Impact of body-positive social media content on body image perception

Abstract

Introduction

Social media significantly impacts body image perception, particularly on visually driven platforms that propagate idealized, edited images. These platforms reinforce unrealistic beauty standards, contributing to body dissatisfaction and mental health issues such as anxiety and eating disorders. Movements like body positivity advocate for diverse body acceptance and challenge these ideals, yet questions remain about its long-term efficacy in reshaping body image perceptions and promoting psychological wellness.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA guidelines, analyzing studies published until 2024 across PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science. Fifty-six studies examining the effects of body-positive content on social media were reviewed, including experimental and observational designs addressing short- and long-term impacts. Nineteen studies were excluded from the meta-analysis due to unsuitable data or lack of control groups. Meta-analyses of effect sizes between experimental and control groups were performed using R software.

Results

The meta-analysis found that body-positive content improves body satisfaction and emotional well-being immediately, especially when highlighting diverse representations and self-acceptance. Longitudinal studies reported sustained improvements in body satisfaction with consistent exposure. Significant gains in body appreciation as a trait were observed, while state-based measures showed no significant effects. Variables like body dissatisfaction and functionality also lacked significant changes. Although body-positive content reduces some harmful effects of conventional beauty standards, its influence on body surveillance and social comparison remains limited. Study variability underscores the need for targeted approaches to optimize its impact on diverse populations.

Discussion

Body-positive social media content shows promise in improving body satisfaction, appreciation, and mood in the short term. However, further research is required to clarify its long-term effects, develop standardized assessment methods, and identify the most effective strategies for diverse demographic groups. This research is vital to fostering healthier, more inclusive body image perceptions in the digital age.

Plain language summary

Social media plays a significant role in shaping how we view our bodies, particularly through platforms that share idealized, edited images. These sites often reinforce unrealistic beauty standards, leading to body dissatisfaction and mental health issues, such as anxiety and eating disorders. In response, movements like body positivity aim to promote the acceptance of all body types and challenge these harmful ideals. However, it remains unclear whether body-positive content can create lasting changes in body image perceptions and overall mental health. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the effects of body-positive content on social media. Studies from PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science were included, covering both short- and long-term impacts. Out of the 56 studies reviewed, 19 were excluded due to unsuitable data or missing control groups. The remaining studies were analyzed for effect sizes between experimental and control groups using R software. The findings showed that body-positive content significantly improved body satisfaction and emotional well-being in the short term, especially when the content emphasized diverse body representations and self-acceptance. Long-term studies indicated that these improvements were sustained with ongoing exposure. While body appreciation as a personal trait improved, changes in body dissatisfaction and functionality were less significant. Although body-positive content can counteract some of the negative effects of traditional beauty standards, it had limited impact on reducing body surveillance and social comparison. The variability in study results suggests the need for more tailored approaches. Body-positive content on social media has the potential to improve body satisfaction and mood in the short term, but further research is necessary to understand its long-term impact. Future studies should explore which strategies work best for different groups to promote healthier, more inclusive body image perceptions in the digital age.

Introduction

Currently, the influence of social media on body image perception has become an issue of urgent concern. In a world where Instagram and other visual platforms dominate people’s lives, idealized and edited images not only shape our beauty expectations but also profoundly impact our self-image and psychological well-being [1, 2]. These images influence how individuals perceive themselves and others, reinforcing unrealistic beauty standards that contribute to distorted self-perceptions [3, 4].

To better understand this phenomenon, it is crucial to recognize that body image is a multidimensional construct comprising both perceptual and attitudinal components. The perceptual component involves the individual’s accuracy in estimating their actual body dimensions, including size, shape, and proportions. Meanwhile, the attitudinal component encompasses subjective evaluations, emotions, cognitions, and beliefs that individuals hold regarding their bodies, such as satisfaction, dissatisfaction, appreciation, or internalization of societal beauty ideals [5].

The widespread dissemination of these beauty ideals through social media disproportionately influences these attitudinal components, fostering body dissatisfaction and contributing to a significant increase in appearance-related disorders [6, 7]. This impact is particularly pronounced among young women, for whom physical appearance has become a central factor of self-evaluation, heightening vulnerability to negative self-perceptions and psychological distress [8, 9].

This phenomenon is especially concerning during adolescence, a period in which individuals are highly sensitive to social feedback and are in the process of developing their identity [6]. The pressure to conform to these ideals not only affects self-esteem but is also identified as a risk factor for developing body image concerns, excessive physical exercise, and eating disorders [10]. On the one hand, adhering to these standards may lead to greater social acceptance and self-esteem, while deviating from them can result in discrimination or feelings of failure [8]. This is particularly evident in settings such as the workplace and interpersonal relationships, where physical appearance is often associated with competence, confidence, and success [9].

The rise of beauty ideals has sparked increasing concern about body image, defined as the perception, thoughts, and feelings a person has about their own body. When there is a discrepancy between one’s actual body image and the societal beauty ideal, body dissatisfaction arises [9], which not only affects self-esteem but is also linked to mental health problems such as depression and anxiety. Body dissatisfaction remains one of the most consistent risk factors for the development and maintenance of eating disorders [2, 11]. On the other hand, studies like that of Andrew et al. [12] have shown that a positive body image is associated with greater psychological well-being, higher self-esteem, and healthier behaviors, such as intuitive eating and regular physical activity.

Research by Fardouly et al. [2] has demonstrated that social media can significantly influence how individuals relate to their body image, particularly among young women. This phenomenon is largely due to the constant exposure to appearance-focused content, where unattainable beauty ideals prevail [1] and the culture of social comparison thrives [13].

Social comparison, first described by Festinger [14], has become more prevalent due to this incessant exposure to idealized images. People are increasingly measuring themselves against unrealistic and harmful standards [2, 13]. Gelsinger [15] highlights that social comparison on social media is linked to increased body dissatisfaction. Fardouly et al. [2] further found that appearance comparisons made on social media tend to be more detrimental than those made in other contexts, such as face-to-face interactions or through traditional media. Additionally, platforms that allow immediate feedback, such as “likes” and comments, foster a culture of external validation based on physical appearance, amplifying concerns about appearance [6].

This phenomenon is intensified by the concept of the “imaginary audience,” where adolescents feel they are constantly being observed by their peers, increasing their vulnerability to criticism and comparison [6]. The ongoing exposure and perceived evaluation may further intensify anxiety and dissatisfaction with one’s appearance, creating a repetitive and harmful cycle of social comparison and negative self-assessment [16]. This tendency not only aggravates body dissatisfaction but also increases vulnerability to the development of eating disorders and other appearance-related concerns [17]. Given these challenges, there is an urgent need to understand and address the impact that digital platforms have on mental health and self-perception.

In response to these challenges, the body-positive movement has emerged as a critical response to conventional beauty ideals. Body-positivity advocates for a more inclusive and diverse view of beauty, challenging dominant aesthetic norms and promoting unconditional acceptance of all body types [18, 19]. Through the promotion of hashtags such as #bodypositive, this movement has found an optimal environment in social media to disseminate its message and foster more authentic and varied representations [20, 21].

Given the diverse impact of the body-positive movement on social media, this study aims to explore in-depth the movement’s influence on body image perception, appearance comparison and emotional state. Since body image is a multidimensional construct that encompasses both perceptual and attitudinal components [5], this review focuses specifically on the attitudinal dimension, which includes subjective evaluations, emotions, cognitions, and beliefs about one’s body, as it is more closely tied to the psychological outcomes targeted by the body-positive movement. As the movement seeks to provide an alternative to conventional beauty standards and foster greater body acceptance and diversity, it becomes crucial to understand how these initiatives are shaping users’ self-image and psychological well-being.

Methods

Research strategy

A systematic bibliographic search was conducted in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines. Independent searches for original research articles related to the impact of positive content related to the Body-Positive movement on social media on women’s body image were performed in three electronic databases: PubMed, Web of Science (WoS), ScienceDirect and Scopus. The search was carried out by two researchers (EPH, OGV) on October 30, 2024, using the following terms and search combinations: (body positive) and/or (body positivity) and (social media). No chronological or methodological filters were applied to the search engines, apart from filtering by titles, keywords, and abstracts, and all resulting datasets were exported and compiled in Mendeley and Excel.To ensure consistency in the study selection process, two independent reviewers (EPH and OGV) screened all titles, abstracts, and full texts. Subsequently, a third reviewer (NA) independently reviewed the selected studies to confirm their eligibility. Any discrepancies identified during this process were resolved through discussion among all three reviewers to reach a consensus.

Study selection

After removing duplicates, all remaining titles and abstracts were reviewed to determine their eligibility. Epidemiological studies and articles that did not specifically address the impact of Body-Positive movement-related positive content on social media on womens’ and men´s body image perception and psychological well-being were considered ineligible. Likewise, only studies published in English were included.

After the initial selection phase, the full texts of the selected studies were retrieved and reviewed in detail according to the inclusion criteria. For a study to be included in the systematic review, it had to (i) involve experimental cases related to body positive in social media, (ii) show measurements of the perception of body image and/or psychological wellness of the experimental subjects, and (iii) study those changes in the women or men. Specifically, the inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined using the PICOS framework (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, and Study Design). The study population comprised subjects who use social media. The intervention involved the exposure to Body-Positive content on social media. Comparisons varied between studies and included control groups with exposure to neutral content or typical content that promotes conventional beauty standards. The outcomes measured encompassed Impact on women’s or men´s body image perception. Psychological outcomes included variables related to mood, body satisfaction, self-objectification, and body appreciation. All variables were manually extracted from each study (EPH and OGV) and compiled in a table. The study designs incorporated in this review included randomised and between-subjects controlled trials, and experimental designs.

Methods quality

The methodological quality of the clinical research studies included in this review was assessed using the PEDro scale (Physiotherapy Evidence Database), as presented in Table 1. This scale evaluates 11 criteria that allow for the appraisal of the methodological rigor of randomized clinical trials and other experimental designs. According to Maher et al. [22], items 1, 10, and 11 of the scale assess the external validity of the studies, while the remaining items focus on internal validity. The maximum score achievable is 11 points, with one point awarded for each criterion met. Methodological quality is considered excellent when the total score ranges from 9 to 11, good when it is between 6 and 8, fair between 4 and 5, and below 4 is regarded as low quality. By applying this structured approach, a comprehensive evaluation of the methodological integrity of each study was achieved, ensuring a solid foundation for interpreting the results.

Table 1.

