Body image is a complex and multifaceted construct that represents how individuals perceive, think, and feel about their physical selves. This concept is shaped by numerous sociocultural and individual factors, including societal beauty standards, media exposure, and personal experiences (Voelker et al., 2015). Historically, traditional media outlets such as television and magazines played a significant role in shaping body image by predominantly featuring thin, tall, and youthful models as the epitome of beauty (Grabe et al., 2008). While these influences persist, the rapid rise of digital technology and the ubiquity of social media platforms have changed the way body image is constructed and perceived in contemporary society.

Social media platforms, particularly those focused on visual content such as Instagram, have emerged as powerful tools for self-presentation and comparison. Unlike traditional media, where the audience primarily consumed content, social media users are both creators and consumers of content. In Spain, Instagram is the second most used social network, with 74.9 % of the population using it, and the majority of users are young people and women (Martínez-Pérez et al., 2024). This dynamic exposes individuals not only to idealized images of celebrities but also to the curated and often highly idealized representations of their peers (Brown & Tiggemann, 2016; Fardouly & Vartanian, 2015). This peer-driven comparative dynamic makes beauty standards seem more attainable and personally relevant, even if they remain unrealistic (Skowronski et al., 2021). The inherent "affordances" of these platforms, such as editing tools and artificial intelligence (AI) filters, have normalized image manipulation to a point where unattainable beauty ideals have become pervasive (Song et al., 2025).

The impact of exposure to idealized content on body dissatisfaction is well-documented. However, a less explored area concerns the psychological consequences of active participation in photo editing. The process of selection, retouching, and alteration that precedes posting a selfie constitutes an under-researched phenomenon that requires deeper analysis (O’Neill, 2021). Evidence suggests photo editing is associated with greater acceptance of cosmetic surgery and symptoms of body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) (McGovern et al., 2022). Recent literature underscores the importance of distinguishing between frequent and infrequent editors, as these groups often differ in their levels of body satisfaction, coping mechanisms, and psychological outcomes (Çınaroğlu & Yılmazer, 2025). In Spain, studies have already linked Instagram use with body dissatisfaction, low self-esteem, and self-criticism scores in young women and the adult population (González et al., 2025; Varaona et al., 2024).

Social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954) provides a valuable framework for understanding how social media influences body image. On platforms such as Instagram, where images are often heavily edited and filtered, the natural inclination to compare can lead to feelings of inadequacy, lower self-esteem, and body dissatisfaction (Lee & Lee, 2021). This theoretical framework has been validated by recent empirical research. A meta-analysis of experimental and longitudinal studies found a causal and negative effect of viewing appearance-ideal images on body image, suggesting that the social comparison process is the key explanatory mechanism (McComb et al., 2023). Similarly, another meta-analysis found a moderate to strong correlation between greater online social comparison and higher body image concerns (Bonfanti et al, 2025).

Instagram's variety of editing tools and filters allows users to enhance their physical appearance, from smoothing skin to reshaping body proportions (Othman et al., 2021). While these tools provide creative control, they also contribute to the normalization of photo manipulation and the proliferation of unattainable beauty ideals. Frequent engagement in photo editing has been linked to increased body dissatisfaction, reduced self-esteem, and greater psychological distress (Lee-Won et al., 2020; Tiggemann et al., 2020).

To understand how individuals manage the stress arising from these pressures, it is essential to analyze coping strategies. According to Lazarus and Folkman's (1984) transactional model of stress, coping is defined as constantly changing cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage demands that are appraised as taxing. A distinction is made between adaptive strategies (e.g., problem-solving) and maladaptive strategies (e.g., avoidance, denial), which can exacerbate distress. In the context of Instagram, the perceived discrepancy between the "real self" and the "idealized self" acts as a psychological stressor, and photo editing itself can be construed as a coping behavior aimed at reducing this dissonance. However, women who frequently engage in photo editing are more likely to rely on maladaptive coping mechanisms, such as denial and self-distraction, which often perpetuates a cycle of appearance-related anxiety (Lee & Lee, 2021; Tiggemann et al., 2020).

Personality traits also play a crucial role; for example, individuals with high levels of neuroticism are more prone to frequent photo editing due to a heightened sensitivity to appearance-related stress and social feedback (Tiggemann et al., 2020). The impact of these behaviors extends beyond body image, significantly affecting both internal states and interpersonal relationships. Regarding social support, research indicates that individuals who frequently edit their photos experience greater pressure to conform to aesthetic norms, leading to a dependency on external validation through likes and comments (González et al., 2025). This competitive dynamic can foster feelings of isolation and a lower perception of affective and confidant support (Alfonso-Fuertes et al., 2023).

