The Psychological Impact of Seeing YouTubers Spend Millions (2024)

In part, that's because he's richer and more popular now, but it's saying something that the YouTubers who can count on getting more than 10 millions views per video are also the ones who can literally hand out chunks of gold with the help of sponsors like Honey, an app that scours the internet for coupons to reduce your online shopping bill. "To be cynical, it's a very savvy way to advertise," Kasser says. According to him, the typical 30-second television ad costs about $115,000. Funding Mr. Beast's gold nugget habit is about half as costly and lasts over 13 minutes. Plus, it likely works better: "When you click on a sponsored video, you've made a choice to watch it," Kasser says. "Everything I know about human motivation suggests that you'd pay more attention to the YouTube video and be more receptive to its message."

For skeptics, these hyper-consumerist displays are shocking, and maybe a little gross. (I haven't been the same since I, along with 17 million other people, watched YouTubers Jeffree Star and Shane Dawson throw away $1 million worth of expired makeup on a casual Friday this March. Is it better or worse that much of it was sent to Star for free?) Psychological research suggests that even ostensibly charitable displays, like Mr. Beast's, are usually viewed negatively. "What's queasy about it is that it's a very showy means of being generous," says Lara Aknin, a social psychologist who studies altruism at Simon Fraser University. "People who stand to gain from a kind deed are seen as worse than people who do nothing." Mr. Beast is also effectively asserting power over his giftees, who would probably have preferred to be tipped in legal tender, another thing Aknin says should turn people off.

[#video: https://www.youtube.com/embed/MbtesOrC5t4

But this kind of influencer isn't really going for popularity, though they get it. They're going for status. If you are a fan, these videos might look very different—more how-to manual than late-capitalist cautionary tale, especially if you're young and/or live in an economy with a wide gap between the haves and have nots. "The influence of YouTubers and Instagramers in Brazil is greater than the 'traditional famous people,'" Abdalla says. Her research shows a positive correlation between "wanting to be someone" and splashing out on luxury goods. It also suggests that, in the developing world, digital materialism might not even be good for brands.

"Some retail and ecommerce stores have started to receive a lot of refund requests for fashion clothes by consumers who cannot pay for them and only bought them for taking Instagram photos or shooting YouTube videos," Abdalla says. She has lots of sad anecdotes to share, like a woman who vlogged from the Apple Store and edited the footage to make it seem like she was in her living room, and low-income teenagers who thought they needed to buy designer clothes before they could be accepted in a mall.

Income inequality is also alive and well in the United States. "You're more likely to see this behavior in places where there're gross disparities of available goods," Aknin says. Abdalla suggests that, like so many other aspects of millennial psychology, the culture of ostentation in America could be the result of the financial crisis of 2008. Many of YouTube's biggest flexers—Star, the Paul brothers, Tana Mongeau—seem to not have been rich when they began their YouTube careers, so there's also a bit of "started from the bottom, now we're here" in play. Maybe that's why fans love them, despite their ostentation. Social media makes influence seem attainable by anyone, even the viewer at home. So, rather than hating Jake Paul for giving his fiancé Tana Mongeau, who cannot drive, a car that's worth $124,000, they imagine what lavish gifts they'll be able to give the people they love. It's very human, and almost nice, when you think of it that way.

That is, it would be nice if the psychological toll wasn't so high. "After over 200 studies, we know that the more people endorse materialism, the worse their well-being. They're less empathic, less prosocial, more competitive," Kasser says. "They're less likely to support environmental sustainability. They're more likely to endorse prejudicial and discriminatory beliefs." And you know, that sounds like what's wrong with YouTube.