Body Image 27 (2018) 86–92

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Body Image
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/bodyimage

“Selfie” harm: Effects on mood and body image in young women

Jennifer S. Mills a,∗ , Sarah Musto a , Lindsay Williams a , Marika Tiggemann b
a
Department of Psychology, York University, 4700 Keele St., Toronto, Ontario, M3J 1P3, Canada
b
School of Psychology, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: “Selfies” (self-taken photos) are a common self-presentation strategy on social media. This study exper-
Received 2 February 2018 imentally tested whether taking and posting selfies, with and without photo-retouching, elicits changes
Received in revised form 9 August 2018 to mood and body image among young women. Female undergraduate students (N = 110) were randomly
Accepted 10 August 2018
assigned to one of three experimental conditions: taking and uploading either an untouched selfie, taking
Available online 24 August 2018
and posting a preferred and retouched selfie to social media, or a control group. State mood and body
image were measured pre- and post-manipulation. As predicted, there was a main effect of experimental
Keywords:
condition on changes to mood and feelings of physical attractiveness. Women who took and posted self-
Social media
Selfies
ies to social media reported feeling more anxious, less confident, and less physically attractive afterwards
Body image compared to those in the control group. Harmful effects of selfies were found even when participants
Anxiety could retake and retouch their selfies. This is the first experimental study showing that taking and posting
Confidence selfies on social media causes adverse psychological effects for women.
Self-presentation © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
Retouching (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

1. Introduction Emerging evidence provides insight into the effects that social
media behaviours may have on users. On one hand, social media
Within the past decade, social networking has become a hugely use may be beneficial as it allows greater connectedness with oth-
popular form of online communication, especially among young ers, leading to an increased sense of well-being (Tiggemann &
people (Perloff, 2014). Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat are Miller, 2010). On the other hand, social media use may lead to a
among some of the most widely used social media platforms avail- preoccupation and focus on physical appearance, such as engage-
able and can be accessed via computer, smartphone, computer ment in appearance-related photo activities (Cohen, Newton-John,
tablet, and through other forms of technology (Perloff, 2014). In & Slater, 2017), which could cause appearance concerns and low-
comparison to conventional mass media, social media are interac- ered body image and self-esteem (de Vries, Peter, Nikken, & de
tive, allowing individuals to create their own personal profiles and Graaf, 2014). As users are frequently exposed to a variety of other
share information and photos with users on their social network profiles, they can compare their own appearance to friends, rel-
(Stefanone, Lackaff, & Rosen, 2011). A national survey by the Pew atives, and strangers (Haferkamp & Kramer, 2011). Hancock and
Research Center found that in the U.S., 18- to 29-year-olds who Toma (2009) found that people select their own online dating pro-
access the Internet are the most likely of any demographic group file photos in an attempt to look as attractive as possible without
to use a social networking (i.e., social media) site, and that women being judged to be deceptive. Cross-sectional data have revealed
are more likely than men to use these sites (Duggan & Brenner, that for both women and men, Facebook use is associated with
2013). Over 95% of college students regularly maintain and man- greater (upward) social comparison and self-objectification, which
age their social networking profiles (Perloff, 2014; Stefanone et al., are both related to lower self-esteem, poorer mental health, and
2011). Women, in particular, have been found to upload photos to body image concerns (Hanna et al., 2017).
social media more frequently than do men, and tend to spend more
time updating, managing, and maintaining their personal profiles
1.1. Social media and body image
(Stefanone et al., 2011).
Various studies have documented widespread body and weight
dissatisfaction among girls and women, and social media has
been found to be a significant catalyst for these appearance con-
∗ Corresponding author. cerns (Brown & Tiggemann, 2016; Holland & Tiggemann, 2016;
E-mail address: jsmills@yorku.ca (J.S. Mills). Tiggemann & Miller, 2010). Given that social media provide the

