Ethical Tensions in Aesthetic Surgery Advertising on Short-Video Platforms
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61919/dgx8x090Keywords:
aesthetic surgery advertising; short-video platforms; TikTok; influencer marketing; medical ethics; body image; platform governance; qualitative research.Abstract
Background: Aesthetic surgery advertising is increasingly encountered on short-video platforms where clinical procedures are presented through transformation clips, influencer testimony, before-and-after imagery, and algorithmic repetition. Although such content may improve access to procedure-related information, it can also compress medical risk, obscure commercial intent, and make bodily intervention appear routine. Objective: This study explored how adult viewers interpreted aesthetic surgery advertising on short-video platforms, with attention to perceived credibility, risk, visual evidence, influencer sponsorship, and ethical safeguards. Methods: An interpretivist qualitative design was used. Semi-structured interview material from ten adult viewers who regularly encountered beauty, wellness, aesthetic surgery, or minimally invasive cosmetic procedure content was analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Five themes were developed: compression of medical risk into attractive transformation; credibility transfer through professional and social media cues; before-and-after imagery as persuasive evidence and distorted expectation; influencer intimacy and disclosure gaps; and algorithmic normalization with demand for safeguards. Participants valued educational explanations and realistic recovery information but expressed concern when videos omitted complications, cost, uncertainty, suitability, sponsorship, or outcome variability. Influencer narratives and repeated algorithmic exposure were perceived as especially persuasive because they made aesthetic procedures feel relatable, emotionally corrective, and socially normal. Conclusion: Ethical aesthetic surgery advertising on short-video platforms should create pause rather than urgency by making risk, recovery, qualifications, sponsorship, and individualized suitability visible within the video itself.
References
1. International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. ISAPS international survey on aesthetic/cosmetic procedures performed in 2024. Hanover: International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery; 2025. Available from: https://www.isaps.org/discover/about-isaps/global-statistics/ Accessed 24 Jun 2026.
2. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. 2023 plastic surgery statistics report. Arlington Heights: American Society of Plastic Surgeons; 2024. Available from: https://www.plasticsurgery.org/news/plastic-surgery-statistics Accessed 24 Jun 2026.
3. DataReportal. Digital 2025: global overview report. Singapore: DataReportal; 2025. Available from: https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2025-global-overview-report Accessed 24 Jun 2026.
4. DataReportal. TikTok users, stats, data and trends. Singapore: DataReportal; 2025. Available from: https://datareportal.com/essential-tiktok-stats Accessed 24 Jun 2026.
5. Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency, Medical Board of Australia. Guidelines for registered medical practitioners who perform cosmetic surgery and procedures. Melbourne: Medical Board of Australia; 2023. Available from: https://www.medicalboard.gov.au/Codes-Guidelines-Policies/Cosmetic-medical-and-surgical-procedures-guidelines.aspx Accessed 24 Jun 2026.
6. Advertising Standards Authority. Ads for cosmetic interventions: targeting under-18s. London: Advertising Standards Authority; 2022. Available from: https://www.asa.org.uk/news/ads-for-cosmetic-interventions-targeting-under-18s.html Accessed 24 Jun 2026.
7. Fardouly J, Vartanian LR. Social media and body image concerns: current research and future directions. Curr Opin Psychol. 2016;9:1–5. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.09.005.
8. Saiphoo AN, Vahedi Z. A meta-analytic review of the relationship between social media use and body image disturbance. Comput Human Behav. 2019;101:259–275. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2019.07.028.
9. Ryding FC, Kuss DJ. The use of social networking sites, body image dissatisfaction, and body dysmorphic disorder: a systematic review. Psychol Pop Media. 2020;9(4):412–435. doi:10.1037/ppm0000264.
10. Walker CE, Krumhuber EG, Dayan S, Furnham A. Effects of social media use on desire for cosmetic surgery among young women. Curr Psychol. 2021;40:3355–3364. doi:10.1007/s12144-019-00282-1.
11. Chen J, Ishii M, Bater KL, Darrach H, Liao D, Huynh PP, et al. Association between the use of social media and photograph editing applications, self-esteem, and cosmetic surgery acceptance. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2019;21(5):361–367. doi:10.1001/jamafacial.2019.0328.
