What appearance comparison means in psychology
Appearance comparison is the process of evaluating one's own physical appearance by considering how another person looks. The comparison may concern facial features, body shape, muscularity, skin, hair, height, clothing, perceived attractiveness, or a general impression of presentation. It can occur deliberately, as when someone checks whether they look as fit as a friend, or almost automatically, as when a passing photograph changes how someone feels about their own appearance. Research treats appearance comparison as a measurable psychological process rather than a psychiatric diagnosis. It is one mechanism through which social information becomes personally meaningful.
The central question is how comparisons are selected, interpreted, and translated into body satisfaction, emotions, behavior, and self-evaluation. People compare because social information offers a reference point for judging qualities without a single objective standard. Physical appearance is especially open to this process because attractiveness standards are variable, visible, culturally shaped, and often associated with social opportunity. The foundational account of comparison as self-evaluation comes from Festinger's social comparison theory. Contemporary research expands this account to body image, peer groups, mass media, digital environments, and the tendency to internalize appearance ideals.
Appearance comparison is related to body dissatisfaction, but the constructs are distinct. Comparison describes an act or habitual tendency of evaluating oneself in relation to another person. Body dissatisfaction describes unfavorable feelings or evaluations of one's own body. Comparison can precede dissatisfaction, and existing dissatisfaction can increase vigilance for unfavorable comparisons. The strongest available synthesis of their temporal relationship supports this reciprocal pattern while finding small average longitudinal associations; the everyday significance depends on comparison direction, context, and the meaning assigned to the result Ooi et al. (2025).
Why people compare their looks
Social evaluation and uncertainty
Appearance becomes a social reference because individuals are repeatedly exposed to beliefs about which features convey beauty, health, status, gender presentation, belonging, or competence. Comparison can help someone interpret an unfamiliar environment: what clothing is typical at a new workplace, how peers style their hair, or how visible a personal change may be. Such uses can have informational value. The psychological consequences become more complicated when the comparison is treated as a verdict on worth, acceptability, desirability, or the right to participate in social life.
Comparison targets are rarely selected at random. People attend to individuals they consider relevant: peers of similar age, acquaintances, public figures, athletes, and people appearing to share a particular physical feature. Relevance depends on perceived similarity, accessibility, the particular appearance dimension, current goals, and local social norms. A person concerned about strength might focus on muscularity; someone anticipating a social event might notice clothing and grooming. Appearance comparison research therefore benefits from asking what characteristic was compared, against whom, and under what circumstances rather than measuring exposure to attractive people alone.
From cultural ideals to personal standards
Social comparison intersects with internalization: the process of accepting a socially communicated appearance ideal as a personal standard. Family comments, advertising, entertainment, peer feedback, discrimination, and highly selected images may each contribute to the standards available for comparison. Once an ideal is adopted, other people's appearances can become repeated evidence of a perceived gap between the body one has and the body one feels expected to have. Internalization, however, is a separate construct; a person may recognize a culturally prestigious ideal without personally endorsing it.
Comparison processes are also influenced by selective attention and memory. Someone already worried about a perceived flaw may notice exemplars that sharpen that worry, disregard ordinary variation, and remember the most unfavorable encounters. These processes provide a plausible feedback mechanism connecting appearance monitoring and dissatisfaction. Individual episodes are shaped by beliefs about attainability, personal importance, emotional state, and the ability to hold an appearance observation without translating it into global self-judgment. These explanations draw on cognitive and sociocultural models; each component requires separate empirical testing.
Upward, downward, and lateral appearance comparisons
Upward comparison
An upward comparison occurs when the other person is perceived as better off on the appearance dimension being evaluated. A viewer might judge another person's skin as clearer, physique as more muscular, or styling as more polished. Upward comparisons often co-occur with lower immediate body satisfaction and mood, especially when the perceived gap implies inadequacy or social rejection. Yet direction alone does not fix the result: someone may also view the comparison as informative or inspiring, particularly when the goal is freely chosen and attainable. Researchers must distinguish inspiration from distress, and actual attainable change from socially imposed standards.