Quality assessment of included articles using the PEDro scale

Study references	1.Selection Criteria	2. Randomized	3. Concealed allocation	4. Baseline equivalence	5. Blinded Subject	6. Blinded Therapist	7. Blinded Evaluator	8. > 85% sample	9. Data Analysis	10. Group comparison	11. Mean and Standard Deviation	Total
Alleva et al. [23]	+	+	-	+	-	NA	-	+	+	+	+	7
Barnes et al. [24]	+	+	-	+	-	NA	-	+	?	+	+	6
Barron et al. [25]	+	+	-	?	-	NA	?	+	-	+	+	5
Becker et al. [26]	+	+	-	?	-	NA	-	+	-	+	+	5
Binder et al. [27]	+	+	-	+	-	NA	-	+	-	+	+	6
Bissonette Mink and Szymanski [28]	+	-	-	NA	-	NA	¿	+	-	-	+	3
Brathwait e et al. [29]	+	+	+	-	+	NA	-	+	+	+	+	8
Breves et al. [30]	+	+	-	+	-	NA	-	+	-	+	+	6
Brown and Tiggemann [31]	+	-	+	+	+	NA	-	-	+	+	+	7
Campagna et al. [32]	+	-	-	?	-	NA	-	+	-	+	+	3
Castellanos Silva and Steins [33]	+	+	+	?	+	NA	-	+	-	+	+	7
Cohen et al. [34]	+	+	-	?	-	NA	?	+	+	+	+	6
Couture Bue and Harrison [35]	+	+	-	+	-	NA	?	+	-	+	+	6
Cowles et al. [36]	+	+	+	+	-	NA	-	+	-	+	+	7
Cunha et al. [37]	+	+	-	+	-	NA	-	+	-	+	+	6
Danthinne et al. [38]	+	+	-	+	-	NA	-	+	-	+	+	6
Davies et al. [39]	+	+	+	+	-	NA	-	+	+	+	+	8
Dhadly et al. [40]	+	+	+	+	+	NA	-	+	+	+	+	9
Di Michele et al. [41]	+	+	-	+	-	NA	-	+	-	+	+	6
Fardouly et al. [42]	+	+	+	+	+	NA	+	-	+	+	+	9
Fasoli and Constantinou [43]	+	+	+	+	+	NA	-	+	+	+	+	9
Fasoli et al. [44]	+	+	+	+	+	NA	-	+	+	+	+	9
Fioravanti et al. [45]	+	+	+	+	-	NA	-	+	+	+	+	8
Fiuza and Rodgers [46]	+	+	?	+	-	NA	?	+	?	+	+	7
Glaser et al. [47]	+	-	-	-	-	NA	-	+	-	-	NA	2
Graham et al. [48]	+	+	-	+	-	NA	-	+	-	+	+	6
Hepburn and Mulgrew [49]	+	+	?	+	-	NA	?	+	-	+	+	6
Joiner et al. [50]	+	+	-	+	-	NA	-	+	-	+	+	6
Kharkwal et al. [51]	+	+	-	+	-	NA	-	+	-	+	+	6
Kvardova et al. [52]	+	-	NA	+	-	NA	-	+	-	+	+	5
Ladwig et al. [53]	+	+	-	-	-	NA	-	+	+	+	+	6
Mancin et al. [54]	+	-	-	+	-	NA	-	+	-	+	+	5
Manning and Mulgrew [55]	+	+	+	+	+	NA	+	-	+	+	+	9
Mulgrew and Courtney [56]	+	+	+	+	+	NA	+	-	+	+	+	9
Nelson et al. [57]	+	+	+	+	+	NA	-	+	+	+	+	9
Price et al. [58]	+	+	?	+	-	NA	?	+	-	+	+	6
Rodgers and Nowicki [59]	+	-	NA	-	-	NA	-	+	-	+	+	4
Rodgers et al. [60]	+	+	-	+	-	NA	-	+	+	+	+	7
Rodgers et al.[61]	+	-	-	+	-	NA	-	+	-	+	+	5
Sanzari et al. [62]	+	-	-	NA	-	NA	-	+	NA	-	+	3
Schettino et al. [63]	+	-	-	NA	-	NA	-	+	NA	-	+	3
Seekis and Lawrence [64]	+	+	-	+	-	NA	+	+	-	+	+	7
Simon and Hurst [65]	+	+	+	+	+	NA	-	+	+	+	+	9
Stevens and Griffiths [66]	+	-	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	+	+	-	+	4
Sullivan et al. [67]	+	+	-	+	+	NA	+	-	-	+	+	7
Talbot et al. [68]	+	+	-	+	-	NA	+	+	-	+	+	7
Tiggemann and Anderberg [69]	+	+	-	+	-	NA	-	+	-	+	+	6
Tiggemann and Zinoviev [70]	+	+	-	+	-	NA	+	+	-	+	+	7
Tiggemann et al. [71]	+	+	+	+	-	NA	+	+	+	+	+	9
Varaona et al. [72]	+	-	-	+	-	NA	-	+	NA	+	+	5
Yue and Tang [73]	+	-	-	+	-	NA	-	+	NA	+	+	5

Note. + = The criterion is met; - = The criterion is not met;? = The fulfillment of the criterion is nuclear; NA = Not Applicable

For the qualitative studies included in the review, the JBI critical appraisal checklist for qualitative research was employed to assess methodological rigor [74]. This checklist evaluates 10 key criteria that address philosophical alignment, methodological coherence, data collection methods, researcher reflexivity, ethical considerations, and result credibility. Each criterion was rated as “yes,” “no,” “unclear,” or “not applicable.” studies were classified as high quality (8–10 points), moderate quality (5–7 points), or low quality (≤ 4 points). The results of this assessment are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Quality assessment of included articles using the JIB scale

Study References	1. Philosophical Basis	2. Methodology	3. Design Consistency	4. Sampling Adequacy	5. Data Collection	6. Researcher-Participant Relationship	7. Ethical Considerations	8. Data Analysis	9. Results-Conclusions Link	10. Implications for Practice	Total Score
Evens et al. [75]	+	+	+	+	+	?	+	+	+	+	9
Lang and Ye [76]	?	+	+	+	+	-	+	+	+	+	8
Rodgers et al. [77]	?	+	+	+	+	-	+	+	+	+	8

Meta-analysis

A continuous random-effects model with a standardized mean difference (SMD), calculated as Cohen’s d, was employed to conduct the meta-analysis. Human studies that reported (i) psychological variables, including body satisfaction, body dissatisfaction, and body appreciation; and (ii) emotional states, such as positive and negative mood, were included in this review. Significance played no role in the selection process, with studies reporting null findings being included in the analysis.

A total of 19 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Thirteen studies were excluded because they lacked a control group [22–34]. Eight studies were excluded as they did not report data on the number of participants per group [35]. Another eight studies were excluded because the authors did not provide data on means and standard deviations [43–50]. Seven studies were excluded due to study characteristics that prevented comparability with other studies (e.g., non-comparable design or instruments used) [51–57]. Lastly, one study was excluded because the means and standard deviations were presented in images that could not be extracted due to overlapping elements in the figure [58].

The authors of the relevant publications were not contacted directly regarding the raw data sets. Means, standard deviations, and sample sizes were entered into R Studio (version 4.3.1) with the ‘metafor’ package, which automatically calculated the SMD, confidence intervals (CIs), heterogeneity, and overall effect size using a random-effects model.

In the heterogeneity analysis of the meta-analysis, several methods were employed to assess variability among studies. Cochran’s Q statistic and the I² index were utilized to determine the presence of significant heterogeneity. For analyses with more than two studies, the Egger test was applied, while the Begg and Mazumdar’s rank correlation test was consistently used across all analyses to evaluate potential publication bias. For analyses involving more than ten studies, a funnel plot was generated to visually represent symmetry and detect potential biases in the literature.

To analyze the robustness of the results, the Fail-Safe N, based on the Rosenthal approach, was calculated using the ‘metafor’ package. Sub-analyses were performed when high variability was observed, with specific consideration of factors such as the measurement scale (e.g., VAS, BAS-2, PANAS). Forest plots were generated using Review Manager (RevMan) software to visually represent individual and overall effect sizes, along with their confidence intervals.

In line with methodological recommendations, no pooled effect sizes were estimated for meta-analyses including fewer than four studies (k < 4). On the other hand, no double counting was performed in the meta-analysis. In the study by Di Michele et al. [41], two independent experiments were conducted and reported within the same article. Each experiment involved a distinct sample of participants and examined different conditions. As there was no overlap in participants or comparator groups, each experiment was considered an independent data point in the meta-analysis.

Results

Searches conducted in the electronic databases PubMed, Scopus, Sciencedirect and WoS yielded 480, 618, 275, and 965 articles, respectively, reaching a total of 69 publications, of which 2.338 were identified as duplicates and removed from the dataset, and 2.006 were marked as ineligible by automated tools in the databased. The titles and abstracts of the remaining 263 articles were evaluated for eligibility, and publications were deemed out of scope for the systematic review and excluded as they were systematic reviews, meta-analyses, reviews, books, or conference communications (n = 62). We obtained 201 articles, which were read in full and carefully assessed according to the inclusion criteria, and 56 studies were considered eligible for inclusion in the systematic review (see Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

PRISMA flow chart of selection of publications for inclusion in review

General characteristics of selected studies

The studies selected for inclusion in the systematic review were published up to 30 October 2024 (n = 56). The total number of participants across the 56 studies was 13,442 participants, of whom 96.34% were women, reflecting the focus on women’s experiences with body-positive content, with a mean age of 27.37 (SD not consistently reported), ranging from 13 to 78 years. Except for three studies [43, 66, 67], the sample in the remaining 24 studies consisted entirely of women. These two exceptions had female participation rates of 54.6% (n = 113), 83.2% (n = 94), and 63.25% (n = 179) respectively. Across all 56 studies, the average women participation rate was 96.34%. This high percentage of women participants provide strong representativeness for the study’s objectives, which focus on women’s experiences with body positive content on social media.

Assessment tools applied in the reviewed studies

The studies included in the systematic review and meta-analysis employed various scales to measure variables related to body mass index, psychological variables, emotional states and social factors. These tools allowed researchers to capture effects at critical points, such as before and after exposure to the content.

To measure emotional status, the most commonly used scale was the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), adapted for each study. The VAS is a continuous scale that captures the intensity of subjective variables (e.g., “not satisfied at all” to “completely satisfied”), providing a precise quantitative measure unrestricted by predefined categories [78]. Studies by Cohen et al. [17], Fasoli et al. [44], Fasoli and Constantinou [43], Stevens and Griffiths [66], Brown and Tiggemann [31], Hepburn and Mulgrew [49], Manning and Mulgrew [55], and Danthinne et al. [38] used the VAS before and immediately after content exposure. Another common scale was the Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS) [79], which was used in studies by Dhadly et al. [40], Ladwig et al. [53], Simon and Hurst [65], Tiggemann and Anderberg [69], and Fardouly et al. [42] to assess positive and negative affect both before and after exposure.