This phenomenon aligns with a general decline in psychological well-being. According to O’Neill (2021), frequent editors report significantly lower levels of autonomy, self-acceptance, and life satisfaction. The psychological investment in photo editing is predictive of higher anxiety, depression, and lower self-esteem, as it intensifies self-objectification and body dissatisfaction. Studies focusing on young Spanish women confirm that this behavior is directly associated with psychological distress, weakening emotional support networks (Alfonso-Fuertes et al., 2023).

Gender differences are particularly pronounced, as women are disproportionately affected by the pressures of appearance-focused platforms. Studies have shown that women are more likely to use photo editing tools to enhance their online presence, reflecting societal expectations that place a high value on female beauty (Othman et al., 2021). The consequences also extend to social relationships, as frequent photo editors report lower levels of perceived social support (Skowronski et al., 2021).

Recent research emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between frequent and infrequent photo editors, as these groups often differ in their levels of body satisfaction, psychological outcomes, and coping mechanisms (Lee & Lee, 2021; Tiggemann et al., 2020). Women who edit their photos more extensively are more likely to define themselves through their physical appearance and report lower psychological well-being, including reduced autonomy and self-acceptance (Othman et al., 2021). In contrast, those who engage less frequently in photo editing tend to have higher levels of self-esteem and more adaptive coping strategies.

The central research problem, therefore, is not simply how viewing images affects users, but how the act of creating and curating a digitally perfected version of oneself impacts body image, coping strategies, and overall well-being. Although the literature has identified correlations between photo editing and negative outcomes, a deeper understanding of the underlying mechanisms is still needed, especially regarding how the frequency of editing modulates these effects.

Therefore, the objectives of this study are twofold: a) to analyze the behaviors related to photo editing of images uploaded to Instagram; and b) to analyze the differences between women who are heavy editors and those who edit their images to a lesser extent, in terms of positive body image and personal well-being. Based on these objectives, we predicted the following hypotheses:

• H1: Women who edit their self-images to a greater extent, will show less positive body image.

• H2: Women who edit their self-images to a greater extent, will show a higher involvement in behaviors to manage physical appearance and definition of themselves.

• H3: Women who edit self-images to a greater extent, will tend to use less adaptive coping strategies, mainly focused on avoiding problems, denial, or self-distraction.

• H4: Women who edit their self-images to a greater extent, will show worse well-being (subjective, psychological, self-esteem, and social support) than those who edit their images to a lesser extent.

Methods

Participants

The study sample consisted of 395 female Instagram users, recruited via non-probability snowball sampling. The age range was between 18 and 35 years (M = 23.00, SD = 4.60). All participants were of Spanish nationality and confirmed they had not suffered from an eating disorder, in line with the inclusion criteria. Regarding the sociodemographic profile, the majority of participants resided in urban areas (82 %). In terms of educational level, 15 % had completed secondary education, 68 % were currently enrolled in or had completed an undergraduate university degree, and 17 % had completed postgraduate studies. Concerning their employment status, 55 % were students, 30 % were employed full-time, 10 % were employed part-time, and 5 % were unemployed. Regarding the time invested on Instagram, 31.9 % reported spending less than one hour a day on the application, 42.3 % between one and two hours, 16.7 % between two and three hours, and 8.4 % more than three hours a day.

A sensitivity power analysis was conducted using GPower (Version 3.1; Faul et al., 2007; Faul et al., 2009) to determine the minimum effect size the study was powered to detect. With a sample size of N = 395, an alpha of α = 0.05, and power of (1 – β) = 0.80, the analysis indicated that the study was sensitive enough to detect small-to-medium effect sizes for the primary analyses: Pearson's correlations of r ≥ 0.14 and mean differences in independent t-tests of Cohen's d ≥ 0.28. This suggests the sample size was adequate for detecting effects of a magnitude typically considered meaningful in this field of research.

Instruments

Semi-structured interview. Developed by the authors, this interview included questions about demographics (age, sex, academic level, occupation, nationality) and social media use. To ensure content validity, items assessing photo-editing behaviors were systematically adapted from the previously validated interview for Facebook use by Meier and Gray (2014). This adaptation process, conducted by the research team, involved modifying the items to reflect the specific functionalities and user practices of Instagram, thereby ensuring their relevance and clarity for the target population.

