The Influencer

THE INFLUENCER
– friend or foe?
A study on social media influencer’s and social
media platform’s ethical obligations from a user
perspective
PAPER WITHIN Informatics

AUTHOR: Karin Eriksson & Martin Cronqvist
TUTOR: Martin Lindh
JÖNKÖPING June 2019
This exam work has been carried out at the School of Engineering in
Jönköping in the subject area Informatics. The work is a part of the
three-year Bachelor of Science in Engineering programme.
The authors take full responsibility for opinions, conclusions and
findings presented.
Examiner: Bruce Ferwerda
Supervisor: Martin Lindh
Scope: 15 credits
Date: 04/06/2019
Postadress: Besöksadress: Telefon:

Box 1026 Gjuterigatan 5 036-10 10 00 (vx)

551 11 Jönköping
Abstract
Abstract
This study has been conducted as a bachelor thesis by two students enrolled in the New media
design program at Jönköping University.
The background to this study is the rising popularity of social media influencers, SMIs, and its
purpose is to explore the ethical environment around SMIs from the user-perspective. This
purpose has been boiled down to three research questions; What ethical issues can be identified,
What responsibility does the SMIs have and lastly What responsibility does the platforms have.
In order to answer these research questions eleven semi structured interviews were conducted on
young Swedish adults living in, or close to, the Jönköping region between the ages 18-25. The
gathered empirical data was then analysed thematically and grouped into themes, which in their
turn then was evaluated and discussed in relation to established theories and previous research.
The result of this study was the discovery of nine different themes of ethical issues: Lack of
respect, Bad influence, Racial or sexual discrimination and harassment, Breaking the law,
Accusing or discrediting others, Greed, Deceptiveness and faulty information, Encouragement of
atrocities and lastly Maintaining body ideals or shaming different body appearances. Two major
perspectives of the responsibility of the SMIs were identified: SMIs perceived as accountable role
models and SMIs perceived as entrepreneurs with creative freedom. Lastly three perspectives on
the responsibility associated with the platform was also discovered: Maintenance perspective,
Control and security perspective and Freedom of speech perspective. Together, the result has
contributed to a holistic image of SMI ethics and laid a foundation for further research in this
rather unexplored topic.
1
Keywords
Keywords
Social media, Influencers, SMI, SMU, Ethics, Responsibility, Morality, User perspective
Terminology
SMU = Social media user
SMI = Social media influencer
CMD = Cognitive moral development
2
Contents
Contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................... 6
1.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................. 6
1.2 PURPOSE AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS .............................................................. 8
1.3 DELIMITATIONS .............................................................................................. 8
1.4 OUTLINE ......................................................................................................... 9
2 Theoretical background ......................................................... 10

2.1 RELEVANT THEORIES AND CONCEPTS............................................................ 10
2.1.1 Social Media ............................................................................................ 10

2.1.2 Influencer ................................................................................................. 10
2.1.3 Leadership ................................................................................................ 11
2.1.4 Social Psychology – Cultures, Groups, Conformity & Crowd Psychology
12
2.1.5 Theories on ethics .................................................................................... 13
2.1.6 Moral responsibility ................................................................................. 15
2.2 PREVIOUS RESEARCH .................................................................................... 17
2.2.1 Self-branding / Personal branding ........................................................... 17

2.2.2 Bloggers in an ethical perspective ........................................................... 18
3 Method and implementation ................................................. 19
3.1 CONNECTION BETWEEN METHOD AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS ....................... 19
3.2 SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS ................................................................... 19
3.3 WORK PROCESS............................................................................................. 19
3.4 DATA COLLECTION........................................................................................ 20
3.5 DATA ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ 20
3.5.1 Phase 1: familiarising yourself with your data ........................................ 21

3.5.2 Phase 2: generating initial codes .............................................................. 21
3.5.3 Phase 3: searching for themes .................................................................. 21
3.5.4 Phase 4: reviewing themes ....................................................................... 21
3.5.5 Phase 5: defining and naming themes ...................................................... 22
3.5.6 Phase 6: producing the report .................................................................. 22
3.6 CREDIBILITY ................................................................................................. 22
3
Contents
4 Findings and analysis ............................................................... 24

4.1 DEMOGRAPHY............................................................................................... 24
4.2 ETHICAL ISSUES ARISEN IN THE INTERACTION BETWEEN SMUS AND SMIS .. 25
4.2.1 Lack of respect ......................................................................................... 25

4.2.2 Bad influence ........................................................................................... 25
4.2.3 Racial or sexual discrimination and harassment ...................................... 26
4.2.4 Breaking the law ...................................................................................... 26
4.2.5 Accusing or discrediting others ............................................................... 27
4.2.6 Greed ........................................................................................................ 27
4.2.7 Deceptiveness and faulty information ..................................................... 28
4.2.8 Encouragement of atrocities .................................................................... 28
4.2.9 Maintaining body ideals or shaming different body appearances ........... 29
4.2.10 Different ethical reasoning among SMUs............................................ 29
4.3 THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SMIS ACCORDING TO SMUS .................................. 30
4.3.1 SMIs perceived as accountable role models ............................................ 30

4.3.2 SMIs perceived as entrepreneurs with creative freedom ......................... 30
4.4 THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS ACCORDING TO SMUS . 31
4.4.1 Maintenance perspective .......................................................................... 31

4.4.2 Control and security perspective .............................................................. 31
4.4.3 Freedom of expression perspective .......................................................... 32
5 Discussion and conclusions ..................................................... 33
5.1 DISCUSSION OF METHOD ............................................................................... 33
5.2 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS .............................................................................. 34
5.2.1 Ethical issues arisen in the interaction between SMUs and SMIs ........... 34
5.2.2 The responsibility of SMIs according to SMUs ...................................... 35
5.2.3 The responsibility of social media platforms according to SMUs ........... 36
5.3 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................... 37
5.3.1 What types of ethical dilemmas may arise in the interaction between
social media users and social media influencers according to social media users
between the ages 18-25? ....................................................................................... 37
5.3.2 To what extent do social media users between the ages 18-25 think social
media influencers are responsible for their content and its consequences? .......... 37
5.3.3 What responsibility does social media users between the ages 18-25 think
that social media platforms have in controlling and monitoring that harmful or
inappropriate social media influencers are censured or dealt with? ...................... 38
4
Contents
5.4 IMPACT OF THE STUDY .................................................................................. 38
5.5 FURTHER RESEARCH ..................................................................................... 38
6 References ................................................................................ 40
7 Appendices ............................................................................... 44
5
Introduction
1 Introduction
This study has been conducted as part of the 3-year bachelor programme; Informatics, New
Media Design. In this chapter a brief overview of the contents of the report will be available as
well as an introduction to the topic. The background, purpose and research question will be
found under this chapter as well as the delimitations of the study. At the end of the chapter there
is an outline of the report which will go through the following structure and content.
1.1 Background
The web, often confused with the internet, is short for the world wide web and was according to
Pew Research Center (2014) founded in 1989 at CERN by Tim Berners-Lee. From its origins the
web grew quickly to become what it is today; a global network. Tim Berners-Lee notes that the
web’s true potential only could be reached by not forcing users to pay a fee or ask for permission.
Tim Berners-Lee (1998) notes:
“Had the technology been proprietary, and in my total control, it would probably not have taken off. […]
You can’t propose that something be a universal space and at the same time keep control of it.” (Berners-
Lee 1998)
To this day, it is the freedom, accessibility and seemingly endless information that characterizes
the web. From the protocols and tools developed by Tim Berners-Lee, the web has developed
immensely and now hosts search engines, e-commerce, vast forums and social medias. Lately
however, as seen on Debate.org (n.d.), the ethical dilemma between freedom and anarchy contra
control and censorship of the web has been a hot debate, these different standpoints will be
relevant further into the report where it is discussed in the narrower spectre of social media.
According to CBS News (n.d.), the first social media site is widely considered to be Six Degrees,
founded in 1996. Since then, social media has grown immensely and gone from being confined to
computers to involve smartphones and tablets as well, making it addictively easy to be online and
active on social media all hours of the day. Social media is one of the most discussed phenomena
currently and has been for a while now. Seemingly everyone is represented on them and opinions
about social media and its impact can vary a lot. One thing many people agree upon though, is
that the impact is substantial and has affected a lot of areas both in everyday-life and in
professional environments. To appreciate the scale of today’s social media, YouTube has
according to SimilarWeb (2019) around 25 billion visits per month and is ranked as the world’s
second most heavily trafficked web page. Facebook and Instagram don’t fall too far behind at 3rd
and 5th place which together with YouTube constitute to around 50 billion visits per month,
showing the enormous amount of traffic that constantly goes through social media. These facts
definitively cement the magnitude of the media as it is today and offers perspective on how
immensely influential these sites can be in shaping the world as we know it.
In the development and growth of social media’s popularity, the phenomenon of the influencer
has arisen. Influencers are a term quite freely used, and according to Cambridge Dictionary (n.d.)
it can be almost anyone affecting or changing the way others behave. In this study however, the
term influencer or social media influencer (SMI) will refer to a person made famous/influential
from social media; hence celebrities of any sort are not included in this definition. Every-day-
people have never before been able to so easily access vast audiences until the era of social media
and because of this, the social media influencer is a rather new concept. With the rise of the
influencers, the issue concerning what good contra bad influence is, e.g. whether they are positive
6
Introduction
role models or not has been lifted. The same question marks can be found if one were to look at
the closely related group; celebrities, where this has been a topic of discussion for some time.
According to Thomas W. Valente (2014), influencers and celebrities alike inevitably carry the
burden of having a leader role whether that is wished for or not due to the audiences’ goodwill
and belief in the statements they make in their social medias. Acknowledging this, may carry with
it some degree of moral inclination depending, of course, on the influencer in question. A case of
where the leadership responsibility of a certain influencer may be perceived as having been
evaded is that of Logan Paul’s infamous video filmed in the Aokigahara forest in Japan, also
referred to as the “suicide forest”.
In the video, Logan Paul films dead bodies in the forest whilst laughing and commenting. This
was of course something that made a lot of people upset and it became a global news story.
Huffington Post (2018) was one of the news sites that wrote an article on this, showing tweets by
angry celebrities expressing their malcontent towards Paul. The case raises some questions; did he
know his role as a leader and just didn’t care for the moral attachment of that role or did he just
have no idea of his influence? The latter may seem very unlikely, so a more interesting question
would be: did his own moral compass not acknowledge the disrespectful gesture of his acts, but
his audience did? Nonetheless this is a case of the extreme, but the same pattern can be found in
almost every influencer’s case, where the audience reacts to what they deem to be unethical
behaviour or statements no matter the scale of it.
Another important aspect is to what degree the audience hold the platforms responsible. What
actions do social media users, SMUs, think social media platforms should take to prevent
scandals like this and how much can one ask of them to monitor and censor the vast amount of
content being uploaded to their sites daily?
Since it ultimately is the audience that reacts and starts the discussion of whether influencer’s act
and behave responsibly and with good example, this study aims to investigate the user’s
perspective on ethical issues concerning the role of the influencer, but also the platforms’
responsibility for the acts of these individuals. Moral values and perceptions of ethics are widely
differentiating depending where one comes from and a global ethical common ground is hard to
solidify without the very extreme ethical statements that everyone could agree upon, such as
“murder is wrong”. By acknowledging the different opinions and perceptions on what makes
something ethical or not, this study’s focus lies on a Swedish perspective due to the interviews
being conducted in the nation.
Influencer marketing and social media has already, since its relatively new emergence, been quite
well researched in certain aspects. However, when it comes to influencer’s as leaders and icons of
their audience, the studies are thinning and the ethical responsibility they carry along with the
platform in question is even more in the shadows. The interest is most often from a marketing
perspective and the relation between a company (who wishes to market themselves) and the
influencer. An example of this is the study: Towards a world of influencers: Exploring the relationship
building dimensions of Influencer Marketing, where the authors Ann-Sofie Gustavsson, Arij Suleman
Nasir and Sarvinoz Ishonova’s (2018) examine how Swedish SME’s (small and medium-sized
enterprises) build relationships with influencers. In other reports where marketing hasn’t been the
area of interest it is instead the perspective of the influencers themselves or their content that is
of interest. Nowhere can a study be found that explicitly investigates the users’ perception on
ethical responsibility on the influencer’s side as well as their given platform. There are a few
studies touching the subject to some extent, nonetheless a thorough user perspective on these
ethical issues is far from existent and that is hole that this study aims to fill.
7
Introduction
1.2 Purpose and research questions
The purpose with this study is to find out what users on social media may perceive as ethical
issues in the interaction between social media influencers and their audience. The purpose is also
to identify what responsibilities social media users believe these influencers have toward their
audience, as well as what responsibilities social media users believe social media platforms have
toward their users. The core of this study will hence be social media users’ ethical perspective on
social media influencers.
To fulfil the purpose of this study, the following questions will be answered:
1. What types of ethical issues may arise in the interaction between social media users and
social media influencers according to social media users between the ages 18-25?
2. To what extent do social media users between the ages 18-25 think social media
influencers are responsible for their content and its consequences?
3. What responsibility does social media users between the ages 18-25 think that social
media platforms have in controlling and monitoring that harmful or inappropriate social
media influencers are censured or dealt with?
1.3 Delimitations
To not make this study too extensive, the focus will be on ethical issues from a user perspective
and will not cover thoughts and experiences from social media influencers nor social media
platforms. These social media influencers and platforms will however still play a significant role.
The term influencer, that will be used quite frequently in this report, will refer to people that have
become famous through social media and will not include celebrities that have become famous in
any other way.
This report will have its focus on social media platforms, since this is where influencers perform
their jobs by for example uploading videos or photographs etc., as well as communicating with
their audience in different ways. For the interviews that will be conducted, the participants will
consist of young adult social media users, at the ages 18-25, that has some sort of connection to
one or several influencers. This connection can include people that are active followers or
subscribers of social media influencer accounts, or those that do not feel the need to follow or
subscribe but tend to visit these types of accounts either way. As this study is carried out in
Sweden, the focus will be on a Swedish perspective, including interviews with Swedish
participants. The findings later discussed in this report may therefore vary from perspectives in
other countries.
8
Introduction
1.4 Outline
A brief description to how the rest of the report is structured:
In the second chapter Theoretical background, information from previous research as well as
relevant concepts and theories are presented as a base to this report.
Chapter three, Method and implementation, describes the chosen method as well as how the work in
this study was carried out.
In chapter four, Findings and analysis, the result from the study is revealed and analysed.
The final chapter Discussion and conclusions consist of discussions about the method and findings,
ending with a conclusion. A suggestion on further development on the subject is also made.
9
Theoretical background
2 Theoretical background
In this chapter a collection of concepts and theories will be presented and explained in order to
make the study as comprehensible as possible. Previous research with relevancy to this study will
also be found under this entry. It is on the basis of the information provided here that the
research questions have been built and the conclusions in later chapters has been drawn.
2.1 Relevant theories and concepts

