‘Influence’ in the (post-)digital age: Girls’ experiences of online influencer culture

Abstract

This paper examines how girls aged 9–15 engage with online influencer culture, focusing on interplays between digital and non-digital normative ecologies. Drawing on school-based workshops, we explore tensions between authenticity, normative ideals and self-presentation in girls’ interactions with influencers. Participants expressed agency in content consumption alongside pressures to conform, shaped by social interactions online and offline. We argue that influencer culture perpetuates dominant femininity norms through reciprocal dynamics between influencers and audiences. Girls navigated this terrain ambivalently, often endorsing authenticity and diversity while feeling constrained by normative expectations. We propose a post-digital literacy framework to conceptualise girls’ critically engagements with influence as part of everyday life, highlighting implications for education and digital practice.

Introduction

Amid the digital mediation of young people’s personal, interpersonal and social lives (Goodyear and Armour, 2018), studies identify how digital media and networked communication technologies (NCTs) shape identity formation, social interactions and wellbeing (Smith and Livingstone, 2017). Research has interrogated how digital environments structure and reinforce gendered norms, particularly in relation to girls’ self-presentation, social belonging and agency (Dobson, 2015; Tiggemann and Barbato, 2018). While identifying impacts of algorithmic structures, affordances and visibility on girls’ online engagements (Goodyear et al., 2022), less attention has been paid to their conceptualisations and negotiations of influence and the logics of influencer culture across digital and non-digital ecologies. We respond to this gap, investigating girls’ engagements with influencers and how they define and understand influence, navigate authenticity and negotiate normative pressures in a post-digital landscape.

We align with scholarship on digitally mediated girlhood that has moved beyond risk to consider interplays between agency, vulnerability and structural forces (Kearney, 2018; Kennedy, 2020). The field of girlhood studies has evolved in response to NCTs, foregrounding girls’ agency, ambivalence and embeddedness in digital cultures. Girls’ experiences of growing up have been transformed by the visibility, scrutiny and sociality afforded by these technologies. The once private space of the bedroom – central to early cultural studies of girlhood (McRobbie and Garber, 2007)—now plays out in ‘public’, as collapsing boundaries between online and offline worlds enable new forms of self-surveillance and peer regulation (Kennedy, 2020). Drawing on critical media literacy frameworks (Huzjak, 2022; Keller, 2019; Mendes et al., 2009), we situate our analysis within girlhood studies research that foregrounds girls as active participants in media cultures (Hains, 2012; Kearney, 2013; Lao et al., 2024; Mendes et al., 2009; Nashid, 2024) and calls for methodological approaches that capture their agency and lived experience (Keller et al., 2015; Singh, 2021).

We discuss qualitative data from workshops with girls aged 9–15, exploring how they perceive, experience and contest influencer culture. We foreground the interactional dimensions, whereby girls actively negotiate influencer culture in relation to peer dynamics, platform logics and femininity norms. Framing these negotiations within a post-digital ecology (Nelson et al., 2020), we move beyond binary notions of online/offline spaces to situate them within broader socio-cultural contexts. Aligned with girlhood studies (Hains, 2012; Kearney, 2013; Keller et al., 2015; Mendes et al., 2009; Singh, 2021), we adopt a reflexive feminist approach to centre the contextual specificities of girls’ perspectives, avoiding adult-centric panics about digital culture (Ringrose, 2012). We conclude with implications for critical post-digital literacy, offering insights into how girls navigate contemporary conditions of influence, self-presentation and social belonging.

Literature review

Young people consume various types of content online, created and shared by different individuals and entities through different digital processes (Goodyear et al., 2019). ‘Influence’, here, is the capacity to shape attitudes, behaviours and perceptions through content creation and dissemination, with influencers, celebrities, content creators and ‘micro influencers’ oftentimes having significant audiences or ‘followers’. Digital media and NCTs are dynamic and interactive, with audiences and followers actively engaging with and interpreting content shared by influencers. ‘Endorsement’—‘liking’, positively commenting on and sharing content – contributes to flows of influence online and offline (Iglesias et al., 2015). Content engagement and consumption generate feelings of belonging and a social self through enacting influence and being influenced (Seo et al., 2014), while potentially involving harassment of or ‘hate’ directed to content creators (Valenzuela‑García et al., 2023).

Following critical digital media scholarship, we conceptualise ‘influencers’ as individuals who cultivate visibility and relatability online to build an audience, often monetising their presence through sponsored content, product promotion or brand affiliation (Abidin, 2016; Khamis et al., 2017). As Bishop (2021) argues, while all influencers are content creators, not all content creators are influencers. Influencers are marked by participation in a ‘visibility labour’ economy, where affective performances of authenticity and intimacy generate parasocial relationships with followers and attract commercial opportunities.

We conceptualise ‘influencer culture’ as the broader ecosystem where visibility, intimacy and normative ideals are produced, circulated and reinforced across platforms. This includes the affective labour of influencers, platform logics (e.g. algorithmic curation, engagement metrics) and peer dynamics that shape how content is consumed, endorsed or contested. Within this, ‘comparison culture’ refers to the affective and relational evaluations of self and other against normative ideals, repackaged from wider media ecosystems. While influencer culture constitutes an ecology of content and norms, comparison culture describes how norms are internalised, negotiated or resisted within peer interaction, self-scrutiny and aspiration.

