#digital dysmorphia

[literaryyixuan]

Week 9 - Digital Citizenship & Software Literacy: Instagram Filters

Social media filters have become a normal part of online communication, particularly on visual platforms such as Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok. Whether used for smoothing skin, enhancing facial features, or altering lighting, filters allow users to modify their appearance with just a few taps. While many people view these tools as harmless fun, this week’s topic highlights the importance of software literacy and understanding how these filters and image altering technologies influence the way we see ourselves and others online.

Software literacy refers to an individual’s ability to understand how digital tools and platform shape experiences, behaviours, and perceptions. Beauty filters are designed to promote idealised versions of appearance by subtly altering facial features to align with contemporary beauty standards (Barker, 2020). Features such as smoother skin, larger eyes, and slimmer facial structures may appear minor, but repeated exposure to these altered images can influence how users evaluate their own appearance.

A case study that is a real-world example of this topic is the rise of the “Instagram Face” aesthetic in the late 2010s. This style was popularised by celebrities such as Kim Kardashian and Kylie Jenner, who had the ideal beauty features of the time such as flawless skin, fuller lips, sculpted facial features and accentuated those features with heavily edited photographs (Grazie, S. 2023). Social media filters often replicate these characteristics, making them appear achievable through digital enhancement. As these images became increasingly visible online, many users began comparing themselves to digitally altered appearances rather than realistic representations of everyday people.

This idea is closely connected to Rettberg’s (2014) concept of “filtered reality”, which suggests that digital technologies do not simply represent reality but actively shape it. As users increasingly interact with filtered images, the line between authentic and digitally modified appearances can become blurred. In many cases, people are not comparing themselves to others online, but to edited versions of others that may not reflect reality at all.

One concern surrounding this phenomenon is “digitized dysmorphia” (Coy-Dibley, 2016). This occurs when digital editing tools contribute to dissatisfaction with one’s appearance by creating unrealistic expectations of how individuals should look. Social media users, particularly younger audiences, may feel pressure to achieve filtered appearances in real life, even though those standards are often digitally constructed.

This highlights the importance of critical awareness when engaging with online content. While filters can be creative and enjoyable tools, users should also understand how they influence our self-perception and beauty standards. Software literacy allows individuals to recognise that digital platforms are not neutral spaces and that many of the images they encounter have been altered through technology.

Filters are not to be blamed for these problems. The issue arises when users become unaware of how these technologies shape the users’ perception of reality. Developing software literacy helps individuals navigate social media more critically and make informed decisions about the content they create and consume. As visual platforms continue to evolve, understanding the role of digital tools will become an increasingly important part of digital citizenship.To finalize, Instagram and Snapchat filters demonstrate how technology can influence identity, self-image, and social expectations. This week’s topic shows that digital citizenship is not only about how we behave online, but also about understanding how digital technologies shape the way we view ourselves and the world around us.

References

Barker, J. (2020) ‘Making-up on mobile: The pretty filters and ugly implications of Snapchat’, Fashion, Style & Popular Culture, 7(2), pp. 207–221.

Coy-Dibley, I. (2016) ‘Digitised dysmorphia of the female body: The re/disfigurement of the image’, Palgrave Communications, 2(1), pp. 1–9.

Rettberg, J.W. (2014) Seeing ourselves through technology: How we use selfies, blogs and wearable devices to see and shape ourselves. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

[a-zombie-diary]

Lo schifo e la bellezza

Riflessioni su The Beauty, The Substance e la mostruosità della perfezione.

[olivia-musement25]

WEEK 8-AUGMENTED REALITY FILTERS

The Psychological and Social Consequences of AR Beauty Filters

The proliferation of augmented reality (AR) beauty filters on platforms like Snapchat and Instagram has fundamentally reshaped beauty standards and self-perception in the digital age. As Barker (2020) demonstrates, Snapchat's face-altering "Lenses" - used by 186 million daily users - promote unrealistic ideals by effortlessly smoothing skin, reshaping facial features, and lightening skin tones. What began as playful entertainment in 2015 has evolved into what researchers term "Snapchat dysmorphia" (Barker, 2020; Miller, lecture), where users seek cosmetic procedures to resemble their filtered selves. These technologies disproportionately affect women and people of color by enforcing Eurocentric beauty norms, creating psychological distress when users compare their unfiltered appearances to digitally enhanced versions (Barker, 2020).

