#snapchatdysmorphia

Be honest: how many pics did you take before posting that one selfie? And did it even make the cut without a filter? Yeah... same. 😮‍💨

Welcome to Gen Z’s identity crisis, brought to you by the ✨beauty filter industrial complex✨. From Instagram’s “clean girl” gloss to Snapchat’s puppy-dog dysmorphia, filters aren’t just fun add-ons anymore, they’re lowkey rewriting what we think we should look like.

Snapchat started it with those face-slimming, eye-enlarging, lip-plumping filters. Barker (2020) calls them “pretty filters with ugly implications”, because suddenly, your real face isn’t cute enough. It's giving ✨cyborg chic✨ but also... identity issues. Gen Z girls especially are feeling the pressure to match their filtered face IRL. Injectables at 19? Normalized. Nose jobs before 21? Yup. All chasing the “Instagram Face” - that same glowy, poreless, filler-heavy look that’s basically a Kardashian AI clone. 🤖💋

Rettberg (2014) explains that filters are more than just visual tweaks - they're “filtered reality,” a tool we use to see and shape ourselves. But when the filter becomes the goal, not the edit? We’re in trouble. It’s no longer “I’m enhancing my look,” it’s “I am this filtered version of me.”

What’s wild is we know it's fake. We know that no one glows like that naturally. But the pressure? Still there. Because that filtered version gets more likes. More views. More validation. 🙃

Gen Z isn’t obsessed with perfection; we’re exhausted by it. Maybe it’s time to say f**k the filter, post the pimple, and let our pixels breathe.

References:

“Do I look like my selfie?” This isn’t just a meme-worthy question—it’s a reflection of a deeper social anxiety I’ve witnessed in myself and many others. As a student who regularly scrolls through Instagram and applies filters to look a little “better,” I’ve started to ask myself: what am I filtering out? This blog post is my reflection on how Augmented Reality (AR) filters have shifted from fun to something far more powerful—and sometimes, harmful.

👁 From Fun to Filtered Pressure

Snapchat’s early filters were silly and obvious—the infamous dog face or rainbow puke. But things have changed. We’ve entered an age of ambient filters that edit our faces subtly, creating the illusion of flawlessness. Lavrence and Cambre (2020) describe this as ambient filtering—so subtle it’s hard to detect, yet it shapes our understanding of what “natural” beauty looks like. This resonates with Rettberg’s (2014) idea of Instagram as a platform that subtly trains users to present an idealized life.

🔍 The Digital-Forensic Gaze

We’ve all done it: zoomed in on a selfie and asked, “Is this face real?” That habit has a name—the digital-forensic gaze (Lavrence & Cambre, 2020). It’s the judgmental stare that detects filters but also enforces perfection. The more we search for flaws, the more we expect everyone to be flawless.

💄 Gendered Filters and Aesthetic Labor

I’ve noticed a pattern: my guy friends use silly filters, but my girl friends (myself included) use beauty filters—to fixthings.

Pescott (2020) calls this out: filters are gendered. Women do more aesthetic labour (Elias et al., 2017)—it’s unpaid work to make ourselves “presentable,” even digitally. Filters are marketed as fun, but for many of us, they feel like a requirement.

I Compared Myself to My Filtered Self

Here’s a confession: Sometimes I look at my filtered selfies and wish I looked like that in real life.

That’s Snapchat dysmorphia (Rajanala et al., 2018)—when people want plastic surgery to look like their filtered selfies. Burnell et al. (2021) found that the more you use filters, the more critical you become of your actual appearance. It’s a toxic loop.

 When Filters Enter Surveillance: Alipay’s Case

One of the most shocking case studies in class was when we learned Alipay added beauty filters to their facial recognition system. People wanted to look better in their bank app (Peng, 2020). This blurs the line between beauty and biometric control. If even our banking ID photos are filtered, what happens to authenticity?

Can Filters Be Feminist?

Not all filters are evil. Some artists use them for resistance—like glitch filters that distort rather than beautify. Haraway (1991) and Coy-Dibley (2016) argue that tech can empower identity beyond binaries. But Miller & McIntyre (2022) say this is rare. Most filters reinforce the same beauty norms. We need to push for more creative, inclusive tools.