2.1.1 Social Media
In their paper Social Media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media, Jan H.
Kietzmann, Kristopher Hermkens, Ian P. McCarthy and Bruno S. Silvestre (2011) writes that
social media are highly interactive platforms where individual users and groups of users can
discuss, share and create user-generated content. Qualifying as a social media site is amongst
others, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram and Twitter, to name some of the biggest and well-known.
Due to the fact that any user has the ability to upload own content to these sites, there are an
enormous amount of data being uploaded every day. An example of this can be found in the
article YouTube is 10 years old: the evolution of online video written for the Guardian (2015), where Fred
McConnell writes that 300 hours of video is uploaded to YouTube every minute. With the growth
of social media, the amount of content has most likely grown since the mentioned article was
published in 2015 and it can be problematic to try and filter everything that is uploaded. A prime
example of the issues concerning the inability to monitor and filter all the content that is
uploaded to these sites is the tragedy in New Zealand, taking place on the 15th of March 2019. In
their article, Muslim advocacy group sues Facebook, YouTube over New Zealand shooting livestream (2019),
The New York Post reports that the man responsible for killing 50 innocent people at two
mosques live-streamed the event directly to Facebook. As the title of the report suggests, the live
stream to social media was met with anger and despair and have illuminated an ethical dilemma
concerning the preservation of freedom contra increasing the control over social media.
2.1.2 Influencer
Since everyone can upload content on social media, anyone can gain recognition for the things
they put out, hence the phenomena of the SMI, social media influencer, has emerged. Karen
Freberg, Kristin Graham, Karen McGaughey and Laura A. Freberg, writes in their article, Who are
the social media influencers? A study of public perceptions of personality (2010) that the term influencer
signifies an independent third-party endorser who via social media shape audience attitudes. It is
hard to comprehend the amount of existing SMI’s and the scale of their influence, since there is
no way to measure at what point a regular person becomes an SMI nor how much the followers
or subscribers are influenced.
Influicity believes there are three different tiers of social media influencers, which they describe in
their white-paper The difference between micro, macro and mega influencers (n.d.). According to Influicity,
all social media influencers can be put into the categories mega-, macro- and micro influencers.
Mega influencers define people who are particularly famous, also known as A-list celebrities.
These types of influencers tend to have over 1 million followers on their social media channels,
and Influicity mentions names such as Beyoncé, Drake and The Kardashians in this category.
Macro influencers are professional creators that create their content around a specific subject
10
they are passionate about. The macro influencer follower count ranges between 10 to 999
thousand. Lastly, the micro influencers consist of ordinary people that have a strong relationship
with their audience. Micro influencers tend to have under 10 thousand followers.
The SMI’s can be divided into different categories depending on the focus they have decided to
have on their platforms. There exists everything from PewDiePie, recording himself while playing
games, to Therese Lindgren who vlogs about her everyday life. In her article List of influencer
marketing niches (n.d.), Zahara Jade talks about different SMI niches and industries, and lists the
major ones as follows:
1. Fashion/ Beauty
2. Travel/ Lifestyle
3. Celebrity/ Entertainment
4. Sports
5. Gaming
6. Health/ Fitness
7. Family/ Home/ Parenting
8. Business/ Tech
2.1.3 Leadership
“there are almost as many definitions of leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define the
concept” (Bass 1990)
As Bass notes, leadership is not easily defined to one simple meaning of the concept. However,
one can begin to look at leadership as a process where a series of actions are executed to achieve
a desired outcome, writes David V. Day in his article, Leadership (2012). To clarify, it is the
leader’s efforts to socially influence a group in a desired direction combined with the external
factors of the type of group and context etc. that collectively make up the process of leadership.
When discussing leadership and more specifically the leader herself/himself, there are two
distinguishing types of leaders, namely formal leaders and informal leaders. In C. Dean Pielstick’s
article, Formal vs. Informal Leading: A Comparative Analysis (2000), he determines a formal leader as
one that have been given authority by his/her official role in society, for example a CEO of a
company or a police chief etc. Informal leadership, however, refer to individuals without any
given role of power or influence that yet instil respect and influence among other people, writes
C. Dean Pielstick.
SMIs are an example of that informal leaders can gain tremendous amounts of influence without
being granted it by a higher authority, they instead gain followers through the characteristics of a
leader. According to C. Dean Pielstick, self-confidence along with intelligence and personability
are characterizations identified with authentic leaders, however, Pielstick also notes that it is
unlikely that any individual would display all these traits. In addition to the characteristics of a
leader there are other impactful factors of whether one becomes a leader and how well one
manages to lead. Based on his previous research, The design for a leadership academy for community
college professionals based on transformational leadership (1996) and Transformational leadership: A meta-
ethnographic analysis (1998), C. Dean Pielstick identifies 6 areas of interest: shared vision,
communication, relationships, community, guidance, and character, which consists of 161
variables that determines the success of being a leader. The research area of leadership does
however contain a lot of different theories and conceptions as stated in the beginning of this
segment, meaning that one should be aware that C. Dean Pielstick’s research is not a definitive
description of the field of leadership. As David V. Day notes, the characteristics of a good leader
11
will to some extent differ depending on the context domain, stating that the context of leadership
is of utmost importance to take into consideration.
In the research area of leadership there are also theories differentiating between different
leadership styles, which aims to describe different ways to manage and control one’s social
influence. Natalia V. Samosudova writes in her article, Modern leadership and management methods for
development organizations (2017) that there are three common leadership styles: authoritarian,
democratic, and laissez-faire. With the authoritarian leadership style, all decision-making power is
with the leader and the leader does not invite subordinates to come with input or suggestions,
writes Natalia V. Samosudova. This style is characterized by strict supervision and discipline and
the focus is on results rather than on the people. According to Natalia V. Samosudova, the
authoritarian leadership style is effective in emergency situations, however it is not suitable long
term. The democratic leadership style is, as the name suggests, one that involves the subordinates
in discussions, trying to reach a consensus rather than just deciding on own authority. Differing
from the authoritarian style, the democratic style is not only focused on the result but also the
method of achieving it. Lastly Natalia V. Samosudova mentions Laissez-faire, also called free-rein
leadership, which is a leadership style where the decision-making power is given to the
subordinates. This leadership style is the complete opposite of the authoritarian leadership style
and the approach may take some time, however it works well when the subordinates are
committed to the goal and have goodwill towards the authority.
2.1.4 Social Psychology – Cultures, Groups, Conformity & Crowd Psychology
The research area of social psychology is in Allport G. W’s (1985) article The historical background of
social psychology explained as a study of how individuals’ behaviours, thoughts and feelings are
influenced by the actual, implied or imagined presence of others. Irina Anderson (2017) explains
that social psychology consists of an array of topics from identity and self to group conformity,
of which some will be covered under this segment in order to better understand the
psychological aspects of influencers and their audiences.
In the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (1828), culture is defined as a collection of shared attitudes,