Content creation within influencer culture is designed to engender active engagement among audiences and ‘parasocial’ relationships based on accessibility, intimacy and trust (Breves et al., 2021). Engagement metrics (likes, follows, comments) signify approval, popularity and reach, encouraging audiences to identify and relate to individuals as influential (Goodyear et al., 2019), while perpetuating and extending interpersonal and social scrutiny, status hierarchies, self-comparison and internalisation of norms and values, potentially creating pressure, frustration and self-dissatisfaction (Gioia et al., 2020; Tiggemann and Barbato, 2018). Girls experience ambivalence as they navigate discourses and representations of empowerment and stigma, with vulnerability arising from platform affordances that enable insults and criticisms (Soriano-Ayala et al., 2023), reflective of offline dynamics of scrutiny and pathologisation of girls (Dobson, 2015) albeit potentially intensified due to the (inter)active nature of online content (Papathomas et al., 2018).

Research addressing online femininity norms identifies algorithmic targeting of content promoting traditional standards of attractiveness to girls (Kennedy, 2020). Findings regarding associations with identity, wellbeing and health are, however, mixed. While consumption of appearance-related content is linked to poor body image, disordered eating and other negative outcomes (Rounsefell et al., 2020), various mediators and moderators result in individual differences between girls and their consumption patterns (Fardouly and Vartanian, 2016). Active content engagement and tendencies towards social comparison increase impact (Fardouly and Vartanian, 2016; Kleemans et al., 2018; Rounsefell et al., 2020), positive body image mitigates negative effects (Dignard and Jarry, 2021) and ‘downward comparison’ improves outcomes (Saiphoo and Vahedi, 2019). Visually oriented platforms like Instagram may be relatively more impactful (Engeln et al., 2020).

Diverse and non-normative content – such as body positivity, self-acceptance messaging and parody or satirical posts that subvert thin-ideal norms – offer alternative frames for appearance and identity (Andsager, 2014; Marks et al., 2020). Such content may increase resilience or mitigate negative effects (Davies et al., 2020; Velissaris, 2021), though this remains contested (Tiggemann et al., 2020). Seemingly diverse or progressive visual representations – such as influencers promoting body positivity, self-love or ‘authenticity’ – may nonetheless mask dominant beauty and femininity norms, resulting in ambivalence among audiences (Dignard and Jarry, 2021; Goodyear et al., 2022).

Given how influencer culture reflects and produces normative expectations embedded in everyday social environments (Abidin, 2016; Bishop, 2021; Goodyear et al., 2022), we conceptualise it as ‘post-digital’. Post-digital (Nelson et al., 2020) ecological frameworks situate girls’ engagements with and participation in influencer culture within mutually constitutive, rather than distinct, interplays between online, traditional media, social and cultural contexts (Phippen and Street, 2022). These frameworks conceptualise the material, affective and social systems within which girls engage with influencer culture (Rowsell, 2025). Dissolving boundaries between on- and off-line experiences highlight the significance of the social environment and relationships young people have with those around them – including peers (Mishra and Maity, 2021) – in producing conditions in which influence is enacted, negotiated and felt. Within this framework, we refer to ‘post-digital literacy’ to describe the critical and affective competencies through which girls interpret and negotiate influencer culture. Post-digital literacy moves beyond media literacy as an individual cognitive skill, recognising the situated, emotional and negotiated ways in which young people navigate digital influence as part of their everyday lives (Rowsell, 2025).

Our analysis is informed by critical girlhood studies, which foreground girlhood as socially and culturally constructed (Kearney, 2018; Pomerantz et al., 2017). As Keller (2019) and Ringrose (2012) argue, girlhood is increasingly mediated through digital technologies, where postfeminist discourses of choice, empowerment and entrepreneurialism are entangled with disciplinary norms and market logics. Girls’ engagements with influencer culture thus transcend individualised acts of literacy to encompass relational negotiations of femininity, aspiration and visibility within neoliberalised, post-digital contexts.

Amid post-digital girlhoods, girls may not always realise they are being ‘influenced’. Active engagement may result in conscious awareness and critical reflection, for example if girls identify impacts on their views or behaviours. Influence may be less conscious, for example when shaped by or working through wider normative contexts (see Martínez and Olsson, 2019). Changes in attitudes or behaviours may be gradual, becoming the norm, rather than actively acknowledged as influence. Parasocial relationships may further obscure processes of influence when perceived as authentic, a quality attributed by followers based on cues such as personal storytelling, self-disclosure or informal presentation styles (Jerslev, 2016). Followers may downplay or overlook the persuasive or commercial dimensions of content, while adherence or replication may be defined as a volitional. Influence may thus unfold along a continuum encompassing volition, endorsement, authenticity and manipulation, rather than through a binary of ‘choice’ versus ‘influence’. Correlational studies may delineate subconscious influence yet decontextualise it through focusing on pre-defined explanatory and outcome variables. While qualitative research surfaces girls’ perceptions, it may overlook forms of subconscious influence and risk overstating agency, especially when insufficiently accounting for the structural and affective dynamics of digital culture (see Van Oosten, 2021).

Taking together these insights, we examine girls’ perspectives on influencer culture, situating influencers within intersecting ecologies of meaning and experience. We explore girls’ negotiations of and ambivalence about influencer culture in terms of post-digital logics, discourses and norms (Malvini Redden and Way, 2019: 498). We recognise that developmental factors, such as cognitive and emotional maturity, peer orientation and media literacy shape how influencer culture is engaged with and understood. Children’s and adolescents’ social media practices evolve with age and developmental stage (Livingstone and Helsper, 2007; Valkenburg and Piotrowski, 2017), though these processes are mediated by social, cultural and individual contexts. We therefore treat age as an intersecting factor shaping girls’ post-digital engagements.

