
==== Front
J Occup Health
J Occup Health
joh
Journal of Occupational Health
1341-9145
1348-9585
Oxford University Press

39141839
10.1093/joccuh/uiae045
uiae045
Opinion
AcademicSubjects/MED00010
AcademicSubjects/MED00640
Mental health of social media influencers
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5353-3287
Bray Isabelle School of Health and Social Wellbeing, University of the West of England, Bristol, BS16 1QY, UK

Lerigo-Sampson Moya Bristol Business School, University of the West of England, Bristol, BS16 1QY, UK

Morey Yvette Bristol Business School, University of the West of England, Bristol, BS16 1QY, UK

Williams Joanne School of Health and Social Wellbeing, University of the West of England, Bristol, BS16 1QY, UK

Corresponding author: Isabelle Bray, (issy.bray@uwe.ac.uk).
Jan-Dec 2024
14 8 2024
14 8 2024
66 1 uiae04514 11 2023
10 7 2024
12 8 2024
05 9 2024
© The Author(s) [2024]. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Journal of Occupational Health
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

There is a wide body of research on the effects of social media use on mental health, particularly focusing on young people. However, very little is known about the mental health of social media influencers (SMIs), who also tend to be quite young. This is of growing significance as more of our daily lives is conducted online, and in the context of poor population mental health globally, which declined further as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. We therefore set out to review the mental health of SMIs and, in the absence of literature on SMIs, drew on other similar but more traditional occupational groups, such as the self-employed, to draw conclusions and identify directions for future research.

social media influencers
mental health
wellbeing
==== Body
pmcThere has been a steady increase in social media use since the early 2000s.1,2 Research into the mental health effects of the use of social media, or “social networking sites” (SNSs), has grown exponentially since 2010. In 2020 two systematic reviews were published on the topic. The first reviewed 16 papers and found that half were cross-sectional. The authors reported that “although the results of the study were not completely consistent, this review found a general association between social media use and mental health issues.”3 They concluded that there was a need for more qualitative and longitudinal studies. The second also included 16 studies. Five of these reported positive effects, whereas 8 reported negative effects (3 were not categorized as either positive or negative). Although individual studies reported negative associations with a wide range of mental health outcomes including mood and self-esteem,4,5 SNS use was, overall, found to be related to less loneliness and greater self-esteem and life satisfaction.6 The authors reported that positive interactions, social support, and social connectedness on SNSs were related to lower levels of depression and anxiety, whereas negative interaction and social comparisons on SNSs were related to higher levels of depression and anxiety. This suggests that mixed findings regarding the relationship between social media use and well-being may be explained by different types of online interactions.7 Since different demographic groups use social media differently,8,9 it follows that certain groups are disproportionately affected.

Much of the concern about social media use and mental health has focused on the effects on young people, perhaps because they tend to be more avid consumers of social media than older generations,8 and because young people’s mental health has been a particular concern, even before the recent pandemic.10 Although all groups within society were affected in different ways by the COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdowns, a systematic review found that those younger than 40 years were more severely affected.11 A review of COVID-19 and mental health outcomes in children and young people reported that it increased both depression and anxiety in adolescent cohorts.12 A review focusing on digital media use and mental health of adolescents during the pandemic reported that the negative aspects of use, such as social comparison and fear of missing out, were more likely to affect social media users during lockdown, due to social isolation and confinement.13 Most studies in this review reported a negative association between well-being and social media use.

A survey of social media users noted that the increasing necessity to use social media for work could lead to increased pressures on workers to be constantly “connected,” resulting in stress.14 This calls into question the well-being of people who use social media as an integral part of their working lives. Social media influencers (SMIs), or “content creators,” may be at an increased risk of the negative impacts on mental health because they are heavily immersed in social media as part of their job. SMIs are characterized by having sizable networks of active followers and are used to promote brands, products, or services through social media platforms such as Instagram, Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), and TikTok.15 An initial search of the literature has found no peer-reviewed evidence about the mental health of this occupational group, despite the fact that the numbers of people making their living in this way is growing rapidly,16,17 and accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic, when reliance on the internet and social media for entertainment and information increased.18 Even before the pandemic, in 2018, 75% of advertisers reported using influencers and 43% expected to increase their spending on influencers in the next year.19 However, a parliamentary report on influencer culture identified “mental health issues from their constant online presence” as one of a number of challenges faced by this occupational group,20 highlighting the need for further research on this topic. The need to understand the well-being of SMIs is particularly important given that they tend to be young21 and female22 (compared with other occupational groups), both risk factors in themselves for poorer mental health.23,24 The sex difference in mental health morbidity becomes apparent during adolescence25 (attributed to factors associated with puberty such as body dissatisfaction and higher levels of upward comparison amongst girls26), and persists across the lifecourse.27 It is estimated that 84% of all SMIs are women, compared with just 16% men.28