values and goals but also as social forms and customary beliefs. Culture and the social structure
it represents affects the individuals part of it, but at the same time individuals are the
embodiment of the culture and are thus also able to influence it in return. Culture can exist in
many different forms and contexts such as in an ethnic group, a community, a society or simply a
workplace. Being a part of something and having a community can be described as the need to
belong or belongingness. According to Roy Baumeister and Mark Leary (1995), all humans are
dependent on some degree of regular and satisfying social interactions with other people. If this
need is not met, it results in loneliness, distress and the urge to seek new fulfilling relationships
explains Baumeister and Leary. People’s need to belong vary a lot, however Baumeister and Leary
argues that much of what humans do is motivated by the need to belong, as for example the
needs of power, approval, affiliation, intimacy and achievement can all be tied to the need of
belongingness. Conclusively, humans are a social animal and are dependent on each other. It is
this need to belong that makes up the conditions of cultures and bind individuals to them.
As now explained, the need to belong is fundamental and primal, and in the pursuit of this need
it has been discovered that one’s own beliefs may be forfeited in an act referred to as conformity.
Robert B. Cialdini and Noah J. Goldstein (2004), explains the term conformity as matching one’s
own attitudes, beliefs and behaviours to the norms of a group. In Solomon Asch’s famous
conformity experiment (1951), male college students in the ages 17-25, were asked to match one
line with one of three other lines that matched its length. This fake test was conducted with a
12
smaller group of people where only one was oblivious to the fact that the test was a ploy. The
others had been instructed to answer wrong after a few iterations but on the same line, which
caused the individuals tested to go against their own judgement and adopt the opinion of the
group. In 37% of the trials the subject yielded to the group’s opinion, but for different reasons.
Some of the subjects were genuinely doubting their own ability to measure the lines thinking the
group were right and they wrong, thus yielding out of the conviction that the group was actually
right. Other subjects, however, knew they were right but nonetheless answered wrong in order to
avoid the discomfort of disagreeing. Believing in the group’s assessment and thus changing
opinion is referred to as informational conformity, however, believing that oneself is right but
nonetheless adapt the group’s opinion due to unwanted discomfort is instead called normative
conformity. In contrary to peer pressure, conformity is not necessarily something negative,
driving on the right side of the road is an example of what can be perceived as positive
conformity, explains Wilson E. Aronson (2007).
Crowd psychology, also referred to as mob psychology, is according to Tony Manstead and Miles
Hewstone (1996) a field in which one is studying the behaviours and thought processes of
individuals in a crowd, but also the crowd as a whole. In a crowd, the individual is less prone to
take responsibility for his/her own actions and is under the impression that his/her actions are
part of a universal behaviour writes Hans Toch (1988). Both of these phenomena become
amplified with the growth of the crowd. Martin S. Greenberg (2010) identifies two types of
crowds: mobs which are active and audiences that are passive. Greenberg further distinguishes
different types of active mobs, namely: aggressive, escapist, acquisitive and expressive mobs.
Aggressive mobs, as the name implies, are often violent and one example of this kind of mobs
are hooligans. Escapist mobs represent a group of people in dismay, trying to evade a dangerous
situation. Acquisitive mobs describe groups of people fighting over a limited resource and lastly,
the expressive mob consists of a group of people gathered for a common purpose, such as
demonstrations or rock concerts. Generally, the field of crowd psychology is focused on the
negative aspects of crowds notes Stephen Reicher (2000). However, Reicher argues that not all
crowds are negative in nature, giving the example of social rights activists and their
demonstrations. To conclude, the impact of the group or crowd on an individual is extensive,
whether that is for good or worse.
2.1.5 Theories on ethics
Ethics is a part of the study of philosophy and within the area of ethics there are two
fundamental theories on how to perceive morality, absolutism and relativism. Darren Weist
(2016), explains absolutism as the belief that there is always one right answer, independent of the
context or perspective. An example of an absolutist standpoint is that all rectangles have four
sides, there is an absolute truth that that is the way rectangles are. In a more ethically relatable
scenario, an absolutist might say that it is always wrong to kill someone, no matter if it is a matter
of survival or saving someone else. The context of the deed does not affect the moral value of it
according to an absolutist, explains Weist. Some famous absolutist philosophers include Plato,
Aristotle and Immanuel Kant.
Relativism is by Weist explained as the counterpart to absolutism and represent a theory which
advocate context and perspective. Relativism is the idea that dependent on the relation between
things, the truth, ethics or other values connected to something may vary. The previous example
with the rectangles always being consistent of four sides is relative to the time and place. Some
alien lifeform may not associate a rectangle with this absolute statement of a rectangle always
having for sides. To make the example a little bit more relevant to the subject of ethics, a
relativist ethical assessment of a murder varies a lot depending on the circumstances; what were
13
the situation like, who got murdered, who committed the murder, what time did the murder take
place etc. Weist notes that in relativism, context and perspective are the ruling factors in ethical
assessment. Some famous relativist philosophers include Protagoras, Thomas Kuhn and Paul
Feyerabend.
Another theory in ethics is the deontological perspective of ethics which according to the editors
of Encyclopaedia Britannica (2019) puts focus on the relation between duty and the moral of human
actions. Similar to absolutism ideas, deontological ethics assess deeds as morally good due to the
characteristics of the action itself, and not the consequences of it. According to the editors of
Encyclopaedia Britannica, the deontological perspective on ethics may in some cases hold certain
acts as morally obligatory regardless of the potential consequences for human well-being.
Conclusively, a deontological perspective focus on the morality of the action itself and not the
consequences, for example that lying is wrong, even when lying to prevent pain for another
human being.
In contrast to deontology there is teleological ethics, that instead focuses on the outcome of the
actions. Teleological ethics is often referred to as consequentialist ethics according to the editors
of Encyclopaedia Britannica, and as the name suggests it is the consequences in the teleological
perspective that determine the morality of an action. As an example, the deontologically immoral
action of lying would, in cases where the good outweighs the bad, be the moral way to act
according to the teleological ethics.
Lawrence Kohlberg is the founder of the cognitive moral development theory, CMD, which is a
theory focusing on the development of moral thinking. According to lumenlearning.com (n.d.),
Kohlberg’s CMD theory states that there are three levels of moral thinking that are based on our
cognitive development and within each level there are two stages. The complexity of the moral
reasoning with the individual is ascending for each stage.
1. Preconventional
1.1. Obedience-and-Punishment Orientation
1.2. Instrumental Orientation
2. Conventional
2.1. Good Boy, Nice Girl Orientation
2.2. Law-and-Order Orientation
3. Postconventional
3.1. Social-Contract Orientation
3.2. Universal-Ethical-Principal Orientation
The moral reasoning in the preconventional level is, according to Kohlberg (1976), externally
controlled. This level is associated with the cognitive capacity of a child under nine years old and
the acceptance and belief in rules set by figures of authority, such as parents or teachers are
apparent. At this level the children have not yet grasped society´s conventional intricacies of right
and wrong but are instead guided by the consequences that certain actions may bring. In stage
one, obedience-and-punishment-orientation, the focus lies in the child’s efforts to avoid punishment
thus the severity of the punishment determines the significance of the moral transgression.
Instrumental orientation, the second stage, is not so much about moral reasoning from punishment,
but from reward. The self-interest of the individual dictates what is right and wrong, thus
generating obedience based on incentives. This means that concern for others is not really based
on respect or loyalty but rather the mentality that if I treat you nice, you will treat me nice.
Conventional moral reasoning represents the second level in Kohlberg’s theory and is connected
to personal and societal relations in the moral thought process. At this level rules are still
accepted; however, it is now due to the belief that the rules are required to have positive
14
relationships and societal order. In the third stage of Kohlberg’s theory, Good Boy, Nice Girl
Orientation, the individual strives toward approval and thereby also avoids disapproval by
conforming to “good behaviour”. In the fourth stage, Law-and-Order Orientation, individuals
accept rules and conventions without question due to their importance for a well-functioning
society. According to Kohlberg, the majority of active members in society remain at this stage,
where the moral is mostly influenced by external factors. The moral reasoning at this stage is not
based on individual approval as in the previous stage and instead obeying rules and following the
societal conventions is seen as valuable and important.
Lastly Kohlberg presents the third, postconventional level in which the sense of morality become
more abstract in its values and principles. Individuals at this level may think of laws and rules as
unjust and oppose them due to a growing realisation that individuals and society are separate
entities, and that the individual have the possibility to think otherwise than society’s conventions
say. In the postconventional level, the individuals live by their own perception of ethical
principles and see rules as useful but also as changeable elements, rather than undisputable and
absolute laws. In this last level of moral reasoning, the fifth stage Social-Contract Orientation, can be
found. In this stage the world is perceived as holding different opinions and values and that each
of these perspectives should be mutually respected as unique for each individual or community.
Rules are regarded as social contracts and the ones suppressing general welfare ought to be
changed by majority decision, which inevitably includes compromise. The idea of democratic
government is in theory based on the moral reasoning of this stage. The sixth and final stage in
Kohlberg’s CMD theory is the Universal-Ethical-Principal Orientation, in which the moral reasoning
is based on an abstract approach adopting universal ethical principles. Laws and rules are
considered valid only if they are grounded in justice and if not, it is a moral obligation to disobey
those laws. The individuals at this stage acts according to own morale and not to avoid
punishment, breaking the law, nor act on self-interest. Kohlberg notably had difficulties finding
individuals that consistently acts according to the sixth stage, states the editors at lumenlearning.
2.1.6 Moral responsibility
Responsibility is defined by the Cambridge dictionary as something that is one’s duty or job to take
care of (Cambridge dictionary n.d. responsibility entry). Moral responsibility, however, is by Andrew
Eshleman (2014) explained as the status of being morally deserving of either praise or blame for
an action or neglect of action, in a situation demanding a moral decision based on the perception
of one’s moral obligations. To simplify the term moral responsibility, one could say that it is a
sense of personal moral duty of a person, determined ultimately by oneself but nonetheless
affected by society.
Eshleman further clarifies the meaning of moral responsibility by giving the example of a car
crash. A person being the first to arrive at the site of a car crash could be praised because having
taken care of another person from the crash site, or one could be blamed for not having dialled
the local authorities for help straight away. The moral judgement lies thereby in what one does
and does not and it can be an external expression but also internal, being one owns moral judge.
Garrath Williams (n.d.) notes the distinction between individual moral responsibility and
collective moral responsibility. A collective can represent a corporation, the citizens of a country,
or individuals with no apparent connection to each other. The last-mentioned example of a
collective may be people who recycle, thus benefiting the environment as a collective.
Individual moral responsibility has according to Williams no well-settled philosophical division

between components nor concept on how to analyse them. Williams state that analytic moral
15
philosophy has been potent to ask two very simple questions in order to get a grasp of the
concept of moral responsibility.
1. What is it to be responsible?
2. What is a person responsible for?
The first question aims to determine the meaning of being responsible and to answer this it is
necessary to know what creature that can reasonably be held responsible for its actions, and the
simple answer to that is a normal adult human. This is based on the following perceived
capabilities of a human adult; free will, the ability to act on the basis of reason and lastly that
humans have moral feelings. To be responsible can also be interpreted as a virtue, a person may
be perceived to be responsible due to her/his previous moral actions and neglect of action in
accordance with his/her moral obligations. This virtue can also be credited to institutions.
The second question is instead directed more toward accountability. This can be seen as a
question of retrospect or prospect. In the case of it being a retrospective inquiry, it aims to
determine if praise or blame should be passed on the subject of interest based on the moral
convention of the context, was it a good deed or bad. In a prospective perception of the question
it instead seeks to determine the sphere of a person’s responsibilities and duties, such as, the
police are responsible to keep society as law-abiding as possible.
Collective moral responsibility has in recent decades gained more attention, claims Williams,
stating that the phenomenon can arise whenever a group of people unite to achieve a certain
result. The shared responsibility of a group in contrast to that of an individual is inevitable more
complicated due to the fact that individuals are moral agents, in a fashion that groups cannot be.
John Coffee Jr. describes this with the short but representative phrase:
“No soul to damn, no body to kick” (Coffee Jr. 1981)
It is however clear that groups can under some circumstances function as agents by pursuing
certain policies and adhere to legal requirements, with other words, taking responsibility. In order
for a group to have the ability to act responsibly, an appropriate organization is required that
encompasses allocation of individual responsibility within the collective entity, internal
communication and deliberative mechanisms. These abilities can certainly vary in quality
depending on the organization, hence in the interaction with better or worse organization the
respective organization can be held responsible.
In a retrospective perspective of a collective’s moral fault or merit is, according to Williams, in

some cases an impossible hunt for justice to try and pin the responsibility on the actual
individuals behind the actions. An example would be if a state would declare war against another
nation, causing immense suffering and loss of human life. It is then primarily the ruling
government of the state that has declared the war that is responsible for the consequences
following. However, let’s say that these people took their own lives before being able to be
brought to justice, would it then be right to put the citizen of that state as responsible and blame
them for their government’s faults? It is these questions that highlight the perplexing aspect of
collective moral responsibility, that individuals in the name of justice might be required to make
amends to other individual’s previous actions and policies.
In a prospective view, a group’s responsibility is defined by the law and/or the internal structure
of the group. However, the moral judgement of a group can of course differ from what law and
internal structure states. This can take form as political standpoints or a demand of social
responsibility, for example to pressure a corporation to take responsibility for the waste they
16
produce in the manufacture process and demand that they recycle it. As in the case of individuals,
groups can also be associated with the virtue of being responsible, and the degree of association
with this trait may of course also vary greatly. Williams states that groups that want to be
perceived as responsible need to be conformable with the wider norms of society at present, and
of course the group’s relation to responsibility is ultimately determined by the individuals within
it.
2.2 Previous research