In an ecological momentary assessment study, Fardouly, Pinkus, and Vartanian sampled 146 female university students repeatedly across five days. Upward appearance comparisons to several kinds of targets were associated with poorer concurrent body image and mood relative to moments without comparison. Because observations were collected in everyday life, the study captures contextual dynamics that a one-time retrospective survey would miss. It remains observational: measured momentary differences do not establish that a particular comparison caused the person's emotional state Fardouly et al. (2021).
Downward and lateral comparison
A downward comparison occurs when the other person is perceived as less advantaged on the chosen appearance criterion. Such comparisons may temporarily reassure an individual, but they can also reinforce a hierarchy in which bodies must be ranked to confer self-worth. Negative judgments of another person's appearance can coexist with self-surveillance, anxiety about losing perceived status, or stigma. A lateral comparison concerns someone perceived as similar and may provide information about ordinary variation or social belonging. Each direction has multiple possible emotional consequences because perceived similarity, closeness, attainability, and personal values modify the experience.
The same encounter can contain mixed comparisons: someone may admire another person's outfit, envy their physique, and feel comfortable with their own facial features. It is therefore misleading to classify every episode as either harmful or helpful. Better descriptions identify the specific target, direction, emotional reaction, behavior afterward, and whether the encounter escalated recurrent appearance monitoring. The multidimensional PACS-3 measure was designed in part to separate frequency, direction, context, and immediate effect.
What systematic reviews and meta-analyses show
Cross-sectional evidence: a consistent association
The long-standing statistical association between social comparison and body dissatisfaction is well established. Myers and Crowther synthesized 156 studies representing 189 effect sizes and found that greater social comparison was associated with greater body dissatisfaction. The average association was stronger in samples of women than men, tended to be larger at younger ages, and was stronger when comparison was measured directly rather than inferred. The review established consistency across many studies while also highlighting differences in what investigators actually measured Myers and Crowther (2009).
A later meta-analysis focused specifically on social comparison on social media. Bonfanti and colleagues synthesized 83 studies with 55,440 participants. Higher online comparison was associated with greater body-image concerns (pooled r = .454, 95% CI .409 to .498), eating-disorder symptoms (r = .36), and lower positive body image (r = -.242). Study quality, platform, country, comparison type, and the proportion of female participants were among the moderators identified. These are associations across heterogeneous measures and populations; they do not mean that social comparison accounts for the same share of distress in every person or that online exposure alone produces a disorder Bonfanti et al. (2025).
Longitudinal evidence: two directions of influence
Cross-sectional results cannot determine whether people become dissatisfied because they compare, begin comparing because they are dissatisfied, or experience both because of an additional factor. The 2025 synthesis by Ooi and colleagues addressed that issue by reviewing 32 longitudinal and ecological momentary assessment studies. Eight traditional longitudinal studies could be included in its multilevel meta-analysis. Among women, the pooled prospective relationships were statistically significant but small: r = .077 for comparison predicting later dissatisfaction and r = .078 for dissatisfaction predicting later comparison. The remaining studies supplied context on how target and direction may alter patterns Ooi et al. (2025).
Those coefficients are central to interpretation. They support a measurable reciprocal process at the level of the studied samples while ruling out the idea that appearance comparison inevitably produces severe dissatisfaction. They also caution against translating large cross-sectional correlations into equivalently large prospective causal effects. Differences in measurement interval, participant characteristics, repeated exposure, unmeasured confounding, and the reliability of instruments may all influence estimates. Evidence for men, older populations, and underrepresented groups remains less complete than the literature on young women.
New longitudinal research in 2026
In a three-wave, one-year study of 1,999 college students, Zhang and colleagues examined appearance-focused social-network use, appearance comparison, ideal internalization, self-objectification, and later dissatisfaction. Appearance-focused use was prospectively associated with dissatisfaction; comparison and internalization were identified as statistical mediators, including a sequential pathway. Self-objectification pathways were not significant in that model. This adds a contemporary test of mechanism, while statistical mediation in a nonrandomized longitudinal design is still dependent on modeling assumptions and does not independently prove causal mediation Zhang et al. (2026).