Body Appreciation Scale (BAS; Avalos, et al., 2005). The translated version of Lobera and Ríos (2011) has been used, which consists of 13 items, whose factorial structure includes a single dimension of Positive body image, showing adequate internal consistency and construct validity to study the positive aspects of body image. The questionnaire must be answered using a Likert scale, with five alternatives (1= “I never do this”, 5= “I always do this”). Scores on the BAS have been found to be internally consistent, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.93.

Appearance Scheme Inventory - Revised (ASI-R; Cash & Grasso, 2005). Spanish adaptation of Silva et.al. (2016). It consists of 20 items that assess two facets of body image: (i) Self-assessed Significance, made up of 12 items that examine the extent to which individuals define themselves through their physical appearance, which will influence their social and emotional experiences; (ii) Motivational Significance, consisting of 8 items that assess the extent to which people engage in behaviors to care for and manage their physical appearance. The questionnaire used a five-point Likert scale (1= “I completely disagree”, 5= “I completely agree”). Scores on the ASI-R shown an accurate internal consistency in its two factors, Self-Assessed Significance (α = 0.88) and Motivational Significance (α = 0.85).

Brief Cope Inventory (COPE-28; Carver, 1997). Spanish adaptation of Morán-Astorga et al., (2010). It consists of 14 subscales, each with two items: Active coping, Planning, Positive reframing, Acceptance, Humor, Religion, Using emotional support, Using instrumental support, Self-distraction, Denial, Venting, Substance, Behavioral disengagement and Self-blame. The items are presented in terms of the action and the response that people make on an ordinal scale with four alternatives (0= “I never do this”, 3= “I always do this”). The internal consistency indexes were accurate for most scales (Active Coping α = 0.64, Planning α = 0.65, Positive Reframing α = 0.63, Acceptance α = 0.58, Humor α = 0.78, Religion α = 0.78, Using Emotional Support α = 0.72, Self-Distraction α = 0.53, Denial α = 0.62, Substance α = 0.93, Behavioral Disengagement α = 0.66, and Self-Blame α = 0.65, except for Venting (0.39).

Big Five Inventory 10 (BFI-10; Rammstedt & John, 2007). It is the short version of the BFI-44, translated into Spanish by Benet-Martínez and John (1998). It is a reduced scale, with 10 items, designed for contexts with limited time and to be answered on a 5-point Likert scale from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. It assesses the big five factors: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism and Openness to experience. Cronbach's alphas were Extraversion α = 0.72, Agreeableness α = 0.13, Conscientiousness α = 0.46, Neuroticism α = 0.67, and Openness α = 0.47.

Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale (RSES; Rosenberg, 1965) adapted to the adult Spanish population (Martín-Albo, et al., 2007) to measure Self-esteem. It consists of 10 items that express positive and negative thoughts about personal worth, to be answered on a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 4 (strongly disagree). Scores on the RSES have been found to be internally consistent, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.64.

Subjective Well-Being. The following scales were used to assess subjective well-being: I) Positive and Negative Affect Scales (PANAS; Watson et al., 1988), specifically the Spanish adaptation of López-Gómez et al. (2015) was used. It consists of 20 qualifiers: 10 measuring positive emotions and 10 negative emotions that may have been present in the individual during the last month. Every item is scored on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very little) to 5 (a lot), depending on the presence of each emotion at that moment. The reliability through the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient indicates a good internal consistency (Positive Affect, α = 0.88 and Negative Affect, α = 0.88). II) Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener et al., 1985). Spanish adaptation of Vázquez et al. (2013), consisting of 5 items that evaluate the individuals’ cognitive judgment about their global satisfaction with life, comparing their life circumstances with a particular standard. Each item is answered on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all satisfied) to 7 (very satisfied). The reliability through the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient indicates a good internal consistency (α = 0.88). III) Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS; Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999). For the present work the Spanish adaptation of Extremera and Fernández-Berrocal (2014) was used. The SHS consists of 4 items with a 7-point response format: from 1 (not happy) to 7 (very happy). The reliability through the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient indicates a good internal consistency (α = 0.82).