State body satisfaction was assessed using validated measures to capture immediate responses following body-positive content exposure. The VAS was the predominant tool for this purpose, as seen in studies by Hepburn and Mulgrew [49], Rodgers et al. [60], Mulgrew and Courtney [56], Di Michele et al. [41]; Instagram and TikTok platforms), Seekis and Lawrence [64], Cowles et al. [36], Cohen et al. [17], and Graham et al. [48] This scale enabled the detection of subtle shifts in body satisfaction and dissatisfaction in response to social media content. Alternative measures were also employed; for instance, Simon and Hurst [65] applied the Body Satisfaction Scale (BSS) [80] to measure short-term body image perceptions, while Nelson et al. [81] utilized a custom State Body Satisfaction Scale to evaluate the impact of specific interventions on appearance satisfaction. Self-objectification was a key variable examined across studies using multiple validated instruments. The Twenty Statements Test by Fredrickson et al. [82] was one of the primary tools employed to measure self-objectification after exposure to body-positive content, as seen in studies by Cohen et al. [17] and Nelson et al. [81]. These studies explored the extent to which participants defined themselves based on appearance-related attributes. Additionally, Cowles et al. [36] employed the Self-Objectification Beliefs and Behaviors Scale (SOBBS) developed by Lindner and Tantleff-Dunn [83], which extends traditional self-objectification measures by incorporating both beliefs and behaviors. Another notable instrument, the Linguistic Self-Objectification Questionnaire (LSOQ), was utilized by Di Michele et al. [41] in studies focusing on Instagram and TikTok exposure, investigating platform-specific effects on self-objectification and self-perception. Lastly, Hepburn and Mulgrew examined self-objectification through an integrative approach, incorporating multiple frameworks to explore the dynamic relationship between social comparison and body appreciation [49].

The State Body Appreciation Scale-2 (SBAS-2) [84] was widely employed to assess state body appreciation, capturing immediate reactions to body-positive content. Studies such as those by Cohen et al. [17], Nelson et al. [81], Cowles et al. [36], Hepburn and Mulgrew [49] and Manning and Mulgrew [55] used this scale to evaluate short-term shifts in body appreciation. Some studies opted for VAS adaptations to measure similar constructs, as seen in Becker et al. [26], Fiuza and Rodgers [46], Rodgers et al. [60], Brown and Tiggemann [31], Tiggemann and Anderberg [69], and Graham et al. [48]. These tools effectively assessed immediate changes in body image perception following exposure to body-positive content.

To evaluate trait body appreciation, which refers to enduring positive feelings and attitudes toward one’s body, the Body Appreciation Scale-2 (BAS-2) [85] was the primary instrument. This scale was employed in studies by Danthinne et al. [38], Becker et al. [26], Cowles et al. [36], and Cohen et al. [17] to assess long-term effects of body-positive content exposure. By providing a stable measure of body appreciation, these studies offered insights into how repeated exposure to body-positive content may contribute to lasting improvements in self-perception.

While the variety of instruments used across studies introduces some limitations in comparability, the repeated use of certain validated scales, such as the SBAS-2 and BAS-2, provides a degree of consistency in the findings. The convergence of results across studies employing these tools strengthens the evidence for the positive effects of body-positive content on both immediate and long-term body appreciation. The reviewed studies consistently indicate that body-positive content on social media predominantly enhances body satisfaction, mood, and self-appreciation. For instance, Cohen et al. [17] and Dhadly et al. [40] reported that exposure to body-positive content significantly reduces negative affect and increases body image satisfaction. Similarly, Fasoli et al. [44] and Fasoli and Constantinou [43] found that such content not only enhanced body satisfaction but also diminished the desire for thinness, underscoring its broader psychological benefits. Additional studies, including those by Ladwig et al. [53], Nelson et al. [81], Hepburn and Mulgrew [49], Fiuza and Rodgers [46], and Mulgrew and Courtney [56] further confirmed that body-positive content fosters body appreciation and satisfaction.

Additional assessments in the reviewed studies included a variety of tools to measure constructs such as internalization of thin ideals, appearance-based comparisons, and functionality satisfaction. The SATAQ-4 Thin Internalization Subscale was utilized in studies such as Danthinne et al. [38], Fiuza and Rodgers [46], and Rodgers et al. [60] to assess internalization of societal thin ideals.

State functionality appreciation, referring to positive evaluations of one’s body beyond aesthetics, was measured using a custom questionnaire and the Functionality Appreciation Scale (FAS) in studies such as Becker et al. [26]. Meanwhile, the State Appearance Comparison scale was used by Rodgers et al. [60], Di Michele et al. [41]; Instagram and TikTok), to evaluate participants’ immediate tendencies to compare their appearance with others post-exposure to social media content. Relatedly, appearance-based social comparison was explored in studies by Mulgrew and Courtney [56] and Hepburn and Mulgrew [49], emphasizing the role of comparative tendencies in shaping body satisfaction. In addition, functionality satisfaction was assessed using the Functionality Satisfaction VAS by Mulgrew and Courtney [56] and Hepburn and Mulgrew [49]. Functionality comparisons, which assess how individuals evaluate their body’s functionality relative to others, were also addressed in these studies.

The State Appearance Comparison - Direction assessment, employed by Di Michele et al. [41] across Instagram and TikTok platforms, provided insights into whether comparisons were upward (to idealized images) or downward (to less idealized figures), enriching the understanding of comparison effects. Specific tools like the Physical Appearance Comparison Scale Revised (PACS-R), used by Brown and Tiggemann [31], offered standardized measures of participants’ tendency to engage in appearance comparisons, while studies such as Becker et al. [26] and Fiuza and Rodgers [46] delved into social media-related rumination, examining how social media interactions influence ongoing thoughts about appearance.

Another relevant construct assessed was broad conceptualizations of beauty, which refers to inclusive attitudes toward beauty standards. This was measured using the State Broad Conceptualizations of Beauty Scale, employed by Becker et al. [26] and Cowles et al. [36]. Their findings suggest that body-positive content fosters a broader and more inclusive appreciation of physical appearance. Moreover, social media-related rumination, investigated in studies by Becker et al. [26] and Fiuza and Rodgers [46] revealed that repetitive engagement with social media content often reinforces appearance-focused cognitive patterns, underscoring the complex relationship between social media and body image perceptions. The positive effects of content featuring body diversity were highlighted by Ogden et al. [86], who found improvements in both body and facial satisfaction following exposure to diverse imagery. Additionally, Simon and Hurst [65] and Tiggemann et al. [71] emphasized the benefits of images depicting mid-sized bodies, which were shown to improve mood and reduce body dissatisfaction. However, not all groups respond equally to body-positive content. Danthinne et al. [38] revealed that individuals with high levels of thin-ideal internalization experienced decreases in both body satisfaction and mood after exposure, suggesting the moderating role of pre-existing attitudes toward body image.

Body diversity and positive content effects

Longitudinal studies demonstrated the sustained benefits of daily exposure to body-positive content. Fioravanti et al. [45] and Stevens and Griffiths [66] Fioravanti et al. [8] advocating for the integration of body-positive strategies in interventions to improve body image. Similarly, Fardouly et al. [42] found that viewing body-positive and appearance-neutral posts over two weeks significantly reduced body dissatisfaction and appearance comparison tendencies.

Despite these positive outcomes, some challenges remain. Cohen et al. [21] cautioned that while body-positive content enhances mood and body satisfaction, it may also increase self-objectification by maintaining a focus on appearance. Similarly, Lang and Ye [76] noted that certain body-positive messages inadvertently reinforce beauty norms, leading to increased appearance-related anxiety and upward social comparisons, particularly among younger audiences. Studies comparing different forms of body-positive content suggest that the effectiveness of such content varies depending on its presentation. Davies et al. [39] and Rodgers et al. [61] found that positive captions accompanying images significantly enhanced body esteem, indicating that textual elements may buffer against negative body perceptions. Manning and Mulgrew [55] further observed that appearance satisfaction increased most when body-positive captions accompanied images, highlighting the synergistic effects of visual and textual content. Likewise, Cowles et al. [36] found that image-caption combinations produced the most significant improvements in both mood and body satisfaction. Additionally, Sullivan et al. [67] demonstrated that body-positive images paired with self-compassion-focused text enhanced both body satisfaction and self-compassion, suggesting that content incorporating self-kindness messaging may yield greater psychological benefits.

The role of non-sexualized imagery was emphasized by Brathwaite et al. [29], who found that neutral body messages combined with realistic imagery improved perceptions of moral appropriateness and reinforced the positive impact of the body-positive movement. Conversely, Brown and Tiggemann [31] and Tiggemann et al. [71] reported that captions alone had no significant effect on body satisfaction, underlining the dominant influence of visual content. Breves et al. [30] extended this notion, demonstrating that posts larger-sized influencers fostered a body-neutral environment, promoting healthier behaviors such as exercise, particularly when appearance-focused commentary was absent.

In terms of strategies to reduce self-objectification and body dissatisfaction, the findings were mixed. Alleva et al. [23] indicated that emphasizing body functionality effectively reduces self-objectification, shifting the focus from appearance to practical capabilities. Similarly, Fiuza and Rodgers [46] showed that anti-diet videos increased satisfaction with weight and body shape, while also enhancing intuitive eating and state body appreciation. Visual strategies like “Instagram versus reality” images, examined by Tiggemann and Anderberg [69], were shown to decrease body dissatisfaction, while Tiggemann and Velissaris [90] concluded that reality-checking comments reduced body dissatisfaction but had no measurable impact on appearance comparison tendencies. Finally, Lang and Ye [76] reiterated that some forms of body-positive content may inadvertently reinforce beauty standards, increasing social comparisons and appearance anxiety among certain demographics (for details see Table 3).

Table 3.