2.2.1 Self-branding / Personal branding
The article, Self-branding, ‘micro-celebrity’ and the rise of Social Media Influencers, written by Susie
Khamis, Lawrence Ang and Raymond Welling (2016), discuss the phenomena of self-branding,
also called personal branding. The study’s goal was to determine why the concept of personal
branding have become so prevalent. Personal branding is, according to this article, when an
individual market oneself and his/her career as a brand. The article acknowledges that personal
branding is a subject of mixed opinions, where some find ethical, practical or theoretical issues
others do not and are instead strong advocates. The article refers to the origin of the word brand
and explains its contemporary meaning and also the value of a good brand. The difficulty of
sustaining a personal brand is then discussed and parallels to celebrities undermining their own
brand by saying or doing things without caution are drawn. Further on the medium of the web is
discussed as now being highly accessible to anyone wanting to upload content in forms of text,
images and videos, contributing to immense amounts of content to choose from. The range of
content and the quantity of it is in the article explained to have given birth to the concept of
attention-economy, describing the issue of getting attention for one’s message along with
everyone else craving the same consumers attention. The article continues to explain this
difficulty to be seen as a reason that personal branding is so popular with the influencer’s ability
to personify a product/service and also influence one’s own audience.
Before social media was existent, ordinary people became famous from reality television and that
was the gateway to personal branding until social media came to be, according to the article. With
social media, the premises of one’s personal branding could be decided upon freely giving micro-
celebrities or influencers possibility for independency from already established companies and
people, explains the article. After discussing the major changes with the rise of social media the
article continues to introduce the term SMI (social media influencer) and explain that an SMI is
an influencer using social media to gain a following. The article then explains that an SMIs’
success is measured in the return of influence since marketers locate SMIs to use their more
intimate relation with their wide audiences to market their products and services. According to
the article SMIs’ work with personal branding invites the audience to see into the personal life of
the influencer and gain insight and thus the possibility to feel that they know the influencer due
to the amount of personal knowledge shared with them.
17
2.2.2 Bloggers in an ethical perspective
In their empirical study, A Tale of Power, Passion and Persuasion: Bloggers, Public Relations and Ethics,
Catherine Archer, Simone Pettigrew and Paul Harrigan (2014) discusses ethics within public
relations, with a focus on the online community of so-called mum bloggers. Archer, Pettigrew
and Harrigan used online surveys as their method, in which 238 Australian bloggers participated
and could give qualitative responses.
The study brings up the difficulties with regulations and ethics in social media, since the online
environment is changing at a rapid pace. An example of an ethical issue mentioned in the study is
the fact that social media influencers, including mum-bloggers, tend to promote sponsored
products without clearly stating that it is in fact sponsored. This is something that one may have
heard of before, mentions Archer, Pettigrew and Harrigan, but then in a different medium –
radio. During the 1950s, some radio stations got paid to favour certain music and to comment
positively on them. In Australia, where this study has been carried out, some guidelines has been
set up for paid social advertisement, describing what is referred to as ‘best practice’. These
contain more detailed information about how sponsored content is supposed to be handled both
by the blogger as well as the client that are sponsoring.
One of the main purposes of this study was to understand which major ethical dilemmas
Australian blogging parents can identify with blogging. To find out the answer, the members of a
group called Digital Parents group were contacted via email and asked to fill out a survey. Of the
2 234 members, 238 contributed with their answers. The questions asked were mostly open-
ended so that the data collected was qualitative, and the respondents could express their thoughts
and feelings. Those who participated got questioned about ethics and which ethical dilemmas
they see with blogging. The majority (68%) did not see any ethical dilemmas with blogging, but
those who did (32%) mostly brought up sponsored posts. One of the things mentioned were the
issue with transparency towards their audience, and the conflict of making money versus staying
true to themselves and what they represent. One person wrote “You're doing the post and you
have received some benefit, so be honest with yourself that your opinion has been influenced.”
while another stated that “Transparency is important for trust”, showing that some believe that
this is something more bloggers should consider. Some also mentioned the issue with privacy for
themselves as bloggers as well as for their family and friends. This was however among the
minority of the respondents.
18
Method and implementation
3 Method and implementation

This chapter will present the chosen method for this study as well as describe the work process.
It will also cover how data was collected and analysed.
3.1 Connection between method and research questions
To answer the three research questions of this study, a set of semi-structured interviews will be
conducted. The interviewees are represented by Swedish social media users at the ages of 18-25
who actively follows or subscribes to one or several influencers or that in some other way tend to
visit these types of accounts.
3.2 Semi-structured interviews
In their book A Handbook of Research Methods for Clinical and Health Psychology, Jeremy Miles and
Paul Gilbert (2005) describes semi-structured interviews as a qualitative method where the
interviewees can express what they think and feel about a subject. Miles and Gilbert state that this
method is suitable for when the interviewer wants to ask questions starting with why rather than
with how much or how many, which are questions better suited for a structured interview or a
questionnaire. The method, according to Ted Zorn (n.d.), allows the interviewees to discuss the
topics more freely than if the questions would be closed-ended. Zorn states that this type of
interview should be designed in a way that will elicit the ideas and opinions of the interviewee,
rather than guide them to an answer.
For the interviews conducted in this study there were 11 participants consisting of social media
users between the ages 18-25. The sample size was decided based on a suggestion from a
supervisor that stated that around 10-15 interviews would be sufficient. Since the study is also
qualitative, the sample size is not supposed to be too big since the focus is not on how many
people had a specific opinion but on the actual opinions and feelings they experience about the
subject. Participants for the interviews were chosen from people known by the authors of this
study, a decision made to simplify the collection of data and also to ascertain that they had some
degree of knowledge about the topic.
3.3 Work process
In the beginning of this study, research on different topics such as social media and influencers was
made as a base to later be able to form a set of research questions. The resources used were sites
such as Google and Google Scholar, as well as Jönköping University’s database DiVA, where
existing theses were examined. After the research questions were formed, a suitable method was
chosen so that relevant data could be collected and analysed. A theoretical background was also
written, where previous research on the subject were collected and discussed and theories and
concepts presented.
The method used in this study were semi-structured interviews, which were conducted during a
four weeks period. As mentioned earlier in this report, the interviewees consisted of people who
19
were active followers or subscribers to one or several social media influencers, as well as people
who did not follow or subscribe to any accounts but tended to visit them for some other reason.
Questions were formed together with a supervisor, so that the resulting data would be relevant
and contribute to finding answers to the research questions. Suitable participants were then asked
to be part of the study and to give their thoughts and opinions on the subject. The information
gathered from the interviews were lastly assembled and analysed, and conclusions were made on
the findings.
3.4 Data collection
The data presented in this study was collected from a set of semi-structured interviews. The
mentioned method was chosen due to the interest in retrieving qualitative data, where the goal
was to find out the interviewee’s thoughts and opinions on the subject.
3.5 Data analysis
The collection of data from the semi-structured interviews held in this study were stored as voice
recordings. This decision was made to simplify the data collection and to make sure that every
answer was well documented, so that a thorough analysis later can be made.
To analyse what was collected from the interviews, a thematic analysis will be used. According to
Braun and Clarke (2006), a thematic analysis is a method that should be seen as foundational for
qualitative analysis. They also state that the method is flexible and a useful research tool that has
possibilities in providing detailed and complex data.
Braun and Clarke claim that there are six phases when working with a thematic analysis, but that
it is important to see them as guidelines and not as a set of rules. Braun and Clarke also mention
that an analysis should not be seen as a linear process, but instead as recursive, meaning that one
will move back and forth between the different phases as best suited for every specific situation.
The phases they present in their study can be seen in the following sections.
Braun and Clarke’s phases were taken into consideration when analysing the data in this study
but were not followed strictly. As stated in their report, it is important to see the phases as
guidelines and not something that necessarily needs to be followed. The data collected from the
interviews were firstly listened to in their audio format, and then transcribed into text. The text
was then scanned multiple times by both researchers in the search for interesting parts and
patterns that was believed to be useful for later answering the research questions. This can be
seen as the first phase Braun and Clarke presents in their study; familiarising yourself with your data.
The data that was found during this process was then reviewed and a categorization was made
based on the research questions; ethical issues seen in the interaction between SMIs and SMUs,
perceived responsibilities of SMUs and perceived responsibilities of the platforms. These
categories were then reviewed according to Braun and Clarke’s fourth phase: reviewing themes, to
see if they would work as themes and that the data inside each theme were relevant to what the
theme as a whole represented. When a set of final themes were constructed, they were each
named in a suitable way that made it easy to understand what they were about. The data these
20
themes consisted of were also categorized into several sub-themes which each were given a
relevant name. The result of this analysis will later be presented in the chapter Findings and analysis.
3.5.1 Phase 1: familiarising yourself with your data
In the first phase, Braun and Clarke talks about the importance of immersion and the need of
familiarizing oneself with the depth and breadth of the content. This is done by active, repeated
reading where one searches for patterns and meanings etc. A good practice is to take notes or
mark ideas for later coding that will be useful to go back to in the following stages. Braun and
Clarke also mention that verbal data, which is gathered in this study, needs to be transcribed to
be able to conduct a thematic analysis, which will also make up for a better understanding of the
data itself.
3.5.2 Phase 2: generating initial codes
The second phase is about producing initial codes from the data that has been collected. Braun
and Clarke describe codes as semantic or latent features of the data that the analyst finds
interesting. Boyatzis (1998: 63) states that it refers to “the most basic segment, or element, of the
raw data or information that can be assessed in a meaningful way regarding the phenomenon”.
Braun and Clarke describe different ways of coding extracts and mention manual coding and
coding by using computer software. When using the former, they mention writing notes, using
highlighters/coloured pens to point out potential patterns or using post-it notes as a way to
identify segments of data. When using the latter however, one code by naming selections of text
within each data item. Braun and Clarke urge to work in a systematic way and to give full and
equal attention to every data item. They also say that one should find aspects in the data items
that are interesting, and which may form different themes when looking at the whole data set.
3.5.3 Phase 3: searching for themes
The purpose of phase three is to begin sorting the different codes into potential themes. This is
made by organising relevant coded data extracts into suitable groups. Braun and Clarke suggest
using some sort of visual representation when doing this, for example tables, mind-maps or just
writing the names and descriptions of the codes on pieces of paper that can easily be moved
around. The phase is supposed to give the idea of which themes that can be formed and the
relation between them and may result in a set of main- and subthemes. Some codes can be
discarded if they do not feel important or interesting but can also be stored in a theme named
“miscellaneous” if they do not seem to belong anywhere else.
3.5.4 Phase 4: reviewing themes
Phase four is about refining the themes created in the phase before. This may result in the
collapse of two or more themes that basically are the same, or the dissolution of other themes
that turns out to not actually be themes. The fourth phase consist of two levels in terms of
21
reviewing and refining the themes. On the first level one shall look at the coded data extracts
inside every theme and see if they form a coherent pattern. If this is not the case, a
reconsideration of the theme(s) must be made to see if there is a problem with the theme itself or
if there are specific data extracts that do not fit in. What to change depends on where the
problem is; one may need to discard certain extracts, place them in another theme or create a new
one if necessary. In the next level, one will instead look at each theme and consider the validity of
them in relation to the data set as a whole. The purpose with this phase is to find out if the
themes are working in relation to the data set, as well as find out if there are any additional data
that has been missed in the previous stages that can be coded.
3.5.5 Phase 5: defining and naming themes
In the fifth phase one will now identify what Braun and Clarke describe as the “essence” of what
each theme is about, by doing final refinements on the themes. One will also decide if there is a
need for sub-themes within a theme. This can be necessary for themes that are quite large or
complex and will make it easier to grasp when viewed upon. This phase is about understanding
the relation between different themes, as well as the relation between main- and sub-themes.
Now is also the time to start considering names for the different themes, which will need to be
punchy, concise and formed in a way that makes it easy to understand what the theme is about.
3.5.6 Phase 6: producing the report
When coming to the last phase, one should have a set of finished, worked-out themes which now
can be analysed and presented in text. It is important to write the text in a way that will convince
readers of the validity of the analysis. Braun and Clarke also discuss the importance of presenting
the findings in a concise, coherent, logical, non-repetitive and interesting way. They also urge to
present extracts that are easily identified as an example of the issue, so that this is clear to the
reader. The analysis should not only be a presentation of the data, but also consist of
argumentation in relation to the research questions of the study.
3.6 Credibility
When working on a study, there are certain things that can affect the reliability of its content.
This section of the report aims to present these different factors and which precautions that has
been made to make the study more reliable.
The semi-structured interviews were recorded so that no important data would be missed or
forgotten, and later transcribed into text to make it more perspicuous. The interviewers firstly
reviewed the recordings and then used this material to transcribe the information where the
different interviews were written down word by word using a computer. This was done in the
Swedish language since the interviews were held in Swedish, and later translated to English. Some
parts of the transcription were then removed since they were not believed to fill any purpose in
this study. This is partly an effect of the structure of semi-structured interviews where
participants sometimes tend to “wander off” in some directions that are not always relevant for
the sake of the study. The decision to conduct the interviews in Swedish was made to prevent
language barriers for the participants, who all speak Swedish as their mother tongue, so that they
22
would feel confident in themselves and be able to give detailed answers. This report is however
written in English, due to the course being held in English, hence the need for translation. This
may result in the data not being accurately translated since the interviewers do not speak English
as their mother tongue, and the fact that some Swedish sayings or expressions do not exist in the
English language. However, this process was given much focus and the interviewers tried to
translate what was said in the best way possible to portray the respondent’s thoughts and
preserve the essence of their answers.
Before the interviews took place, a review of the questions was made together with a supervisor.
This to make sure that they would result in useful and suitable data that would help answer the
research questions in this study. It was also pointed out to the participants that the goal with the
interviews was to attain their own thoughts and experiences, not what is seen as the right thing to
say nor what is told by the society. The interviews were also held separately so that the
participants would not be affected by other’s opinions or presence.
The number of interviews that has been held for the purpose of this study were affected by
limited time and resources due to implications in the beginning of the course. The vast majority
of the individuals that have been interviewed consisted of students in their twenties who has
studied, or are currently studying, at Jönköping University. This affects the reliability of the study
negatively since it may not be an accurate representation of people in Sweden at the ages of 18-
25, which is the chosen target group for the interviews in the study.
23
Findings and analysis
4 Findings and analysis

