The Marguerite 2026
Influence in the digital age: how social media shapes adolescent wellbeing
Jessica El-Hachache (2022) engaged in an insightful conversation with Dr. Amy Orben (2023), a Fellow of St. John’s College and the head of the Digital Mental Health Group at the MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge. Their discussion centred around the profound influence of social media on adolescent wellbeing in the digital age. Dr. Orben’s expertise provided valuable perspectives on how these digital platforms can shape the mental health and overall wellbeing of young individuals.
Jessica El-Hachache (2022) Psychological and Behavioural Sciences, Norah & Harold Davies Bursary
Adolescence is a period marked by both rapid psychological development and heightened sensitivity to the social world. As teenagers seek belonging, autonomy and stable identity, they are especially susceptible to social influence; they adjust behaviours, opinions and self-perceptions based on how others think and act. This susceptibility has long been studied in offline settings, but with social media now embedded in daily life, the landscape of influence has transformed.
Recent research from my third-year project, conducted using data from the My Resilience In Adolescence (MYRIAD) Project, examined whether susceptibility to social influence predicts adolescent depression and anxiety. I also spoke with Professor Amy Orben, a leading researcher in digital mental health, about how social media may reshape influence processes and their consequences. Together, these insights highlight a nuanced reality: while adolescents are unquestionably influenced by peers and online environments, susceptibility itself may not directly predict mental health outcomes. Instead, peer relationship quality, both offline and online, may play a more critical role.
Adolescents are highly exposed to social influence online
Young people today spend a significant proportion of their social lives in digital spaces, where interactions occur continuously and publicly and are algorithmically filtered. As Professor Orben explained, “Young people are spending increasing amounts of time online… almost similar times online as they spend at school, so naturally the online world will have a heavy kind of influence on them.”
Photo credit: Richard Marsham
Importantly, social influence online comes not only from peers but from strangers, influencers, algorithmically selected content and platform-mediated interactions. Orben noted that social media doesn’t simply add another layer of influence; it transforms existing ones. “We can’t differentiate online and offline… they’re permeable.”
This aligns with research showing that adolescents are most influenced by peers when forming perceptions of risk, norms and identity-relevant behaviours. Whether this influence promotes prosocial or antisocial behaviour, however, is less clear.
Prosocial versus antisocial influence online
When asked whether social media exerts different levels of influence on prosocial versus antisocial behaviours, Orben pointed out that scientific attention skews toward harm: “We often focus naturally on the negative… We study what makes people vulnerable to mental health conditions instead of what builds resilience.”
Algorithms may amplify both types of content through feedback loops: “Engagement-based algorithms might show you recommendations that align with how you’re feeling – that could create a positive feedback or negative feedback loop.”
In my own empirical findings, adolescents were influenced by both prosocial and antisocial peer ratings, but prosocial influence was stronger, suggesting that conformity isn’t inherently harmful and may even facilitate social cohesion.
Does susceptibility to social influence predict mental health outcomes?
Surprisingly, my analyses found no significant association between susceptibility to either prosocial or antisocial influence and symptoms of depression or anxiety. This contrasts with prior evidence suggesting that peer conformity can contribute to internalising symptoms, especially when it undermines autonomy or increases exposure to risky behaviours.
One explanation is that susceptibility itself may be socially adaptive. Conforming can maintain belonging, protect self-esteem and strengthen friendships, factors that buffer against mental health difficulties. Conversely, resisting influence may support identity formation and autonomy. Thus, how adolescents experience influence may matter more than how much they are influenced.
Peer difficulties predict mental health more strongly than influence does
Although susceptibility did not predict mental health outcomes, peer difficulties were a significant predictor of both depression and anxiety. This suggests that relationship quality, not susceptibility, may be the mechanism linking social environments to mental health. Adolescents who struggle with friendship conflicts, exclusion or low social support are at greater risk of internalising distress, regardless of whether they conform.
This aligns with Orben’s perspective that social influence shapes ‘norms’ of self-worth, behaviour and identity: “Some of the primary impacts [of social media] might be through social influence… especially thinking about what we think are normal behaviours or normal lives.”
Her view supports the idea that social media affects mental health indirectly by shaping peer interactions, comparison processes and perceived social norms.
Why evidence lags behind digital change
A recurring theme in my interview with Orben was the difficulty of studying rapidly evolving technologies: “Social media is a moving target… you’re always behind.”
This highlights the challenge for researchers and policymakers: by the time evidence on one platform emerges, young people have shifted to another. This also underscores the importance of focusing on underlying social mechanisms – such as influence, belonging and comparison – rather than platforms themselves.
Implications and future directions
Together, the findings from my research and Professor Orben’s insights point to several priorities. Improving adolescents’ peer relationships should remain a key focus. Future research needs to examine both the risks and benefits of online influence. Instead of focusing on specific platforms or technologies, interventions should target underlying social mechanisms such as belonging, social norms and identity formation, which operate similarly across both offline and online environments. Longitudinal research is needed to understand how the effects of influence accumulate over time, given that short-term snapshots may fail to capture how repeated exposure shapes behaviour and mental health trajectories.
As Orben noted, social media is neither purely harmful nor purely beneficial. This reflects a growing consensus: rather than asking whether social media is ‘good’ or ‘bad’, we must understand for whom, under what conditions and through which mechanisms.
Adolescents are highly susceptible to social influence, and social media amplifies this by expanding exposure, speeding feedback and shaping norms at scale. Yet susceptibility itself may not be detrimental. Instead, the quality of adolescents’ social relationships, both online and offline, appears to play a more decisive role in mental health. To support young people effectively, future research must look beyond platforms to the social ecosystems they create, empowering adolescents not only to resist harmful influence but to harness positive collective behaviour that promotes connection, identity and wellbeing.
Written by
Jessica studies Psychological and Behavioural Sciences at St John’s.
