It seems obvious, but a Harvard study over 80 years proved it, that having a social network is good for one’s physical and mental well-being. Social networks provide social support – the feeling of being cared for by others, which can be emotional, material and informational[i]. This is certainly true of offline networks such as those that one has with family, friends, through religious or work affiliations, and the various communities one belongs to.
Can the same be said for online social networks?
Research is showing it’s a double-edged sword[ii][iii]. Similar to offline networks, online networks provide the opportunity to develop and maintain social capital, extending beyond the physical realm, thereby opening connections that may not be accessible otherwise[iv][v]. Having a large network creates the perception that one has a large support base which has psychological benefits in and of itself, driven by the heuristic of “more friends, the better”[vi]. So, when Facebook was launched to the general public in 2006, it seemed to promise a harmless way to broaden one’s social circle. People were able to connect with those they had lost contact with, and to build new acquaintances through “six degrees of separation”. Soon, having 500 “friends” was not only plausible but also a marker of popularity, and therefore highly sought after. That is until upward comparison set in. Upward comparison is when people evaluate themselves unfavourably in comparison to others. Unlike offline interactions, social media can distort a person’s reference point, creating the sense that others’ physiques and lives are superior to theirs. We’ve all experienced it. The envy that creeps in when online friends appear to be doing well, whether socially, romantically, competitively or professionally. If not regulated this envy can lead to depression or levelling down behaviours such as cyberbullying and trolling[vii]. When there are 500 friends to compare yourself with, upward comparison is likely to be exacerbated.
Then there’s addictive social media usage. Over the past 20 years, technology has advanced at an accelerated rate. Social media platforms have moved with the times and continue to add new features to enhance engagement. For instance, TikTok’s endless scrolling feature provides streams of personalised content based on users’ interests which encourages prolonged use. And algorithms keep serving up content that people have engaged with which can result in users spending excessive amounts of time seeing negative content, known as doomscrolling, leading to psychological distress[viii][ix][x]. Such features are creating excessive preoccupation and lack of control leading to new psychological disorders. These are referred to as Problematic Internet Use (PIU) which is defined as “the use of the Internet that creates psychological, social, school and/or work difficulties in a person’s life”. This can present as a preference for virtual environments rather than face-to-face interactions. Here, users spend more and more time on the Internet to the neglect of other things. PIU is a global mental health problem and is associated with various mental health issues, for example, depression, social anxiety, sleep disorders, eating disorders, loneliness [xi][xii].
Are there healthy uses of social media?
The first thing to consider is what people seek from each social media platform. Active use of Facebook has shown to increase feelings of connectedness and enhanced social capital, whereas, passive viewing of YouTube generally satisfies the need for information and entertainment. TikTok is popular as a platform for self-expression and identity formation [xiii]. Posting self-portrait photographs, or selfies, sharing social activities, or personal comments may actually increase subjective well-being amongst young adults as it can be a tool by which they experiment with desired identities. Plus, receiving approval from peers through paralinguistic digital affordances (PDAs), such as like, love and lols can endorse a certain version of the self which they could integrate into their offline identity, enabling them to experience and consolidate what they aspire to be[xiv][xv]. So there are up sides to social media too. It appears that social media is not inherently good nor bad. The outcome of any usage is dependent on the how and why people use these sites [xvi][xvii][xviii][xix][xx][xxi].
Knowing the potential negative impact of social media, should marketers use these platforms?
If it’s not the what is used but how it is used, then marketers can ensure their social media campaigns are still effective while being ethical. By understanding the positive reasons people use social media platforms and appealing to those needs, marketers are likely to encourage healthy and authentic engagement with marketing content.
The following are recommendations for ensuring social ads are ethical:
- Be transparent about targeting
- Clearly state when ads are sponsored.
- Explain why someone is seeing an ad ie. whether it’s based on age, interest or location. Facebook and LinkedIn have a feature that enables that.
- Avoid exploitative targeting
- Don’t target vulnerable groups with manipulative ads eg. payday loans to financially stressed customers, unrealistic beauty ads.
- Be careful about using sensitive categories such as health, religion, race and political affiliation.
- Balance personalisation with privacy
- Collect only the data you need and don’t over profile.
- Give users control over their ad preferences.
- Use inclusive representation
- Ensure ad visuals and messages reflect diversity (race, age, ability, culture).
- Test for unintended stereotypes eg. showing women in mainly domestic roles, men in leadership roles.
- Audit for algorithmic bias
- Regularly check how ad delivery algorithms might be skewing reach.
- Use fairness tools like Aequitas, Fairlearn, AI Fairness 360 to assess whether campaigns disproportionately exclude disadvantaged groups.