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2018.08.007
1740-1445/© 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
 J.S. Mills et al. / Body Image 27 (2018) 86–92 87

opportunity for social comparison, as well as exposure to unrealis- gender differences in Internet activities has found that, compared
tic beauty expectations, body dissatisfaction is likely to result from to men, women tend to be more motivated to create a positive
frequent use (Fardouly, Pinkus, & Vartanian, 2017; Tiggemann & self-presentation on their social media profiles, and as a result,
Slater, 2013; Want & Saiphoo, 2017). Social media present innumer- they engage in more photo-enhancement behaviours (Haferkamp,
able idealized images of thin, lean/tone, beautiful, photo-shopped Eimler, Papadakis, & Kruck, 2012; Toma & Hancock, 2010). Over-
women, and the “thin ideal” and “athletic ideal” are displayed as all, research has suggested that the taking and retouching of selfies
a normal, desirable, and attainable body type for every woman may be a particularly risky behaviour in terms of its potential to
(Kim & Chock, 2015; Meier & Gray, 2014; Robinson et al., 2017). negatively impact the body image and self-esteem of young girls
Furthermore, the Internet and social media have been found to pro- and women.
mote thinness, dieting behavior, and weight loss through idealized
images of “perfect” women (Perloff, 2014). Women who use social
media often internalize the “thin ideal,” causing them to strive for
an unrealistic, unnatural standard of beauty and to feel ashamed
1.3. The current study
when they are unable to achieve it (Kim & Chock, 2015; Meier &
Gray, 2014; Tiggemann & Slater, 2013). Studies have found that
In summary, previous research demonstrates that social media
frequent exposure to the Internet and social networking websites
use is positively correlated with appearance concern. Furthermore,
results in high levels of weight dissatisfaction, drive for thinness,
the literature suggests that selfie-taking and photo-retouching,
and body surveillance in young women (Tiggemann & Miller, 2010;
which are very common social media behaviours, are associated
Tiggemann & Slater, 2013), regardless of race (Howard, Heron,
with poorer self-esteem and body image among young women. It
MacIntyre, Myers, & Everhart, 2017). Additionally, Perloff (2014)
has been suggested that editing and uploading selfies may worsen
suggests that women who have relatively higher levels of thin
appearance concerns (de Vries et al., 2014), but it is not yet known
ideal internalization, perfectionism, and/or low self-esteem would
whether a causal relationship exists.
be especially likely to spend time on appearance-focused online
To fill this gap in the literature, the current study tested the
comparisons and that they probably do not use ‘self-protective’
effects of selfie taking on body image and mood in women. It was
downward appearance comparisons (i.e., comparing their appear-
hypothesized that updating one’s social media profile with a selfie
ance to less attractive friends). These predictions are concerning,
photo would result in lowered mood and increased body concerns
since high body dissatisfaction among women is a primary risk fac-
as compared to a control group. To answer a secondary research
tor for the development of eating disorders and is correlated with
question, we also tested the effects of having control over self-
low self-esteem and depression (Meier & Gray, 2014; Tiggemann &
presentation on social media, by retaking and retouching a selfie
Miller, 2010). Therefore, it is important for researchers to under-
photo, on women’s body image and mood. It was hypothesized
stand the causal effects that social media and self-presentation
that participants who were allowed to retake and retouch their
strategies have on young women by using experimental research
selfie would experience better mood and body image compared to
methods.
women who were not allowed to modify their selfie before posting
it on social media. This is because women typically react to seeing
1.2. Self-presentation and impression management
a photo of themselves by feeling dissatisfied with their appearance
(Mills, Shikatani, Tiggemann, & Hollitt, 2014) and photo modifica-
Past research on the psychological effects of social media has
tion allows a person to present an idealized version of themselves
mainly focused on the implications of social media use for body sat-
to others (Tiggemann & Miller, 2010).
isfaction in general. However, there is a lack of empirical research
that evaluates the effects of the specific self-presentation strategies
that social media users rely on. According to Toma and Hancock
(2010), self-presentation involves “adjusting and editing the self
during social interactions to create a desired impression on the 2. Method
audience.” The motivation to selectively self-present also relates
to impression management, whereby individuals carefully present 2.1. Participants
themselves in order to make specific impressions on their viewers
(Pounders, Kowalczyk, & Stowers, 2016). As a result, social media Participants were 113 psychology undergraduate students
users are driven to present the most attractive versions of them- recruited through an online experiment management system at
selves to others in order to make a favorable impression (Toma York University in Toronto, Canada. Inclusion criteria included
& Hancock, 2010). These photos, however, often do not portray being female, being between 16 and 29 years old (M = 19.00,
an accurate depiction of one’s true physical appearance (Toma & SD = 1.66), and having an active account on Facebook or Insta-
Hancock, 2010). The most common way that users selectively self- gram. In exchange for their participation in a single, hour-long
present on social media is through the taking and uploading of lab session, participants received partial course credit toward
“selfies” (photos taken by and of oneself). Users tend to capture their Introduction to Psychology course. The self-reported eth-
selfies from flattering angles and using bright lighting, and may also nic distribution of the sample was 24.8% South Asian, 20.2%
edit their photos using colour correction, skin-retouching, and even European/Caucasian, 12.8% Black/African-American, 10.1% Middle
photo-shopping to make body parts appear thinner (Anderson, Eastern, 9.2 Caribbean, 6.4% Pacific Islands American, 5.5% East
Fagan, Woodnutt, & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2012). In this way, social Asian, 2.8% Latino/ Hispanic, and 8.2% other ethnic identification.
media users are able to manage the impressions they have on oth- Body mass index (BMI = kg/m2 ) scores ranged from 15.84 to 36.23
ers by presenting only the most flattering images of themselves (M = 23.71, SD = 4.03) across the sample, with the mode, median,
and minimizing perceived flaws or imperfections (Anderson et al., and mean all falling within the “normal” weight range (18.5 < BMI
2012; Bell, Cassarly, & Dunbar, 2018; Pounders et al., 2016). It <24.9) (Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, 2015). One partic-
has also been found that individuals who desire to boost their ipant who mistakenly signed up for the study was excluded because
self-esteem upload selfies more frequently, and that women of he self-identified as male. Two participants declined to partici-
16–25 years of age spend up to 5 h per week taking selfies and pate after reading the informed consent form because they were
sharing them on social media (Pounders et al., 2016). Research on uncomfortable taking a photo of themselves for religious reasons.
88 J.S. Mills et al. / Body Image 27 (2018) 86–92