In the absence of research evidence about the well-being of SMIs [based on a PubMed search using the terms “social media influencer*” AND (“mental health” OR wellbeing)], we have looked more broadly at the literature on those who are self-employed or freelance, SMIs being a subset of these categories [(“freelance*” OR “self-employed”) AND (“mental health” OR wellbeing)]. Since the longitudinal studies of UK civil servants first revealed that it was those with least control over their work who had the worst health outcomes,29 the finding has been confirmed in other studies,30 with pressure, stress, and autonomy potentially mediating the observed association with mental health. It would seem logical that the autonomy of being self-employed might yield well-being benefits for this occupational group. However, a systematic review of the literature31 found increased risks of a wide range of health-related outcomes—from sickness absence to suicide—for the self-employed, as well as some protective effects, such as higher levels of physical activity32 (likely to promote mental health33,34). The evidence in this review for other mental health outcomes was either inconclusive (depression) or showed no difference between the employed and self-employed (anxiety). Demographic factors appear to moderate the effect of being self-employed. For example, one study found that being self-employed was associated with depression in women but not men,35 whereas there is evidence that being self-employed is protective for older but not younger workers.36 As noted above, SMIs tend to be female and relatively young, again pointing toward an increased risk of poorer mental health outcomes for this occupational group. Before applying the systematic review findings to SMIs we should consider the quality of the evidence. Because 23 of the 26 included studies were cross-sectional, there is a possibility of reverse causality. In other words, it is possible that those with poorer mental health choose to be self-employed, as evidenced during the COVID-19 pandemic.37

It is also worth bearing in mind that since the pandemic, many employees have adopted some aspects of a lifestyle that previously were limited to the self-employed,38 giving more control over how and where work is carried out, potentially diminishing at least some of the differences between the self-employed and employees. However, it should be noted that employees tend to trade increasing flexibility for additional effort.39 It is widely accepted that the shift in working practices toward more home-working has brought benefits for older employees (such as more flexibility to accommodate caring responsibilities) but negative impacts for younger workers, who miss out on the informal mentoring and social interactions that the traditional workplace offers.40–42 This pattern mirrors the finding above in relation to the benefits of being self-employed for older but not younger workers.

Beyond the literature on self-employed workers, similar searches for research on health outcomes associated with contract [“non-standard employment” AND (“mental health” OR wellbeing)] or atypical working patters [“atypical worker*” AND (“mental health” OR wellbeing)] yielded no further relevant research. We conclude that there is a lack of evidence on the mental health and well-being of SMIs, and that this is an urgent area for future research. Authors of reviews of social media use and mental health have called for more qualitative and longitudinal studies3 and more randomized controlled trials.6 Because it is not possible to randomize people to the role of SMI, other epidemiological study designs, such as cohort and case–control studies, should be employed to provide a stronger evidence base examining the well-being of this occupational group than the broadly cross-sectional data that we have drawn on here. Qualitative work is also needed to understand the mechanisms by which the experiences of SMIs affect health outcomes, including coping strategies. The role of potential moderators, such as demographic variables and personality type, should also be investigated in future work.

Acknowledgments

We thank Florence Neville for help with formatting.

Author contributions

All authors were involved in conceiving the idea for this article; I.B. led the writing; M.L.-S., Y.M., and J.W. commented on the draft.

Funding

This work was funded by the University of the West of England (UWE), Bristol.