What experiments add to the evidence
Experimental studies can alter what participants view and assess immediate changes in body satisfaction or mood. In a randomized study, 112 young women browsed Facebook, a fashion magazine website, or an appearance-neutral control site. Participants assigned to Facebook reported worse mood than controls; those especially prone to appearance comparison also showed more discrepancies concerning facial features, hair, and skin. The experiment provides evidence about immediate responses under its specific conditions, not the permanent effects of everyday platform use Fardouly et al. (2015).
An experimental meta-analysis published in 2025 synthesized 20 studies with 3,603 female participants and reported lower body satisfaction after body-ideal content (d = -.29) and higher satisfaction after body-positive content (d = .20) relative to comparison conditions. The authors found a larger negative average effect in the included short-video studies than in image-based studies. Its population, content selection, platforms, and immediate endpoints constrain generalization. In particular, it evaluates experimental content exposure, not a direct intervention on every component of appearance comparison Zhang et al. (2025).
The evidentiary levels can be summarized as follows: the association between frequent comparison and body dissatisfaction is established across many studies; the reciprocal temporal relationship is supported by small prospective effects; short-term effects of specific idealized content are supported experimentally; and long-term clinical consequences of individual comparison episodes remain less certain. That distinction is essential when translating a compelling psychological narrative into advice, policy, or therapy.
Where comparisons happen and why the target matters
Peers, friends, family, and strangers
Daily comparisons occur at school, work, on public transportation, at social gatherings, in gyms, and while shopping. Friends and acquaintances may be especially salient because they are embedded in the same social environment and may seem more attainable reference points than models or celebrities. Family comments about body changes can also make appearance differences emotionally significant. Comparing with a close friend may affect friendship, belonging, and self-worth differently from comparing with a stranger. The social meaning depends on the relationship, power, and whether appearance is being used to assign status or competence.
The everyday-life study by Fardouly and colleagues found that acquaintances and strangers were frequent comparison targets among its sampled students. The findings suggest that digital celebrities are only part of the phenomenon. Even when someone reduces idealized-media exposure, appearance-focused norms in ordinary relationships may continue to influence self-appraisal. Comparing everyone against a single media ideal also overlooks the local and interpersonal character of many comparisons Fardouly et al. (2021).
Online images and attention-based environments
Online environments create repeated opportunities to compare with peers, celebrities, edited self-presentations, fitness creators, and unfamiliar people. Photographs may be selected from many attempts, altered through editing tools, arranged to emphasize particular features, or viewed alongside public approval signals. Feeds also change the pace and frequency of exposure. Because the published literature combines different activities under broad labels such as social media use, the most useful question is whether a particular experience promotes appearance-focused attention and personally salient comparisons.
Appearance comparison provides a bridge from content exposure to self-evaluation, while general research on platform effects, use patterns, and digital attention has its own canonical scope. The separately published Social Media and Body Image: Appearance Comparison, Ideals, and Mental Health examines that broader relationship. The companion Social Comparison on Social Media: Mental Health, Body Image, and Self-Evaluation addresses domain-general social comparison online.
Comparison processes and different aspects of appearance
Much foundational research concentrated on weight and shape and often recruited girls or young adult women. Those findings matter, but appearance comparison is broader. People may compare facial symmetry, complexion, hair texture, signs of aging, visible differences, clothing, athletic form, height, or gender presentation. A person who reports satisfaction with weight may still experience comparison-related distress about skin, hair, or facial features. Questionnaires that only measure weight-focused comparison can miss these domains.
Muscularity deserves particular attention because ideals often emphasize size, leanness, and strength, sometimes in combination. A review of experimental work in men found that exposure to idealized muscular bodies could increase dissatisfaction, although the evidence base was historically small and heterogeneous Blond (2008). Individuals of any gender can experience muscularity-focused comparison. Interpreting these experiences requires culturally and individually meaningful measures rather than treating one gendered beauty norm as universal.
Comparisons involving hair, skin tone, facial features, or disability may be inseparable from discrimination, racialized beauty standards, ableism, ageism, and social exclusion. Interventions that focus only on changing personal thoughts risk overlooking actual mistreatment or inequitable appearance expectations. The published discussion of Hair Color, Identity, and Self-Presentation examines the social-signaling dimension of hair separately from the present article's broader comparison mechanism.