Sociodemographic characteristics of the studies included in the review

Study reference Country	Experimental Design	Demographics	Narrative Results
Alleva et al. [23]. Netherlands	Randomized Controlled Experimental Study	N = 150 (100% women) Age between 18–30 years [22.05 ± 2.61]	Protective Filtering: Groups using protective filtering strategies had a more positive body image compared to the control group. Body Functionality: The group focusing on body functionality showed reduced self-objectification relative to others. All groups experienced a decrease in positive body image and an increase in self-objectification after viewing the images.
Barnes et al. [24]. United Kingdom	Randomized Controlled Experimental Study	N = 605 (100% women) Age [Mean ± SD]: [23.51 ± 3.13]	Fitspiration Images: Viewing fitspiration images reduced body satisfaction, regardless of the body type shown. Non-Fit Ideal Images: Improved appearance-related self-esteem and mood, unlike fit ideal images, which had the opposite effect. Self-Objectification: No significant changes were observed across groups. Appearance Comparison: Strongly influenced body satisfaction, self-esteem, and mood, especially in the fit ideal group. Exercise Inspiration: Both groups felt inspired to exercise, with no significant differences in inspiration levels.
Barron et al. [25]. United States	Factorial Experimental design	Study 1. N = 180 (34.4% women) Age between 18–33 years [19.12 ± 1.81] Study 2. N = 296 (41.5% women) Age between 20–30 years [26.79 ± 2.65]	Fitspiration Content: Negatively impacted body image and self-compassion in both men and women, reducing body appreciation and satisfaction. Self-Compassion Content: Improved body satisfaction and appreciation across samples, with significant effects on self-compassion only in the community sample. Combined Content: The combination of fitspiration and self-compassion did not clearly buffer fitspiration’s negative effects. Social Comparison: Participants prone to social comparison benefited more from self-compassion content in improving body appreciation. Gender Differences: No significant differences were observed, emphasizing the need for including men in body image research.
Becker et al. [26]. United States	Between-subjects randomized controlled trial	N = 261 participants (100% women) Aged between 21–44 years [31.79 ± 4.40]	Dealized Images: Reduced body satisfaction, body appreciation, functionality appreciation, and mood. Body-Positive Images: Improved body satisfaction, body appreciation, functionality appreciation, and mood, fostering greater body acceptance and satisfaction. Moderating Factors: Rumination: Worsened the negative effects of idealized images. Body Appreciation: Helped buffer against some harmful outcomes.
Binder et al. [27]. Germany	Between-subjects experimental design	N = 286 (50.0% women). Aged between 18–65 years [44.47 ± 13.76]	Appearance-Focused Framing: Reduced positive mood, particularly in overweight individuals, due to upward social comparisons, but had no impact on negative mood or body satisfaction. Social Media vs. Magazine Websites: Social media contexts lowered positive mood and body satisfaction more than magazine websites, likely due to perceived realism and stronger social comparisons. Framing and Context Interaction: No interaction was found, indicating that their effects operate independently. Perceived Realism: The stronger impact of social media suggests that images in this context feel more attainable or comparable, intensifying social comparison effects.
Bissonette Mink and Szymanski [28]. United States	Retrospective ex post facto study	N = 778 (100% women) Age between 18–29 years [18.62 ± 1.04]	Body-positive content and social media literacy, instead of buffering, often intensified these comparisons. Reduced exposure to thin-ideal imagery improved body image, but even non-thin-ideal content prompted comparisons. Peer-generated content was seen as more realistic, heightening its influence. Overall, the findings highlight TikTok’s risks to body image and the need for interventions to reduce appearance-focused content and promote healthier media engagement.
Brathwaite et al. [29]. United States	Between-subjects randomized controlled trial	N = 916 (100% women) Age between 20–78 years [41.91 ± 2.59]	Non-Sexualized Images: Combined with neutral body messages, they enhance perceptions of moral appropriateness and strengthen the impact of the body-positive movement. Cultural Influence: The positive reception of non-sexualized images suggests a shifting preference toward authenticity and empowerment in body representation.
Breves et al. [30]. Germany	Between-subjects experimental study	N = 175 (100% women) Age between 16–30 years [23.05 ± 3.74]	Larger-Sized Influencers: Viewing posts of larger-sized influencers improved well-being, highlighting the benefits of diverse body representation. Peer Comments: Appearance-focused comments reduced positive effects, while posts without comments fostered a body-neutral environment, promoting healthier behaviors like exercise. Engagement Impact: The nature of audience interaction plays a crucial role, as supportive or neutral spaces enhance well-being, whereas appearance-focused commentary undermines positive effects.
Brown and Tiggemann [31]. Australia	Between-subjects experimental study	N = 256 (100% women) Age between 18–30 years [20.23 ± 3.04]	Celebrity Captions: Warning and body positivity captions in celebrity images did not significantly improve women’s body image. Influencer Effect: The perceived authenticity of the messenger may play a role, as celebrity posts, regardless of caption content, may still reinforce appearance ideals.
Campagna et al. [32]. United States	Quasi-experimental design with a nonequivalent control group	N = 304 (100% women) Age [Mean ± SD] [20.95 ± 2.09]	Positive Effects: Viewing a video on how poses alter appearance increased body satisfaction and reduced negative mood. Paradoxical Outcome: Over half intended to use the poses for idealized self-images, undermining the video’s message. Moderating Factors: The video was less effective for those prone to upward comparisons or invested in online self-presentation. Awareness vs. Behavior: While the video raised awareness of unrealistic social media imagery, it did not significantly reduce appearance comparisons.
Castellanos Silva and Steins [33] Germany	Between-subjects randomized controlled trial	N = 226 (82.3% women) Age between 18–40 years [23.13 ± 4.58]	Content Exposure and Body Dissatisfaction: Hegemonic Beauty Ideals: Increased body dissatisfaction. Body Diversity Images: Reduced body dissatisfaction. Gender Differences in Mood: Women: Mood worsened after exposure to idealized content but remained stable with body diversity images. Men: Similar trends observed, but not statistically significant. Moderating Factors: Upward Comparisons and Beauty Ideal Internalization: Increased vulnerability to body dissatisfaction. Self-Perceived Sexual Attractiveness: Acted as a protective factor. Instagram Engagement: Higher engagement with content amplified body dissatisfaction in the hegemonic ideals group, mediated by social comparisons.
Cohen et al. [17] Australia	Randomized Controlled Experimental Study	N = 195 (100% women) Age between 18–30 years [21.69 ± 3.49]	It improves mood and body image. It increases self-objectification as much as content based on the thin ideal.
Couture Bue and Harrison [35]. United States	Factorial Experimental Study	N = 186 (70% women) Age between 18–35 years [23.42 ± 5.05]	Thin-Ideal Media and Body Anxiety: Viewing images with idealized comments increased body anxiety post-exposure. Disclaimer comments did not significantly reduce body anxiety compared to idealized comments. Visual Attention (Eye-Tracking): No differences in attention to models between conditions. Participants in the disclaimer condition focused more on comments, indicating different cognitive processing. Disclaimer comments prevented increases in body anxiety, while idealized comments heightened it.
Cowles et al. [36]. United Kingdom	Between-subjects randomized controlled trial	N = 195 (100% women) Age between 18–30 years [21.21 ± 2.9]	Positive mood increased in all conditions. The combined condition (images and captions) improved body satisfaction and mood. Body Satisfaction: Exposing participants to body-positive images significantly improved body satisfaction. This result suggests that the representation of diverse and real bodies on Instagram can help young women feel more comfortable and positive about their own body image, reducing the pressure to conform to ideal beauty standards. Emotional Resilience: Participants with higher emotional resilience (those who are better able to cope with body image-related stress or criticism) showed more positive effects on both mood and body satisfaction. This suggests that the impact of body-positive content may also depend on the personal characteristics of the women exposed to these messages.
Cunha et al. [37]. United Kingdom	Mixed factorial experimental design	N = 201 (100% women) Age between 18–40 years [ 29.44 ± 6.74]	Positive Effects: Exposure reduced negative mood and expanded conceptualizations of beauty compared to mainstream body-positive content, promoting positive body image. Limited Impact: No significant effects on positive affect or appearance satisfaction, suggesting these require longer-term interventions. Mechanisms: Benefits were not mediated by appearance comparisons, pointing to the roles of representation and social support.
Danthinne et al. [38] United States	Between-subjects randomized controlled trial	N = 568 (100% women) Age between 18–30 years [25.38 ± 3.52]	Participants with high levels of thin ideal internalization reported lower body satisfaction and more negative mood after the exposure to a body positive video.
Davies et al. [39]. United Kingdom	Randomized Controlled Experimental Study	N = 109 Age between 18–25 years [21.58 ± 1.54] 100% women	Fitspiration subtitles increased negative mood. Body positive subtitles caused higher body self-esteem. Positive comments may have a protective value for women’s body self-esteem.
Dhadly et al. [40]. Canada	Randomized Controlled Experimental Study	N = 156 Age between 18–28 [18.44 ± 1.07] years 100% women	Body positive videos increase body satisfaction and decrease negative affect. Body-centered videos decrease body satisfaction and positive affect while increasing negative affect. Body positive content on TikTok can be positive for body image.
Di Michele et al. [41]. Italy	Between-subjects randomized controlled trial	Study 1, N = 356 [24.98 ± 3.69] Study 2, N = 316 [23.87 ± 4.19] Age between 19–32 years	Body-Positive Content Benefits: Increased body satisfaction and positive mood compared to beauty ideal content, which decreased these outcomes. Downward Comparison: Mediated the positive effects of body-positive content, with stronger effects among individuals with higher problematic social network use (PSNSU). Contradictions in Body-Positive Content: Emphasized appearance, potentially undermining its broader goals. Self-Objectification and Surgery Intentions: Unaffected by body-positive content, but higher PSNSU was linked to increased self-objectification and intentions for cosmetic surgery. PSNSU as a Moderator: Played a critical role in influencing body image outcomes.
Evens et al. [75]. Netherlands	Retrospective ex post facto design	N = 20 (100% women) Age between 18–25 years [21.00 ± 2.34]	Four major themes emerged: critiquing beauty ideals, appreciating physical and functional body attributes, focusing on personality and values over appearance, and reframing past experiences with negative body image. These strategies helped participants sustain positive body image and focus on valued life domains like family and aspirations. Past negative body image experiences were reframed as protective resources for maintaining a positive perspective. Accepting social networks played a crucial role in fostering unconditional body acceptance.