Methodology

Our study involved a series of workshops whereby girls shared and reflected on their perspectives on influencer culture. Workshops were designed and co-facilitated by the research team, comprising two female academic researchers. We recruited girls aged 9–15 from a primary and secondary school in southeast England. Schools acted as gatekeepers, informing girls about the study during assemblies and lessons, distributing information sheets to girls and their parents and receiving informed consent prior to the first workshops.

Three groups of girls were organised by school year, encompassing years 5/6 (9- to 11-year-olds), 7/8 (11- to 13-year-olds), and 9/10 (13- to 15-year-olds). While the age-based groups reflected key stages in schooling and cognitive-social development, we acknowledge that age is an imperfect proxy for developmental changes and do not treat age groups as homogeneous or developmental trajectories as linear or universal. Instead, we use age as a lens to explore diversity and nuance.

Each group participated in three workshops, spaced 3 to 4 weeks apart. In Workshop 1, girls shared screenshots of influencer content they found relevant, which we used to guide discussions about what/who influencers are, the content they share and their perceived impacts. In Workshop 2, we further explored girls’ perspectives on influencers and impacts of influencer culture. In Workshop 3, we presented, discussed and refined our ideas for responding to influencer culture. We met with a stakeholder advisory group, consisting of education, social work and youth work professionals, to review findings and guide the development of intervention strategies. These contributions shaped the iterative development of the workshops and the interpretation of emerging findings, though their input is not presented in detail here due to space constraints.

All workshops were audio recorded and transcribed. Adopting Braun and Clarke’s (2006) inductive thematic analytical approach, we identified key themes regarding risks and opportunities within influencer culture and how girls navigate these within their wider social environments. Initial coding was conducted by both researchers, who independently reviewed transcripts to identify emerging themes and points of tension or ambivalence. These were discussed collaboratively and refined through comparative analysis across workshops and age cohorts. Workshops progressed iteratively: we debriefed and reflected upon emerging insights, which we further explored in subsequent workshops.

For this paper, we analysed how participants defined influence and influencers and their perceptions and experiences of influencer culture, drawing on data from the first two workshops. Informed by critical girlhood studies conceptualising girlhood as a socially produced and regulated category (Kearney, 2018), we examined how participants – as cultural actors – made meaning within, and sometimes against, the dominant norms of their environments. As Keller (2019) argues, girls’ engagements with digital culture involve negotiation, affective labour and strategic self-presentation, which our methodology was designed to elicit and explore. Given the participatory approach, analysis included written facilitator notes and post-workshop reflections to consider the dialogic and co-constructed nature of the data.

In line with school requirements and ethical approvals, we did not collect formal demographic data such as race, ethnicity or socio-economic status, thus are cautious not to infer demographic characteristics observationally or analytically. This limits our ability to make intersectional claims, which we reflect upon in the discussion. Due to the group-based setting of the workshops and the nature of the audio recordings, it was not possible to assign consistent identifiers/pseudonyms to individual participants. Overlapping speech and the inability to reliably distinguish voices across the three workshop rounds meant that pseudonyms would risk misattribution and undermine analytic integrity. Instead, we indicate groupings by age/year group and, where possible, distinguish between individual voices within excerpts to maintain clarity. This approach aligns with our analytic focus on collective meaning-making and the interactional dynamics of group discussion, rather than on tracing individual narrative arcs, and prioritises transparency over potentially misleading forms of individualisation.

Findings

There were similarities and differences in perspectives on influencers and influencer culture across the groups, including whether and how they felt affected by influencers. Participants were ambivalent, expressing concerns about the attainability of influencer ideals, congruence between these ideals and ‘authentic selfhood’, and authenticity of influencers in a context of online norms and interactional dynamics. Participants endorsed authenticity and diversity, yet struggled with navigating normative pressures for recognition, inclusion and belonging within and across digital and non-digital contexts.

Defining ‘influencers’ and ‘influencer culture’

When asked to define influencers, participants typically distinguished between incidental and intentional influence. One year 9–10 girl (aged 13–15), for instance, stated, if ‘it influences you’ then that person is technically an influencer, but to be categorised as an influencer within online influencer culture ‘it has to be somebody who has a pretty big following’. A fellow girl (year 9–10, aged 13-15) added, ‘otherwise, you could literally say everybody’s an influencer’. Influencers were defined as intentionally building and harnessing an online ‘following’ to enact influence. Two year 7–8 girls (aged 11–13) said influencers act with intent, whether ‘for the money. . . fame’ or ‘to help people’. A year 9–10 girl likewise emphasised the commercial and professional nature of being an influencer, who is ‘anybody who makes enough money to have a living off being an influencer. . . [that’s] a boundary for it. . .’ These definitional frameworks shaped girls’ engagements with and assessments of influencers, notably ambivalence about ‘authenticity’ of influencers, influencer culture and influence.

Influencers – or, at least, dominant ‘influencer culture’ – were also defined in terms of normative standards and ideals for femininity, with participants referring to appearance and lifestyle. For example, one year 5–6 girl (aged 9-11) described influencers as ‘probably [having] really long lashes and a really slim body. . . a nice-shaped nose. . . lip fillers, maybe’. Another year 7–8 girl (aged 11–13) said they convey the ‘perfect life’ in terms of their ‘boyfriend. . . job. . . food’. Norm adherence acted as an indicator of influence and was therefore part of defining an ‘influencer’ among participants; the inference being that anyone not aligning with norms is not influential, at least in any widespread sense. There arises a pattern whereby influencers uphold and perpetuate, define and are defined by, constitute and are constituted by norms. It became challenging to disentangle – conceptually and practically – ‘influence’ from ‘norms’ and whether and how influencers and influencer culture create, reflect, reinforce and/or challenge norms, and how these interplays affect girls’ engagements with influencer culture and enactments of influence.