The mental health impacts are measurable: studies link filter use to increased body dysmorphia, anxiety, and depression, particularly among adolescents who internalize these unattainable standards (Barker, 2020). This phenomenon reflects broader societal issues - filters reinforce neoliberal ideals of self-optimization while enabling platforms to profit from users' insecurities (Miller, lecture). Despite their harmful effects, companies continue developing increasingly sophisticated filters, with Meta reporting 700 million monthly AR users across its platforms (Miller, lecture). The normalization of these technologies demands critical examination of how digital manipulation alters our collective understanding of beauty, identity, and self-worth.

Besides that, according to Ateq et al. (2024), growing evidence reveals that social media filters on platforms like Snapchat and Instagram are driving increased interest in cosmetic surgery, as users seek to resemble their digitally enhanced selfies. These apps provide built-in tools that artificially smooth skin, resize facial features, and alter bone structure, creating unrealistic beauty standards that distort self-perception. Studies demonstrate this phenomenon cross-culturally, with research in Saudi Arabia showing 5.8% of young adults underwent cosmetic procedures specifically to improve their selfie appearance, while 38% expressed desire to do so. Plastic surgeons worldwide now report patients bringing filtered photos as reference images - a trend termed "filter dysmorphia" - with experts warning these editing tools promote harmful beauty ideals. The normalization of perfected digital selves appears directly linked to rising cosmetic surgery demand among youth, raising significant concerns about mental health and body image disturbances in the social media age.

Conclusion: AR beauty filters promote unrealistic standards, harming mental health and fueling body dissatisfaction. Studies link them to rising dysmorphia, anxiety, and cosmetic surgery demands. While tech companies profit, users—especially women and marginalized groups—pay the price. We must push back by embracing real beauty, supporting unfiltered content, and demanding responsible design. True self-worth comes from authenticity, not digital perfection.

References Ateq, K., Alhajji, M., & Alhusseini, N. (2024). The association between use of social media and the development of body dysmorphic disorder and attitudes toward cosmetic surgeries: a national survey. Frontiers in Public Health, 12(12). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1324092 Barker, J. (2020). Making-up on mobile: The pretty filters and ugly implications of snapchat. Fashion, Style & Popular Culture, 7(2), 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1386/fspc_00015_1

[notoxymoronic]

Filters and Digital Dysmorphia

In an academic article by Jessica Barker titled ‘Making-up on mobile: The pretty filters and ugly implications of Snapchat’, the author examines the use of beauty filters on social media platforms and explores the potential impact it has on individuals and society as a whole (Barker 2020). Barker argues that filters agressively perpetuate unattainable beauty standards and overall contributes negatively to society, despite being seen as harmless and fun at first glance. (Barker 2020)

The author recognises that the negative effects of these filters are primarily directed towards women, who are the main targets of such filters, especially those thats primary function is to “correct” perceived flaws and enhance appearances (Barker 2020). This ultimately leads to the normalization of filters and the pressure to conform to idealized versions of oneself, based on constantly changing beauty standards. This can be harmful to mental health and self-esteem, as it increases awareness of one's appearance and perceived flaws, leading to dissatisfaction and even prompting the use of cosmetic procedures in order to achieve this 'beautified image' (Barker 2020). 

As a member of the Generation Z community, I have witnessed firsthand the damaging effects of filters on young people's self-esteem and self-image, including my own. In my experience, filters were a fun and harmless way to experiment with creative lenses on apps like Snapchat, however, when filters made their way to Instagram, I began seeing issues. Instead of quirky filters, we now had beauty filters that altered our appearance by adding makeup or slimming our features. While exploring these filters started as light-hearted fun, it eventually began to affect how my peers and I saw ourselves in photos and in the mirror. We began to place ourselves on an online pedestal and strived to be our idealized selves, free of flaws, at only 14 years old. There appeared to be a rise in makeup use in my high school, and there is evidence that suggests an increase in selfies in 2013, which I am sure featured many filtered results (Ryan-Mosley, 2021). 

Barker also acknowledges the cultural and racial prejudices that filters perpetuate by favouring lighter skintones (Barker 2020). She also notes that social media influencers may be promoting unrealistic beauty standards by using filters without disclosing it to their audiences, and she makes the case that social media companies should take on responsibility for the impact that their filters have (Becker 2020).

I strongly believe that the use of filters without disclosure can be harmful, especially when it comes to celebrities like Kylie Jenner who contribute to a heightened beauty standard without acknowledging their use of filters. However, I do appreciate that apps like TikTok and Instagram now tell users when filters have been applied (TikTok 2023; Ahmed 2021). I am against the invisible use of filters, and I believe that transparency is crucial in order to combat the perpetuation of such unrealistic beauty standards.