Conflicts of interest

None declared.
==== Refs
References

1. Ortiz-Ospina . The rise of social media. Our World in Data. 2019. Accessed November 7, 2023. https://ourworldindata.org/rise-of-social-media
2. Appel G , GrewalL, HadiR, StephenAT. The future of social media in marketing. J Acad Mark Sci. 2020;48 (1 ):79–95. 10.1007/s11747-019-00695-1 32431463
3. Karim F , OyewandeAA, AbdallaLF, Chaudhry EhsanullahR, KhanS. Social media use and its connection to mental health: a systematic review. Cureus. 2020;12 (6 ) e8627. 10.7759/cureus.8627
4. Yuen EK , KoterbaEA, StasioMJ, et al. The effects of Facebook on mood in emerging adults. Psychol Pop Media Cult. 2019;8 (3 ):198–206. 10.1037/ppm0000178
5. Vogel EA , RoseJP, RobertsLR, EcklesK. Social comparison, social media, and self-esteem. Psychol Pop Media Cult. 2014;3 (4 ):206–222. 10.1037/ppm0000047
6. Sharma MK , JohnN, SahuM. Influence of social media on mental health: a systematic review. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2020;33 (5 ):467–475. 10.1097/YCO.0000000000000631 32639362
7. Seabrook EM , KernML, RickardNS. Social networking sites, depression, and anxiety: a systematic review. JMIR Ment Health. 2016;3 (4 ):e50. 10.2196/mental.5842 27881357
8. Fietkiewicz KJ . Other times, other manners: how do different generations use social media? Presented at: Hawaii University International Conferences; January 8-11, 2016; Honolulu, Hawaii. Accessed November 7, 2023. https://huichawaii.org/assets/fietkiewicz,-kaja---2016-huic-ahse.pdf
9. Wu M-Y . Fostering resilience: understanding generational differences in information and communication technology (ICT) and social media use. JoCTEC. 2022;5 (2 ):25–47. 10.51548/joctec-2022-007
10. Cybulski L , AshcroftDM, CarrMJ, et al. Temporal trends in annual incidence rates for psychiatric disorders and self-harm among children and adolescents in the UK, 2003-2018. BMC Psychiatry. 2021;21 (1 ):229. 10.1186/s12888-021-03235-w 33941129
11. Xiong J , LipsitzO, NasriF, et al. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on mental health in the general population: a systematic review. J Affect Disord. 2020;277 :55–64. 10.1016/j.jad.2020.08.001 32799105
12. Nearchou F , FlinnC, NilandR, SubramaniamSS, HennessyE. Exploring the impact of COVID-19 on mental health outcomes in children and adolescents: a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17 (22 ):8479. 10.3390/ijerph17228479 33207689
13. Marciano L , OstroumovaM, SchulzPJ, CameriniAL. Digital media use and adolescents' mental health during the Covid-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Public Health. 2022;9 :793868. 10.3389/fpubh.2021.793868 35186872
14. Loiacono E , McCoyS. When did fun become so much work: the impact of social media invasiveness on continued social media use. Inf Technol People. 2018;31 (4 ):966–983. 10.1108/ITP-10-2016-0239
15. De Veirman M , CaubergheV, HuddersL. Marketing through Instagram influencers: the impact of number of followers and product divergence on brand attitude. Int J Advert. 2017;36 (5 ):798–828. 10.1080/02650487.2017.1348035
16. Campbell C , FarrellJR. More than meets the eye: the functional components underlying influencer marketing. Bus Horiz. 2020;63 (4 ):469–479. 10.1016/j.bushor.2020.03.003
17. Vrontis D , MakridesA, ChristofiM, ThrassouA. Social media influencer marketing: a systematic review, integrative framework and future research agenda. Int J Consum Stud. 2021;45 (4 ):617–644. 10.1111/ijcs.12647
18. Khlystova O , KalyuzhnovaY, BelitskiM. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the creative industries: a literature review and future research agenda. J Bus Res. 2022;139 :1192–1210. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.09.062 34629569
19. Association of National Advertisers . Advertisers love influencer marketing: ANA study. ANA. April 3, 2018. Accessed November 7 2023. https://www.ana.net/content/show/id/48437
20. UK Parliament . Influencer culture: lights, camera, inaction? May. 2022. Accessed November 7, 2023. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5802/cmselect/cmcumeds/258/report.html
21. Statista . Distribution of influencers creating sponsored posts on Instagram worldwide in 2019, by age group. December, 2019. Accessed November 7, 2023. https://www.statista.com/statistics/893733/share-influencers-creating-sponsored-posts-by-age/