Participants felt ‘influencer culture’ – and the norms that characterise influencers and their content – affects girls’ perceptions and expectations for themselves and others. Cycles of norm reinforcement unfolded through interactivity online. Participants described influencers as creating and disseminating content on interactive platforms, emphasising platforms that enable visual media and active audience engagement through follows, likes, comments and shares (e.g. Instagram, TikTok, YouTube), with these interactive processes enhancing or diminishing ‘influencer status’. Influencers therefore both set and adhere to norms insofar as they are responsive to audiences, suggesting interplays – or flows – of meanings and norms across influencer and audience ecologies. We further outline these findings below.

Engaging with influencers online

Participants sometimes referred to specific influencers who had gained or capitalised on their ‘celebrity’ status in terms of being ‘popular’ and well-known. Mostly, however, they described content-driven engagement with influencers, often struggling to recall specific influencers or referring to them indirectly or in general. For example, two year 9–10 girls in the group (aged 13–15) said,

I don’t really have a favourite influencer. . . most of them are just on TikTok and I don’t actually know what any of their names are. . .

I don’t really know any of their names. . . but I know what kind of content I like. . .

Participants described these engagements as often transient, rather than deliberate or directed, driven by the appeal of content rather than loyalty to individual influencers. Several year 7–8 girls (aged 11–13), for instance, referred to engaging with ‘whatever comes up on the “For You” page [on TikTok]’, such as ‘getting ready with me’ videos, make-up and hair tutorials, or cooking and ‘what I eat in a day’ videos. The year 9–10 group (aged 13–15), meanwhile, described engaging with ‘funny’ ‘motivational’ ‘arts-based’ ‘make-up’ and ‘day in the life’ content, depending on mood and preference.

Appealing content was defined as aspirational and relatable. One year 5–6 girl (aged 11–13) referred to influential content as ‘inspirational’, while a year 9–10 girl (aged 13–15) said they like following ‘someone that just looks pretty and has an aesthetic lifestyle’, with ‘aesthetic’ meaning they ‘look up to it. . . you’re like, oh, I want to be like that one day’. Middle and oldest groups preferred following influencers closer to their age, finding older influencers less relatable, with several year 7–8 girls (aged 11–13) describing it as ‘weird’ to follow older people or engage with their content. Year 9–10 girls felt slightly older influencers are potentially appealing because they ‘look up to them’. Relatability and aspiration intersected, with these girls proclaiming that influencers offer something different, interesting and exciting compared to same-aged peers; they are ‘pretty’, ‘hot’ and ‘cool’.

The year 7–8 girls group (aged 11–13) emphasised enjoying gaining insight into ‘how people live’, including otherwise inaccessible individuals and lifestyles. Here, there was a mundanity to content consumption. One girl described ‘what I eat in a day’ videos, for instance, as sometimes ‘boring’ and ‘irrelevant’ when, for example, showing ‘how you eat avocado toast for breakfast every morning. . .’ While downplaying tangible influence, when asked how such content makes them feel, one said it makes them think: ‘maybe I should start eating avocado on toast’ and another said it makes them feel they should try to ‘be healthier’.

Girls across groups were, therefore, engaging often with influencers. Perhaps with there being so many different influencers online, girls mainly focused on the content rather than the creator, suggesting that influencer culture is as much about the types and themes of content created to influence as individual influencers.

Being influenced: thoughts, feelings and behaviours

Girls varied in their perceptions of being influenced, with differences in how ‘influence’ affected and unfolded in their thoughts, feelings and behaviours. Youngest girls (aged 9–11) were open about being influenced and pressured to emulate influencers, while the middle group asserted agency in content consumption although described underlying pressures to conform. Middle and older groups (aged 11–15) were troubled by the authenticity of idealised, often unattainable lifestyles. They questioned the realism of content and expressed concerns regarding self-esteem and identity. Across groups, there were affective dimensions of influence connected to authentic selfhood, peer scrutiny and judgement, and a desire to belong. Diverse content pushing back against idealised norms was likewise referred to with ambivalence about realism and attainability.

Participants constructed influence in terms of perceived norms, internalised norms, self-perceptions and, potentially, behaviour change in pursuit of, adherence to or emulation of norms, which may or may not be or feel successful or authentic. One year 5–6 girl (aged 9–11) referred to influence as exposure to and enactment of norms for ‘fit[ting] in’: ‘. . .we think we have to wear loads of makeup and look our best, so that people will like us more. That’s probably because a lot of people on social media who get less hate always meet the beauty standards. . .’, suggesting they are learning online about what is accepted and endorsed by peers and others. This participant narrated affective experiential loss arising from feeling pressured to emulate these depictions, whereby ‘it ruins your childhood. . . you’re just all sad and you think that you’re not perfect’. A fellow year 5–6 girl (aged 9–11) added that the affective trace of not being ‘perfect’ relates to ‘feel[ing] lonely or a bit sad. . . you feel like it [how you look] matters more because people just look at you and judge you by what you look like’. Emulating influencers to ‘fit in’ be ‘cool’ and achieve ‘popularity’ may, therefore, entail constrained choice in response to the desire to belong, resulting from and creating feelings of dissatisfaction and ambivalence, as one girl explained:

. . .they [influencers] usually wear lots of makeup and that makes you feel like you have to wear a lot of makeup, but that’s not really a choice. That’s not really what you have to do, but then, you start wearing lots of makeup. (Year 5–6, aged 9–11)

Year 7–8 girls (aged 11–13) were more resistant regarding direct influence, initially emphasising personal choice, whereby influence occurs if they ‘like’ the content, otherwise, they claimed, they disregard it. Despite this articulation of agentic detachment, several girls described pressure to be ‘perfect’, defined in terms of appearance, such as having a ‘nice body’ ‘nice hair’ and ‘clear skin’. What is personally ‘liked’ or chosen may, therefore, be shaped by normative standards. Some girls attributed pressure to social judgements in non-digital contexts (e.g. from peers) rather than unique to or primarily driven by influencer culture, for example one year 7–8 (aged 12–13) girl stating, ‘social media doesn’t really do anything. I don’t think it makes you think bad of yourself. I think it’s mainly people around you because they judge you all the time’. This distinction may be artificial, given judgement from peers and other people occurs and is shaped by online and offline dynamics.

Other participants also described social scrutiny and judgement from peers. The year 5–6 girls group agreed boys judge girls for how they look and may comment negatively, with girls trying to change their appearance. The year 9–10 group (aged 13–15) said both boys and girls judge each other based on femininity norms. Participants were troubled by this and critical of influencers and influencer culture that creates or exacerbates insecurity. The year 5–6 group (aged 9–11), for instance, distinguished ‘good’ and ‘bad’ influence in terms of insecurity. Participants framed influence around ‘comparison culture’, whereby individuals compare themselves to influencers, with insecurity and feelings of inferiority arising from discordance. One year 7–8 girl (aged 11–13), for example, said influencers may ‘affect other people’ who feel ‘insecure about why my life isn’t like that’.

Several girls distinguished between aspirational content that is and is not attainable. The year 9–10 group (aged 13–15) felt that perpetuation of narrow dominant ideals within influencer culture is problematic because they are rarely attainable. While claiming to like aspirational content depicting an ‘aesthetic lifestyle’, one of the girls described it as ‘unattainable. . . you can’t get it’, for example if overly expensive or time-consuming. These girls described ‘perfect’ or ‘aesthetic’ lifestyles as ‘fake’, troubling the differences between attainability and aspiration, with ‘fake’ content being aspirational but potentially unattainable. While claiming to differentiate such content, they remained conflicted, with one remarking that ‘fake’ content can still ‘affect’ people if they ‘feel they are not doing enough’ or cannot achieve the ideals.

Content may be aspirational and potentially attainable – or presented as attainable – but restrictive in scope and discordant with self-concepts, with girls unsure about authentic selfhood and volitional choice. Referring to influencers’ use or promotion of makeup, one year 5–6 girl (aged 9–11) said, ‘. . .it makes us want to do that, so we can look and be like them. . . but [we’re not necessarily being] our [true] selves’. Pursuing authenticity amid a desire for inclusion and belonging was seemingly difficult. The group of year 9–10 girls (aged 13–15) were troubled by ‘body image stuff’ but one stated, ‘if you see these pretty people, it pushes you to try and be a better version of yourself. Even if you don’t want it to be like that, it does push you’. She felt girls are motivated to replicate influencers whose followers say they ‘look so pretty’ because ‘it makes you feel, oh, if I do this, then that [being told I’m pretty] must be what’s going to happen to me’. The affective charge of being liked and included was expressed by one year 9-10 girl:

When you don’t feel pretty. . . you feel. . . bad about yourself because you just feel like no one would think that you’re pretty and you don’t get that validation. . . I personally dream of that moment and everybody being like, ‘Oh my God, she’s so pretty’. . . . Being pretty feels good because you just feel like everyone will think about you in a positive way and boys won’t pick on you in the same way.

A fellow year 9–10 girl described having ‘felt better’ when she ‘started to lose weight and started to wear more makeup, got a better hairstyle’. These girls were worried about judgement and exclusion and self-scrutinised to identify risks of rejection for their ‘flaws’, with influencer culture being a frame of reference for what is endorsed. Another year 9–10 girl indicated that it becomes difficult to disentangle oneself from the norm: ‘the influencers are so heavily influencers of everybody’s thinking. . . it becomes a part of how they [audiences] are and how they act in real life’. Influencers seemingly set or reflect an ideal to which girls aspire, pursue and internalise. Given the necessity for inclusion and belonging, a year 9–10 girl (aged 13–15) was concerned that ‘you hear the same thing over and over again. . . your brain can’t separate it from the truth’; the ‘truth’, by implication, being whatever oneself would endorse were it not for the pressure to conform and the desire to belong.

Year 5–6 girls (aged 9–11) drew on a framework of ‘fun’ to enable participation in influencer culture and engagement with norms. Some girls described using ‘filters’ or ‘makeup’ to alter their imagery in ‘fun’ rather than ‘harmful’ ways to change how they look, achieve perfection, mask insecurities or fit in. Yet distinctions between ‘fun’ and internalisation of norms were nebulous, with these girls suggesting that playful experimentation can change their expectations for their appearance, creating dissatisfaction with the ‘real you’ and furthering the need or constrained choice to wear make-up, with one year 5–6 girl saying,

. . .you get so used to looking like that that you forget that that’s not what you look like. So, when you next look in the mirror you might feel like, ‘Hang on a minute that’s not what I look like’. Sometimes, [it’s] not that nice for yourself and it’s not healthy for your mental mindset.