Cognitive and emotional mechanisms
Attention, discrepancy, and interpretation
An appearance comparison begins with attention to a feature of someone else, an implicit or explicit judgment about similarity or difference, and interpretation of what that difference means. The result can produce pride, curiosity, motivation, shame, sadness, irritation, admiration, or no notable emotion. A mismatch becomes particularly distressing when the viewer believes an appearance difference reveals a personal failure or predicts rejection. In cognitive terms, the perceived discrepancy and its meaning are separable components; the emotional response can change even when the observed difference remains.
Repeated negative comparisons may increase self-focused attention and appearance monitoring. A person may begin checking mirrors or photos for the same feature, searching for reassurance, or avoiding settings where comparison seems likely. Such behaviors can offer short-term relief while preserving concern about the feature's significance. These are possible pathways, not automatic diagnostic signs. Experimental and experience-sampling designs are well suited to distinguishing whether comparison comes before a surge of self-monitoring or whether worry initially draws attention to comparison targets.
Ideal internalization, self-objectification, and shame
Appearance ideals become psychologically powerful when external preferences are converted into personally obligatory standards. Self-objectification describes attending to the body from an observer's perspective; body surveillance refers to repeated monitoring of appearance. Both may overlap with comparison but require their own instruments and theoretical accounts. The 2026 longitudinal study of appearance-focused online behavior is instructive precisely because comparison and internalization showed significant mediation pathways while self-objectification did not in that particular model Zhang et al. (2026).
Shame is especially relevant when the perceived discrepancy becomes an appraisal of the whole self. A person may move from noticing that another individual has a different appearance to concluding that they themselves are deficient or deserve social exclusion. Depression, anxiety, bullying, and stigma can intensify that leap. Clinicians and researchers should therefore examine both the comparison episode and its social setting, including whether the individual has been subjected to disparagement about appearance.
How researchers measure appearance comparison
Physical Appearance Comparison Scale-Revised
The Physical Appearance Comparison Scale-Revised (PACS-R) was developed to measure how often people compare their appearance with other people in a range of contexts. In the original validation research, 1,176 female college students completed the scale; the resulting 11-item instrument showed strong psychometric performance and expected associations with body satisfaction and eating-related symptoms. Its initial validation population matters: an instrument's reliability and meaning in one sample cannot simply be assumed for every language, age, gender, or cultural context Schaefer and Thompson (2014).
Physical Appearance Comparison Scale-3
PACS-3 extends assessment beyond simple frequency. The 2018 validation involved 1,533 college women and men and produced 27 items across nine subscales covering proximal, distal, and muscularity comparisons, with frequency, direction, and emotional effect evaluated separately. These distinctions help researchers test whether frequent comparisons are problematic because of whom people compare with, what the comparison concerns, or what they feel afterward. The measure showed useful validity evidence in its development samples, but research applications still require suitable validation and attention to burden Schaefer and Thompson (2018).
Experience sampling, longitudinal cohorts, and experiments
Retrospective scales measure remembered habits, whereas ecological momentary assessment captures comparisons near the time they occur. Longitudinal cohorts test whether earlier comparison predicts later outcomes and whether dissatisfaction predicts later comparison. Experiments isolate the effects of defined exposures or instructions over shorter periods. Interviews can clarify what appearance comparison means within particular cultures or experiences of stigma. A robust evidence map combines these approaches rather than treating one design as sufficient to answer every question.
Measurement problems include common-method bias, social desirability, changing definitions of attractiveness, unreliable memory, and lack of cultural or linguistic measurement equivalence. A study may ask about general social comparison while another asks specifically about physical appearance; pooling them may inflate apparent agreement between findings. Different time intervals may capture immediate mood responses, changing habits, or longer-term psychological adjustment. Research claims should always indicate which of these levels was measured.