🪞Final Reflection: Why Do I Want to Look Like That?

Filters aren’t just editing tools. They’re shaping culture, beauty, and identity. As students—and users—we need to ask harder questions. Do I look like my selfie? Maybe the real question is: Why do I want to? As a student, I’m learning to balance creativity and critical thinking—even in the way I post online.

📚 References

Coy-Dibley, I. (2016). Digitised dysmorphia. Palgrave Communications https://www.nature.com/articles/palcomms201640

Elias, A., Gill, R., & Scharff, C. (2017). Aesthetic Labour: Rethinking Beauty Politics in Neoliberalism. Springer. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1057/9781137476661

Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. (1997). Objectification theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(2), 173–206.

Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. (1997). Objectification theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(2), 173–206. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1367549417705604

Haraway, D. (1991). A Cyborg Manifesto. The Anarchist Library. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/donna-haraway-a-cyborg-manifesto

Lavrence, C., & Cambre, C. (2020). “Do I look like my selfie?”: Filters and the digital-forensic gaze. Feminist Media Studies. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2056305120965155

Miller, L., & McIntyre, K. (2022). From surgery to Cyborgs. Feminist Media Studies. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14680777.2020.1750779

Peng, A. (2020). Alipay adds “beauty filters” to face-scan payments. TechNode. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14680777.2020.1750779

Pescott, C. (2020). “I wish I was wearing a filter right now.” Journal of Youth Studies. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1461444821993038

What is Augmented Reality?

Overlaying digital objects on top of real-world surroundings is known as augmented reality, or AR. AR filters, made popular by apps like Instagram and Snapchat, alter facial features, apply effects, and produce completely new digital identities (Azuma, 1997).

From straightforward enhancements like dog ears or flower crowns, AR filters have evolved into sophisticated beauty filters that alter bone structure, smooth skin, and reshape facial features. Questions concerning digital identity and self-perception are brought up by these hyper-realistic changes.

AR Filters' Popularity on Social Media

AR filters have become more popular as a result of social media platforms, especially Instagram and Snapchat. Among the important figures are:

Of Instagram users, 46% have experimented with the filter effect.

Every day, 500 million people use Instagram Stories, and many of them use AR filters.

Every month, 700 million users interact with AR effects on various Meta platforms.

Filters are now instruments for identity experimentation and self-improvement rather than just amusement. Some criticise AR for reinforcing uniform beauty standards, while others contend that it fosters creativity (Miller & McIntyre, 2022).

Beauty filters and unrealistic ideals of beauty

Designed to "enhance" facial features by smoothing skin, enlarging lips, and reshaping noses, beauty filters are among the most widely used AR tools. A globalised, unattainable standard of beauty is a result of these changes, which frequently mirror Western beauty standards (Rettberg, 2014).

Exposure to beauty-enhancing filters on a regular basis can cause people to view their bodies as objects for evaluation, according to the Objectification Theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). Following extended use of filters, many users express dissatisfaction with their natural appearance, which can result in problems with self-esteem and heightened interest in cosmetic surgery (Rajanala, Maymone & Vashi, 2018).

Snapchat Dysmorphia and the Discussion of Mental Health

Snapchat dysmorphia, the practice of people seeking cosmetic surgery to look like their filtered selves, is becoming a bigger problem. Patients now show filtered selfies to plastic surgeons as reference images rather than celebrity photos (Burnell, Kurup & Underwood, 2021).

This phenomenon demonstrates a vicious cycle of body dissatisfaction and AR filter use:

According to Perloff (2014), users who use beauty filters internalise unrealistic expectations, feel dissatisfied with their actual appearance, and seek out additional digital or physical modifications. By flagging filtered photos, social media companies try to control extreme beauty modification, but algorithm-driven content recommendations still encourage unattainable beauty standards (Lawrence & Cambre, 2020).

The Authenticity Debate and the Digital-Forensic Gaze

A "digital-forensic gaze" has developed as AR filters make it harder to distinguish between digital enhancement and reality (Lawrence & Cambre, 2020). Users of social media now carefully examine photos for evidence of editing, frequently participating in online discussions about what is "real" and what is artificially created.

