SynthesisBMC psychology2026
Relationships between problematic social media use and social comparison: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We examined the relationship between problematic social media use (PSMU) and social comparison via a meta-analysis. We conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. The study includes quantitative data from 20 independent studies published between January 2019 and October 2025 that examined the relationship between PSMU and social comparison. The studies encompassed adolescents, university students, and the general adult population from both individualistic and collectivist cultural contexts. Effect sizes were calculated using Fisher's z-transformation under a random-effects model. The results indicated a modest positive relationship between PSMU and social comparison, with an effect size (ES) of 0.24 (95% CI [0.13, 0.36]). Following the Trim-and-Fill adjustment, the effect size decreased slightly, but the overall pattern was preserved. Additional meta-analyses based on standardized regression coefficients showed that, when control variables were included, the association weakened but remained detectable (ES = 0.169, 95% CI [0.029, 0.309]). Effect sizes in unpublished studies were close to zero; however, this finding should be interpreted with caution, as it is based on a limited number of unpublished studies. A high degree of heterogeneity was observed across the analyses. Moderation and meta-regression analyses indicated that the relationship may vary depending on the type of social comparison scale, age, gender composition, and countries' Global Innovation Index scores. Studies using theory-based measures of social comparison reported higher effect sizes. Higher effect estimates were observed in samples comprising older participants, in groups with a greater proportion of men, and in countries with lower levels of national innovation. In contrast, effect estimates in adolescent samples were relatively small and, in some subgroup analyses, remained trivial despite reaching statistical significance. In conclusion, social comparison shows a limited, context-sensitive relationship in magnitude rather than a strong or universal one with PSMU. However, it is unclear whether the observed relationship reflects a genuine connection between the independent constructs or partial conceptual overlap between the measurement instruments. The findings suggest that, although some sub-group effects may be statistically significant, their practical importance may remain limited. Therefore, the relationship between PSMU and social comparison should be evaluated within a multi-layered theoretical framework that accounts for measurement approaches, socio-technical contexts, and potential conceptual overlaps between constructs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.