Here, online and offline messages about beauty reciprocally inform the other. Filters and make-up relate to current beauty norms, which are ‘played with’ online, whether, for example, through filters or practicing a make-up tutorial, raising questions about dominant beauty norms. While our data did not allow for systematic examination of racialised experiences, one girl of colour in year 9/10 (aged 13–15) spoke about feeling insecure due to visible dark hair on her arms, citing influencer norms valorising smooth or hairless skin. She described receiving negative comments and internalising the sense that body hair was unattractive, suggesting that racialised beauty standards shaped her engagement with online content and experiences of normative femininity.

Girls across the age groups expressed a desire for diversity and expanded opportunities for authentic selfhood. A year 5–6 girl (aged 9–11) liked how: ‘. . .when you see a celebrity. . . and they’re confident enough to show themselves without any makeup, that makes you feel way more [like you can] fit in and way more comfortable to do it yourself’. A fellow year 5–6 girl elaborated that it acknowledges how ‘everyone’s different. . . when you see people with. . . makeup on that’s their choice and that’s what they want to be. Just be you and just be yourself’. Older girls collectively praised celebrities who do not wear makeup as ‘empowering’ (year 9–10, aged 13-15), while year 7–8 girls (aged 11-13) agreed they liked hearing ‘real stories’ and seeing ‘normal’ body types without filters, with messages of self-acceptance challenging restrictive or harmful practices around dieting and body image. Girls across the lifecourse agreed on liking influencers being honest about adapting their appearance, which reduces self-blame for not being ‘perfect’. The value seemingly relates to transparency around attainability as one girl in year 5–6 (aged 9–11) explains:

. . .it makes you feel better because you don’t feel like, ‘Oh my gosh. Why am I not like that? I have to be like that. How do I do it?’ It [influencers being honest] makes you feel. . . I don’t have to [be like that] because they weren’t like that, either.

Year 9–10 girls (aged 13-15) agreed that endorsement of diverse content online – through follower counts, likes and positive comments – shows it is possible to be accepted, yet the terrain is fractured, with diverse content subject to negative comments alongside endorsement. Year 7–8 girls (aged 11-13) collectively troubled self-evident notions of ‘self-acceptance’ presented by influencers as difficult to emulate or achieve in practice, especially given the scrutiny and judgement they face from media, peers and even strangers about their appearance, weight, diet and clothes. They were inspired by influencers who speak openly about overcoming difficult experiences although they could feel inferior for not dealing with their own problems as effectively or frustrated if there is a lack of tangible or realistic solutions being offered by influencers.

Year 5–6 girls (aged 9-11) were collectively troubled by how being ‘pretty’ is necessary to be ‘liked’ and ‘popular’, believing that girls judge one another’s appearance and make friendship decisions accordingly. They discussed how being ‘popular’ – in terms of adherence to norms – does not always make someone a ‘good friend’ and influencers may be considered ‘cool’, so people seek to emulate them, but some practices are ‘mean’. They were concerned about this influence. They critiqued pressures to be ‘nice’ as a girl, and corresponding demands for agreeableness and passivity, praising influencer messaging about ‘putting yourself first’ yet said it could cross over into cruelty. They were favourable to influencers who ‘influence you’ to do ‘good things’ but said it can create feelings of inferiority for not successfully emulating them in day-to-day life.

Ambivalence about influencer authenticity and attainability

Older girls expressed ambivalence about the authenticity of influencers, with inauthenticity – or ‘fakeness’ – exacerbating unattainable pressures to be ‘perfect’, be that in terms of appearance, lifestyle, friendships, assertiveness or doing ‘good things’. They were sceptical, for example regarding manufactured follower bases and untrustworthy product endorsements. Year 7–8 girls (aged 11-13), for instance, agreed ‘loads of likes’ reflects and extends influencers’ ‘popularity’, incentivising influencers to ‘pay for followers’, with their popularity, and therefore credibility, being ‘fake’. They collectively believed influencers ‘feel’ more popular and experience benefits such as being sent gifts, receiving payment from platforms or advertisers, and being ‘invited to events’. Year 9–10 girls (aged 13-15) said established influencers depict false or misleading impressions about themselves or products, for example, if paid to advertise a product. They agreed the content on their feeds is affected by these practices, creating uncertainty about authenticity and what, therefore, should be influential.

Girls felt followers actively create climates of influencer culture and incentivise influencer practices that perpetuate norms and compromise authenticity. One year 7–8 girl (aged 11–13) stated, ‘it’s. . . everybody that interacts with it. . . is what makes it a negative place’. Several year 5–6 girls (aged 9-11) believed influencers respond to normative pressures, creating cycles of norm perpetuation of ‘being perfect’. They felt influencers themselves experience difficulties and insecurities and are seeking recognition, inclusion and belonging just like their followers, with one year 5–6 girl saying: ‘They don’t feel pretty themselves. They’re not trying to be rude or make everyone feel less than perfect. . . most of them. . . I think they just want to feel they fit in’. These dynamics were perceived to lead to authentic and inauthentic conformity to and perpetuation of norms.

