Scholarlink

Introduction <p>To map and critically synthesize evidence (2020–2025) on the relationship between social media use/exposure and body image among university students, we conducted a scoping review guided by Arksey and O’Malley’s methodological framework and reported according to PRISMA-ScR. A descriptive numerical summary and qualitative thematic synthesis were produced; meta-analysis was not conducted due to heterogeneity in study designs and outcome measures.</p> Methodology <p>Seven databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) were searched using controlled vocabulary and free-text terms related to body image constructs, social media platforms/content, and higher education populations. Eligible peer-reviewed studies (quantitative, qualitative, mixed-methods, and systematic/scoping reviews) included samples with ≥ 70% university students and assessed a body image outcome in relation to social media exposure.</p> Results <p>A total of 81 studies (<i>N</i> = 19,947; ages predominantly 18–25; ~70% women) met inclusion criteria: 55.6% were cross-sectional, 18.5% experimental, 14.8% mixed-methods, and 11.1% longitudinal or EMA-based.</p> Discussion <p>Six non-exclusive thematic groups were identified: [1] body dissatisfaction/shame/low physical self-esteem (63.0%); [2] eating disorders and weight control behaviours (32.1%); [3] cosmetic procedure seeking and probable body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) (11.1%); [4] protective/positive content (body positivity/neutrality, self-compassion), including brief “social media breaks” (16.0%); [5] psychological mediators/moderators (including self-objectification) (33.3%); and (6) methodological contributions (e.g., EMA designs, longitudinal and experimental approaches, and social media–specific measurement advances) (3.7%). Across all designs, the emotional the emotional valence, degree of idealization, and appearance-focused or stigmatizing nature of contentconsistently predicted outcomes more strongly than time-based exposure metrics. Brief, theory-based, digitally delivered interventions showed modest short-term improvements, although questions remain about their scalability and long-term efficacy.</p> Conclusion <p>Despite methodological advances, the evidence base is still constrained by cross-sectional self-report data, varied measurement tools, and underrepresentation of male and gender-diverse populations. Universities are encouraged to incorporate media literacy, comparison reappraisal, and self-compassion into student wellbeing programs, while future research should prioritize harmonized effect size reporting, mechanism-focused trials, and ethically governed digital trace methodologies.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

The algorithm of dissatisfaction: social media and body image crisis among university students

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月22日

查看全文
  • Daniel García-Gutiérrez,
  • Cristina García-Salido,
  • Estel·la Ramírez-Baraldes

摘要

Introduction

To map and critically synthesize evidence (2020–2025) on the relationship between social media use/exposure and body image among university students, we conducted a scoping review guided by Arksey and O’Malley’s methodological framework and reported according to PRISMA-ScR. A descriptive numerical summary and qualitative thematic synthesis were produced; meta-analysis was not conducted due to heterogeneity in study designs and outcome measures.

Methodology

Seven databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) were searched using controlled vocabulary and free-text terms related to body image constructs, social media platforms/content, and higher education populations. Eligible peer-reviewed studies (quantitative, qualitative, mixed-methods, and systematic/scoping reviews) included samples with ≥ 70% university students and assessed a body image outcome in relation to social media exposure.

Results

A total of 81 studies (N = 19,947; ages predominantly 18–25; ~70% women) met inclusion criteria: 55.6% were cross-sectional, 18.5% experimental, 14.8% mixed-methods, and 11.1% longitudinal or EMA-based.

Discussion

Six non-exclusive thematic groups were identified: [1] body dissatisfaction/shame/low physical self-esteem (63.0%); [2] eating disorders and weight control behaviours (32.1%); [3] cosmetic procedure seeking and probable body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) (11.1%); [4] protective/positive content (body positivity/neutrality, self-compassion), including brief “social media breaks” (16.0%); [5] psychological mediators/moderators (including self-objectification) (33.3%); and (6) methodological contributions (e.g., EMA designs, longitudinal and experimental approaches, and social media–specific measurement advances) (3.7%). Across all designs, the emotional the emotional valence, degree of idealization, and appearance-focused or stigmatizing nature of contentconsistently predicted outcomes more strongly than time-based exposure metrics. Brief, theory-based, digitally delivered interventions showed modest short-term improvements, although questions remain about their scalability and long-term efficacy.

Conclusion

Despite methodological advances, the evidence base is still constrained by cross-sectional self-report data, varied measurement tools, and underrepresentation of male and gender-diverse populations. Universities are encouraged to incorporate media literacy, comparison reappraisal, and self-compassion into student wellbeing programs, while future research should prioritize harmonized effect size reporting, mechanism-focused trials, and ethically governed digital trace methodologies.