Psychological Well-Being Scales (PWBS; Ryff, 1989), adapted and validated for the Spanish population (Díaz et.al., 2006). It measures, through a 6-point Likert scale, the six dimensions proposed by the Ryff model: Self-acceptance, Positive relationships with others, Autonomy, Environmental mastery, Purpose in life and Personal growth. The short version, with 29 items, consisted of a Likert scale with five alternatives (1 = “I completely disagree”, 6 = “I completely agree”). The scales showed good internal reliabilities, (Self-Acceptance α = 0.86, Autonomy α = 0.73, Environmental Mastery α = 0.66, Purpose in Life α = 0.82; and Personal Growth α = 0.64), except for Positive Relationships with Others (α = 0.04).

The Duke-UNC Functional Social Support Questionnaire (Duke-UNK-11; Broadhead et al., 1988). The Spanish adaptation of Bellón-Saameño et al., (1996) was used. It assesses the perceived functional or qualitative social support, with the advantage of being multidimensional and characterized by its simplicity and brevity. It includes two scales: Confidant Support (possibility of having people to communicate with) and Affective Support (demonstrations of love, affection, and empathy). The questionnaire has to be answered on a Likert scale with five alternatives (1 = “Much less than I would like”, 5 = “As much as I would like”). Internal consistency in the present sample was good for both Confidant Support (α = 0.88) and Affective Support (α = 0.85).

Procedure

The evaluation battery has been administered electronically and includes the previously described questionnaires to analyse the variables in young female Instagram users. The tests protocol was applied to the participants after screening, based on the following inclusion criteria: (i) to be between 18 and 35 years old; (ii) to have an active Instagram account; (iii) to have Spanish nationality; (iv) not have suffered from an eating disorder. Participants were provided information about the conditions of the study and the ethical treatment of the data —its anonymous nature, and the use of the data for research purposes only —, proceeding to give their informed consent.

The semi-structured interview included the items included in Table 1, which had to be answered on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = “almost never or never”, 4 = “almost always or always”).

Using editing programs and body editing) were then summed to obtain a global perception score of women's modifications of their photographs.

Data analysis

Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 24.0; IBM Corp., 2016). Prior to the main analyses, the assumptions for parametric testing were assessed. The normality of the distribution for all continuous variables was examined using the Shapiro-Wilk test, as it is recommended for its high power. The assumption of homogeneity of variances for the independent samples t-tests was assessed using Levene's test. For the correlational analyses, linearity was assessed via scatterplots. In cases where the assumption of homogeneity of variance was violated, the Welch t-test statistic (which does not assume equal variances) was reported, as indicated by the adjusted degrees of freedom in the results.

Pearson's r correlation coefficients were calculated to examine the associations between photo-editing behaviors and the psychological variables. Subsequently, participants were divided into low-frequency (responses of "almost never" or "rarely") and high-frequency (responses of "often" or "almost always") editing groups for each of the four modification behaviors. Independent samples t-tests were used to compare these groups on the outcome variables. Given the large number of t-tests conducted across the four editing behaviors (a total of 42 comparisons), a Bonferroni correction was applied to control for the family-wise error rate. The alpha level for determining statistical significance was adjusted to α = 0.05/42=.0012. All reported analyses include 95 % confidence intervals [CI_s] and relevant effect size measures (Pearson's r for correlations and Cohen's d for t-tests) to provide information on the magnitude and precision of the findings.

Results

Correlational analyzes have been carried out between the different scales from the summation of the items related to photo modification and the variables included in this research. Table 2 includes the significant correlations among them.

Several significant correlations were identified. A negative association was found between the use of Instagram filters and positive body image. Positive correlations were observed between adopting a flattering posture and both self-assessed significance and motivational significance, as well as negative affect. Similarly, the use of Instagram filters was positively related to self-assessed significance and motivational significance. Using editing programs showed positive associations with self-assessed significance, motivational significance, and self-distraction. Finally, body editing was positively correlated with self-assessed significance and substance use. These findings highlight the strong relationships between these variables.

In order to observe whether there were differences between the four types of body modification, we created two extreme groups for each of these variables with the scores: (i) women who modify their photos from “almost never” to “rarely”, and (ii) women who modify their photos from “often” to “almost always”. Once the groups were formed, independent samples t-tests were conducted to compare low-frequency and high-frequency editors across the four modification behaviors. After applying a Bonferroni correction for 42 comparisons, the threshold for statistical significance was set at p < 0.0012. The results are summarized in Table 3.

Overall, a consistent pattern emerged wherein women who engaged more frequently in photo-editing behaviors reported poorer psychological outcomes.