2.2. Apparatus use and to control for using an iPad, and for the amount of time
elapsed between pre-post measures. It was intentional that Con-
2.2.1. iPad trol condition participants not engage on Facebook or Instagram
Participants used the Internet browser, camera, and photo mod- (theirs or other people’s profiles, since we could not be certain that
ification app (“You-Cam Now”), if applicable, installed on an iPad. they were not exposed to appearance-related content, which could
affect mood and/or body image).
2.3. Measures The assigned tasks in the Untouched Selfie and Control condi-
tions were timed (5 min each). The Retouched Selfie condition was
2.3.1. Mood and body image not timed so that participants could retake and retouch their selfie
A series of visual analogue scales (VAS) was used to measure to their satisfaction. However, time to completion was recorded by
mood and body image at baseline as well as after the experimen- the experimenter and participants in the Retouched Selfie condi-
tal manipulation (described below). This commonly used set of tion took a similar amount of time to complete their task (mean
scales was designed to assess pre-post fluctuations in psychologi- time to completion = 4.5 min). Instructions and set up in all three
cal states, typically in experimental research designs (Heinberg & conditions took approximately 1–2 min.
Thompson, 1995). The measure consisted of six VAS, each with a As manipulation checks, Control condition participants were
10-centimeter horizontal line labeled with a specific attitude or asked to answer written questions about their article to ensure
emotional state. Participants are asked to place an X on the point that they read the article. Selfie condition participants were asked
on the line that most accurately depicts the degree to which they verbally by the experimenter whether they completed the tasks
were experiencing that feeling at the moment, from Not at all to as instructed. In addition, at the end of the study the experi-
Very much. The mood items included anxiety, depression, and con- menter checked the photo and browser histories, and any deleted
fidence. The body image items included feelings of fatness, physical files on the iPad to ensure that participants in all conditions
attractiveness, and body size satisfaction. Rather than collapsing adhered to the instructions and did not open any other web-
scores into global affect or appearance concerns, we separated the sites or social media profiles. All participants confirmed that
items so that we could examine specific affective changes among they followed the instructions and there was no evidence of
participants. VAS format is recommended over Likert scales for pre- non-adherence.
post research designs since it reduces recall bias (i.e., participants Upon completion of the experimental tasks, all participants
cannot recall their previous response), can be completed quickly, completed the post-manipulation VAS. Participants were asked
is sensitive to emotional changes (Hargreaves & Tiggemann, 2003). to complete the scales based on how they were feeling at that
The measure used in the current study is the same one used in other particular moment. The elapsed time between the baseline and
published studies. post-manipulation VAS measure was approximately 10 min. Fur-
thermore, the format of the VAS scale is such that participants
2.3.2. Demographics cannot recall their previous answer; thus, recall bias is minimized.
Age and race/ethnicity demographics were collected from each Participants were then debriefed and probed as to what they
participant. Filler items not of interest to the study were included believed to be the purpose of the study. Lastly, height and weight
on the questionnaire (e.g., living arrangements, year of study, uni- were measured by the experimenter on a balance beam scale.
versity program, and media consumption).