This section will present the findings that this study has resulted in. These findings will also be
analysed by being compared to and supported by the theories that are brought up earlier in the
study. In order to comprehensively present the data collected through the semi structured
interviews, three main themes have been identified, each based on one research question. Under
these themes there are sub-themes and together they offer an elaborate yet easily overviewed
report of the findings.
• Ethical issues arisen in the interaction between SMUs and SMIs

o Lack of respect
o Bad influence
o Racial or sexual discrimination and harassment
o Breaking the law
o Accusing or discrediting others
o Greed
o Deceptiveness and faulty information
o Encouragement of atrocities
o Maintaining body ideals or shaming different body appearances
• The responsibility of SMIs according to SMUs

o SMIs perceived as accountable role models
o SMIs perceived as entrepreneurs with creative freedom
• The perceived responsibility of the platforms

o Maintenance perspective
o Control and security perspective
o Freedom of expression perspective
4.1 Demography
The participants consisted of eleven people, where the youngest was 18 years old and the oldest
25 years old at the time of the interviews. Four of them were females while the other seven were
males. All of the participants came from either Jönköping or Borås in Sweden, and all but one
were currently studying. The remaining participant were at the time working.
When it comes to online behaviour and preference, almost all of the participants followed or
watched influencers on YouTube. A majority of the participants also followed or watched
influencers on Instagram, and seven of the total number of the eleven participants watched or
followed influencers on both these social media channels. Some other channels that were
mentioned were: Snapchat, Facebook, Reddit and Twitter, which was used by one or two
participants each.
The two main influencer categories that the participants liked to watch, or follow were gaming
and everyday life/vlogging, which a number of respectively five and three participants favoured.
Other categories were favoured by one or two participants, including: make-up, fashion, history,
music, food, politics among others.
24
4.2 Ethical issues arisen in the interaction between SMUs and SMIs
This section represents the first theme and is dedicated to the gathered data that aims to answer
the first research question, namely what ethical issues that may arise in the interaction between
SMUs and SMIs.
The respondents in the interviews identified a lot of different ethical issues, both based on
acquired experience but also based on hypothetical reasoning concerning possible immoral
actions or behaviours to be committed by an SMI. The result yielded from the interviews,
concerning the user perspective of what ethical faults could be associated with an SMI, differed
quite a lot and the following areas of concern were expressed:
4.2.1 Lack of respect
After analysing the data gathered from the conducted interviews, the theme of respect, or rather
the lack of it, was identified. Respondents expressed lack of respect in different ways; not
respecting culture, drawing examples from SMIs travelling and not showing the proper respect to
customs in the land or region they visited. Another example included the lack of respect shown
toward other people, where respondents stated that SMIs should not treat people disrespectfully,
partly because the action itself is immoral, but also as it sets a bad example for the audience. The
lack of respect can according to the respondents take form in different behaviour, being
insensitive toward customs for example, or doing pranks at the expense of other people. Notably
when it comes to the ethical issue of respect, the case brought up in the introduction chapter
naming Logan Paul, a very famous SMI, has been referred to often as an example of lack of
respect by the respondents. This is one of the ethical issues that respondents state as being based
on own personal experience rather than hypothetical reasoning, however hypothetical reasoning
was evident in the case of respondents with less experience of SMIs.
“You do everything for social media, you don’t care about the ethical, about how it affects the person you do it
to. And then it is Logan Paul who took selfies and stuff with hanging bodies in a forest in Japan, and does it
like a comical thing, then it becomes a little too much.”
– Respondent A
4.2.2 Bad influence
Another theme clearly distinguished from the gathered material is the ethical issue of SMIs being
a bad influence on their followers. In some cases, respondents state that the issue is problematic
no matter the age of the target audience but note that younger individuals are more susceptible to
it. Other respondents argued that it was not really the duty of the SMI to adjust his/her content
so it would suit the current audience, and instead these respondents put greater weight with the
creative freedom of the SMI as a content creator. However, these respondents still claimed that
when it comes to younger audiences such as children this might become more of an issue,
arguing that children do not possess the same critical thinking and reasoning as adults or
adolescents, thus making them more susceptible to adopt the same behaviours. This is further
evaluated and analysed under the section The responsibility of SMIs according to SMUs. Bad influence
is, by the respondents’ descriptions, actions or behaviours unsuitable for the given target group
or the display of actions and behaviours unsuitable in general. One respondent gave the example
25
of a Swedish SMI trio that allegedly made a video about acquiring fast food at McDonalds at a
low cost, which basically displayed them stealing other people’s ordered food in the driveway
among other things. This is an example of where the respondent saw the actions as immoral in
several ways, where one aspect was the unlawful and thus ethically wrong action of stealing, and
also the aspect of being a bad influence toward their followers, justifying stealing food. To
conclude; this ethical issue was by the respondents identified both by own relatable experiences
in having followed SMIs and by hypothetical reasoning of possible ethical issues.
An example of this ethical issue was brought up by a respondent who talked about an influencer
trio that made a video in which they stole fast food.
“[...] There were some who was like ‘we must test this, we have to do like this’, I mean they may look up to
them, those who are a bit younger.”
– Respondent B
4.2.3 Racial or sexual discrimination and harassment
This theme was composed by the respondents’ different views on the ethical issues apparent with
SMIs that in some way, discriminate or harass someone. Respondents expressed that racism in
particular is considered a sensitive subject, mentioning the “n-word” as one very controversial
phenomenon. In the interviews, the term political correctness was also brought up in relation to
this theme, stating the importance of SMIs not overstepping these boundaries. Racism was one
of the topics within the theme that respondents clearly denounced and expressed zero tolerance
against. However, other participants in the interviews argued that while discrimination and
harassment of any sort is highly unethical, they do not take offence when experiencing it since
the internet in general is a climate where anybody can be heard. Hence these respondents claim
that it is important to take things with a pinch of salt. This perception however offers a subject of
contradiction in the opinions between the participants.
“I guess it is always the thing with comedy, it can be a little like, that it should be a little raw.[...] When you
joke about racially discriminating things [...] sometimes it can be fun, but when you react to it one can be like
‘that sounds pretty bad’, so it’s like even if they are joking, it is not a good joke.”
– Respondent C
4.2.4 Breaking the law
In the interviews the phenomenon of breaking the law were discussed and it became clear that in
some cases respondents expressed breaking the law as an ethical issue, yet others were more
unsure about the actual immorality of breaking certain laws. As explained, the respondents did
not give one unison ethical perspective on the action of breaking the law but instead one part of
the participants thought that breaking the law in itself was an inevitable ethical transgression no
matter the law. The other part of the participants elevated their reasoning to whether the law in
their opinion were just and legitimate and that the law in that case should not be broken. If the
law is not perceived to be just or legitimate it could be ethically okay to break that law.
26
“To not behave in a socially acceptable way, because, just by the thought that they influence other people,
especially kids. Kids learn how they shall fit into society and if their role models are people who try to not fit
into society, the kids will neither. [...] Commit crimes, like robberies, murder someone, stealing and stuff like
that.”
– Respondent D
4.2.5 Accusing or discrediting others
Another theme identified from the data collected from the interviews point at the phenomenon
of accusing or discrediting others. The respondents often talked about this in the relation of
SMIs making disputes between each other gain publicity, which in turn enlarge the scale of the
initial conflict. However, accusation and slander in general is something that the respondents
express to be of poor ethical stature. This theme encompasses both trash talk but also forced
opinions on other SMIs with the result of hateful exchanges of comments. This is one of the
themes where the respondents stated that this ethical problem was rooted in own personal
experiences and not hypothetical reasoning, however hypothetical reasoning was evident in the
case of respondents with less experience of SMIs.
“They had put up a video where they have harassed others within the same business, that earn money on being
YouTube influencers, about how bad they are compared to themselves, like they had worse content and etc.
That, I can consider … like slander. I think that is kind of wrong.”
– Respondent B
4.2.6 Greed
This theme represents behaviours and actions associated with greed and has by the respondents
been defined as urging followers to constantly buy merchandise or SMIs shifting from being
focused on content creation to just wanting to earn money on advertisement and collaborations.
According to the respondents the particular ethical issue of greed can take on many forms, two
examples can be found above which displays what the respondents expressed in the interviews.
Other angles on the immorality of the theme greed can also be found in the unsustainability of
SMIs constantly urging for consumption, in an environmental perspective. Yet another
perspective that the respondents discuss greed from is the way certain SMIs allegedly deceive and
manipulate children to buy things that they either sell or that in any way benefits them
economically, for example through collaborations with companies. The unravelling of the ethical
issue of deception in relation to earning money can be found in an earlier study by Archer,
Pettigrew and Harrigans (2014), where the insufficient clarity whether an SMI is doing paid
advertising/collaborations or not, is discussed.
“I know that it was something about him being paid to advertise a game, but he doesn’t say it but simply does
it. It came out later, and then he just played it on his stream to show people like ‘wow, this game is totally
sick’ and like ‘you must buy this’ so that’s also that, just because he wants to earn money he influence others,
even if it is not something that he thinks himself.”
– Respondent E
27
4.2.7 Deceptiveness and faulty information
After compiling the codes generated from the thematic analysis of the semi structured interviews,
the theme of deceptiveness and faulty information was formed. The respondents describe several
ethical issues within this theme of which one is the issue with SMIs telling their audience
something as an absolute truth while it in reality may only be their own personal opinion. This is
according to the respondents an issue because they perceive it as the SMIs bend the truth after
their own agenda, being deceptive about the reality.
Another ethical issue identified by the respondents is the way that certain SMIs allegedly
manipulate their followers into buying products or merchandize benefiting the SMI themselves,
as previously stated in the theme of greed. However, in this case the focus of the ethical issue is
specifically aimed toward the act of deception. That certain SMIs can be deceiving on purpose is
something that the respondents address, but there are also respondents that claim that they have
felt tricked or fooled without any apparent intention of the SMI being deceptive. One example is
from a respondent that said an SMI gave some facts on a historical event that then proved to be
wrong, which became apparent when the SMI later apologized for the event as he had gotten his
facts wrong by mistake. In this scenario, the were no intentional transgression of morality, still in
the interaction between the SMU and the SMI an ethical issue arose by the SMU feeling tricked.
This display that not all ethical issues arise from a certain individual’s active choices but rather as
passive effects of human interaction. There are respondents from the interviews that hold the
SMIs responsible for these ethical issues no matter if it may have been a mistake, since they
ultimately influence others to believe in lies.
“[...] put up a video about food she wouldn’t buy like giving plenty of faulty information about food and such.
Also a lot of small children who follows. Says for example that citric acid is dangerous for your body [...]
especially small children who watch and easily get influenced, they think like ‘oh shit, it’s dangerous’.”
– Respondent F
4.2.8 Encouragement of atrocities
This theme has been constructed based on the responses from the participants where the
encouragement of immoral action take place. The respondents describe the action of an SMI
trying to influence their audience into doing something cruel or stupid as something highly
immoral. Actions that SMIs may influence others to do may, according to the respondents,
include breaking the law by stealing or spreading hate. Instead of using their influence to act
unethically or manipulate their audience in some way, the respondents think that SMIs, to a
greater extent, should use their power and influence gained through the medium to bring up
important topics such as environmental issues and sustainability. In this theme the immorality of
the particular actions of the SMUs is not what is in focus but rather the action of encouragement
from the SMIs, using their influence for own personal vendettas or interests, or just due to lack
of responsibility and general mischief.
“To encourage people to do something that isn’t right. For example the thing that happened in New Zealand,
if a youtuber goes out and says ‘I thought this was great’ that would have made people react strongly and I
would not have considered it to be okay.”
– Respondent G
28
4.2.9 Maintaining body ideals or shaming different body appearances
The last theme identified is a theme consisting of the identified ethical issue of maintaining or
promoting body ideals and/or shaming body appearances that does not match these ideals. This
was an issue brought up in different context, whether it was concerning weight, height or overall
fitness. The ethical issue within this theme is not necessarily a direct immoral action committed
by an SMI but can instead also be a passive effect of the behaviour of the given SMI explains the
respondents. For example, SMIs constantly posting perfect bikini pictures can make SMUs feel
bad about themselves not feeling as pretty and perfect as these SMIs appear to be, explains
respondents, and continue to express that they become affected by it negatively no matter if the
SMI has done anything wrong. As in a previous theme about deception, the ethical issue of body
ideals does not necessarily come from an immoral action on the account of an SMI. However,
the respondents also explain that there are SMIs that are more responsible for maintaining and
promoting these body ideals more actively. This is done by SMIs shaming their own bodies thus
influencing followers to do the same, and some SMIs that shame others for how they look, going
one step further and actively acting immorally, according to the participants.
“When they talk about stressing about weight and exercising when you talk about exercising in a way that is
not good but instead talk about exercising in a way that focuses on weight loss and that you should look a
certain way, then it can feel morally wrong. If they sit and degrade themselves, there are people who are
considerably bigger than they are. Then they feel ‘If she says she is fat, then what the fuck am I?’.”
– Respondent H
4.2.10 Different ethical reasoning among SMUs
This is a short analysis about the reasoning behind previously mentioned ethical issues identified
by the respondents to gain some insight in how Kohlberg’s CMD theory might explain how these
particular issues were raised.
The result from the semi structured interviews yielded a great array of different answers which
can be connected with Kohlberg’s CMD theory (1976) which states that there are different levels
of moral reasoning among individuals. Since the respondents’ answers as well as their reasoning
leading up to the answers had such differentiating character it is evident that the respondents
cognitive moral thought process was different, or as Kohlberg may have put it, in different
cognitive stages. For example, some of the respondents argued that breaking the law was
inherently an immoral thing to do whilst others discussed that it may be problematic to break the
law as an influencer but that it was not necessarily an immoral thing to do according to them,
depending of course on the crime. These two examples of ways of reasoning displays different
cognitive moral development; the one thinking of the law as the absolute way of acting morally,
demonstrating a conventional perspective and the second, more sceptical towards the absolute
morality of the law, featuring a postconventional thought process.
Conclusively the respondents’ different ways of reasoning are with Kohlberg’s theory explained
as a result of the participants in the study being at different stages in their cognitive moral
development.
29
4.3 The responsibility of SMIs according to SMUs