Adopting a flattering posture was associated with lower positive body image and autonomy, and higher scores on appearance schemes, neuroticism, negative affect, and maladaptive coping (denial, self-distraction, and substance use). The detailed statistical comparisons are in Table 3.

Using Instagram filters was linked to poorer results across most variables, including lower positive body image, self-esteem, life satisfaction, and multiple dimensions of psychological well-being. The high-frequency group also reported higher levels of neuroticism, negative affect, and greater use of maladaptive coping strategies. Full details are available in Table 4.

Using editing programs was significantly associated with a greater emphasis on appearance (both self-assessed and motivational significance), higher neuroticism, and more frequent use of substances as a coping strategy. Specific statistical data can be found in Table 5.

Body editing was associated with the most adverse outcomes, including significantly lower positive body image, life satisfaction, social support, and psychological well-being. This group also scored higher on self-assessed significance of appearance and substance use. Complete results are presented in Table 6.

Discussion

This study explored the relationship between photo-editing behaviors on Instagram and the psychological well-being of young Spanish women. The primary objectives were to identify common editing practices and to examine how these behaviors relate to body image, coping strategies, and overall well-being. Our findings indicate that frequent engagement in photo editing—specifically adopting flattering poses, using filters, and altering body shape—is significantly associated with poorer body image, a greater tendency to define oneself by physical appearance, reliance on maladaptive coping mechanisms, and lower psychological well-being. These results align with our initial hypotheses (H1, H2, H3, and H4) and are consistent with a substantial body of literature linking the internalization of idealized beauty standards with negative mental health outcomes (Çınaroğlu & Yılmazer, 2025; Lee & Lee, 2021; Tiggemann et al., 2020).

The strong connection observed between photo editing and self-objectification extends existing theoretical frameworks. In line with Social Comparison Theory (Festinger, 1954), the peer-driven dynamics of Instagram appear to intensify appearance-based comparisons, as users are measured against the curated and perfected images of others. Our findings suggest that the act of editing itself is a critical component of this process. When individuals meticulously alter their own images, they actively engage in a form of self-objectification, reinforcing the belief that their value is contingent on their appearance (Chen et al., 2019). Notably, direct body editing emerged as a particularly potent behavior, showing strong correlations with body dissatisfaction and lower well-being. This suggests that the deliberate modification of one's physical form creates a significant discrepancy between the "real" and "ideal" self, a gap that may be more psychologically distressing than the use of pre-made filters (Lee-Won et al., 2020).

In terms of psychological functioning, frequent editors demonstrated a clear pattern of negative outcomes. They reported lower self-esteem, reduced autonomy, and diminished life satisfaction, supporting H4. Furthermore, these individuals were more likely to employ maladaptive coping strategies such as denial, self-distraction, and substance use, confirming H3. This suggests that photo editing may function as a short-term avoidance mechanism to manage the anxiety of not meeting appearance ideals, but one that ultimately exacerbates distress by preventing more constructive forms of coping (Lonergan et al., 2019). The association with higher neuroticism is also telling, as this personality trait is characterized by emotional instability and a heightened sensitivity to stress, which may render individuals more vulnerable to the pressures of social comparison and negative feedback online (Tiggemann et al., 2020).

While our findings align with the predominant narrative about the detrimental effects of photo editing, it is crucial to place them in a critical dialogue with the literature, acknowledging the complexities of the digital ecosystem. For instance, the "body positivity" movement has emerged as a significant counter-force to hegemonic beauty ideals. Some meta-analyses suggest that exposure to body-positive content can produce short-term improvements in body satisfaction (Jiménez-García et al., 2025). However, this finding is not without nuance. More recent research indicates that such content does not always have a protective effect and may even perpetuate a focus on appearance, as many "body positive" posts still feature conventionally attractive individuals (Sanzari et al., 2023). Thus, while the movement offers a valuable alternative, its impact is complex and does not invalidate our findings; rather, it suggests that interventions must move beyond simply diversifying visual content.

Similarly, while our study associated photo editing with lower social support, this does not negate the extensive evidence showing that social media can be a powerful tool for social connection and support, particularly for marginalized groups (Marciano et al., 2022). This paradox can be resolved by distinguishing between different modalities of use. Research increasingly separates active, socially connective behaviors (e.g., direct messaging) from passive or appearance-focused behaviors (e.g., scrolling, editing). The former is often linked to enhanced well-being, while the latter correlates with negative social comparison (Nagata et al., 2024). Our study isolates the consequences of a specific, appearance-focused modality of use, which can coexist with, yet function independently from, the healthier, more connective functions of these platforms.