12. Reissis D, Shiatis AE, Nikkhah D, Smith RW, Ramakrishnan VV, Davies DM. Advertising on social media: the plastic surgeon’s prerogative. Aesthet Surg J. 2017;37(1):NP1–NP2. doi:10.1093/asj/sjw174.
13. Dorfman RG, Vaca EE, Mahmood E, Fine NA, Schierle CF. Plastic surgery-related hashtag utilization on Instagram: implications for education and marketing. Aesthet Surg J. 2018;38(3):332–338. doi:10.1093/asj/sjx120.
14. Gupta N, Dorfman R, Saadat S, Roostaeian J, Da Lio A. The plastic surgery social media influencer: ethical considerations and a literature review. Aesthet Surg J. 2020;40(6):691–699. doi:10.1093/asj/sjz329.
15. Bucher T, Helmond A. The affordances of social media platforms. In: Burgess J, Marwick A, Poell T, editors. The SAGE handbook of social media. London: SAGE; 2018. p. 233–253.
16. Davis JL, Chouinard JB. Theorizing affordances: from request to refuse. Bull Sci Technol Soc. 2016;36(4):241–248. doi:10.1177/0270467615624444.
17. Zhao Y, Zhang J, Wu M, Liu Y. Health advertising on short-video social media: evidence from TikTok. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(21):1–17.
18. Song S, Xue X, Zhao YC, Li J, Zhu Q, Zhao M. Short-video apps as a health information source: an investigation of affordances, user experience and users’ intention to continue the use of TikTok. Internet Res. 2021;31(6):2120–2142. doi:10.1108/INTR-10-2020-0593.
19. Lou C, Yuan S. Influencer marketing: how message value and credibility affect consumer trust and purchase intention. J Interact Advert. 2019;19(1):58–73. doi:10.1080/15252019.2018.1533501.
20. Sokolova K, Kefi H. Instagram and YouTube bloggers promote it, why should I buy? How credibility and parasocial interaction influence purchase intentions. J Retail Consum Serv. 2020;53:101742. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.01.011.
21. Boerman SC, Willemsen LM, Van Der Aa EP. This post is sponsored: effects of sponsorship disclosure on persuasion knowledge and electronic word of mouth in the context of Facebook. J Interact Mark. 2017;38:82–92. doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2016.12.002.
22. Evans NJ, Phua J, Lim J, Jun H. Disclosing Instagram influencer advertising: the effects of disclosure language on advertising recognition, attitudes, and behavioral intent. J Interact Advert. 2017;17(2):138–149. doi:10.1080/15252019.2017.1366885.
23. Braun V, Clarke V. Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA? Comparing reflexive thematic analysis and other pattern-based qualitative analytic approaches. Couns Psychother Res. 2021;21(1):37–47. doi:10.1002/capr.12360.
24. Byrne D. A worked example of Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic analysis. Qual Quant. 2022;56:1391–1412. doi:10.1007/s11135-021-01182-y.
25. Campbell S, Greenwood M, Prior S, Shearer T, Walkem K, Young S, et al. Purposive sampling: complex or simple? Research case examples. J Res Nurs. 2020;25(8):652–661. doi:10.1177/1744987120927206.
26. Hennink M, Kaiser BN. Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: a systematic review of empirical tests. Soc Sci Med. 2022;292:114523. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114523.
27. Vasileiou K, Barnett J, Thorpe S, Young T. Characterising and justifying sample size sufficiency in interview-based studies: systematic analysis of qualitative health research over a 15-year period. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18:148. doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0594-7.
28. Korstjens I, Moser A. Series: practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4: trustworthiness and publishing. Eur J Gen Pract. 2018;24(1):120–124. doi:10.1080/13814788.2017.1375092.
29. Southwell BG, Brennen JSB, Paquin R. Defining and measuring health misinformation. Am J Public Health. 2022;112(S3):S255–S258. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2022.306882.
30. Gorwa R, Binns R, Katzenbach C. Algorithmic content moderation: technical and political challenges in the automation of platform governance. Big Data Soc. 2020;7(1):2053951719897945. doi:10.1177/2053951719897945.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Kou Shuming, Dewi Fibrini, Muhammad Faridz Syahrian (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
© The Authors. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
.png)