Fardouly et al. [42] Australia	Repeated measures design	N = 159 Age between 18–25 years [20.92 ± 2.21] 100% women	Viewing body positive and appearance neutral posts over a two-week period can reduce body dissatisfaction. Exposure to body positive posts can reduce appearance comparison tendency.
Fasoli and Constantinou [43]. United Kingdom	Randomized Controlled Experimental Study	N = 207 Age < 35 years [21.86 ± 3.51] 54.6% women (n = 113)	Content focused on the idealized body appearance decreases positive mood and body satisfaction. Body positive content increases body satisfaction and reduces the desire for thinness.
Fasoli et al. [44]. United Kingdom	Randomized Controlled Experimental Study	N = 170 (100% women) Age between 18–65 years [35.54 ± 11.81]	Body positive and humorous images generate more ‘likes,’ are perceived as critiques of the thin ideal, and improve body satisfaction and mood.
Fioravanti et al. [45]. United States	Repeated measures design	N = 122 (100% women) Age average [Mean ± SD]=[22.29 ± 2.26]	Daily exposure to body positive images increases positive mood and body satisfaction. Daily exposure to fitspiration images increases negative mood and appearance comparison.
Fiuza and Rodgers [46]. United States	Between-subjects randomized controlled trial	N = 398 Age between 18-21years[19.49 ± 1.10] 100% women	Exposure to anti-diet videos increases weight and shape satisfaction, state body appreciation and state intuitive eating.
Glaser et al. [47]. Netherlands	Between-subjects randomized controlled trial	N = 28 (79% women) Age between 18–24 years [21.86 ± 1.33]	Thin Ideal Content: Women experienced negative emotions due to upward comparisons. Body Positivity Content: Evoked positive emotions in women by challenging beauty norms without triggering comparisons. Fitness Content: Viewed primarily by men, it was perceived as motivational rather than distressing. Lifestyle Content: Elicited neutral emotions by emphasizing context over appearance. Gender Differences: Women faced broader emotional impacts and comparisons, while men reported mainly positive reactions. Awareness: The study heightened participants’ self-awareness of Instagram’s influence on their body image.
Graham et al. [48]. New Zealand	Between-subjects randomized controlled trial	N = 554 (100% women) Age between 17–47 years [19.7 ± 2.77]	The results revealed that interspersing body-positive posts with thin-ideal content did not reduce the harmful impacts of thin-ideal exposure.
Hepburn and Mulgrew [49] Australia	Between-subjects randomized controlled trial	N = 308 (100% women) Age between 17–30 years [21.53 ± 3.66]	Exposure to diverse images increased appearance satisfaction and body appreciation, with no changes to functionality satisfaction. All conditions improved in self-objectification. Diverse images resulted in more favourable social comparisons.
Joiner et al. [50]. United Kingdom	Between-subjects randomized controlled trial	Study 1: N = 262 (100% women) Age between 18–25 years[20.09 ± 2.45] Study 2: N = 280 (100% women) Age between 18–25 years[21.29 ± 1.80] Study 3: N = 375 (100% women) Age between 18–25 years [22.54 ± 1.84]	Effects on Body Satisfaction: Videos featuring large dancers improved body satisfaction, while videos with thin dancers reduced body satisfaction, though significance varied. Social Comparison: Downward Comparison (with large dancers): Increased body satisfaction. Upward Comparison (with thin dancers): Decreased body satisfaction. Moderating and Mediating Factors: Internalization of the thin ideal and appearance comparison traits did not moderate the effects. Direction of comparison fully mediated the body satisfaction outcomes.
Kharkwal et al. [51]. United States	Between-subjects randomized controlled trial	N = 375 (100% women) Age between 18–25 years [22.54 ± 1.84]	Plus-Size Models: Ads with plus-size models led to less appearance comparison and higher body satisfaction than those with thin models. Messaging Impact: Health and wellness slogans improved gym perceptions more than physique-focused slogans. Membership Intentions: Plus-size models paired with wellness messaging increased gym membership intentions. Effective Strategies: Realistic body representation and health-focused messaging fostered the most positive engagement.
Kvardova et al. [52]. Czech Republic	Survey design	N = 1530 (50% women) Age between 13–18 years (15.4 ± 1.7)	No Significant Relationships: Unrealistic beauty standards and alignment of body-positive content with appearance-focused ideals may explain the lack of direct or indirect effects. Intentional searching for body-positive content enhanced its positive impact on body satisfaction and appreciation. Non-Moderating Factors: Self-esteem, gender, and body-ideal internalization did not influence these associations.
Ladwig et al. [53]. Germany	Randomized Controlled Experimental Study	N = 210 (100% women) Age between 18–61 years [29.16 ± 7.40]	Fitspiration Content: Increases body dissatisfaction and decreases positive affect, highlighting its harmful effects. Body Positivity and Neutrality: Body Positivity reduces body dissatisfaction, maintains positive affect, and decreases negative affect, while Body Neutrality reduces body dissatisfaction and negative affect but lowers positive affect.
Lang and Ye [76]. China	Qualitative design	N = 24 (100% women) Age between 13–18 years (15.4 ± 1.7)	Mainstream Beauty Ideals: Idealized depictions emphasize thin, curvy bodies, flawless skin, and perfect features, promoting unhealthy beauty standards. Some participants stressed moderation, but often within unrealistic ideals, influenced by cultural and modern social media trends. Impact of Beauty Ideals: Beauty standards consume time and energy, fostering self-objectification and limiting women’s growth. While some saw makeup skills as a positive outcome, internalization of beauty ideals often reinforced negative self-perceptions. Body Positivity Perspectives: Participants criticized the movement’s lack of professionalism and focus on appearance. They noted body-positive content often perpetuates beauty norms, creating upward comparisons and anxiety. Suggestions included targeting youth through educational interventions and professional leadership in the movement. Influence of Body-Positive Content: Such content helped challenge unrealistic beauty standards, promote diversity, and encourage self-acceptance. However, concerns arose over reduced self-care motivation and negative impacts on content creators facing criticism.
Mancin et al. [54]. Italy	Retrospective ex post facto study	N = 185 (100% women) Age between 19–27 years (21.58 ± 1.44)	Associations with Negative Body Image (BDD Symptoms): Following Instagram beauty content was initially linked to body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) symptoms but became insignificant after accounting for appearance comparison and internalization of attractiveness ideals. Viewing body-positive content was associated with BDD symptoms, potentially due to the emphasis on appearance or exposure to thin and fit praise within such content. Appearance comparison and internalization of beauty ideals were consistent predictors of BDD symptoms. Associations with Positive Body Image: Neither following beauty nor body-positive accounts was significantly related to positive body image dimensions (e.g., body appreciation, body functionality appreciation). This contrasts with experimental studies suggesting a positive impact of body-positive content, highlighting potential differences between real-life usage and controlled settings. Instagram Filter Use: High-frequency filter users showed greater engagement with beauty-related accounts, appearance comparison, and internalization of attractiveness ideals than non-users. Filter use was not directly associated with BDD symptoms or positive body image dimensions, suggesting its role as an appearance-focused behavior rather than a direct influencer of body image.
Manning and Mulgrew [55] Australia	Between-subjects randomized controlled trial	N = 233 (100% women) Age between 18–30 years [22.50 ± 3.52]	Viewing images of diverse women with or without body positive captions or cityscape images increase body appreciation and positive mood. Appearance satisfaction only increased in the body positive conditions, with a larger effect size in the caption condition.
Mechielsen and Mussap [96]. Australia	Between-subjects randomized controlled trial	N = 185 (100% women) Age between 18–40 years [25.06 ± 7.70]	Thin and Fit Models: Viewing these images increased women’s body dissatisfaction and lowered self-esteem, reflecting the harmful effects of idealized imagery. Plus-Size Models: Exposure reduced body dissatisfaction and depression while boosting self-esteem, highlighting the benefits of diverse body representation in media. Men: Viewing lean male models had little effect on body image, likely due to their aspirational yet attainable appearance. Cognitive Shifts: Fitspiration content increased the desire for body change and normalized dieting/exercise as necessary for achieving ideal bodies. These behaviors, often driven by appearance-focused goals, are linked to negative mental health outcomes.
Mulgrew and Courtney [56] Australia	Between-subjects randomized controlled trial	N = 318 Age between 17–30 years [22.19 ± 3.86] 100% women	Appearance and functionality satisfaction were highest after viewing the functionality images and functionality with fitspiration images.
Nelson et al. [57] United States	Randomized Controlled Experimental Study	N = 205 (100% women) Age between 18–76 years [40.97 ± 13.41]	Exposure to body positive content leads to a higher level of body appreciation and satisfaction regardless of age. No significant differences are found in self-objectification.
Price et al. [58]. United Kingdom	Between-subjects randomized controlled trial	N = 693 (100% women) Age between 18–60 years [36.95 ± 12.34]	Negative Effects of “Thin-Ideal” Imagery: Viewing “thin-ideal” images significantly reduced BI across all participants, regardless of self-esteem, confirming prior research on the detrimental impact of such imagery. Positive Effects of “Average” Body Imagery: Viewing “average” body images improved BI, particularly among women with lower self-esteem. This supports the body positivity movement’s push for diverse and inclusive representation. Role of Social Comparison: While “thin-ideal” imagery induced upward comparisons detrimental to BI, “average” body imagery facilitated downward comparisons, which were beneficial for BI among those with low self-esteem.
Rodgers and Nowicki [59]. United States	Retrospective ex post facto study	N = 192 (100% women) Age average [Mean ± SD]=[51.03 ± 8.65]	User Profiles: Four profiles were identified: two with low social media engagement and two with high engagement. Among the latter, body image concerns varied, being higher in those who edited their photos less. Content Type: There was no clear distinction between body-positive and fitness-related content; both were consumed simultaneously, reflecting an overlap in the messages of these categories. Effects of Body-Positive Content: Body-positive content did not consistently improve body image among midlife women, possibly due to its focus on youthful ideals. Awareness of Negative Effects: The most active users were also the most aware of social media’s negative effects, but this awareness did not always lead to reduced usage.
Rodgers et al. [60]. United States	Between-subjects randomized controlled trial	N = 350 (100% women) Age average [Mean ± SD]=[21.87 ± 2.28]	Image Type Effects: No significant differences in body image or mood between edited selfies and unedited selfies without labels. Unedited selfies with labels slightly improved body image compared to edited selfies, though effects were modest and limited. Role of Social Media Literacy: High social media literacy enhanced benefits from labeled unedited selfies, improving body image. Low literacy participants reported better appearance satisfaction after viewing edited selfies, possibly due to aspirational processing. Appearance Comparisons: Mediated the relationship between social media exposure and body image outcomes. Labels did not reduce comparison tendencies, challenging their assumed role in mitigating harmful effects.