Limitations and Future Directions

The interpretation of this study's results must be tempered by several methodological limitations. First, the study relies exclusively on self-report measures for Instagram use and photo editing. A significant body of evidence shows a large discrepancy between self-reported and objectively logged behavioral data, with users often inaccurately estimating their time on platforms (Parry et al., 2022). This inaccuracy is not random and may introduce systematic bias, as it could be related to the very psychological traits under investigation (Johannes et al., 2021). Future research should aim to integrate objective behavioral data to validate findings based on self-reports.

Second, the study's cross-sectional design precludes causal inferences (McComb et al., 2023). We cannot determine whether photo editing causes lower well-being or if individuals with pre-existing vulnerabilities (e.g., higher neuroticism, lower self-esteem) are more inclined to engage in such behaviors as a coping mechanism. Longitudinal studies are needed to track the co-evolution of editing behaviors and mental health outcomes over time, alongside experimental designs that manipulate editing behavior to observe its causal effects.

Finally, the sample, consisting of young Spanish women, limits the generalizability of our findings. Cultural norms play a powerful role in shaping beauty ideals and social media practices (Song et al., 2025). Additionally, our study did not control for key sociodemographic variables, such as socioeconomic status, or differentiate by the type of content consumed (e.g., "fitspiration" vs. body positivity), which recent research suggests is a more potent predictor of body image outcomes than total usage time (Sanzari et al., 2023).

Practical Implications

Despite these limitations, our findings suggest the need for a multi-level approach to mitigate the negative effects of photo editing. It is imperative to foster advanced media literacy skills that go beyond simply identifying "fake" images. Evidence-based programs like Butterfly's Body Kind Online Education or the Dove Self-Esteem Project provide a model for equipping young people with the tools to understand how algorithms, AI-generated content, and the performative nature of online identities function (Butterfly Foundation, 2023). The goal is to cultivate a critical mindset that enables users to deconstruct idealized online realities rather than passively internalizing them.

For those already experiencing distress, specific psychological interventions are needed. Techniques from Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT) can help challenge dysfunctional beliefs about appearance (e.g., "I must look perfect to be accepted") (Ramzan & Siddiqui, 2021). Complementarily, approaches like Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) and mindfulness can foster psychological flexibility, teaching individuals to accept appearance-related thoughts without judgment and to reorient their behavior toward core values not dependent on external validation (To, 2016).

The problem is not solely individual but also environmental. In line with recommendations from the American Psychological Association (APA), advocacy is needed for developmentally appropriate platform design changes (American Psychological Association, 2023). This could include design modifications that reduce compulsive social comparison, such as removing default "like" counts and "endless scrolling" features, and increasing transparency around recommendation algorithms (Chhabra et al., 2025). A comprehensive approach must combine individual empowerment with the promotion of a healthier digital environment.

Conclusions

This study contributes to the literature by identifying specific photo-editing behaviors that are linked with body dissatisfaction and maladaptive coping among young women. By integrating social comparison theory with contemporary research, our findings highlight how the act of digital self-curation intensifies peer-driven comparisons and self-objectification. Women who frequently edit their photos report significantly poorer well-being, suggesting these behaviors may signal a distinct form of psychological distress. These findings underscore the urgent need for multi-faceted interventions that include critical media literacy, targeted psychological support, and a push for healthier platform design to mitigate the mental health risks associated with idealized self-presentation in a digital age.

References

Alfonso-Fuertes, I., Alvarez-Mon, M. A., Del Hoyo, R. S., Ortega, M. A., Alvarez-Mon, M., & Molina-Ruiz, R. M. (2023). Time spent on Instagram and body image, self-esteem, and physical comparison among young adults in Spain: Observational study. JMIR formative research, 7, e42207. https://doi.org/10.2196/42207

American Psychological Association. (2023, may). Health advisory on social media use in adolescence. APA. https://www.apa.org/topics/social-media-internet/health-advisory-adolescent-social-media-use

Avalos, L., Tylka, T. L., & Wood-Barcalow, N. (2005). The body appreciation scale: Development and psychometric evaluation. Body Image, 2(3), 285-297. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2005.06.002

Bellón-Saameño, J. S., Delgado-Sánchez, A., Luna del Castillo, J. D., & Lardelli-Claret, P. (1996). Validity and reliability of the Duke-UNC-11 questionnaire of functional social support. Atención Primaria, 18(4), 153-163. Retrieved from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8962994/