2.4. Procedure

Ethics approval was received from York University’s Human

Participants Review Committee. Female undergraduate students 2.5. Data analysis
volunteered for an advertised study examining “the relationship
between personality and social media use.” Participants were Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS version 24. An
tested individually behind a partition wall from the experimenter alpha level of .05 was used for significance testing. A power
and were asked to leave their bags and any personal electronic analysis was conducted using G*Power (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, &
devices (including phones) outside of the testing area. Participants Buchner, 2007); an alpha of .05, medium effect size, and power
were randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions estimate of .80 resulted in a recommended sample size of 110,
prior to arriving at the lab. Upon arrival to the lab, participants read which was obtained. Repeated measures analysis (Time 1 – Time
and signed a written informed consent form, were given a base- 2) was chosen to analyze the effects of experimental condi-
line VAS, and then the demographics questionnaire with additional tion instead of VAS change scores to maximize power and use
filler items to distract from the purpose of the study. For ethical rea- within-subject error estimates. To control for Type I error, an
sons, the informed consent form contained the information that initial repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance (RM-
participants may be asked to post a selfie to their own social media MANOVA) was performed with time (Time 1 – Time 2) and
profile. For the experimental task, participants in the Untouched test (VAS item) as the within-subject factors, and experimental
Selfie condition were asked to take a single photo (a headshot) on condition (Untouched Selfie, Retouched Selfie, and Control) as
the lab’s iPad and upload it to their preferred social media profile the between-subjects factor. Any significant multivariate 3-way
(Facebook or Instagram). Participants in the Retouched Selfie con- interaction (time × test × condition) on the combined dependent
dition were asked to take one or more photos of themselves on measures was followed by univariate repeated measures ANOVAs,
the lab’s iPad and were told that they could use the photo editing with time (Time 1 – Time 2) as the within-subject factor and
app installed on the iPad to retouch the photo to their satisfaction experimental condition as the between-subjects factor. Any signif-
before uploading it to their social media profile. Participants in the icant within-subjects contrasts (time × condition) were followed
Control condition were also given the lab’s iPad but were asked to by post-hoc t-tests to examine which conditions differed. For
read a short article from a social media news website chosen for ease of interpretation, change scores (Time 1 – Time 2) were
neutral, non-appearance related content (i.e., popular travel ideas used only for these post hoc t-tests to examine the direction
for university students) and to answer questions about the article. and magnitude of change to psychological states as a function of
This task was chosen to maintain the cover study of social media condition.
 J.S. Mills et al. / Body Image 27 (2018) 86–92 89

Fig. 1. Mean change in anxiety as a function of condition. Means with different Fig. 2. Mean change in confidence as a function of condition. Means with different
superscripts are significantly different from one another at p < .05. superscripts are significantly different from one another at p < .05.

3. Results

3.1. Preliminary analyses anxiety but was not significantly different from the Control con-
dition, t(71) = 1.80, p = .08. The Untouched and the Retouched
Inspection of histograms, skewness, and kurtosis suggested that Selfie conditions did not differ with respect to changes in anxiety,
all of the variables were normally distributed. There were no statis- t(71) = 0.79, p = .43.
tical outliers (± 3.0 SD) among the dependent variables; therefore, Fig. 2 shows that participants in the Untouched Selfie condition
no adjustments were made. Groups did not differ significantly experienced a decrease in confidence and this was significantly
on baseline levels of any variable, suggesting that randomization greater than the Control condition, t(71) = 2.48, p = .01, and
resulted in equivalent groups. marginally greater than that experienced in the Retouched Selfie
conditions t(72) = 1.92, p = .06. There was no difference in changes
to feelings of confidence between the Retouched Selfie and Control
3.2. Multivariate effects of experimental condition
conditions, t(71) = 0.60, p = .55.
Fig. 3 shows that participants experienced decreases in feel-
Means and standard deviations for all dependent variables of
ings of physical attractiveness that were significantly greater than
interest (pre- and post-manipulation) as a function of the experi-
in the Control condition in both the Untouched Selfie condition,
mental condition are shown in Table 1. For ease of interpretation,
t(71) = 2.43, p = .02, and the Retouched Selfie condition, t(71) = 2.32,
Table 1 also shows the change in participants’ self-ratings across
p = .02. These decreases were equivalent between the two selfie
the psychological states.
conditions t(72) = 0.12, p = .90.
A significant 3-way (test × time × condition) multivariate effect
on the combined dependent variables was found, Hotelling’s
Trace = .21, F(10, 201) = 2.14, p = .02, partial ␩2 = .10, meaning that
the experimental groups differed with respect to how mood and
body image ratings changed between Time 1 and Time 2.
Significant 2-way (time × condition) interactions were found for
anxiety, Hotelling’s Trace = .06, F(2, 107) = 3.32, p = .04, partial ␩2 =
.06, confidence, Hotelling’s Trace = .07, F(2, 107) = 3.69, p = .03, par-
tial ␩2 = .07, and physical attractiveness, Hotelling’s Trace = .07, F(2,
107) = 3.59, p = .03, partial ␩2 = .06, meaning that the experimental
groups were not equal with respect to changes on those items from
Time 1 to Time 2. Interactions were not significant for depression,
Hotelling’s Trace = .01, F(2, 107) = 0.48, p = .62, feelings of fatness,
Hotelling’s Trace = .02, F(2, 107) = 0.97, p = .38, or satisfaction with
body size, Hotelling’s Trace = .01, F(2, 107) = 0.75, p = .47.