4.3.1 SMIs perceived as accountable role models
The relationship between SMUs and SMIs was discussed by the participants, who explained that
SMUs tend to look up to SMIs and see them as role models. This is described by C. Dean
Pielstick (2000) as informal leadership, which is the phenomena of individuals being able to instill
respect and influence among other people without having any given role of power. Respondents
also believed that SMIs have a responsibility to address important topics, such as the
environment or sustainability, since they have the ability to reach a big audience. This is defined
by Andrew Eshleman (2014) as moral responsibility, which he describes as someone being either
praised or blamed for an action or neglect of action in a situation demanding a moral decision.
One example provided by a respondent was that some SMIs tend to often promote certain items
or services because they are paid to do it. The respondent explained this as an unsustainable
behaviour, where SMIs encourage people to always buy new clothes or make up etc. and felt that
the SMIs instead would encourage more sustainable or environmentally friendly options.
During the interviews, participants also stated that SMUs sometimes feel that they have a strong
bond with the SMIs they follow or watch, and that they can almost be perceived as their friends,
or at least something similar. This is confirmed by Influicity (n.d.), that states that micro
influencers, which are influencers that tend to have under 10 thousand followers, have a strong
relationship with their audience. Roy Baumeister and Mark Leary (1995) also state that all humans
are dependent on some sort of regular social interaction with other people, and that if this is not
met, it forms an urge to seek new relationships. Susie Khamis, Lawrence Ang and Raymond
Welling (2016) claims that it is the SMIs’ work with personal branding that invites people to see
into their personal life, making them feel like they know the SMIs due to the personal knowledge
they possess.
“In the same way that you don’t want to hurt your friends, that you have a responsibility to show respect to
them, they have the responsibility to show respect to their audience. Because many of those who watch, you get
some sort of relationship to those you watch, maybe not like a friendship, but something similar yet. And then
I think they have a responsibility to not harass or hurt anyone. Then, all humans make mistakes and one
cannot be assured that no one ever takes offence because there will always be people who take offence. But that
you think about the main things.”
– Respondent H
4.3.2 SMIs perceived as entrepreneurs with creative freedom
In contradiction to the previously mentioned view on SMIs as role models, respondents also
perceived SMIs as creative individuals, and thus emphasized the SMIs freedom to express
themselves rather than the responsibility they have toward their audience. Participants with this
perspective do not believe that SMIs need to change or alter their content in any way in terms of
being more responsible, for example if an SMI would gain young followers. The responsibility
lies instead on the individuals watching or following SMIs, and that it is up to them to decide
whether or not to watch or follow certain influencers according to the respondents. It was argued
that the viewer does not need to watch or follow SMIs that they feel offended by or in some way
do not appreciate, and that this choice is easy to make as an SMU. For users of young age,
respondents felt that the responsibility lies with the parents and claimed that children are more
easily manipulated, or affected to a larger extent, than adults. Some responsibility is however
stated that the SMIs have. One respondent did for example mention the responsibility of dealing
30
with things that other people do in the name of the SMI, especially if it is not something that the
SMI stands for. This is however not something that ideally should be at the expense of the
creator’s freedom and the content they put out, according to respondents with this view on SMIs’
responsibility.
“I don’t think they have a responsibility. They obviously have the responsibility to not go against the rules of
their platform, so if it is Instagram, they have their rules that they must follow.”
– Respondent D
4.4 The responsibility of social media platforms according to SMUs

4.4.1 Maintenance perspective
According to respondents represented in this theme, the responsibility of the platforms is simply
to maintain their sites by controlling that their rules and regulations are followed by reviewing
reports and complaints issued by the users. Depending on the platforms this could include acts
of demonetization in copyright cases, or removal of racist content for example. The ethical
responsibility is not really put on the platform according to this perspective but rather on the
SMIs or the SMUs’ drive for self-preservation. The respondents argue that when visiting or using
the platforms the SMUs and SMIs both accept the terms of the particular platform; hence it is
SMUs’ and SMIs’ responsibility to follow these terms and the platform’s responsibility to make
sure of it. The authority thereby lies with the platform, if the users or content creators do not
agree with it, they should change to another platform according to the respondents.
Garrath Williams (n.d.) describes that the collective moral responsibility of a group is defined by
the law or the internal structure of the collective, something that is agreed upon by the
respondents as they hold the platforms accountable based on their own chosen internal structure
and rules. The respondents also express that the platforms are obliged to follow the law, which is
something agreed upon across all themes. Conclusively the respondents do not put much ethical
values into the reasoning in this theme, but rather takes a logical and pragmatic standpoint to the
platform being the entity with rules and the ones using the service in any way is obliged to follow
those terms.
“It is not the platform’s responsibility to know, to be aware. But is a video reported and such I think it’s their
responsibility to take a look at it and also take it away if it actually would be something that isn’t okay. But
it is not their responsibility to know about everything that exists either, it may be difficult.”
– Respondent B
4.4.2 Control and security perspective
In this theme the respondents define the responsibility of the platforms as somewhat more
extensive than the previous theme based on a maintenance perspective. In this theme the
respondents consider the platform responsible to be actively controlling and monitoring content.
An example is one respondent that claimed that platforms ought to track down trolls and ban
them, and another one said that the platforms should actively monitor the most famous SMIs
and censor unsuitable content. The respondents do in this theme think that the platforms should
31
be more caring and protective about the environment, to make users feel welcome no matter
their ethnicity, gender or age, a task that other respondents perceive as unrealistic. One
respondent also suggested that platforms should have age regulations on certain content to
protect children from watching inappropriate content, however, in the same sentence the
respondent stated that the ability to fake one’s age online is very easy and an issue with setting
age limitations.
“There are so damn many trolls and shit out their today, that makes such hateful and racially discriminating
statements, on all channels. And there I think that, actually, the owners of the channels, that is, the owners of
YouTube, the owners of Facebook, Instagram should actually take a responsibility to, maybe track down
certain words that are commented, or like… I know you can block such things on YouTube at least. But that
they try to fix that now because it feels like a damn… all the comments and all the hate it’s so negative right
now on the web.”
– Respondent I
4.4.3 Freedom of expression perspective
The third and last theme, that offers a perspective on the responsibility of the platforms is
defined by the respondents’ opinions that the platform instead of having a responsibility to
protect and control, the responsibility is to uphold each user’s and content creator’s right to
express themselves; freedom of expression. In this perspective the ideas of censorship are only
approved in cases where the content is undeniably either breaking the law or the rules and
regulations of the platform. However, a platform that has too strict rules is perceived as
undemocratic and depriving of human freedom. Yet again there is a divide between respondents,
whether content is justifiable to censor because the respondents’ moral standards are equivalent
with the law or because it is actually morally wrong no matter the law. The respondents are
however unified in thinking that discriminating content such as racism and sexism should be
censored, but at the same time are sceptical in the judgement of what is deemed as this type of
content. One respondent heavily emphasizes the importance to no delete or in any way censor
political or topical discussions under the premise that they are held in a constructive manner. If it
were simply a matter of accusations and trash talk (insulting each other) it is a whole new matter
where censorship can be okay.
The respondents represented in this theme consider that platforms in general has gone too far
with how much they censor and involve themselves as judges in what is wrong and right. Finally,
the responsibility to not be exposed to unsuitable content lies with the user, and the platforms
responsibility is rather to welcome diverse content with different backgrounds and topics without
further judgement under the premise that it does not directly violate laws or human rights.
“They have responsibility to not censor things that are not, that are not evidently illegal, like encouragement to
violence and similar things. But they should not censor discussions or similar things.”
– Respondent J
“Me personally, wants YouTube to be open and free, with space for all kinds of material”
– Respondent K
32
Discussion and conclusions
5 Discussion and conclusions