Rodgers et al. [61]. United States	Between-Subjects Experimental Study	N = 176 (100% women) Age between 18–25 years [21.77 ± 2.35]	The content with only text was categorized as the most helpful for body satisfaction and mood. Reduction of the negative influence of social media: The study also revealed that the body-positive video helped participants mitigate the negative effects of exposure to idealized images on social media. Women who watched the video showed a greater ability to cope with the aesthetic pressure from social media, suggesting that this type of content can act as a “shield” against the harmful effects of ideal beauty standards prevalent on platforms like Instagram. Improvements in mood: Participants also experienced an increase in their emotional well-being and mood after watching the video. The body-positive content not only had a positive impact on body image but also contributed to greater self-acceptance and satisfaction, leading to an overall improvement in mood.
Rodgers et al. [61] United States	Qualitative research design, specifically an interview-based approach	N = 33 (66.7% women) Age between 14–25 years [19.6 ± 2.57]	Helpful Content: Posts emphasizing the curated nature of social media and promoting body appreciation were seen as most beneficial for body image. Individual Differences: Those actively challenging appearance ideals found these posts especially helpful. Individuals with greater body acceptance viewed them as less impactful.
Sanzari et al. [62]. United States	Cohort study	Cohort 1. N = 359 (54.9% women) Age average [Mean ± SD]=[19.38 ± 2.87] Cohort 2. N = 267 (54.3% women) Age average [Mean ± SD]= [19.05 ± 1.50]	Increased Social Media Use: The 2022 cohort spent more time on social media, attributed in part to the COVID-19 pandemic, and engaged with diverse content, including weight loss and body positivity/neutrality themes. Higher Body Image Disturbances: Participants in 2022 reported significantly greater body image disturbances and disordered eating behaviors compared to the 2015 cohort. Content vs. Usage: Time spent on social media and the number of platforms used were not consistently linked to negative outcomes. Weight loss content was associated with lower body appreciation, greater fears of negative appearance evaluation, and more frequent binge eating. Body-Positive/Neutral Content: Showed neither harmful nor protective effects, potentially due to heightened appearance comparisons even with positive themes.
Schettino et al. [63]. Italy	Retrospective ex post facto study	N = 493 (100% women) Age average [Mean ± SD]=[23.9 ± 3.1]	Self-Objectification and Body Surveillance: Viewing sexualized body-positive selfies increased body surveillance, where women internalize an observer’s perspective and evaluate themselves based on appearance. Body Dissatisfaction: Higher body surveillance led to reduced body satisfaction, consistent with prior research linking objectifying media exposure to negative self-perceptions. Cosmetic Surgery Acceptance: An indirect relationship was found between viewing these selfies and acceptance of cosmetic surgery. Mediated by increased body surveillance and dissatisfaction, with social approval as the primary motivation rather than personal desire. Social Motivations: Societal appearance norms drive surgery considerations, emphasizing the impact of external pressures over internal needs.
Seekis and Lawrence [64]. Australia	Randomized Controlled Experimental Study	N = 189 (100% women) Age average [Mean ± SD]=[19.25 ± 1.98]	Positive Effects of Body Neutrality Content: Increased functionality appreciation, body satisfaction, and positive mood compared to thin ideal content. Reduced upward appearance comparisons relative to thin ideal content. Comparison with Thin Ideal and Art Content: Women exposed to body neutrality content had more positive thoughts about their appearance and attire than those in the thin ideal group. Upward comparisons were slightly higher than in the art group.
Simon and Hurst [65]. United Kingdom	Randomized Controlled Experimental Study	N = 167 (81.8% women) Age between 18–29 years	Medium-Sized Body Images: Increased positive mood compared to the control group. No significant effects on negative mood or body satisfaction. Healthy Choices: No differences in health-related decisions between the medium-sized body and control groups.
Stein et al. [92]. Germany	Randomized Controlled Experimental Study	Study 1. N = 191 (100% women) Age average [Mean ± SD]=[27.46 ± 7.81] Study 2. N = 266 (100% women) Age average [Mean ± SD]=[26.12 ± 9.69]	Impact of #BoPo Content: Encouraged selection of a wider range of body shapes, moving away from thin ideals. Increased comfort and positivity about participants’ own bodies. Inclusivity: #BoPo content promotes a broader and more inclusive perception of body types, challenging traditional thin-ideal norms.
Stevens and Griffiths [66]. Australia	Repeated measures design	N = 112 (83.2% women) Age between 18–50 years [19.53 ± 3.63]	Viewing body positive content is associated with greater body satisfaction and positive affect, and lower negative affect. Daily exposure seems beneficial for psychological well-being.
Sullivan et al. [67] United States	Between-subjects randomized controlled trial	N = 283 (63.3% women) Age between 18–25 years [18.77 ± 1.05]	Positive Content Effects: Both photo-based body positivity and self-compassion text-only content increased state body appreciation, with self-compassion content also improving state body satisfaction and self-compassion. Body positivity content did not significantly impact these additional outcomes. Comparison of Conditions: No significant differences were found between the two types of positive content, although self-compassion content had slightly stronger effects on body satisfaction and self-compassion. Appearance Comparisons: Participants with high appearance comparison tendencies benefited more from both positive content types. For those low in comparisons, body positivity content improved body appreciation, while self-compassion content enhanced body satisfaction. Gender Differences: Men reported higher overall body appreciation, satisfaction, and self-compassion, but women showed larger improvements in body satisfaction, possibly due to lower starting levels. Control Group Findings: The control group unexpectedly showed increased body satisfaction, potentially due to the positive effects of neutral, non-appearance-focused content, as supported by prior research.
Talbot et al. [68]. Australia	Between-subjects randomized controlled trial	N = 92 (100% women) Age between 18–48 years [22.1 ± 5.7]	Positive Exposure Effect: Viewing images of plus-size models reduced body dissatisfaction and improved participants’ mood, with a stronger impact on mood compared to body dissatisfaction. Influence on Comments: Participants tended to leave comments aligned with the tone of pre-existing comments (positive or negative), supporting normative social influence theory. Limited Impact of BMI: BMI did not significantly affect changes in body dissatisfaction or mood, nor did it predict the likelihood of leaving negative comments. However, a non-significant trend (p = 0.061) suggested that underweight or healthy-weight participants experienced greater mood improvements. High Rate of Positive Comments: Most comments were positive across all conditions (87% in the positive condition, 50% in the neutral condition, and 45% in the negative condition), indicating a general tendency toward body positivity.
Tiggemann and Zinoviev [70]. Australia	Between-subjects randomized controlled trial	N = 204 (100% women) Age between 17–30 years [20.26 ± 2.62]	Effects of Enhancement-Free Images: Viewing enhancement-free images reduced facial dissatisfaction compared to standard Instagram images, likely because they provide more realistic comparison targets and reduce upward social comparisons. Impact of Hashtags: Enhancement-free images with hashtags increased facial dissatisfaction compared to the same images without hashtags, suggesting hashtags recalibrate viewers’ attractiveness judgments and diminish the positive effects of natural images. Moderation by Self-Photo Manipulation: Women who frequently edit their own photos experienced greater facial dissatisfaction when viewing standard images. Self-photo manipulation and investment were linked to increases in facial dissatisfaction, even after brief exposure. No Effects on Body Dissatisfaction: Neither enhancement-free images nor hashtags affected body dissatisfaction, likely due to the focus on faces in Instagram selfies and minimal body alterations in the images used.
Tiggemann and Anderberg [69]. Australia	Between-subjects randomized controlled trial	N = 305 (100% women) Age between 18–30 years [25.34 ± 2.98]	Instagram vs. reality’ images and realistic images reduce body dissatisfaction and the harmful effects of appearance comparison, while enhancing body satisfaction.
Tiggemann et al. [71]. Australia	Between-subjects randomized controlled trial	N = 384 (100% women) Age between 17–30 years [20.27 ± 2.52]	Body-positive captions had no effect on body dissatisfaction. Images of average-sized bodies resulted in lower body dissatisfaction and greater body appreciation. It is suggested that images are more impactful than any accompanying text.
Varaona et al. [72]. Spain	Survey Study	N = 1051 (100% women) Age between 18–50 years [30.58 ± 8.9]	Instagram Use and Self-Criticism: Spending over 3 h daily on Instagram is linked to increased self-criticism across all age groups, consistent with prior studies associating social media use with perfectionism and self-critical behaviors. Content Type and Body Dissatisfaction: Viewing sports, fitness, lifestyle, and family or friends’ content predicts higher body dissatisfaction, while beauty or fashion content heightens self-criticism among younger users (18–35 years), likely due to upward social comparisons. Appearance Comparisons: Body dissatisfaction is driven more by the type of content and comparison tendencies than by overall usage time. Edited fitness or personal images intensify appearance-related comparisons. Self-Compassion: Instagram use and content type showed no significant link to self-compassion, except for humor content, which negatively impacted it. The “body positive” movement may mitigate some negative effects by fostering self-acceptance. Age Differences: Younger users are more affected by beauty-related content, while older users (35–50 years) demonstrate greater resilience, likely due to more realistic self-image expectations and higher psychological well-being. Interventions: Promoting self-compassion and reducing social comparisons could mitigate Instagram’s negative effects on self-criticism and body dissatisfaction, improving overall well-being. Broader Social Media Impact: Prolonged social media use has been linked to anxiety, depression, and perfectionism. Problematic use exacerbates these issues, resembling addictive behaviors.
Yue and Tang [73]. China	Survey Study	N = 554 (100% women) Age between 18–29 years [21.6 ± 2.1]	Idealized Content: Leads to upward comparisons, lowering body esteem, and downward comparisons, improving appearance esteem but not weight esteem. Non-Idealized Content: Reduces upward comparisons and appearance anxiety but doesn’t affect weight esteem or trigger downward comparisons. Comparisons and Body Esteem: Upward Comparisons: Negatively affected body esteem by fostering feelings of inferiority. Downward Comparisons: Improved appearance esteem but could undermine confidence when tied to fears of resembling less idealized individuals. Self-Objectification: Intensifies upward comparisons and worsens the impact of idealized content on body esteem.