While idealised or aspirational content may be subject to ‘less hate’ (year 5–6, aged 9–11), older girls felt scrutiny and criticism occurs regardless. One year 7–8 girl (aged 11–13) said: ‘if they’re too skinny. . . if you’re too fat, they’re going to comment on you. . .’, while several year 9–10 girls (aged 13–15) believed that ‘perfect’ people still ‘get hate’ because audiences engage in ‘nit-picking’, looking for flaws. While some girls believed influencers are incentivised to or skilled in navigating these challenges, the precarious terrain meant they were ambivalent about personal content creation and dissemination. Year 7–8 girls (aged 11–13) agreed accruing followers and receiving positive comments may feel rewarding but entails vulnerability to negative comments. In their discussion, they described scrutinising and deleting their content because of concern about audiences’ reactions, with one year 7-8 girl explaining: ‘I don’t post anymore. I rewatch and rewatch and rewatch my videos until I just don’t like it and then, I delete it. . .’

Year 9–10 girls (aged 13-15) emphasised posting content for ‘fun’ and not for influence, specifically avoiding ‘going viral’. Year 7–8 (aged 9–11) and 9–10 (aged 11–13) girls described precarious ‘virality’ whereby influencers gain traction or ‘15 minutes of fame’ (year 9–10, aged 13–15) but lose status if offending or misleading their audience. Year 7–8 girls collectively recalled an influencer who ‘went viral. . . she was vegan. Then, someone sees her buying meat from a store. . .’ and she’s now labelled ‘weird’ and a ‘psycho’. Noting how scrutiny and ‘cancel culture’ plays out offline, year 9–10 girls agreed it is ‘scary’ to be an influencer with one year 9–10 girl relating it to their own reality of being at school:

. . . if . . . you post something that other people don’t like, you’re going to have to come to school and everyone else is going to comment on it or say something about it and remind you about it. It’s not going to make you feel too good about yourself.

These post-digital interactional processes disincentivised active content creation and dissemination in pursuit of influencer status and virality among participants, while not diminishing the significance of influencers and influencer culture to their self-perceptions and negotiations of normative expectations across digital and non-digital ecologies.

Discussion

Influencer norms and femininity standards intersect, with influencer culture perpetuating and reinforcing normative ideals, particularly, as Kennedy (2020) identifies, connected to appearance but also lifestyle. Girls expressed ambivalence about influencers and influencer culture and experienced challenges – or ‘tensions’ (Malvini Redden and Way, 2017) – in articulating agency, self-governance and self-determination in their engagements, self-concepts and decision-making, including regarding their desire for recognition, acceptance and belonging but also authentic selfhood. Peer and digital norms shaped these challenges, with ‘post-digital’ (Nelson et al., 2020) flows of meaning and experience across digital and non-digital ecologies of girls’ lives alongside interactional dynamics of norm setting and perpetuation within and through online influencer culture (Goodyear et al., 2022; Tiggemann and Barbato, 2018).

Our findings contribute to critical girlhood studies by illuminating how girls act as both producers and products of digital culture, with the post-digital landscape marked by intensified visibility, normative pressures and affective labour (Keller, 2019; Pomerantz et al., 2017). As Ringrose (2012) argues, girls’ digital engagements involve both compliance with and resistance to normative femininities, producing ambivalent and contradictory practices of selfhood. Our data illustrate the affective and relational labour girls undertake as they navigate influencer culture’s conflicting demands for authenticity, conformity and popularity.

Girls demonstrated varying recognition of and ambivalence about these processes (Soriano-Ayala et al., 2023). They perceived and experienced influencers as setting and perpetuating femininity norms. As argued by Goodyear et al. (2022), engagement metrics indicated audience endorsement and in turn, the normative standards for achieving and experiencing belonging and a social self (Seo et al., 2014). These processes appeared so embedded in girls’ everyday engagements and interactions that it was challenging to disentangle where societal norms end and influencer-driven ideals begin and with what effect (see Martínez and Olsson, 2019). At the very least, influencers were creators and enforcers of norms, embodying standards perceived as necessary for inclusion and belonging.

Interactional dynamics between influencers and audiences entailed reciprocal reinforcement of norms (Goodyear et al., 2022; Tiggemann and Barbato, 2018), reflecting and creating oftentimes unattainable standards affecting self-perceptions, identity formation and peer relations, while incentivising inauthenticity among influencers. While influencer culture entails comparison – which may be risky for girls’ self-concepts (Fardouly and Vartanian, 2016; Kleemans et al., 2018; Rounsefell et al., 2020) – comparison is inherent: it reflects the social need to identify and position oneself in relation to norms and the interpersonal and interactional dynamics of identity. While potentially intensified online (Papathomas et al., 2018)—including due to the visibility of norms and interactional dynamics – these processes intersect with offline dynamics of social recognition and inclusion.

Authenticity emerged as complex and multifaceted. Girls distinguished influencers they considered genuine and those curating idealised, partial and distorted self-presentations. Even ‘authentic’ influencers were perceived as subject to pressure to conform to maintain influence, shaped by interactional dynamics reinscribing dominant ideals (Andsager, 2014). Girls were troubled by commercial incentives shaping content creation and dissemination, potentially compromising and making it difficult to identify authenticity. Even some seemingly ‘authentic’ content was aspirational but unattainable, generating feelings of inadequacy or inferiority, alongside inauthenticity or uncertainty about authentic selfhood.

While younger girls acknowledged direct influence of online content on their feelings and behaviours, older participants were more conflicted. Older girls claimed a degree of agency, for example, through viewing and discarding content based on personal preference. Having ‘fun’ was used, including by the youngest girls, to distinguish agentic engagement from harmful influence, consistent with Van Oosten’s (2021) findings regarding the motivations shaping and delimiting girls’ critical awareness online. Self-reported agency coexisted with an internalisation of norms and pressures to conform, alongside precarious participation in influencer culture. The sense of control may, therefore, be more aspirational than actual or, at least, inconsistently enacted and experienced.

