one’s mental health. Because everyone deserves to feel like a princess. In today’s media driven, heavily edited world, that means holding your head up a little higher – and away from your smartphone – so your crown doesn’t fall off. 

Works Cited