“Influencer Illness” – A theoretically grounded examination of a new type of dependency phenomenon in the digital age.

By Prof. Dr. Alfred-Joachim Hermanni

Introduction to the phenomenon, objectives, and relevance
With the increasing social relevance of social media, a new pattern in media usage behavior can be observed: Recipients are increasingly orienting themselves toward social media influencers, adopting their opinions, lifestyles, and behavior patterns – often without critical reflection. The theory of “influencer illness” developed in this article describes a phenomenon that goes beyond conventional media consumption. It is an addictive behavior that manifests itself in an excessive emotional and cognitive attachment to digital role models. The aim of this article is to define the term scientifically, provide a theoretical basis for it, and outline initial implications for a medical-psychological analysis.

Conceptual classification of “influencer illness”
The term influencer illness refers to a psychosocial dependence on the media content of certain social media personalities. It is characterized by a disproportionate emotional attachment, a high degree of identification, and pronounced avoidance behavior toward the potential loss of information. Those affected show a reduced ability to reflect on the sources of information and a high susceptibility to emotional, pseudoscientific, or manipulative content. In the long term, this can significantly impair individual opinion formation, self-esteem, and psychosocial integrity.

Distinction from related phenomena
Unlike general social media addiction or internet addiction, which are primarily characterized by excessive use and loss of control, “influencer illness” describes a specific form of emotional and cognitive dependence on social media personalities. The focus is not on platform use itself, but on excessive identification with influencers, which can lead to distorted perceptions, uncritical adoption of opinions, and a loss of self-boundaries. The phenomenon is therefore more relational than consumption-related—it affects relationship dynamics, not just intensity of use.

Table 1: Comparison table for influencer illness (own representation)

Comparison table for influencer illness Hermanni.pdf (46.84KB)

Comparison table for influencer illness Hermanni.pdf (46.84KB)

Theoretical foundation and conceptual positioning
The theory of “influencer illness” can be underpinned by several media and social psychology concepts:

• The illusion of closeness: Horton and Wohl describe the illusion of a personal relationship with media figures—a dynamic that can be observed today particularly in the relationship between followers and influencers. This leads to an apparent closeness and makes it difficult to maintain a rational distance: “Parasocial interaction is an apparent face-to-face relationship between viewer and performer, characterized by the illusion of intimacy and reciprocity” (Horton & Wohl, 1956, p. 215).

• Uses and gratifications approach: Katz et al. emphasize that recipients actively use media content to satisfy certain needs: “The uses and gratifications approach views the audience as active participants who select media content to satisfy specific needs” (Katz et al., 1973, p. 509). In the case of “influencer illness,” however, this originally goal-oriented use of media is reversed: Content is no longer consumed consciously and critically, but increasingly serves to satisfy needs without reflection.

• Mere exposure effect: Another risk factor for the development of dependent reception patterns lies in the algorithmically controlled repetition of content on social platforms (e.g., images, words, brands), which creates an increased perception of familiarity. This is where the mere exposure effect comes into play – a psychological phenomenon in which the mere repetition of a stimulus promotes its positive evaluation (Zajonc, 1968, pp. 1–27).

• Social cognitive theory: According to Bandura, people learn by observing media role models. Behaviors are represented internally and later serve as guidelines for action: “People learn by observing others; they form ideas about how new behaviors are performed [...]” (Bandura, 1986, p. 22).

• Psychological stress: Fiske (2010) interprets parasocial relationships in such constellations not as a relieving social resource, but rather as a potential psychological burden. Especially in contexts where social comparisons dominate, the constant consumption of idealized self-presentations can lead to emotional exhaustion, feelings of envy, or reduced self-esteem.

• Influencers as role models: Tukachinsky (2010) points out that influencers can act as role models, especially for people in developmentally sensitive stages of life. At the same time, he warns that excessive intensity of parasocial relationships can be associated with potentially negative consequences such as emotional dependence and a distorted self-image.

• Fear of missing out (FOMO): Przybylski et al. describe FOMO as the persistent fear of missing out on meaningful experiences, especially those conveyed by influencers: “FOMO is defined as the pervasive anxiety that others are having rewarding experiences that one is absent from” (Przybylski et al., 2013, p. 1841).