22. Statista . Distribution of influencers creating sponsored posts on Instagram worldwide in 2019, by gender. December, 2019. Accessed November 7, 2023. https://www.statista.com/statistics/893749/share-influencers-creating-sponsored-posts-by-gender/
23. Gunnell D , KidgerJ, ElvidgeH. Adolescent mental health in crisis. BMJ. 2018;361 :k2608. 10.1136/bmj.k2608 29921659
24. Kiely KM , BradyB, BylesJ. Gender, mental health and ageing. Maturitas. 2019;129 :76–84. 10.1016/j.maturitas.2019.09.004 31547918
25. Wichstrom L . The emergence of gender difference in depressed mood during adolescence. Dev Psychol. 1999;35 (1 ):232–245. 10.1037/0012-1649.35.1.232 9923478
26. Xiang K , KongF. Passive social networking sites use and disordered eating behaviors in adolescents: the roles of upward social comparison and body dissatisfaction and its sex differences. Appetite. 2024;198 :107360. 10.1016/j.appet.2024.107360 Epub 2024 Apr 17 PMID: 38636666 38636666
27. Ferrari AJ , CharlsonFJ, NormanRE, et al. Burden of depressive disorders by country, sex, age, and year: findings from the global burden of disease study 2010. PLoS Med. 2013;10 (11 ):e1001547. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001547 24223526
28. Dopson E . 30+ influencer marketing statistics you should know. Shopify. November 21, 2023. Accessed August 19, 2024. https://www.shopify.com/uk/blog/influencer-marketing-statistics
29. Marmot MG , SmithGD, StansfeldS, et al. Health inequalities among British civil servants: the Whitehall II study. Lancet. 1991;337 (8754 ):1387–1393. 10.1016/0140-6736(91)93068-k 1674771
30. Ettner SL , GrzywaczJG. Workers' perceptions of how jobs affect health: a social ecological perspective. J Occup Health Psychol. 2001;6 (2 ):101–113. 10.1037/1076-8998.6.2.101 11326723
31. Willeke K , JansonP, ZinkK, et al. Occurrence of mental illness and mental health risks among the self-employed: a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18 (16 ):8617. 10.3390/ijerph18168617 34444369
32. Su TT , AzzaniM, AdewaleAP, ThangiahN, ZainolR, MajidH. Physical activity and health-related quality of life among low-income adults in metropolitan Kuala Lumpur. J Epidemiol. 2019;29 (2 ):43–49. 10.2188/jea.JE20170183 29962493
33. Chu AH , KohD, MoyFM, Müller-RiemenschneiderF. Do workplace physical activity interventions improve mental health outcomes? Occup Med (Lond). 2014;64 (4 ):235–245. 10.1093/occmed/kqu045 24850815
34. Abdin S , WelchRK, Byron-DanielJ, MeyrickJ. The effectiveness of physical activity interventions in improving well-being across office-based workplace settings: a systematic review. Public Health. 2018;160 :70–76. 10.1016/j.puhe.2018.03.029 29751224
35. Cambois E , GarrousteC, PailhéA. Gender career divide and women’s disadvantage in depressive symptoms and physical limitations in France. SSM - Population Health. 2017;3 :81–88. 10.1016/j.ssmph.2016.12.008 29349207
36. Winzer R , SorjonenK, LindbergL. What predicts stable mental health in the 18-29 age group compared to older age groups? Results from the Stockholm public health cohort 2002-2014. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15 (12 ):2859. 10.3390/ijerph15122859 30558161
37. Griffiths ML , GrayBJ, KyleRG, DaviesAR. Seeking good work in the COVID-19 recovery: shifting priorities and employment choices among workers. J Occup Environ Med. 2023;65 (1 ):86–92. 10.1097/JOM.0000000000002694 36070537
38. Agba AO , OcheniSI, AgbaMS. COVID-19 and the world of work dynamics: a critical review. JESR. 2020;10 (5 ) 119.. 10.36941/jesr-2020-0093
39. Kelliher C , AndersonD. Doing more with less? Flexible working practices and the intensification of work. Hum Relat. 2010;63 (1 ):83–106. 10.1177/0018726709349199
40. Taser D , AydinE, TorgalozAO, RofcaninY. An examination of remote e-working and flow experience: the role of technostress and loneliness. Comput Hum Behav. 2022;127 :107020. 10.1016/j.chb.2021.107020
41. Pyoria P . Managing telework: risk, fears and rules. Manage Res Rev. 2011;34 (4 ):386–399. 10.1108/01409171111117843
42. Felstead A , HensekeG. Assessing the growth of remote working and its consequences for effort, well-being and work-life balance. New Technol Work Employ. 2017;32 (3 ):195–212. 10.1111/ntwe.12097