This chapter will contain a discussion of the method used in this study, and present both its
strengths and weaknesses. A discussion of the findings that were analysed in the previous chapter
will also be made, and these will be evaluated considering the purpose and research questions of
this study.
5.1 Discussion of method
The method used in this study were semi-structured interviews, further defined in the method and
implementation chapter, which were chosen due to the interest in gathering qualitative data. Both
strengths and weaknesses of the method has been discovered during the process, and these will
now be presented and discussed.
The main strength of semi-structured interviews is the ability to let respondents freely discuss
each question, which may lead to interesting conclusions and thoughts that is personal for each
individual. It can also result in added questions from the interviewer that will lead the discussion
even deeper to why the respondents feel a certain way or have a certain view on a specific
subject. This results in qualitative data, which is the purpose of the method, but also a great
variation of perspectives. In contradiction to structured interviews or questionnaires, semi-
structured interviews will help the researcher find out why people think a certain way instead of
resulting in closed answers. Since the purpose of this study was to find out SMU’s ethical
perspective on social media influencers and platforms, as well as their perceived responsibilities,
asking questions starting with why has been very useful for retrieving desired answers. The format
of the interviews may also feel more like a conversation than an interview and make respondents
more comfortable when answering the questions. Another strength with the method is that the
interviewer can ask counter-questions on answers that are complicated to understand. It will give
respondents the chance to explain their thoughts once more so that it is clear what they actually
mean. This reduces the risk of misinterpretation, since the discussion can be held there and then.
A survey can for example be hard to discuss with participants who have contributed with their
answers, since they are not present to explain or develop their thoughts if something is unclear.
As mentioned, this method does not only hold strengths, but weaknesses as well. Even though it
is listed as a strength that this type of interview may result in many different perspectives, this can
also be a problem for the one(s) analysing the data afterward since it can be hard to draw
conclusions and see clear patterns. This means that it probably would be necessary to interview a
larger amount of people to make the result more reliable, since a handful of people may not be a
true representation of what people of the chosen target group really think. Another weakness
with semi-structured interviews is that it sometimes can be a struggle for interviewers to quickly
come up with new questions to ask from what the respondent is telling them. This can especially
be hard when the interviewees do not know how to explain their feelings, or if they state to have
no opinions on certain questions. Respondents may at some points also tend to “wander” in their
own thoughts and narrations, and the answers sometimes turns out to not be that relevant for the
sake of the study. One weakness present in this study that has less to do with the method itself,
and more to do with the interviewers, is the fact that there were two of them. This may have
affected the way that the interviews were conducted by not being consistent on which topics or
questions were more valuable than others, and there is a possibility that this resulted in a different
data collection depending on the interviewer.
33
Semi-structured interviews are probably the most suitable method for the purpose of this study,
since the goal was to find out why individuals feel the way they do about a certain topic. There
exist other qualitative methods, such as: case studies, focus groups, observations etc., but none of
these felt that they would give the desired data.
The type of data that was gathered from the interviews were of the kind that this study was
aiming to find and were also able to answer this study’s research questions. It is therefore true to
say that the objective was achieved, since the study was able to fulfill its purpose. However, as
mentioned previously, there was a weakness regarding the small number of participants in the
study, and it is unsure to say that this result reflects the whole target group. This is something
that could have been done better if the circumstances would have been different, and there
would have been more time for further interviews. Another thing that could have been done
differently is the choice of participants for the interviews. To get a more reliable study, it would
have probably been better to include people from different parts of the country that also have
different life situations. The ones presented in this study were both doing similar things and lived
in the same, or nearby areas in Sweden.
Considering the setting in which the interviews were conducted, the majority of them were held
at Jönköping University during school hours. This may have affected how the participants were
feeling at the time, which in turn may have affected the way they perceived and answered the
questions. Some possible mindsets of the participants at the time could have been fatigue, stress,
boredom, feeling unfocused or basically that there was a lack of interest in being interviewed.
Some participants lingered with their answers on certain questions while some came with
examples right away. This could have been the effect of different mental states of the
respondents at the time of the interviews, as some of them may have experienced one or more of
the examples previously mentioned. It can also be interpreted as respondents having different
levels of interest in the matter as well as different levels of knowledge.
5.2 Discussion of findings
In this section each individual research question will be addressed separately, and the findings will
be presented and discussed. Previously presented theories will be compared with the empirical
findings acquired through the semi structured interviews and then evaluated.
The purpose of this study was to gain insight and understanding of how social media users
perceive ethics and responsibility on social media platforms concerning the phenomenon of
social media influencers. In this endeavour, a lot of different aspects and perspectives has been
identified which has made it possible to lay a foundation of what social media influencer ethics
can be interpreted as in the eyes of social media users.
5.2.1 Ethical issues arisen in the interaction between SMUs and SMIs
The answer to what ethical issues that may arise in the interaction between SMUs and SMIs are
many, and that is not surprising given how differently each individual ethical and moral reasoning
works. The diversity of ethical issues identified from the findings was a product of all the
examples and topics that the respondents brought up in their interviews. The arrival at the study’s
findings was a product of the thematic analysis method where codes were identified and later
constructed into themes representing the ethical issues that could be derived from the vast
34
amount of codes. The main emphasis was put on the subjects’ thoughts about ethical issues due
to the unexplored territory of not knowing what types of ethical issues that the target group
could identify with the phenomenon of SMIs. Thus, the material became rich with examples and
offered descriptions of different experiences of the same event, showing that no matter the close
age and geographical location of the respondents the ethical reasoning differs a lot.
Once again Kohlberg’s (1976) CMD theory is applicable in explaining why and how people’s
moral reasoning differ so widely. As previously mentioned, Kohlberg has defined three major
levels of moral reasoning, preconventional, conventional and postconventional. The
preconventional level is not very relevant since it usually applies to children under nine years old,
however both the conventional and postconventional level can be applied to some degree to the
reasoning behind the respondents’ answers. It is not possible to accurately place any of the
participants in a certain stage of the CMD theory purely on the answers they gave in relation to
this study. However, patterns and underlying motives can be more easily identified when
analysing the answers given by the participants with the help of Kohlberg’s theory.
For example, the identified ethical issue of promoting and maintaining body ideals and in doing
so, shaming body appearances that does not match the norm, can be seen as both an ethical
concern due to self-interest because oneself have been affected negatively, but it may also have its
roots in the ethical concern that people in general may feel anxiety due to the phenomenon thus
declaring it an ethical issue. This makes it difficult to clearly distinguish between which level of
moral level according to Kohlberg’s CMD theory was the basis of reasoning. However,
Kohlberg’s theory is still offering different perspective on why the participant might think the
way they do concerning ethical issues with SMIs.
It is impossible to determine precisely how the respondents have reasoned and what the basis of
their reasoning are. Factors that affect one’s moral reasoning are plenty, for example the
cognitive moral development, by Kohlberg (1976), the impact of group conformity, discussed by
Asch (1951) and the influence of cultural and societal conventions.
The thing that can be determined however, is that there are plenty of issues that have been
identified in the interaction between SMUs and SMIs. In addition, these issues are partly based
on own real-life experiences and the impact of the issues are a reality for SMUs describing their
relation to the diverse spectrum of ethical issues presented. In Archer, Pettigrew and Harrigans
(2014) study, they identify part of the ethical issues presented in this study as well in a certain way
confirming the validity of the findings and the potency for it to be further generalised on a wider
scale. Archer, Pettigrew and Harrigans discuss the identified ethical issue of bloggers not being
clear that sponsored products that they are paid to promote are in fact sponsored. This is
something that is brought up in this study as well and has been identified with the ethical issues
of deceptiveness and faulty information.
Other than the common ethical issue presented in Archer, Pettigrew and Harrigans study, the
findings concerning this research question is new and have not been able to be found in this
context anywhere else in previous research.
5.2.2 The responsibility of SMIs according to SMUs
The perceived responsibility of SMIs has been defined in two major perspectives by the SMUs
participating in this study; that the SMI has a responsibility as a role model or that the SMI is
seen as an entrepreneur and that the real responsibility is not at all with the SMI but rather with
the SMUs or their parents, when it comes to children. These two categories or themes have been
35
distinguished from the respondents’ answers by the procedure associated with a thematic
analysis, namely defining codes and later themes.
Yet again there is not much research conducted previous to this study in the area of SMIs and
ethics other than the study conducted by Archer, Pettigrew and Harrigan (2014) which just
briefly states the responsibility for SMIs to be transparent in their marketing efforts. Other than
that, the ethical responsibility of SMIs is not something that has been further examined in
scientific reports.
The difference in opinion about what responsibility an SMI have towards his/her audience is
defined by the perception of SMIs having different roles. Those respondents that perceive SMIs
as role models claim that SMIs have a lot of responsibilities to take care of their audience and be
an example for especially younger audiences. In contrast, respondents that think of SMIs as the
role of an entrepreneur puts more emphasis on the SMIs’ freedom to create whatever it is that
they feel like due to them owning their own content as the creators of it. These are two
perspectives of the role of an SMI that for the respondents defines what kind of responsibility
the SMI should take.
5.2.3 The responsibility of social media platforms according to SMUs
When it comes to the third and last research question on what SMUs perceive to be the
responsibility of the platforms in regulating and controlling SMIs, three perspective on the matter
have been identified. The maintenance, control and security and freedom of expression
perspective which all has been derived from the empirical data collected from the interviews.
As previously mentioned in the discussion of the findings concerning research question one and
two, the previous research conducted is thin when it comes to this part of the study as well. Yet
again it is Archer, Pettigrew and Harrigan (2014) which just briefly states that due to the fast
development of social media the regulations of the medium are difficult to keep up to speed.
Other than that, there is no research at this point discussing the different perspectives SMUs
have on social media platforms’ responsibility concerning SMIs. However, one could draw the
parallel to ideological perspectives, pretending to replace the state with the platform. In this case
the maintenance view would represent a kind of liberal ideology where the platform should only
uphold the rules and have a passive role in doing so by acting retroactively and not proactively
against any violations, which can be referred to as a night-watchman platform to some degree.
The control and security perspective would instead more closely resemble the sociological
ideology with the platform in the centre of attention, ruling actively to maintain control and
security for all its users. In some minor ways this decreases the freedom for some (adults) while
arguably enabling others (children) to participate without hazards in the environment. Making
users safe is the priority.
Lastly the freedom of expression perspective would be some mix of liberalism and anarchy which
puts absolute priority in the freedom for all users, but with this freedom enabling users to attack
(verbal harassment) other users thus restricting their freedom. This perspective has similar
reasoning behind it as the liberal or maintenance perspective but puts less responsibility with the
platform and more with the users and in the case of children, their parents.
36
5.3 Conclusions
The research questions of the study are considered to have been answered by the empirical data
collected through semi structured interviews of SMUs and has then been able to put into context
with relevant theories and concepts.
5.3.1 What types of ethical dilemmas may arise in the interaction between social media
users and social media influencers according to social media users between the ages 18-25?
The purpose of the first research question was to gain insight into how the ethical climate on
social media concerning SMIs were according to the ones using it; the SMUs. In this endeavour,
plenty of ethical issues were raised that were arranged into themes representing the general ethical
issue at hand. These issues can be seen below.
• Lack of respect
• Bad influence
• Racial or sexual discrimination and harassment
• Breaking the law
• Accusing or discrediting others
• Greed
• Deceptiveness and faulty information
• Encouragement of atrocities
• Maintaining body ideals or shaming different body appearances
With these discovered ethical issues, the first research question is considered to be answered. It is
clear that SMUs put different ethical weight on various issues and that not everyone agree about
what others deem to be right or wrong. However, tendencies have been identified and are
presented as above to indicate which things that may actually be a concern to social media users
in general. Since SMIs are a pretty new phenomenon, the target group of this study (SMUs at the
ages between 18-25) can in the aspect of age be a quite accurate representation of the common
perceptions of SMIs and ethical issues.
5.3.2 To what extent do social media users between the ages 18-25 think social media
influencers are responsible for their content and its consequences?
The goal with the second research question was to see what responsibility was place with the SMI
regarding the content they release on social media. The reason behind this was to better
understand, based on the previously determined ethical issues, whose primary responsibility it
was to avoid these issues. The answer was that two major opinions could be derived from the
answers where in both cases the SMI had some kind of responsibility for their content but to
different extents according to the SMUs. As seen below, the two perspectives of the SMIs’
responsibility saw the SMIs as either accountable role models or entrepreneurs with creative
freedom.
• SMIs perceived as accountable role models

• SMIs perceived as entrepreneurs with creative freedom
37
The role model perspective puts emphasis on the responsibility to be a good example as a public
figure, due to possessing huge amounts of influence and thus power over other people.
Therefore, the SMIs should according to this perspective act as responsible leaders. The
perspective of SMIs as entrepreneurs puts greater emphasis on the freedom of the SMI as a
content creator, thus claiming that the responsibilities should revolve around the SMI purely
being accountable for any violations of the platforms’ rules, general laws or to follow ethical
conventions to the extent that these conventions are ethical in the first place.
5.3.3 What responsibility does social media users between the ages 18-25 think that
social media platforms have in controlling and monitoring that harmful or inappropriate
social media influencers are censured or dealt with?
With research question three the aspiration was to achieve an insight on how the platforms’
responsibility to manage SMIs was perceived by SMUs. By the respondents’ answers three
perspectives were defined on how platforms can be seen as responsible, which can be seen
below.
• Maintenance perspective
• Control and security perspective
• Freedom of expression perspective
The maintenance perspective was constructed by the answers from the respondents arguing that
the platforms’ responsibility is to maintain their own distinguished rules and regulations. This is a
passive responsibility that focuses on the platforms just living up to what they claim to be
standing for. The SMUs advocating the control and security perspective claims that the
responsibility of the platforms is more extensive, and that the platforms should actively search
and track down unsuitable content and remove it. This could be done without supposedly having
support by the rules of the platforms but instead on the premises that it is ethically unsuitable
content. Lastly the freedom of expression perspective has a whole other angle on what
responsibilities the platforms have, arguing that the main responsibility is to let people express
themselves and to not remove or interfere in any way with the content uploaded unless it is a
direct harassment or violation of any laws or predominant ethical conventions.
5.4 Impact of the study
This study has laid a foundation of what social media ethics with focus on SMIs can look like and
mapped out different perspectives of the responsibility of the ethical issues prevalent. The
perspective of the users is important to take up since the influence of the SMIs directly affect
countless people every day. Thus, the acknowledgement and insight into what issues that are
existent can in the long run help to improve civic mental health by improving the sustainability of
the online habitat that is and becomes increasingly prominent in people’s everyday life.
5.5 Further research
To further explore the ethical issues concerning SMIs and aspects of the responsibility of dealing
with these issues, there are a few areas that could be more extensively developed.
38
Firstly, this study used semi structured interviews which yielded qualitative empirical data. This
data was collected in a very restricted geographical area, ethnicity of participants and age of
participants. To further develop the scientific weight of the findings presented in this study one
could conduct a quantitative study based on the identified themes and issues presented in this
study to investigate the ability to generalize the themes on a bigger scale and if the empirical data
possibly can be applied internationally.
Secondly, one could delve deeper into the source of opinions and ethical reasoning of the SMUs.
This could be done with more follow-up questions in the interviews asking why the respondents
argues the way they do, trying to more closely identify the different stages in Kohlberg’s (1976)
CMD theory in relation to SMIs.
Lastly, other perspectives of the issues and responsibilities can be researched as well, such as the
SMIs’ perspective or the platforms’ perspective giving a more holistic perception of the topic as a
whole.
39
References
6 References
Allport, G. W. (1985) The historical background of social psychology. In Lindzey, G; Aronson,
E. The Handbook of Social Psychology. New York: McGraw Hill. ISBN 089859720X
Anderson, I. (2017) Social Psychology. United Kingdom: University of East London.