Because it promotes perfectionist standards, this forensic gaze can be problematic—even photos that appear natural are examined for indications of enhancement. Self-presentation and the creation of digital identities are influenced by the paradox created by the pressure to remain authentic while still adhering to beauty standards.

AR Filters' Implications for Gender

AR filters are often coded as feminine technologies, focusing on beautification and self-enhancement. Research shows that:

Women use filters to align with beauty norms, reinforcing traditional gender expectations.

Men may avoid certain filters due to masculinity concerns, though humor-based and gaming-related AR tools are more widely accepted (Pescott, 2020).

Children as young as ten understand and internalize gendered filter use, indicating that beauty standards are learned early (Pescott, 2020).

These findings suggest that filters are not just fun tools—they actively shape perceptions of gender, self-worth, and digital identity.

References:

Azuma, R. T. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 6(4), 355–385.

Burnell, K., Kurup, A. R., & Underwood, M. K. (2021). Snapchat lenses and body image concerns. Body Image, 38, 12–19.

Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. A. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(2), 173–206.

Lawrence, S., & Cambre, C. (2020). “Do I look like my selfie?”: Filters and the digital-forensic gaze. Social Media + Society, 6(1), 1–13.

Miller, L., & McIntyre, M. (2022). From surgery to cyborgs: A thematic analysis of popular media commentary on Instagram filters. New Media & Society, 24(1), 123–140.

Perloff, R. M. (2014). Social media effects on young women’s body image concerns: Theoretical perspectives and an agenda for research. Sex Roles, 71(11–12), 363–377.

Pescott, C. (2020). Children and digital filters: Understanding gendered technology use. Journal of Digital Culture, 7(2), 89–104.

Rajanala, S., Maymone, M. B. C., & Vashi, N. A. (2018). Selfies—living in the era of filtered photographs. JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery, 20(6), 443–444.

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

The beauty of youth is lost on the young, with the teens of today redefining their self-image with flawless make-up (learnt from the beauty gurus on YouTube) then tweaking their perfection even further with the use of photo apps like Snapchat and Facetune.   The filtered images offer the individual a slimmer jaw lines, wider eyes and removal of imperfections like facial lines and freckles,  from the lens of the camera before the image is taken.  Once taken the images are then posted to social media sites.  The more “perfect” the image, the greater longevity afforded to the image.  The throwaway image is posted on social media site Snapchat or posted on Instagram for a long lasting reminder and to watch the likes roll in.

For fun, I took a series of selfies this morning, using snapchat and its filters. The top left is me, sans makeup, no special lighting, almost first thing in the morning.  The image on the top right is a filter I’m almost sad to say I like to use frequently. The lighting is better and reduces my wrinkles.  Because of the comparison layout I have just noticed it also makes my face slimmer.  I never noticed this before.  The bottom two images are filters I have used for the first time today.  I think they make me look like I am straight out of a Disney movie, but you can make your own judgment.

The younger generation are used to seeing more and more filtered images of themselves, with 49% of the 18-29 age groups having a Snapchat account, 66% of the same age group with an Instagram account (Yellow 2018). The problem with these “perfected” images of a person is that the image is different from their real self: what is seen in the mirror and also by others. The knock on effect of these differing presentations is now coined “Snapchat Dysmophia”, a body dysmorphic syndrome caused by social media applications (Ramphul and Mejias 2018). People are contacting cosmetic surgeons to change their appearance to match their filtered selves.  Cosmetic surgeons are realising the mental illness associated with Snapchat Dysmorphia, and are referring these patients for counselling.

When people share images of themselves online, the act has a positive effect on their social sensitivity, improving their own self-concept (Shin et al. 2017).  If the shared images are heavily filtered and edited, the self-appreciation is based ono a falsehood which can lead into mental illness conditions if left unchecked.  

Evan Speigel, creator of Snapchat once said “You are the sum of your published experience”.  But perhaps it would be wise to take a moment to enjoy life without the aid of a camera lens.