Developmental, gender, and cultural context
Adolescence brings changing bodies, heightened peer visibility, identity exploration, and increased social feedback. Appearance comparison may therefore become especially salient during puberty, although developmental pathways differ widely across young people. Schools, families, sports, and online communities create distinct norms. Research with minors requires careful distinction between ordinary curiosity about appearance and persistent distress accompanied by impairment. Prevention is most credible when it addresses social pressures and diverse bodies rather than teaching a new appearance ideal.
Average sex or gender differences in past reviews must be read in light of sampling and measurement. A substantial share of the classic evidence came from women and weight-related appearance concerns. Men may experience greater concern about muscularity or leanness than traditional measures detect. Gender-diverse participants can face appearance pressures related to social recognition, dysphoria, stigma, and safety; these experiences cannot be reduced to vanity or presumed pathology. Researchers should identify actual populations, instruments, and contexts before generalizing.
Culture shapes ideals, available comparison targets, social roles, and the social consequences of visible difference. Racialized features, skin color, hair texture, disability, body size, and age may carry meanings shaped by discrimination as well as individual preference. A person who avoids a social space after repeated appearance-based mistreatment may be responding to a real environment, not merely a distorted belief. Cross-cultural studies should test whether their instruments measure the same psychological construct across groups and avoid ranking populations by presumed attractiveness concerns.
When comparison becomes clinically relevant
Appearance comparison is a common behavior and is not itself a mental disorder. Its clinical significance increases when persistent comparison is accompanied by severe distress, compulsive checking, avoidance, functional impairment, restrictive or compensatory eating behaviors, or a pervasive preoccupation with perceived defects. The relevant symptoms, duration, context, and degree of impairment determine whether a professional assessment is appropriate. A screening score on an appearance-comparison scale does not diagnose any psychiatric condition.
Body dissatisfaction is an evaluative experience and can occur without a diagnosable disorder. Body image disturbance is a broader descriptive term sometimes used for substantially disrupted thoughts, feelings, perceptions, or behaviors concerning the body. Body dysmorphic disorder involves preoccupation with perceived appearance flaws that are not observable or appear slight to others, together with repetitive behaviors or mental acts and clinically significant distress or impairment. Ordinary self-consciousness, a high frequency of comparison, and BDD are therefore different levels of description. The published OCD vs Body Dysmorphic Disorder addresses those clinical distinctions in greater detail.
Eating disorders may involve body-image concerns and comparison, but diagnosis relies on disorder-specific symptom patterns and impairment, not simply dissatisfaction with appearance. Muscle dysmorphia is an appearance-focused presentation associated with BDD classification; it involves clinically significant preoccupation with being insufficiently muscular or lean. Appearance anxiety and social anxiety can overlap with these experiences but must be differentiated through clinical assessment. The NICE guidance for OCD and body dysmorphic disorder supports structured identification and evidence-based care for BDD rather than treatment decisions based on self-rating alone.
Severe body-image distress can coexist with depression, anxiety, disordered eating, self-harm risk, or suicidal thoughts. Clinical risk assessment should attend to the person's actual symptoms, safety, and functioning instead of inferring risk from their appearance or identity. When safety concerns are present, timely evaluation by qualified services takes priority over independent attempts to control comparison habits.
What can reduce distressing appearance comparisons?
A practical mechanism-focused approach
A useful first step is to notice when, where, and against whom comparison occurs, what characteristic becomes salient, how the result is interpreted, and what happens immediately afterward. This can identify recurrent contexts without imposing a rule to avoid every attractive person or all visual media. The goal is to distinguish useful observation from a repetitive self-evaluation loop. A person may learn that distress rises after ranking their own value against idealized images, during certain conversations, or when checking images repeatedly. Such observations can guide proportionate changes in attention, environment, and behavior.
Another approach is to examine the meaning attached to the comparison. A difference in skin texture or body shape is an observation; the conclusion that it makes someone unworthy is a judgment shaped by assumptions. Cognitive and behavioral strategies can test those assumptions, reduce checking or reassurance cycles where relevant, and redirect attention toward relationships, activities, and bodily capacities. When social discrimination is involved, change may also require interpersonal boundaries, advocacy, and supportive environments. The approach must fit the problem rather than placing all responsibility for harmful beauty norms on individuals.