3.3. Changes to psychological states as a function of condition

The significant 2-way interactions reported above were fol-

lowed up with t-tests to compare changes to psychological states
across experimental groups.
As can be seen in Fig. 1, participants in the Untouched Selfie
condition experienced an increase in anxiety and this was sig-
Fig. 3. Mean change in feelings of physical attractiveness as a function of condition.
nificantly greater than the Control condition t(71) = 2.35, p = .02. Means with different superscripts are significantly different from one another at p
The Retouched Selfie condition also experienced an increase in < .05.
90 J.S. Mills et al. / Body Image 27 (2018) 86–92

Table 1
Dependent Variables of Interest (Pre and Post) as a Function of Experimental Condition.

Experimental Condition

Untouched Selfie (n = 37) Retouched Selfie (n = 37) Control (n = 36)

M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

Anxiety - Pre 27.15 (26.91) 26.92 (24.82) 32.11 (27.48)

Anxiety - Post 37.14 (30.17) 32.97 (26.74) 27.22 (28.35)
Change 9.99 (26.87) 5.50 (21.26) −4.89 (27.29)
Depression - Pre 13.61 (20.79) 19.81 (20.97) 18.56 (19.96)
Depression - Post 16.30 (21.63) 19.24 (24.02) 20.00 (22.96)
Change 2.69 (15.76) −0.57 (14.54) 2.00 (14.90)
Confidence - Pre 54.93 (24.37) 55.86 (23.77) 60.17 (23.14)
Confidence - Post 39.05 (27.83) 48.51 (22.44) 55.89 (23.84)
Change −15.88 (21.38) −7.35 (16.61) −5.11 (15.06)
Feelings of Fatness - Pre 34.78 (28.11) 36.81 (27.37) 37.63 (30.44)
Feelings of Fatness - Post 35.58 (29.23) 34.95 (28.17) 31.92 (28.32)
Change −0.17 (19.83) −1.86 (17.15) −6.26 (20.93)
Physical Attractiveness - 48.35 (22.58) 49.57 (19.81) 51.63 (22.11)
Pre 41.89 (25.10) 43.59 (21.45) 53.53 (22.67)
Physical Attractiveness - −6.46 (17.07) −5.97 (16.66) 1.90 (11.85)
Post
Change
Satisfaction Body Size - Pre 47.89 (32.11) 46.89 (25.75) 50.49 (29.34)
Satisfaction Body Size - 46.51 (28.99) 46.14 (24.06) 53.56 (28.58)
Post −1.38 (13.21) −0.76 (21.15) 3.07 (14.81)
Change

