CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 167Impact of Technology on AdolescentsBody Image and Dysmorphia StudiesMedia and Digital Communication

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 66 of the 68 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Social Media Exposure to Upward Comparison Targets on Self-Evaluations and Emotions

Open access
McComb, Carly A., Vanman, Eric J., Tobin, Stephanie J.·2023·Media Psychology
DOI 10.1080/15213269.2023.2180647
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Social media have become a pervasive part of contemporary culture and are an essential part of the daily lives of an increasing number of people. Its popularity has brought unlimited opportunities to compare oneself with other people. This meta-analysis combined and summarized the findings of previous experimental research, with the aim of generating causal conclusions regarding the effects of exposure to upward comparison targets on self-evaluations and emotions in a social media context. We identified 48 articles involving 7679 participants through a systematic search and entered 118 effect sizes into a multilevel, random-effects meta-analysis. Analyses revealed an overall negative effect of upward social comparison relative to downward comparison and controls on social media users’ self-evaluations and emotions (g = −0.24, p < .001). Specifically, there were significant negative effects of upward comparison on each outcome variable: body image (g = −0.31, p < .001), subjective well-being (g = −0.19, p < .001), mental health (g = −0.21, p < .001) and self-esteem (g = −0.21, p < .001). This meta-analysis indicates that contrast is the dominant response to upward comparison on social media, which results in negative self-evaluations and emotions.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/15213269.2023.2180647

Cites

66 of 68 references verified2 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Image 1
CC-BY-NC-ND · From the PDF
Image 2
CC-BY-NC-ND · From the PDF
Image 3
CC-BY-NC-ND · From the PDF
Image 4
CC-BY-NC-ND · From the PDF
Image 5
CC-BY-NC-ND · From the PDF
Figure 1 Flow chart of the study selection process for the meta-analysis.
Figure 1 Flow chart of the study selection process for the meta-analysis.CC-BY-NC-ND · From the PDF
Image 7
CC-BY-NC-ND · From the PDF
Figure 2 Funnel plot displaying relationship between effect size (Hedges' g ) and standard error.
Figure 2 Funnel plot displaying relationship between effect size (Hedges' g ) and standard error.CC-BY-NC-ND · From the PDF
Figure 3 Bar diagram displaying quality assessment in key domains across studies.
Figure 3 Bar diagram displaying quality assessment in key domains across studies.CC-BY-NC-ND · From the PDF

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 66 references

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. 10.1037/00332909.119.1.51 · DOI
  2. 10.1016/j.bodyim.2021.10.00 · DOI
  3. 10.1037/00332909.125.2.276 · DOI
  4. 10.1002/111 · DOI
  5. 10.3966/160792642019102006013 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 167

Related

Metadata

Authors
McComb, C. A., Vanman, E. J., & Tobin, S. J.
Affiliations
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • Queensland University of Technology (AU)
Corresponding author
McComb, Carly A.
ORCID
Venue
Media Psychology
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2023-02-23
Volume
26
Issue
5
Pages
612-635
ISSN
  • 1521-3269 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-785X
DOI
10.1080/15213269.2023.2180647
OpenAlex
W4321788928
Cited by
167
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 83 · 2025: 58 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 5
FWCI
8.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Media Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
specific grant from funding agencies
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Body Image and Dysmorphia Studies
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Media and Digital Communication
Keywords
upward social comparison, social media exposure, self-assessment, emotions, body image, subjective well-being, mental health, self-esteem, downward social comparison, contrast effects

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review