Evidence Hub

"Looking up" linked to feeling down: a meta-analysis of online upward social comparison and psychological maladjustment

Lei Y, Hu S, Sun Y, Zheng L

Frontiers in psychology, 2026

36,583 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Introduction: Social media has become a routine setting for self-evaluation, and upward social comparison with perceived better-off others may be associated with psychological maladjustment. However, the average magnitude of this association across outcome domains and the contextual factors that may moderate it remain unclear.

Methods: This meta-analysis synthesized 94 effect sizes from 54 independent samples (N = 36,583) using a three-level random-effects framework that modeled dependence among effect sizes within studies.

Results: The estimated average correlation between upward social comparison and psychological maladjustment was r¯ = 0.330, 95% CI [0.289, 0.370]. Outcome domains differed significantly, QM(4) = 47.84, p < 0.001. After reverse-coding positively valenced outcomes, the largest average estimate was observed for social-evaluative negative emotions ( r¯ = 0.438), followed by anxiety ( r¯ = 0.382), depression ( r¯ = 0.306), lower wellbeing ( r¯ = 0.268), and lower self-esteem ( r¯ = 0.263). No significant moderating effects were detected for age, cultural background, or data collection year in the outcome-specific models, and exploratory design-based comparisons did not indicate stronger overall effects in longitudinal than in cross-sectional studies.

Discussion: Online upward social comparison is, on average, associated with multiple indicators of poorer psychological functioning, with particularly strong links to social-evaluative negative emotions. These…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 36,583 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free