http://roar.uel.ac.uk/7562/1/9781118430873.est0812Social%20Psychology.pdf
Archer, C, Pettigrew, S, Harrigan, P. (2014) A tale of power, passion and persuasion: Bloggers, public
relations and ethics. Australia: The University of Newcastle.
https://novaojs.newcastle.edu.au/apprj/index.php/apprj/article/view/42/30
Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., Akert, R. M. (2007). Social Psychology (6th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson
Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0-13-233487-7.
Asch, S. E. (1951) Effects of group pressure on the modification and distortion of judgments. Pittsburgh, PA:
Carnegie Press. https://www.gwern.net/docs/psychology/1952-asch.pdf
Bass, B. M. (1990) Bass & Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial
applications (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.
Baumeister, R. F., Leary, M. R. (1995) The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments
as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117 (3): 497-529. doi:10.1037/0033-
2909.117.3.49
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998) Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development.
Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc., ISBN 9780761909613.
Braun, V, Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology
3 (2): 77-101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Cambridge Dictionary. Influencer. Cambridge Dictionary.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/influencer (Acc. March 11, 2019)
CBS News. Then and Now: A History of Social Networking Sites. CBS News.
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/then-and-now-a-history-of-social-networking-sites/2/
(Acc. March 16, 2019)
Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J. (2004) Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual
Review of Psychology. 55: 591–621. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015. PMID 14744228.
Coffee, Jr., J. (1981) ‘No Soul to Damn: No Body to Kick’: An Unscandalized Inquiry into the
Problem of Corporate Punishment. Michigan Law Review 79 (3): 386-460. doi: 10.2307/1288201
Day, D. V. (2012) Leadership. The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Psychology 1: 696-729 . doi:
10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199928309.013.0022
Debate.org. Should the Government Control the Internet?. Debate.org.

https://www.debate.org/opinions/should-the-government-control-the-
internet?nsort=3&ysort=3 (Acc. March 3, 2019)
40
References
Eshleman, A. (2014) Moral responsibility. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-responsibility/# (Acc. April 13, 2019)
Freberg, K., Graham, K., Mcgaughey, K., Freberg, L. A. (2011) Who are the social media
influencers? A study of public perceptions of personality. Fuel and Energy Abstracts 37 (1): 90-92.
doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.11.001
Gustavsson, A, Suleman Nasir, A, Ishonova S. (2018) Towards a World of Influencers: Exploring the
Relationship Building Dimensions of Influencer Marketing. Bachelor Thesis, International Management.
Jönköping: Jönköping University. http://hj.diva-
portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1212420/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Influicity. The Difference Between Micro, Macro and Mega Influencers. Influicity.
http://www.influicity.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/MegaMacroMicro-Whitepaper-
min.pdf (Acc. April 6, 2019)
Jade, Z. List of Influencer Marketing Niches. Hire influence https://hireinfluence.com/blog/list-of-

influencer-marketing-niches/ (Acc. April 6, 2019)
Jaeger, M. (2019) Muslim advocacy group sues Facebook, YouTube over New Zealand shooting livestream.
New York Post. https://nypost.com/2019/03/25/muslim-advocacy-group-sues-facebook-
youtube-over-new-zealand-shooting-livestream/ (Acc. April 4, 2019)
Kazdin, A. E. (2000) Encyclopedia of psychology. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological

Association. ISBN 1-55798-650-9.
Kietzmann, J. H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I. P., Silvestre, B. S. (2011) Social media? Get
serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business Horizons 54 (3):
241-251. doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2011.01.005
Kohlberg, L. (1976) Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive-developmental approach. In

Lickona, T. (ed.). Moral Development and Behavior: Theory, Research and Social Issues. Holt, NY:
Rinehart and Winston.
Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., White, R. K. (1939) Patterns of Aggressive Behavior in Experimentally
Created “Social Climates”. Journal of Social Psychology 10 (2): 271-299. https://tu-
dresden.de/mn/psychologie/ipep/lehrlern/ressourcen/dateien/lehre/lehramt/lehrveranstaltung
en/Lehrer_Schueler_Interaktion_SS_2011/Lewin_1939_original.pdf?lang=en
Lumenlearning. Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development. Lumenlearning.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/teachereducationx92x1/chapter/kohlbergs-stages-of-moral-
development/ (Acc. April 12, 2019)
Manstead, T., Hewstone, M. (1996) Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social Psychology. Oxford: Blackwell.
ISBN 978-0-631-20289-9.
McConnell, F. (2015) YouTube is 10 years old: the evolution of online video. The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/13/youtube-10-years-old-evolution-of-
online-video (Acc. April 4, 2019)
Merriam-Webster. Culture. Merriam-Webster. https://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/culture (Acc. April 8, 2019)
41
References
Miles, J, Gilbert, P. (2005) A Handbook of Research Methods for Clinical and Health Psychology. New
York: Oxford University Press Inc., ISBN 0-19-852756-X.
Neubaum, G., Krämer, N. C. (2017) Monitoring the Opinion of the Crowd: Psychological
Mechanisms Underlying Public Opinion Perceptions on Social Media. Media Psychology 20 (3):
502-531. doi: 10.1080/15213269.2016.1211539
Pew Research Center. (2005) World Wide Web Timeline. Pew Research Center.
http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/03/11/world-wide-web-timeline/ (Acc. March 9, 2019)
Pielstick, C. D. (1996). The design for a leadership academy for community college professionals
based on transformational leadership. Doctoral dissertation, Oregon State University.
Pielstick, C. D. (1998, Winter). The Transforming Leader: A meta-ethnographic analysis.

Community College Review, 26 (3): 15-34. doi: 10.1177/009155219802600302
Pielstick, C. D. (2000) Formal vs. Informal Leading: A Comparative Analysis. Journal of Leadership
& Organizational Studies 7 (3): 99-114. doi: 10.1177/107179190000700307
Samosudova, N. V. (2017). Modern leadership and management methods for development

organizations. MATEC Web of Conferences 106: 1-10 . doi: 10.1051/matecconf/201710608062.
SimilarWeb. Top Website Rankings. SimilarWeb. https://www.similarweb.com/top-websites (Acc.

March 9, 2019)
SimilarWeb. Youtube.com. SimilarWeb. https://www.similarweb.com/website/youtube.com (Acc.

March 9, 2019)
Stage, C. (2013) The online crowd: a contradiction in terms? On the potentials of Gustave Le
Bon's crowd psychology in an analysis of affective blogging. Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory 14
(2): 211-226. doi: 10.1080/1600910X.2013.773261
Stratton, M. D. (2006) Leadership in Groups: Social Networks and Perceptions of Formal and Informal
Leaders. Master Thesis, Space System Engineering. Ohio: Air Force Institute of Technology.
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a450097.pdf
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. 2016. Teology. Encyclopaedia Britannica.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/teleology (Acc. April 11, 2019)
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. 2019. Deontological ethics. Encyclopaedia Britannica.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/deontological-ethics (Acc. April 11, 2019)
Toch, H. (1988) Psychology of Crowds Revisited. Contemporary Psychology. 33 (11): 954. doi:
10.1037/026204
Valente, T.W, Pumpuang, P. (2007) Identifying Opinion Leaders to Promote Behavior Change.
Health Education & Behavior 34 (6): 881–896. doi: 10.1177/1090198106297855
Weist, D. (2016) Classification: Absolutism vs Relativism. Master Thesis, Computer and Information
Science. Flint: University of Michigan.
https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/135712/Weist2016.pdf?sequence=1
&isAllowed=y
42
References
Williams, G. (n.d.) Responsibility. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/responsi/ (Acc. April 14, 2019)
World Wide Web Foundation. History of the Web. World Wide Web Foundation.
https://webfoundation.org/about/vision/history-of-the-web/ (Acc. March 3, 2019)
Zorn, T. Designing and Conducting Semi-Structured Interviews for Research. The University of Utah.
http://home.utah.edu/~u0326119/Comm4170-01/resources/Interviewguidelines.pdf (Acc.
March 11, 2019)
43
7 Appendices
Appendix 1 The interview guide
• Do you know what a social media influencer is, and have/are you followed/ing any?
• On what social media sites do you primarily follow influencers?
• Which types of social media influencers are you attracted to?
• Have you ever reacted to an influencer’s behaviour and thought it to be morally wrong
or in some way felt any bad vibes? If so, what was it that triggered your reaction and
why?
o More examples?
o Hypothetical examples?
• When thinking about influencers and ethics, can you rank some behaviour that you have
seen in how severe you perceive that behaviour to be?
• Do you believe that social media influencers have any responsibility toward their
audience?
• Do you believe that social media companies have any responsibilities towards their
users? (in terms of censoring and shutting down accounts etc., follow up on own
experiences)
• Do you believe that you in any way have been affected badly by one or several social
media influencers at some point?
44

The Influencer - Friend or Foe?

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Influencer - Friend or Foe?

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Influencer - Friend or Foe?

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PAPER WITHIN Informatics

Examiner: Bruce Ferwerda

Supervisor: Martin Lindh

Postadress: Besöksadress: Telefon:

1.2 PURPOSE AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS .............................................................. 8

1.3 DELIMITATIONS .............................................................................................. 8

1.4 OUTLINE ......................................................................................................... 9

2 Theoretical background ......................................................... 10

2.1.1 Social Media ............................................................................................ 10

2.2.1 Self-branding / Personal branding ........................................................... 17

3.2 SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS ................................................................... 19

3.3 WORK PROCESS............................................................................................. 19

3.4 DATA COLLECTION........................................................................................ 20

3.5 DATA ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ 20

3.5.1 Phase 1: familiarising yourself with your data ........................................ 21

4 Findings and analysis ............................................................... 24

4.2.1 Lack of respect ......................................................................................... 25

4.3.1 SMIs perceived as accountable role models ............................................ 30

4.4.1 Maintenance perspective .......................................................................... 31

5.2 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS .............................................................................. 34

5.4 IMPACT OF THE STUDY .................................................................................. 38

5.5 FURTHER RESEARCH ..................................................................................... 38

1.2 Purpose and research questions

A brief description to how the rest of the report is structured:

2.1 Relevant theories and concepts

2.1.4 Social Psychology – Cultures, Groups, Conformity & Crowd Psychology

In the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (1828), culture is defined as a collection of shared attitudes,

2.1.5 Theories on ethics

2.1.6 Moral responsibility

Individual moral responsibility has according to Williams no well-settled philosophical division

“No soul to damn, no body to kick” (Coffee Jr. 1981)

In a retrospective perspective of a collective’s moral fault or merit is, according to Williams, in

2.2 Previous research

2.2.2 Bloggers in an ethical perspective

3 Method and implementation

3.1 Connection between method and research questions

3.2 Semi-structured interviews

3.3 Work process

3.4 Data collection

3.5 Data analysis

3.5.1 Phase 1: familiarising yourself with your data

3.5.2 Phase 2: generating initial codes

3.5.3 Phase 3: searching for themes

3.5.4 Phase 4: reviewing themes

3.5.5 Phase 5: defining and naming themes

3.5.6 Phase 6: producing the report

4 Findings and analysis

• Ethical issues arisen in the interaction between SMUs and SMIs

• The responsibility of SMIs according to SMUs

• The perceived responsibility of the platforms

4.2.1 Lack of respect

4.2.2 Bad influence

4.2.3 Racial or sexual discrimination and harassment

4.2.4 Breaking the law

4.2.5 Accusing or discrediting others

4.2.7 Deceptiveness and faulty information

4.2.8 Encouragement of atrocities

4.2.9 Maintaining body ideals or shaming different body appearances