Evidence for psychological interventions
A 2015 meta-analytic review of standalone body-image interventions found that some psychological techniques produced improvements in body image, with variation across studies and concerns about bias and intervention quality. These interventions often target body dissatisfaction broadly, so their effectiveness cannot be assumed to come entirely from changing comparison frequency. Programs may address appearance beliefs, media literacy, self-criticism, and behavioral habits together Alleva et al. (2015).
Self-compassion is a related potential intervention target. A systematic review and meta-analysis linked higher self-compassion with fewer eating and body-image concerns and found encouraging effects of compassion-oriented interventions, while acknowledging methodological limitations and the need for stronger trials Turk and Waller (2020). Compassion-focused language may help individuals experience comparison without turning it into self-condemnation. It is one option among evidence-informed approaches, not a guaranteed remedy or a replacement for care when a disorder is present.
Digital changes such as reducing repetitive appearance-focused browsing, curating less appearance-centered content, and recognizing heavily edited images can be reasonable individualized strategies. Direct intervention evidence specifically isolating these tactics is more limited than the observational literature relating comparison to dissatisfaction. Randomized experiments do show that selected categories of idealized material can affect immediate body satisfaction, but sustained benefits from changing a platform feed require separate evaluation Zhang et al. (2025).
What the evidence cannot yet establish
Many samples are young, university-based, and disproportionately female. Historical measures frequently privilege weight and thinness, potentially missing facial, muscularity, disability-related, and other appearance dimensions. Platform environments change rapidly, and an experiment built around one interface may not generalize to a different feed or algorithm. Observational estimates can be affected by depression, baseline body dissatisfaction, peer rejection, personality, and other confounding factors. Selective publication, short follow-up, measurement mismatch, and variable study quality can also shape meta-analytic results.
Evidence is also uneven on when comparison becomes protective, informative, or motivational. Some positive experiences may depend on freely chosen goals, attainable standards, supportive peers, and self-worth that does not depend on a visual ranking. These are plausible moderators rather than universal rules. The small bidirectional longitudinal associations in the 2025 review suggest that comparison is one component of a much larger system of body image development, not a sufficient explanation of dissatisfaction across individuals Ooi et al. (2025).
AI-generated faces, virtual influencers, and automatically modified self-images create new comparison targets with potentially unfamiliar levels of realism and controllability. The hypothesis that such material changes the perceived attainability or normality of beauty ideals is scientifically important. Evidence specifically establishing long-term causal effects of AI-generated beauty targets is still developing. Findings from general photographic, video, or social-media studies should not be labeled as direct proof of AI-specific psychological outcomes.
Frequently asked questions
Is comparing your appearance with others normal?
Yes. Appearance comparison is a common form of social evaluation and can serve informational or identity-related purposes. Its significance depends on the situation, frequency, perceived direction, interpretation, emotional effect, and whether it contributes to distress or impairment. Comparison itself is a psychological process, not a diagnosis.
Do upward comparisons always make body image worse?
No. Upward comparisons are frequently associated with poorer momentary body image in research, but responses differ with personal goals, attainability, relationship to the target, and how the difference is interpreted. Repeated upward comparisons organized around self-criticism are more concerning than isolated observations that carry no distress.
Can negative body image increase how often someone compares?
Yes. The 2025 longitudinal meta-analysis found a small prospective relationship in both directions: comparison predicted later dissatisfaction, and dissatisfaction predicted later comparison in the female samples that could be pooled. This supports a potential feedback process rather than a simple one-way story Ooi et al. (2025).
Are comparisons on social media more harmful than comparisons in person?
Both settings can be psychologically important. Online material adds repeated exposure to curated or altered content, while in-person comparisons can carry the emotional weight of friendships, classrooms, workplaces, and direct social feedback. Research has not established one universal ranking of harmfulness across all people, comparison types, and contexts.
Does frequent appearance comparison mean someone has body dysmorphic disorder?
No. BDD is a clinical disorder assessed through a pattern of appearance preoccupation, repetitive behaviors or mental acts, distress, impairment, and appropriate diagnostic differentiation. Frequent comparison is one possible behavior that may occur in many clinical and nonclinical contexts. Qualified assessment is required when symptoms warrant concern.