- Design for well-being, not addiction
- Avoid manipulative tactics like dark patterns, excessive scarcity cues or FOMO-driven endless scroll ads.
- Favour value-building content that informs, inspires or educates rather than just exploits emotional triggers.
- Measure beyond clicks
- Don’t just track CTRs or conversions. Look at long-term metrics like brand favourability, consumer sentiment and feedback.
Instead of pursuing short-term sales at all cost, ethical marketing aligns brand values with customer values securing continued brand preference and relevance.
[i] Liu, C.-Y., & Yu, C.-P. (2013). Can Facebook use induce well-being? Cyberpsychology, behavior and social networking, 16(9), 674-678. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0301
[ii] Bhatiasevi, V. (2024). The uses and gratifications of social media and their impact on social relationships and psychological well-being. Frontiers in psychiatry, 15, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1260565
[iii] Forest, A. L., & Wood, J. V. (2012). When social networking is not working: Individuals with low self-esteem recognize but do not reap the benefits of self-disclosure on Facebook. Psychological Science, 23(3), 295-302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611429709
[iv] Grieve, R., Indian, M., Witteveen, K., Tolan, G. A., & Marrington, J. (2013). Face-to-face or Facebook: Can social connectedness be derived online? Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 604-609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.11.017
[v] Indian, M., & Grieve, R. (2014). When Facebook is easier than face-to-face: Social support derived from Facebook in socially anxious individuals. Personality and Individual Differences, 59, 102-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.11.016
[vi] Nabi, R. L., Prestin, A., & So, J. (2013). Facebook friends with (health) benefits? Exploring social network site use and perceptions of social support, stress, and well-being. Cyberpsychology, behavior and social networking, 16(10), 721-727. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0521
[vii] Wenninger, H., Cheung, C. M. K., & Krasnova, H. (2019). College-aged users behavioral strategies to reduce envy on social networking sites: A cross-cultural investigation. Computers in Human Behavior,97, 10-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.02.025
[viii] Montag, C., Yang, H., & Elhai, J. D. (2021). On the psychology of TikTok use: A first glimpse from empirical findings. Frontiers in Public Health, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.641673
[ix] Ramsden, E., & Talbot, C. V. (2024). The role of TikTok in students’ health and wellbeing. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-023-01224-6
[x] Rozgonjuk, D., Sindermann, C., Elhai, J. D., & Montag, C. (2021). Comparing smartphone, WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat: Which platform elicits the greatest use disorder symptoms? Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 24(2), 129-134. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2020.0156
[xi] Caplan, S. E. (2002). Problematic Internet use and psychosocial well-being: development of a theory-based cognitive-behavioral measurement instrument. Computers in Human Behavior, 18(5), 553-575. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(02)00004-3
[xii] Stănculescu, E., & Griffiths, M. D. (2024). The association between problematic internet use and hedonic and eudaimonic well-being: A latent profile analysis. Technology in Society, 78.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102588
[xiii] Orchard, L. J. (2019). Uses and gratifications of social media: Who uses it and why? In A. Attrill-Smith, C. Fullwood, M. Keep, & D. J. Kuss (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cyberpsychology. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198812746.001.0001
[xiv] Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107(1), 34-47. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.107.1.34
[xv] Fullwood, C. (2019). Impression management and self-presentation online. In A. Attrill-Smith, C. Fullwood, M. Keep, & D. J. Kuss (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cyberpsychology. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198812746.001.0001
[xvi] Bunker, C. J., & Kwan, V. S. Y. (2024). Similarity between perceived selves on social media and offline and its relationship with psychological well-being in early and late adulthood. Computers in Human Behavior, 152, 108205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.108025
[xvii] Fardouly, J., Willburger, B. K., & Vartanian, L. R. (2018). Instagram use and young women’s body image concerns and self-objectification: Testing mediational pathways. New Media & Society, 20(4), 1380 – 1395. https://nls.ldls.org.uk/welcome.html?lsidyva2f1c6d3
[xviii] Keep, M., Janssen, A., & Amon, K. L. (2019). Image sharing on social networking sites: Who, what, why, and so what? In A. Attrill-Smith, C. Fullwood, M. Keep, & D. J. Kuss (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cyberpsychology. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198812746.001.0001
[xix] Kross, E., Verduyn, P., Sheppes, G., Costello, C. K., Jonides, J., & Ybarra, O. (2021). Social media and well-being: Pitfalls, progress, and next steps. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(1), 55-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.10.005
[xx] Lup, K., Trub, L., & Rosenthal, L. (2015). Instagram #Instasad?: Exploring associations among Instagram use, depressive symptoms, negative social comparison, and strangers followed. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(5), 247-252. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2014.0560