Differences across age groups – such as the younger girls’ openness about influence and older girls’ expressions of critical detachment – can be tentatively interpreted in light of developmental research highlighting shifts in identity formation, peer relationships and critical reasoning in preadolescence and adolescence (Valkenburg and Piotrowski, 2017). These differences are not, however, simply a function of age. They are shaped by socio-cultural contexts, individual dispositions and peer environments. We do not essentialise age-based responses instead acknowledging how age may intersect with other contextual factors in shaping girls’ perspectives.

Girls’ ambivalence reflects broader struggles to reconcile individual identities with the pervasive normative influence. The line between voluntary engagement and compelled adherence was blurred given the desire for belonging and acceptance across digital and non-digital ecologies. As Malvini Redden and Way (2019) suggest, girls’ perceptions and experiences are shaped by intersecting logics, discourses and norms, with ‘influence’ becoming nebulous, subtle and subject to negotiation. Passive influence or denial of influence may not, therefore, presuppose a lack of criticality, instead highlighting fluid, active and interactive dynamics beyond a binary of ‘influenced’ or ‘not influenced’. These post-digital dynamics align with Pomerantz et al.’s (2017) account of girlhood as a site of regulation and creativity, where girls negotiate social expectations while cultivating practices of self-expression. Our participants’ emphasis on relational belonging and peer recognition supports girlhood scholars’ contention that identity-making is deeply entangled with socio-digital affective economies (Ringrose, 2012).

Interactions between digital norms and peer dynamics complicates influencer culture, with a post-digital framework locating influencers within wider contexts. Girls identified peer judgement as a significant source of pressure, often tied to standards perpetuated by influencers. Digital norms are, therefore, integrated into and within offline social interactions. Here, social acceptance, inclusion and belonging is based upon norm adherence, with girls’ appearance and behaviour scrutinised and judged across digital and non-digital contexts. This may explain why content consumption was not always framed as explicit or direct influence. Rather, taken for granted norms (Martínez and Olsson, 2019), gradually unfolding and embedding within self-concepts and interpersonal relationships (with influencers, peers and others), may obscure reciprocal, dynamic flows of influence.

Girls identified risks associated with digital visibility, scrutiny and ‘cancel culture’ whereby status may be enhanced but also diminished. This awareness, coupled with reluctance to participate in content creation – or to go beyond ‘having fun’ to pursue virality – due to fear of negative feedback, highlights the perception that influencers must balance norm adherence with authenticity to sustain their influence. This affects influencers’ content while shaping audience expectations and aspirations, perpetuating a cycle of influence fraught with opportunity and risk (see Malvini Redden and Way, 2017). Influencers, therefore, are not ‘having fun’; they are purposely negotiating these terrains, hence perhaps, why intent was deemed necessary to being an influencer, albeit, presumably, intent to impart an ‘authentic’ self to achieve and sustain credible influence. ‘Authenticity’ – for influencers and audiences – becomes nebulous, given the norms and interactional dynamics shaping what it means to be an influencer and to have influence.

Participants oftentimes challenged the demarcation of digital environments as uniquely responsible for harmful influence. Their critical awareness unfolded through negotiations of influence and influencer culture amid a desire belonging alongside agency, self-governance and self-determination. Girls’ post-digital literacy, therefore, requires recognition of and engagement with the entanglements of influence across digital and non-digital ecologies. Girls tended to formalise the concepts of influence and influencers online, primarily associating them with intentional efforts by influencers to shape thoughts, feelings and behaviours, perhaps overlooking more subtle or unintended, yet pervasive, influence, including experienced and enacted within peer contexts. Broadening conceptualisations of how influence operates, including how influencers are originators of and responsive to norms, may help girls critically examine the interactional dynamics of influence and their active role in these processes.

Surfacing digital and non-digital interplays of influence can help raise awareness of subtle and passive influence, including influence that girls may deny or feel ambivalent about, with denial or ambivalence a starting point for deeper engagement. Rather than simply telling girls to be critical of online content, an ecological approach helps them identify and reflect on personal and perceived normative beliefs, expectations and behaviours, encouraging them to explore their ideals, where they come from and how they feel about them, and the tensions and ambivalence they experience as they seek inclusion and belonging.

Limitations and avenues for future research

The workshops generated rich, interactive discussions, with the findings contributing to broader conceptual and theoretical discussions about influence, femininity norms and post-digital literacy. Group dynamics may have shaped the accounts shared, potentially underrepresenting some perspectives. It also made transcription challenging, as it was difficult to reliably delineate between girls’ voices throughout each workshop. This resulted in us being unable to provide pseudonyms to each girl consistently across each workshop. In this article, we addressed this by clearly stating when something was collectively agreed upon by a group, or if it was an individual girl’s point, in order to avoid overstating consensus or homogenising participants’ voices. Future research could complement these findings with individual interviews or diary studies to capture more personalised and longitudinal experiences. Ethnographic and digital ‘netnographic’ methods could further illuminate how these dynamics unfold across different digital spaces and cultural contexts.

Given the lack of demographic data beyond age and school year group, we cannot fully explore how intersecting social positions shaped girls’ engagements with influencer culture. While identifying an example hinting at the salience of racialised norms, we are cautious not to generalise from this account. Future research should foreground intersectionality more explicitly through purposeful recruitment and demographic data collection.