4. Discussion one’s body (and not just the face), even when clothed, could trigger
body-specific appearance concerns but we did not capture those
This is the first experimental study of the causal effects of post- effects in the current study. This is an area for future research.
ing selfies to social media on young women. The findings generally We had a secondary research question related to whether being
supported our hypothesis that taking and posting a selfie on social able to retake, select, and modify one’s selfie (as is commonly
media would result in lowered mood and worsened self-image. We done by many social media users) might, in fact, improve subse-
also found that women who had the opportunity to retake and mod- quent mood or body image. As suggested by Kim and Chock (2015),
ify their selfie before posting it to social media still experienced women are motivated to present perfected images and idealized
decreases to mood and anxiety that were similar to the reactions versions of themselves on their social media profiles in order to
of those who could not retouch their photo. make a favorable impression on their viewers. Photo-retouching
Participants who took and uploaded a selfie onto social media, behaviours allow women to present the most attractive versions
without the option to retouch or take multiple photos, felt more of themselves and minimize perceived imperfections (Toma &
anxious, less confident, and less physically attractive afterward, Hancock, 2010). In the current study, women in the retouched
and these differences were significantly greater than the control selfie condition were able to take multiple photos, delete unwanted
condition (i.e., reading a neutral news article online). These results photos, and could retouch their photos to their satisfaction using
all yielded medium effect sizes. These findings are consistent with a photo editing application. However, we found little evidence
the previous suggestion that appearance concerns are heightened of any psychological benefit of being able to modify the photo
when women interact with and construct their social media pro- women posted to their social media. In terms of state anxiety,
files, manifesting in poorer body image and mood (e.g., de Vries women who posted an untouched selfie to social media felt sig-
et al., 2014). However, we did not find significant effects of selfie- nificantly more anxious than those who did not post a selfie at
taking on all of the dependent variables of interest in the current all. But women who were able to retouch their selfie before post-
study; we found null effects on state feelings of fatness, satisfac- ing it also felt marginally more anxious than those in the control
tion with one’s body, and depression. We interpret these findings condition and equally anxious to those in the untouched selfie
to suggest that the psychological states affected by taking and post- group. In other words, having the ability to retake and retouch
ing selfies to social media are specifically related to feelings of their selfie to their satisfaction before posting it did not mitigate
self-consciousness and/or fear of negative evaluation by others. women’s anxiety significantly. This lack of difference between the
This interpretation seems likely given that participants in the study effects of the two experimental selfie tasks on anxiety was unex-
were sharing their selfie photos on their own social media profiles pected. A similar result was found regarding feelings of physical
and for other people they know to see. attractiveness. Participants who could retouch their selfie felt sig-
It is interesting that feelings of physical attractiveness were neg- nificantly less attractive after posting it online (as did those who
atively affected by selfie taking and posting, but not feelings of were asked to post an untouched selfie), and there was no signifi-
fatness or satisfaction with one’s body size. However, it is important cant difference between the retouched and untouched selfie groups
to note that the current study involved taking a photo only of one’s on changes to feelings of physical attractiveness. In terms of feelings
head and face. In other words, it may not be surprising that effects of of confidence, women who could retouch their selfie did feel more
taking a selfie on body-related constructs were not found, since the confident afterward than those in the untouched selfie group, but
current study looked only at the effects of taking selfies of one’s face. they felt just as confident as those who did not post a selfie at all. In
If the current study had examined the effect of taking and posting other words, posting a retouched selfie did not improve women’s
photos that showed the participant’s body the results might have confidence, as compared to engaging in an appearance-neutral task.
been different. Celebrities, but probably many social media users, To explain these findings, it could be that scrutinizing and
often post body-conscious selfies on their social media (e.g., wear- modifying images of themselves makes women think more about
ing bathing suits, lingerie, or no clothing at all). Posting selfies of their flaws or imperfections. Retouching could activate feelings of
 J.S. Mills et al. / Body Image 27 (2018) 86–92 91