Benet-Martínez, V., & John, O. P. (1998). Los cinco grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait multimethod analyses of the big five in Spanish and English. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 729-750. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.729

Bonfanti, R. C., Melchiori, F., Teti, A., Albano, G., Raffard, S., Rodgers, R., & Coco, G. L. (2025). The association between social comparison in social media, body image concerns and eating disorder symptoms: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Body image, 52, 101841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2024.101841

Broadhead, W. E., Gehlbach, S. H., De Gruy, F. V., & Kaplan, B. H. (1988). The Duke–UNC Functional Social Support Questionnaire: Measurement of social support in family medicine patients. Medical Care, 26(7), 709-723. http://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-198807000-00006

Brown, Z., & Tiggemann, M. (2016). Attractive celebrity and peer images on Instagram: Effect on women's mood and body image. Body Image, 19, 37-43. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2016.08.007

Butterfly Foundation (2023). Body kind youth Survey: Your body image, your voice 2023 report. Retrieved from http://www.butterfly.org.au/youthsurveyfindings

Carver, C. S. (1997). You want to measure coping but your protocol’ too long: Consider the brief cope. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4, 92-100. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327558ijbm0401_6

Cash, T. F., & Grasso, K. (2005). The norms and stability of new measures of the multidimensional body image construct. Body Image, 2(2), 199-203. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2005.03.007

Chen, J., Ishii, M., Bater, K. L., Darrach, H., Liao, D., Huynh, P. P., Reh, I. P., Nellis, J. C., Kumar, A. R.,& Ishii, L. E. (2019). Association between the use of social media and photograph editing applications, self-esteem, and cosmetic surgery acceptance. JAMA facial plastic surgery, 21(5), 361-367. http://doi.org/10.1001/jamafacial.2019.0328

Chhabra, J., Pilkington, V., Benakovic, R., Wilson, M. J., La Sala, L., & Seidler, Z. (2025). Social media and youth mental health: Scoping review of platform and policy recommendations. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 27, e72061. https://doi.org/10.2196/72061

Çınaroğlu, M., & Yılmazer, E. (2025). Problematic social media use, self-objectification, and body image disturbance: The moderating roles of physical activity and diet intensity. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 18, 931-952. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S517193

Díaz, D., Rodríguez-Carvajal, R., Blanco, A., Moreno-Jiménez, B., Gallardo, I., Valle, C., & van Dierendonck, D. (2006). Spanish adaptation of the psychological well-being scales (PWBS). Psicothema, 18(3), 572-577.

Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71-75. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13

Extremera, N., & Fernández-Berrocal, P. (2014). The subjective happiness scale: Translation and preliminary psychometric evaluation of a Spanish version. Social Indicators Research, 119, 473-481. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0497-2

Fardouly, J., & Vartanian, L. R. (2015). Negative comparisons about one’s appearance mediate the relationship between Facebook usage and body image concerns. Body Image, 12, 82-88. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2014.10.004

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117-140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202

González, S. C., Romero, A. I. A., Fernández, N. R., & Corrales, J. A. P. (2025). Consumption and uses of Instagram in adolescents from Asturias (Spain): What do they apply filters for in their photographs and how do they impact their social interactions?. Revista Latina de Comunicacion Social, 83, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.4185/rlcs-2025-2326

Grabe, S., Ward, L. M., & Hyde, J. S. (2008). The role of the media in body image concerns among women: A meta-analysis of experimental and correlational studies. Psychological Bulletin, 134(3), 460-476. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.460

IBM Corp. (2016). IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 24.0) [Computer software]. IBM Corp.

Johannes, N., Nguyen, T. V., Weinstein, N., & Przybylski, A. K. (2021). Objective, subjective, and accurate reporting of social media use: No evidence that daily social media use correlates with personality traits, motivational states, or well-being. Technology, Mind, and Behavior, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.1037/tmb0000035

Jiménez-García, A. M., Arias, N., Hontanaya, E. P., Sanz, A., & García-Velasco, O. (2025). Impact of body-positive social media content on body image perception. Journal of Eating Disorders, 13, 153. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40337-025-01286-y

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping (Vol. 445). Springer.