References:

Barker, J., 2020, 'Making-up on mobile: The pretty filters and ugly implications of Snapchat', Fashion, Style & Popular Culture, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 207-221. <https://doi.org/10.1386/fspc_00015_1>

Digital Information World, 2021, Instagram's new upgrade tells users if a photo was edited or not, Accessible at: <https://www.digitalinformationworld.com/2021/01/instagrams-new-upgrade-tells-users-if.html#:~:text=If%20a%20photo%20has%20any,saying%20%22made%20with%20effects%22>

Technology Review, 2021, Beauty filters and young girls: Augmented reality and social media, Accessible at: <https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/04/02/1021635/beauty-filters-young-girls-augmented-reality-social-media/>

TikTok. 2023, About TikTok, Accessible at: <https://www.tiktok.com/en/about>

[mindfulmedia]

Software Literacy: Instagram filters

Week 7 

“Arata was infuriated to see her face virtually twisted into something so attractive that the filter’s beautifying effects could not be counteracted. By thinning out the face, slimming and shortening the nose, enlarging the eyes, plumping the lips, and smoothing out the skin, Snapchat seizes a user’s features and morphs them into compliance with a stereotypical form of beauty” (Barker 2020, p. 209).

Personally, I don’t have much exposure to the use of filters on my own. I remember when they were first originating that it was a funny experiment with friends to see how crazy our faces would turn, or how we looked as an animal/human hybrid. However, I do distinctly remember certain friends seeing the need to add a filter to any images she would take of herself or our group of friends, which then I might not have thought twice about, but now reflecting upon it and studying this topic I wonder how filters have come to have such an effect on people like this.

This week’s topic centred upon filters, from Snapchat to Instagram. Filters can be referred to as AR (Augmented Reality) filters. This is due to filters using augmented reality technology that grants users the ability to see the real world while superimposing virtual images on or around themselves or their environment (Azuma 1997, p. 355). Filters can be seen as a digital mask, reacting specifically to movements and expressions.

Why do people use filters? They are continuously becoming more ubiquitous, with a sense that many people are adopting them. Filters can also go about changing self-perceptions on a grand scale. The theory of ‘Digitised Dysmorphia’ is conceptualised by Coy-Dibley (2016), as a tool that helps to comprehend the pressures placed upon women to alter their digital image. Digitised dysmorphia is a socially constructed condition that is on a spectrum with Body Dysmorphic Disorder (BDD) and aided by digital technology (Coy-Dibley 2016, p. 2). However, it isn’t always intrinsically negative, with positive uses being found for this beauty technology (Coy-Dibley 2016, p. 2-3).

The introduction of filters began in the form of ephemeral, amusing and harmless additions to your seemingly ‘ugly’ and raw photos (Barker 2020, p. 11). The early likes of bunny ears and the infamous dog face. Slowly as the filter trend took off, it changed from these authentic, innocent and genuine add-ons to fit in with another basic social media ‘beauty pageant’ if you will (Barker 2020, p. 11). The filters of today generally enforce the unavoidable ‘hetero-sexy’ ideals of femininity, aligned with Coy Dibley’s proposition that it’s tough to use this beautifying technology for anything other than ‘beautifying your image’. Both Snapchat and Instagram filters have been criticised for being racist (Barker 2020, p. 209). “People of colour find their complexions unnaturally and undesirably lightened by Snapchat filters” (Barker 2020, p. 9). This is truly upsetting to note that in recent times this is still an occurrence with companies that are so ingrained and routine in people’s everyday lives.

I find it interesting to note that people with pre-existing body image concerns, have been found to be more likely to be frequent users of filters (Burnell, Kurup & Underwood 2021). I wonder if this research suggests that we are seeing or may see more body image concerns through the next generation growing up with and around filters?

~

References:

Azuma, R 1997, ‘A Survey of Augmented Reality’, In Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 355-386.

Barker, J 2020, ‘Making-up on mobile: The pretty filters and ugly implications of Snapchat’, Fashion, Style & Popular Culture, vol. 7 pp. 207-221.

Burnell, K, Kurup, A R, & Underwood, M K 2021, ‘Snapchat lenses and body image concerns’, New Media & Society, pp. 1-19.

Coy-Dibley, I 2016, ‘Digitized Dysmorphia of the female body: the re/disfigurement of the image’, Palgrave Communications, vol. 2, no. 16040, pp. 2-9.