self-objectification. Even though self-presentation strategies like perfectionism, those who frequently post selfies in their everyday
photo-editing provide a sense of control over physical appearance lives) are more or less vulnerable to the adverse effects of post-
(Tiggemann & Miller, 2010), they do not actually appear to improve ing selfies to social media than others. Future research should also
mood or self-image. The current study found no evidence that post- study the specific modifications that participants make to their
ing retouched photos to social media makes women feel better than photos using retouching. We did not include this outcome vari-
usual and found some evidence that it makes them feel worse than able in the current study, but future studies could explore ways
usual. Although women might feel less anxious about posting a of assessing selfie modification behaviours surreptitiously. Partici-
selfie if they have the chance to retouch it and make it more flat- pants in the control condition of the current study did not interact
tering, the process of taking and editing the photo still draws their on social media to avoid any possible exposure to appearance-
attention to feeling dissatisfied about aspects of their appearance. related online content and to make the control condition entirely
appearance neutral. However, a different control task (e.g., upload-
4.1. Clinical implications ing a neutral, non-selfie photo to social media) might produce
different results. Therefore, an important next step is to disman-
These findings have clinical implications for the prevention and tle what aspects of posting selfies to social media produce the
treatment of mental health difficulties. Women who took a selfie observed effects (e.g., taking selfies without posting them on social
and posted it to their social media profile had increased levels media). Finally, future research should examine the longer term
of anxiety, decreased confidence, and lowered perceived physi- and/or cumulative effects of posting selfies to social media using
cal attractiveness compared to those who did not take a selfie. prospective, longitudinal research designs.
Given that women between 16–25 years of age spend up to 5 h
per week taking selfies and uploading them to their personal pro- 5. Conclusions
files (Pounders et al., 2016), these findings raise significant concern
about social media use and well-being. Posting selfies to one’s social This is the first study to show experimentally that selfie post-
media has adverse causal effects on the self-image and mood of ing on social media is harmful in terms of young women’s mood
young women, and could make them more vulnerable to clinical and self-image. Being able to retouch or modify their photo did not
eating, mood, and/or anxiety disorders. Frequently taking selfies result in women feeling better about themselves after posting a
could be considered a body checking behavior, such as repeated selfie to social media. Future research should look at the longer-
weighing and recurrent checking of one’s reflection in mirrors term effects of posting photos of oneself on social media, which is
(Mills et al., 2014). As a result, frequently taking and posting self- an increasingly common aspect of contemporary media use.
ies should be considered a risky online health-related behavior for
young women in terms of mental health, especially if they trig-
ger weight and shape dissatisfaction. High body dissatisfaction is Acknowledgements
the primary risk factor for the development of eating disorders and
is correlated with low self-esteem and depression (Meier & Gray, This research was funded by an InsightGrant from the Social
2014; Tiggemann & Miller, 2010). Interventions that aim to dimin- Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) to
ish or eliminate the harmful effects of social media engagement on the first author. Thank you to Sarah McComb for assistance with
psychological functioning should be validated and implemented. manuscript preparation, and to the editor and reviewers for their
feedback on the manuscript.
4.2. Limitations and future directions
References
A unidirectional causal relationship between posting selfies to
social media and worsened mood and body image was demon- Anderson, B., Fagan, P., Woodnutt, T., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2012). Facebook
psychology: Popular questions answered by research. Psychology of Popular
strated in the current study. The reverse relationship – the effect Media Culture, 1, 23–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026452
of low mood or body dissatisfaction on posting selfies – is a future Bell, B. T., Cassarly, J. A., & Dunbar, L. (2018). Selfie-objectification:
research question of importance. There could be a bidirectional and Self-objectification and positive feedback (“likes”) are associated with
frequency of posting sexually objectifying self-images on social media. Body
self-perpetuating cycle between appearance-based social media
Image, 24, 83–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2018.06.005
engagement and negative mood and/or body image. Because the Brown, Z., & Tiggemann, M. (2016). Attractive celebrity and peer images on
current sample included only young women who regularly use Instagram: Effect on women’s mood and body image. Body Image, 19, 37–43.
social media, these results may not generalize to older women http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2016.08.007
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2015). Assessing your weight Retrieved
or women who do not use social media. We did not include men from. http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/index.html
since the existing literature on social media and body image has Cohen, R., Newton-John, T., & Slater, A. (2017). The relationship between Facebook
focused on women. Future studies should include men and rel- and Instagram appearance-focused activities and body image concerns in
young women. Body Image, 23, 183–187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.
evant appearance-related psychological constructs (e.g., drive for 2017.10.002
muscularity; Mills & D’Alfonso, 2007). For ethical reasons, partici- de Vries, D. A., Peter, J., Nikken, P., & de Graaf, H. (2014). The effect of social
pants were informed on the consent form that they may be asked network site use on appearance investment and desire for cosmetic surgery
among adolescent boys and girls. Sex Roles, 71, 283–295. http://dx.doi.org/10.
to take a photograph of themselves and post it to social media. 1007/s11199-014-0412-6
We attempted to minimize demand characteristics by including Duggan, M., & Brenner, J. (2013). The demographics of social media users—2012. In
filler questions between repeated measures, by using the visual Pew research center’s internet & American Life Project.. Retrieved from. http://
pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Social-media-users.aspx
analogue scale format, by stating the purpose of the study in only Fardouly, J., Pinkus, R. T., & Vartanian, L. R. (2017). The impact of appearance
vague terms, and by probing what participants thought to be the comparisons made through social media, traditional media, and in person in
true purpose of the study. There was no evidence that demand women’s everyday lives. Body Image, 20, 31–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
bodyim.2016.11.002
characteristics were a threat to the validity of the study. Never-
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible
theless, it is possible that participants might have had implicit statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical
assumptions about the effects of the experimental tasks on how sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/
they felt. We did not examine personality moderators in the current BF03193146
Haferkamp, N., & Kramer, N. C. (2011). Social comparison 2.0: Examining the
study; future research should investigate individual differences effects of online profiles on social-networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior
and whether certain types of women (e.g., those who are high on and Social Networking, 14, 309–314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2010.0120
92 J.S. Mills et al. / Body Image 27 (2018) 86–92