What is the scientific bottom line?
Appearance comparison helps people evaluate their looks through other people, cultural ideals, and social feedback. Large meta-analyses consistently associate frequent or unfavorable comparison with body dissatisfaction. Experimental studies demonstrate immediate effects of certain visual environments; longitudinal evidence supports modest reciprocal links between comparison and dissatisfaction. The most informative scientific account attends to the specific target, comparison direction, emotional interpretation, sociocultural context, and individual history. Psychological support can address distressing interpretation and repetitive checking while also acknowledging the social conditions that make appearance rankings consequential.
Related Articles
For the wider science of body representation and its social context, see Body Image and Appearance Psychology. The published Social Media and Body Image: Appearance Comparison, Ideals, and Mental Health and Social Comparison on Social Media: Mental Health, Body Image, and Self-Evaluation examine broader digital contexts. For the clinical boundary between appearance preoccupation and compulsive concerns, see OCD vs Body Dysmorphic Disorder.
Internalizing Beauty Ideals: Thinness, Muscularity, and Appearance Pressure — examines how appearance ideals become personal standards.
Self-Objectification and Body Surveillance: Mechanisms and Effects — reviews self-objectification and habitual appearance surveillance.
Beauty Filters and Selfies: Effects on Body Image and Appearance Expectations — evaluates visual filters, selfies and changing appearance expectations.
References
Alleva, J. M., Sheeran, P., Webb, T. L., Martijn, C., and Miles, E. (2015). A meta-analytic review of stand-alone interventions to improve body image. PLOS ONE, 10(9), e0139177. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139177
Blond, A. (2008). Impacts of exposure to images of ideal bodies on male body dissatisfaction: A review. Body Image, 5(3), 244–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2008.02.003
Bonfanti, R. C., Melchiori, F., Teti, A., Albano, G., Raffard, S., Rodgers, R., and Lo Coco, G. (2025). The association between social comparison in social media, body image concerns and eating disorder symptoms: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Body Image, 52, 101841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2024.101841
Fardouly, J., Diedrichs, P. C., Vartanian, L. R., and Halliwell, E. (2015). Social comparisons on social media: The impact of Facebook on young women's body image concerns and mood. Body Image, 13, 38–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2014.12.002
Fardouly, J., Pinkus, R. T., and Vartanian, L. R. (2021). Targets of comparison and body image in women's everyday lives: The role of perceived attainability. Body Image, 38, 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2021.04.009
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202
Myers, T. A., and Crowther, J. H. (2009). Social comparison as a predictor of body dissatisfaction: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 118(4), 683–698. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016763
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2005). Obsessive-compulsive disorder and body dysmorphic disorder: Treatment (CG31). https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg31/chapter/Recommendations
Ooi, W. L., Nasser, H., Simmons, J., and Krug, I. (2025). A systematic review and meta-analysis on the temporal relationship between appearance comparisons and body dissatisfaction. Body Image, 53, 101885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2025.101885
Schaefer, L. M., and Thompson, J. K. (2014). The development and validation of the Physical Appearance Comparison Scale-Revised (PACS-R). Eating Behaviors, 15(2), 209–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2014.01.001
Schaefer, L. M., and Thompson, J. K. (2018). The development and validation of the Physical Appearance Comparison Scale-3 (PACS-3). Psychological Assessment, 30(10), 1330–1341. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000576
Turk, F., and Waller, G. (2020). Is self-compassion relevant to the pathology and treatment of eating and body image concerns? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 79, 101856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2020.101856
Zhang, T., Zhao, X., Han, C., Huang, Y., and Zhang, X. (2026). The longitudinal associations between appearance-focused social network site use and body dissatisfaction among college students: Serial mediation of appearance comparison and internalization of appearance ideals. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 17, 1892412. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2026.1892412
Zhang, Y., Xiong, S., Yao, N., and Chen, J. (2025). Social media and body image in young women: A meta-analysis of experimental studies on video- versus image-based platforms. Body Image, 55, 101991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2025.101991