• Parasocial interaction and the illusion of privacy: Labrecque (2014) emphasizes that followers often assume that they are getting privileged insights into the private lives of influencers, even though this content is actually made available to a wide audience and is therefore not exclusive in the true sense of the word.

Relationship dynamics: Between emotional closeness, parasocial interaction, and strategic influence
Building on the emotional closeness and parasocial interaction that is often experienced as a relationship, even though it remains structurally one-sided, the author considers the strategic visibility of influencers to be particularly problematic. They appear in a targeted and selective manner, control communication, and remain anonymous or distant at the same time. The illusion of reciprocity thus created reinforces the perception of closeness, even though there is hardly any actual interaction.

The identity-forming integration of followers into communities or fandoms is particularly critical in this regard. The associated sense of community is often based on staged, inauthentic interactions and, on closer inspection, can prove to be a fragile construct. In social comparison processes with idealized representations, this often leads to feelings of envy, emotional frustration, or a reduction in self-esteem.

In addition, influencers are often attributed subjective benefits or even authority – for example, in the areas of lifestyle, health, or finance – without their professional qualifications being critically questioned. This unreflective attribution of expertise can deepen parasocial bonds and promote the development of irrational or unhealthy behavior patterns.

A new explanatory approach: parasocial overidentification and perception distortion
“Influencer illness” is based less on the frequency of media use than on the emotional depth of the bond with influencers. Content is no longer examined rationally, but internalized emotionally – leading to a distorted perception of relevance and truth.

Influencers are perceived as approachable and credible, even though their interactions are often strategically and commercially motivated. However, this simulated personal closeness is part of planned communication strategies designed to influence opinions and consumption.

In addition, the algorithmically controlled presence of certain stimuli suggests closeness and familiarity, which can lead to exaggerated evaluations – regardless of their actual value.

Many followers uncritically adopt the views and lifestyles of their favorite influencers. Their own identity is increasingly defined by their community affiliation, which can reinforce psychological dependence. Although this group affiliation conveys social integration, it is often based on staged interaction and is therefore unstable.

Social consequences and individual risk factors
Social comparison with idealized representations promotes envy, frustration, and reduced self-esteem. At the same time, it is often overlooked that influencers have no professional qualifications for much of their content. Emotional credibility replaces factual authority.

As a result, content is evaluated less for its truthfulness than for its social function within the community. Criticism is avoided in order not to break with the group consensus.

The ability to use media critically suffers where the distinction between

• manipulative content (emotionalizing, commercialized)
• and fact-based information (reflective, transparent)

— for example, in cases of low media literacy or strong internal identification. In the long term, this dynamic undermines the ability to form independent opinions and increases psychological vulnerability to external influences.

Between media use and clinical picture — an assessment of “influencer illness”
Influencer illness is not yet an officially recognized diagnosis – neither in the ICD-11 (International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision, published by the World Health Organization) nor in the DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition, published by the American Psychiatric Association). Nevertheless, the phenomenon shows symptomatic overlaps with clinically relevant disorders such as addiction, anxiety disorders, and obsessive-compulsive disorders.

The term “illness” should therefore not be understood exclusively in a medical sense, but in a broader sociocultural context—as an expression of a disturbed relationship between the individual and digital information culture.

An in-depth scientific examination of “influencer illness” should integrate psychological, neurological, and sociological perspectives with the aim of developing viable diagnostic criteria. The conceptual establishment of the term can thus be a starting point for further empirical research and clinical classification in the field of digitality, identity, and addiction.

Bibliography
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.

Fiske, S. T. (2010). Envy up, scorn down: How status divides us. American Psychologist, 65(8), 774–775. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029874

Horton, D., & Wohl, R. R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction: Observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry, 19(3), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049

Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). Uses and gratifications research. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 509–523. https://doi.org/10.1086/268109

Labrecque, L. I. (2014). Fostering consumer–brand relationships in social media environments: The role of parasocial interaction. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28(2), 134–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2013.12.003

Przybylski, A. K., Murayama, K., DeHaan, C. R., & Gladwell, V. (2013). Motivational, emotional, and behavioral correlates of fear of missing out. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1841–1848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.014

Tukachinsky, R. (2010). Para-romantic love and para-friendships: Development and assessment of a multiple-parasocial relationships scale. American Journal of Media Psychology, 3(1–2), 73–94. https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/comm_articles/19/

Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025848