Haferkamp, N., Eimler, S. C., Papadakis, A., & Kruck, J. V. (2012). Men are from Mars, Mills, J. S., & D’Alfonso, S. R. (2007). Competition and male body image: Increased
women are from Venus? Examining gender differences in self-presentation on drive for muscularity following failure to a female. Journal of Social and Clinical
social networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 15, Psychology, 26, 505–518. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2007.26.4.505
91–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2011.0151 Mills, J. S., Shikatani, B. A., Tiggemann, M., & Hollitt, S. J. (2014). “That camera adds
Hancock, J. T., & Toma, C. L. (2009). Putting your best face forward: The accuracy of ten pounds!”: Women’s reactions to visual weight-related feedback and the
online dating photographs. The Journal of Communication, 59, 367–386. http:// role of trait body checking. Body Image, 11, 516–526. http://dx.doi.org/10.
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01420.x 1016/j.bodyim.2014.08.004
Hanna, E., Ward, L. M., Seabrook, R. C., Jerald, M., Reed, L., & Giaccardi, S., et al. Perloff, R. M. (2014). Social media effects on young women’s body image concerns:
(2017). Contributions of social comparison and self-objectification in Theoretical perspectives and an agenda for research. Sex Roles, 71, 363–377.
mediating associations between Facebook use and emergent adults’ http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-014-0384-6
psychological well-being. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 20, Pounders, K., Kowalczyk, C. M., & Stowers, K. (2016). Insight into the motivation of
172–179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2016.0247 selfie postings: Impression management and self-esteem. European Journal of
Hargreaves, D., & Tiggemann, M. (2003). The effect of “thin ideal” television Marketing, 50, 1879–1892. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EJM-07-2015-0502
commercials on body dissatisfaction and schema activation during early Robinson, L., Prichard, I., Nikolaidis, A., Drummond, C., Drummond, M., &
adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32, 367–373. http://dx.doi.org/ Tiggemann, M. (2017). Idealised media images: The effect of fitspiration
10.1023/A:1024974015581 imagery on body satisfaction and exercise behaviour. Body Image, 22, 65–71.
Heinberg, L. H., & Thompson, J. K. (1995). Body image and televised images of http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2017.06.001
thinness and attractiveness: A controlled laboratory investigation. Journal of Stefanone, M. A., Lackaff, D., & Rosen, D. (2011). Contingencies of self-worth and
Social and Clinical Psychology, 14(325-), 338. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/jscp. social-networking-site behavior. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social
1995.14.4.325 Networking, 14, 41–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2010.0049
Holland, G., & Tiggemann, M. (2016). A systematic review of the impact of the use Tiggemann, M., & Miller, J. (2010). The internet and adolescent girls’ weight
of social networking sites on body image and disordered eating outcomes. satisfaction and drive for thinness. Sex Roles, 63, 79–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.
Body Image, 17, 100–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2016.02.008 1007/s11199-010-9789-z
Howard, L. M., Heron, K. E., MacIntyre, R. I., Myers, T. A., & Everhart, R. S. (2017). Is Tiggemann, M., & Slater, A. (2013). Netgirls: The Internet, Facebook, and body
use of social networking sites associated with young women’s body image concern in adolescent girls. The International Journal of Eating Disorders,
dissatisfaction and disordered eating? A look at Black—White racial differences. 46, 630–633. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eat.22141
Body Image, 23, 109–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2017.08.008 Toma, C. L., & Hancock, J. T. (2010). Looks and lies: The role of physical
Kim, J. W., & Chock, T. M. (2015). Body image 2.0: Associations between social attractiveness in online dating self-presentation and deception. Communication
grooming on Facebook and body image concerns. Computers in Human Research, 37, 335–351. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093650209356437
Behavior, 48, 331–339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.009 Want, S. C., & Saiphoo, A. (2017). Social comparisons with media images are
Meier, E. P., & Gray, J. (2014). Facebook photo activity associated with body image cognitively inefficient even for women who say they feel pressure from the
disturbance in adolescent girls. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social media. Body Image, 20, 1–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2016.10.009
Networking, 17, 199–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2013.0305