Methods quality assessment

The quality analysis of the articles included in this review, assessed using the PEDro scale, revealed that 11 studies achieved excellent methodological quality, with scores of 8 or 9 [8, 40, 42–44, 55, 56, 65, 67, 71, 82]. These studies demonstrated strong methodological designs, characterized by robust randomization, baseline equivalence, and adequate statistical reporting.

Eighteen studies demonstrated good methodological quality, with scores ranging from 6 to 7 [23, 24, 26, 29, 31, 33, 35, 36, 38, 48–51, 53, 64, 68–70]. While meeting most of the key methodological criteria, these studies had limitations such as a lack of blinding or concealed allocation, which impacted their scores.

A smaller proportion of studies, specifically ten articles, were rated as having fair methodological quality, with scores between 3 and 5 [25, 32, 41, 47, 54, 58, 59, 61–63]. These studies frequently lacked key methodological components such as random allocation, baseline equivalence, or adequate reporting of statistical comparisons.

Finally, three studies were assessed using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research. One study demonstrated high methodological quality, scoring 9 out of 10 [66]. This study effectively addressed key criteria such as data collection methods, participant sampling, and ethical considerations. However, it lacked explicit discussion regarding researcher reflexivity, limiting the evaluation of potential biases. The remaining two studies were rated as having moderate methodological quality, scoring 8 out of 10 each [32, 80]. While these studies presented well-defined data collection strategies and clear links between results and conclusions, they lacked sufficient information on the philosophical underpinnings of the research and did not address the influence of the researcher on the data collection and interpretation process [75, 76, 77] Table 1 provides a detailed breakdown of the methodological quality of each study and the specific criteria met or not met. Similarly, Table 2 provides a detailed breakdown of the methodological quality of each study and the specific criteria met or not met.

Meta-analyses

Psychological variables

Body Satisfaction and dissatisfaction

The evaluation of body satisfaction was conducted using a Visual Analog Scale (VAS). A total of k = 8 studies were included in the meta-analysis, using a random-effects model with the REML estimator. The calculated overall estimated effect size was 0.3531 (95% CI: 0.0914 to 0.6149) demonstrating statistical significance (Z = 2.6440, p = 0.0082) (Fig. 2). The results revealed considerable heterogeneity (I² = 80.93%, τ² = 0.1160), confirmed by a highly significant heterogeneity test (Q₍₇₎ = 34.0977, p < 0.0001), indicating that variability across studies exceeded what would be expected from sampling error alone. The funnel plot asymmetry analysis did not show evidence of significant publication bias (t = − 0.3122, p = 0.7654), although the intercept estimate (b = 0.6730) suggested some slight asymmetry, which should be cautiously interpreted. The influence diagnostics indicated that no individual study exerted disproportionate influence, although a few studies had a moderate effect on the overall results.

Fig. 2.

Meta-analysis using a random-effects model of selected studies examining body satisfaction was conducted using a Visual Analog Scale (VAS). The plot illustrates the standardized mean differences (SMD) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each study included in the meta-analysis. The vertical dashed line represents the overall estimated effect size, while horizontal lines indicate the 95% CI for each study. The green squares depict the individual study estimates, with their sizes proportional to the weight of each study in the analysis. The diamond shape at the bottom indicates the overall weighted effect size. In the study by Di Michele, one study was conducted using Instagram (a) and another using TikTok (b). The meta-analysis reveals a significant heterogeneity among the studies (I² = 81%), and the overall effect favors the experimental group (Z = 2.6440, p = 0.0082). The figure was generated using RevMan software

In contrast, body dissatisfaction was also evaluated using the VAS. A total of k = 4 studies were included in the meta-analysis, employing a random-effects model with the REML estimator. The overall estimated effect size was 0.3799 (95% CI: −3.8383 to 4.5982), which was not statistically significant (Z = 0.1765, p = 0.8599). The analysis revealed no heterogeneity (I² = 0.00%, τ2 = 0), as confirmed by a non-significant test for heterogeneity (Q₍₃₎ = 2.4724, p = 0.4803). The funnel plot asymmetry test approached statistical significance (t = 4.2550, p = 0.0510), pointing to potential publication bias, with a bias intercept estimate of − 23.4437 (95% CI: −47.7521 to 0.8647). Influence diagnostics identified one study with significant impact on the results.

Body Appreciation

The evaluation of body appreciation was conducted using the Body Appreciation Scale 2 (BAS-2) to measure trait, while state was assessed using the VAS tool.

A total of k = 4 studies were included in the meta-analysis for BAS-2, using a random-effects model with the REML estimator to evaluate the trait of body appreciation. The overall estimated effect size was 0.2273 (95% CI: 0.0329 to 0.4217), which was statistically significant (Z = 2.2921, p = 0.0219) (Fig. 3). The analysis revealed moderate heterogeneity (I² = 38.92%, τ² = 0.0153), though the test for heterogeneity was not significant (Q₍₃₎ = 4.6232, p = 0.2016), suggesting that some variability between studies might be due to random sampling error. The funnel plot asymmetry test did not indicate significant publication bias (t = 2.3850, p = 0.1398), although influence diagnostics identified two studies with higher impact on the results.

Fig. 3.

A meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model to evaluate body appreciation, as measured by the Body Appreciation Scale 2 (BAS-2). The plot displays the standardized mean differences (SMD) along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each study included in the analysis. The vertical dashed line represents the overall estimated effect size, while the horizontal lines indicate the 95% CIs for the individual studies. Green squares correspond to the effect sizes of the individual studies, with their sizes reflecting the weight of each study in the overall analysis. The diamond symbol at the bottom of the plot represents the overall weighted effect size. The results of the meta-analysis reveal low heterogeneity among the studies (I² = 38.92%), with a significant overall positive effect favoring the experimental groups (Z = 2.2921, p = 0.0219). The figure was generated using RevMan software

A total of k = 7 studies were included in the meta-analysis for VAS, using a random-effects model with the REML estimator to evaluate the state of body appreciation. A total of k = 7 studies were included in the meta-analysis, employing a random-effects model with the REML estimator. The overall estimated effect size was 0.0576 (95% CI: −0.1154 to 0.2306), which was not statistically significant (Z = 0.6527, p = 0.5139). The analysis revealed moderate heterogeneity (I² = 52.33%, τ² = 0.0282), with the test for heterogeneity approaching significance (Q₍₆₎ = 12.5823, p = 0.0502), suggesting that variability among studies may be partially attributable to factors beyond sampling error. The funnel plot asymmetry test did not indicate significant publication bias (t = 2.0110, p = 0.1005), although the intercept estimate (b = − 1.1013) suggests the possibility of mild asymmetry. Influence diagnostics showed no extreme outliers, though individual studies varied in their contributions to the pooled result.

Emotional states

Positive mood

Positive mood was assessed using the Positive and Negative Affect Scales (PANAS) and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS).

For the PANAS results, a total of four studies (k = 4) were incorporated into the meta-analysis, utilizing a random-effects model with the REML estimator. The overall estimated effect size was − 0.1156 (95% CI: −1.4783 to 1.2470), which did not reach statistically significance (Z = − 0.1663, p = 0.8679). The analysis indicated high heterogeneity (I² = 98.05%, τ² = 1.8936), further supported by a statistically significant test for heterogeneity (Q₍₃₎ = 109.7131, p < 0.0001). The funnel plot asymmetry test did not indicate significant publication bias (t = − 2.1849, p = 0.1605). Influence diagnostics identified one study exerting a notable impact on the overall findings.Regarding the VAS results, a total of k = 7 studies were included in the meta-analysis, applying a random-effects model with the REML estimator. The overall effect size was 0.2858 (95% CI: 0.1036 to 0.4679), which was statistically significant (Z = 3.0751, p = 0.0021) (Fig. 4). The analysis revealed moderate heterogeneity (I² = 59.46%, τ² = 0.0355), supported by a significant test for heterogeneity (Q₍₆₎ = 14.3922, p = 0.0255), suggesting that variability across studies exceeds what would be expected by chance alone. The funnel plot asymmetry test did not indicate substantial publication bias (t = 0.1558, p = 0.8823), and the intercept estimate (b = 0.1599) suggests no meaningful asymmetry.

Fig. 4.

Meta-analysis using a random-effects model to evaluate positive mood, as assessed with the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). The plot displays standardized mean differences (SMD) along with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each study included in the analysis. The vertical dashed line represents the overall estimated effect size, while the horizontal lines denote the 95% CI for individual studies. Green squares illustrate the effect sizes of individual studies, with their dimensions corresponding to the relative weight of each study in the overall analysis. The diamond shape at the bottom signifies the pooled effect size across studies. The results suggest moderate heterogeneity among the included studies (I² = 58%), in favor of the experimental group. The figure was generated using RevMan software

Negative mood

The evaluation of negative mood was conducted using the Positive and Negative Affect Scales (PANAS) and the VAS scale.

The results of the PANAS included a total of k = 4 studies in the meta-analysis, which was conducted using a random-effects model with the REML estimator. The overall estimated effect size was − 0.2495 (95% CI: −0.6021 to 0.1031), which was not statistically significant (Z = − 1.3870, p = 0.1654). The analysis revealed substantial heterogeneity (I² = 73.28%, τ² = 0.0947), confirmed by a significant test for heterogeneity (Q₍₃₎ = 10.9681, p = 0.0119), indicating that variability among studies is likely due to factors beyond random sampling error. The funnel plot asymmetry test did not reveal significant publication bias (t = 1.0310, p = 0.4109), although the intercept estimate (b = − 2.7844) suggests minor asymmetry. Influence diagnostics identified two studies with notable impacts on the overall model, emphasizing the importance of cautious interpretation.

The results of the VAS included a total of k = 9 studies in the meta-analysis, which was conducted using a random-effects model with the REML estimator. The overall estimated effect size was − 0.1287 (95% CI: −0.2804 to 0.0229), which was not statistically significant (Z = − 1.6635, p = 0.0962). The analysis revealed moderate heterogeneity (I² = 63.75%, τ² = 0.0331), with a significant test for heterogeneity (Q₍₈₎ = 21.5415, p = 0.0058), indicating that variability among studies exceeds what would be expected by chance alone. The funnel plot asymmetry test suggested potential publication bias (t = − 5.4429, p = 0.0010), with an intercept estimate (b = 0.7456) indicating asymmetry. Influence diagnostics identified one study with a notably high impact on the pooled estimate, while other studies contributed moderately to the overall results.

Discussion

A growing body of evidence suggests that social media’s influence extends beyond body image perception and may be associated with health and eating behaviors. Ren et al. [93] propose that exposure to unrealistic beauty ideals on social media may contribute to objectification and social comparison, both of which have been linked to an increased risk of eating disorders and body anxiety. The internalization of these beauty ideals, facilitated by repeated exposure to visual content related to body image, has been associated with restrictive dieting practices and potentially harmful behaviors, such as the adoption of unhealthy eating habits or consideration of cosmetic procedures [10, 94].

In response to these challenges, the body-positive movement has emerged, promoting acceptance, appreciation, and respect for all body types. It seeks to shift the focus from appearance to body functionality and health [21, 95]. Social media platforms like Instagram have become key spaces for spreading this message and countering unrealistic representations of beauty [15, 21, 26]. Central to this movement is the dissemination of content tagged with hashtags like #bodypositive and #bodypositivity. These posts increase the visibility of bodies traditionally excluded from mainstream media while fostering online communities that promote mutual support and acceptance [34, 20].

This study represents the first systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize the existing evidence from clinical and experimental studies examining the potential influence of body-positive content on social media on women’s and men’s body image perception. While extensive research has highlighted the potential risks associated with exposure to idealized images on social media, suggesting that repeated comparisons to unattainable standards may contribute to body dissatisfaction and increase vulnerability to eating disorders and body image-related concerns [2, 12, 46], it is important to recognize that these relationships are complex and influenced by multiple factors. Such content has been associated with heightened self-objectification, which correlates with disordered eating behaviors and mental health challenges, including depression and anxiety [10, 15]. In contrast, the reviewed studies indicate that body-positive content may serve as a protective factor by mitigating some of the negative effects of idealized imagery and promoting a more inclusive and accepting view of body image. The findings highlight significant trends suggesting that such content is linked to improved psychological and emotional outcomes, rather than reinforcing comparisons to conventional beauty standards, as is often the case with the thin ideal.

Overall, exposure to body-positive content such as images and captions promoting body diversity and acceptance tends to improve body satisfaction and positive mood compared to content based on conventional beauty standards [34, 39, 40, 44, 53]. Regular engagement with this content not only fosters a positive body image but also reinforces a more inclusive perception of beauty [45, 66]. However, while body-positive posts help counteract some of the harmful effects associated with conventional beauty standards, their success in reducing self-objectification and body comparison remains limited [17]. Notably, Cohen et al. [17] found that body-positive content can, in some cases, increase self-objectification, indicating that its effectiveness may depend on how the content is presented and interpreted by users. Although the movement aims to promote a more inclusive body image, its continued focus on appearance may unintentionally reinforce body surveillance and comparisons with existing beauty standards [4]. This aligns with the idea that social comparison with appearance-focused images intensifies negative self-assessment and body dissatisfaction [3, 14, 16], which may perpetuate the risk of developing eating disorders.

A main finding is the variability observed in the statistical results of our meta-analysis when examining body dissatisfaction, body functionality, and the internalization of thin ideals. One key factor contributing to these inconsistencies is the distinct nature of the constructs examined. Body dissatisfaction, for instance, is a complex construct that encompasses emotional, cognitive, and perceptual dimensions, making it inherently more resistant to change through brief interventions or experimental manipulations [96]. In contrast, body satisfaction is more closely tied to positive emotions, which can be more easily stimulated through short-term interventions [97]. This distinction may explain why interventions successfully improved body satisfaction but had limited effects on body dissatisfaction. Moreover, the use of tools such as the VAS, which is designed to capture immediate emotional responses rather than deeper cognitive changes, may have further amplified this discrepancy. Similarly, body functionality, which emphasizes the body’s capabilities rather than its aesthetic appearance, may require more sustained or targeted interventions to produce measurable improvements [98]. The meta-analysis also revealed mixed results regarding appearance comparisons. While the frequency of comparisons was higher in the experimental group, the nature of these comparisons appeared to be less detrimental and potentially constructive. This aligns with social comparison theories, suggesting that body-positive content may shift the focus of appearance-related comparisons in a way that fosters self-acceptance rather than reinforcing unattainable beauty ideals. In line with this, the reviewed studies also support prior research indicating that body-positive content can reduce the internalization of unrealistic beauty standards and contribute to a healthier self-perception [17].

These results have important implications for the design and consumption of social media content, highlighting the need for promoting inclusive and diverse representations on digital platforms to foster healthier body relationships, especially in environments dominated by beauty standards that place pressure on women [9]. Fioravanti et al. [45] suggest integrating this approach into interventions aimed at improving body image, encouraging content creators and mental health professionals to promote diverse body representations and consider their overall health impact. Furthermore, strategies that combine positive images with accompanying captions appear to be more effective at improving both mood and body satisfaction than captions alone [36]. This insight offers practical guidance for designing content that fosters a positive body image and encourages healthier self-perception. To maximize its benefits, interventions should not only celebrate body diversity but also challenge the cultural structures that reinforce body surveillance and restrictive beauty ideals [15, 21].

From a cultural perspective, the findings highlight how the body-positive movement attempts to challenge and redefine prevailing beauty standards. However, the persistence of certain ideals within body-positive posts reveals the difficulty in achieving cultural change [4, 18]. In this context, Tiggemann et al. [71] found that visual images have a stronger impact than accompanying text. The presence of conventional beauty ideals and the focus on appearance may limit the movement’s potential to generate substantial cultural change in the perception of beauty.

Some important considerations need to be pointed out regarding the potential limitations identified in our study. Firstly, based on the demographics of the included studies, there appears to be considerable variability in the age ranges of the participants, with studies covering a broad spectrum of ages. For example, some studies include participants with ages ranging from 18 to 30 years, while others span from 18 to 65 years, and even broader ranges such as 13 to 78 years. This suggests that the studies are not homogeneous in terms of age, which may limit the ability to draw definitive conclusions about age-related differences in body image perception across the lifespan. Given the variation in age groups across studies, it would be challenging to make direct comparisons regarding the differential importance of body image aspects at different stages of life, such as the emphasis on body functionality in older adulthood. Furthermore, the lack of specific age subgroups in many studies makes it difficult to assess how body image perceptions evolve over time. This issue could be addressed in future research by including more age-specific cohorts or analyzing the data based on different age categories to examine how the importance of various aspects of body image changes throughout a woman’s lifespan.

Secondly, as part of our methodological approach, we acknowledge the limitation of including only published studies in our systematic review and meta-analysis. While this ensures methodological rigor, reproducibility, and data reliability, it excludes grey literature and unpublished research, which often lack peer review, standardized methodologies, and accessible data necessary for quantitative synthesis. The exclusion of unpublished studies may introduce bias by limiting the available evidence, potentially leading to incomplete reporting, lack of independent verification, and data inconsistencies. Although we followed established guidelines (e.g., PRISMA), this limitation could contribute to publication bias. Additionally, we recognize the need to address the limited diversity of sample populations in the included studies, particularly the over-representation of W.E.I.R.D. (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) samples, a well-documented issue in psychology research. Our review did not yield studies involving non-binary, transgender, or other diverse populations, leading to their exclusion. This was not due to intentional bias but rather the scarcity of studies that included these populations within the context of body image. The underrepresentation of male participants also limits meaningful gender comparisons. Future studies should focus on incorporating a broader range of diverse groups, including non-W.E.I.R.D. populations, and aim for more balanced male and female samples to enhance the generalizability and comprehensiveness of body image research. Finally, the majority of the included studies were quantitative or controlled designs, with 35 studies employing RCTs and similar methods, while only 6 studies used observational or quasi-experimental designs. This disparity may affect the generalizability of our findings. To address this, we conducted subgroup meta-analyses and excluded qualitative studies due to their lack of standardized instruments for statistical synthesis, though their insights were incorporated in the discussion. The predominance of controlled studies strengthens the validity of our conclusions but suggests the need for more diverse study designs in future research.

Future directions and implications

The findings of this review suggest that body-positive content holds promise as an intervention tool for promoting positive body image and mitigating some of the negative effects associated with exposure to idealized beauty standards. However, its impact appears to be more nuanced than previously assumed, highlighting the need for a more targeted and evidence-based approach to its implementation.

A key observation from this meta-analysis is that the effects of body-positive content were stronger when body appreciation was measured as a trait rather than a state. This suggests that while short-term improvements in body perception may be limited, sustained exposure to body-positive content could foster long-term attitudinal changes. Future interventions should therefore prioritize strategies that encourage continued engagement with body-positive messaging, reinforcing positive body attitudes over time rather than relying solely on momentary shifts in perception.

Despite its potential, body-positive content does not consistently reduce body dissatisfaction or the internalization of beauty standards. While it may lessen the harmful impact of appearance comparisons relative to traditional beauty ideals, its effectiveness is influenced by how the content is presented. In some cases, body-positive imagery may still encourage appearance-focused comparisons or reinforce body surveillance, particularly when it aligns with mainstream aesthetic norms on social media. These findings highlight the importance of critically assessing the visual and contextual framing of body-positive messages.

To maximize its benefits, future efforts should focus on content that emphasizes body functionality, self-compassion, and overall psychological well-being rather than appearance alone. Developing evidence-based guidelines for content creators, mental health professionals, and educators will be essential in ensuring that body-positive content effectively promotes healthier body image outcomes while minimizing unintended risks.

Ultimately, while body-positive content represents a promising avenue for fostering positive body attitudes, its potential should be understood within the broader context of social media’s complex influence on body image. Future research should explore the conditions under which body-positive content is most effective, considering individual differences, content presentation, and sociocultural factors. By addressing these nuances, future interventions can enhance the positive impact of body-positive content while mitigating its limitations.

Conclusion

This study highlights that the body-positive movement has gained visibility on social media with the goal of challenging the beauty standards that have shaped perceptions of body image for decades. With the rise of this trend, questions have emerged regarding whether this content truly helps improve women’s and men´s relationship with their bodies. Although the results of the current study suggest positive trends in body image satisfaction, body appreciation, state appearance comparison, and positive mood among users exposed to body-positive content, the overall effects remain cautious due to the limited number of available studies and the resulting lack of stable effect estimations. The findings indicate that images representing body diversity, especially when accompanied by supportive captions or messages, tend to enhance positive perceptions of the body. However, further research is needed to substantiate these initial observations. To maximize the potential benefits of body-positive content, future studies should consider addressing additional factors that contribute to persistent body surveillance and the reinforcement of beauty standards, alongside deeper reflection on underlying cultural norms.

In conclusion, body-positive content on social media may serves as a valuable tool for improving users’s body perception. However, to optimize its effectiveness, it is essential to address factors that maintain body surveillance and beauty standards, including a deeper reflection on the underlying cultural norms.

Author contributions

AMJG performed the statistical analysis, created the figures, wrote, and reviewed the draft and the final manuscript. NA contributed to writing the draft and reviewing the final manuscript. EP conducted the literature search and contributed to writing the draft. AS contributed to writing the draft and reviewing the final manuscript. OGV conducted the literature search, contributed to writing the draft, and reviewed the final manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Ministry of Science and Innovation [MCIN/AEI/ 10.13039/501100011033 and PID2023-151715OB-IOO], and by the European Union Next Generation EU/PRTR[PLEC2022-009464 and CPP2022-009646].

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Informed consent

Informed consent was not necessary for this study.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.