Lee, M., & Lee, H. -H. (2021). Social media photo activity, internalization, appearance comparison, and body satisfaction: The moderating role of photo-editing behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 114, 106579. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106579

Lee-Won, R. J., Joo, Y. K., Baek, Y. M., Hu, D., & Park, S. G. (2020). “Obsessed with retouching your selfies? Check your mindset!”: Female Instagram users with a fixed mindset are at greater risk of disordered eating. Personality and Individual Differences, 167, 110223. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110223

Lobera, I. J., & Ríos, P. B. (2011). Spanish version of the Body Appreciation Scale (BAS) for adolescents. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 14(1), 411-420. http://doi.org/10.5209/rev_SJOP.2011.v14.n1.37

Lonergan, A. R., Bussey, K., Mond, J., Brown, O., Griffiths, S., Murray, S. B., & Mitchison, D. (2019). Me, my selfie, and i: The relationship between editing and posting selfies and body dissatisfaction in men and women. Body Image, 28, 39-43. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2018.12.001

López-Gómez, I., Hervás, G., & Vázquez, C. (2015). Adaptación de la “Escala de afecto positivo y negativo” (PANAS) en una muestra general española. Psicología Conductual, 23(3), 529-548. Retrieved from: https://www.behavioralpsycho.com/producto/adaptacion-de-las-escalas-de-afecto-positivo-y-negativo-panas-en-una-muestra-general-espanola/

Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46, 137-155. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006824100041

Marciano, L., Ostroumova, M., Schulz, P. J., & Camerini, A. -L. (2022). Digital media use and adolescents' mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in public health, 9, 793868. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.793868

Martín-Albo, J., Núñez, J. L., Navarro, J. G., & Grijalvo, F. (2007). The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: Translation and validation in university students. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 10(2), 458 - 467. http://doi.org/10.1017/S1138741600006727

Martínez-Pérez, N., Cuenca-Orellana, N., & Dueñas-Mohedas, S. (2024). Instagram and body image: Factors of reification among adolescent girls in Spain. VISUAL REVIEW. International Visual Culture Review Revista Internacional De Cultura Visual, 16(7), 191–202. https://doi.org/10.62161/revvisual.v16.5392

McComb, C. A., Vanman, E. J., & Tobin, S. J. (2023). A meta-analysis of the effects of social media exposure to upward comparison targets on self-evaluations and emotions. Media Psychology, 26(5), 612-635. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2023.2180647

McGovern, O., Collins, R., & Dunne, S. (2022). The associations between photo-editing and body concerns among females: A systematic review. Body Image, 43, 504-517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2022.10.013

Meier, E. P., & Gray, J. (2014). Facebook photo activity associated with body image disturbance in adolescent girls. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(4), 199-206. http://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2013.0305

Morán-Astorga, C., Landero-Hernández, R., & González-Ramírez, M. T. (2010). COPE-28: un análisis psicométrico de la versión en español del Brief COPE. Universitas Psychologica, 9(2) 543-552. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.upsy9-2.capv

Nagata, J. M., Huang, O., Hur, J. O., Li, E. J., Helmer, C. K., Weinstein, E., & Moreno, M. A. (2024). Health benefits of social media use in adolescents and young adults. Current Pediatrics Reports, 13(22), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40124-025-00357-7

O’Neill, D. (2021). Investigating the relationship between social media and photo-editing on anxiety, depression and self-esteem [Doctoral dissertation, National College of Ireland]. NORMA eResearch @NCI Library. https://norma.ncirl.ie/4961/1/denishaoneill.pdf

Othman, S., Lyons, T., Cohn, J. E., Shokri, T., & Bloom, J. D. (2021). The influence of photo editing applications on patients seeking facial plastic surgery services. Aesthetic Surgery Journal, 41(3), NP101-NP110. http://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjaa065

Parry, D. A., Fisher, J. T., Mieczkowski, H., Sewall, C. J. R., & Davidson, B. I. (2022). Social media and well-being: A methodological perspective. Current Opinion in Psychology, 45, 101285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.11.005

Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the big five inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(1), 203-212. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001

Ramzan, I., & Siddiqui, B. (2021). The effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy for managing body image dissatisfaction. PJPPRP, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.62663/pjpprp.v12i2.41

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Rosenberg self-esteem scale (SES) [Database record]. APA PsycTests. https://doi.org/10.1037/t01038-000

Ryff, C. D. (1989). 'Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069-1081. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069

Sanzari, C. M., Gorrell, S., Anderson, L. M., Reilly, E. E., Niemiec, M. A., Orloff, N. C., Anderson, D. A., & Hormes, J. M. (2023). The impact of social media use on body image and disordered eating behaviors: Content matters more than duration of exposure. Eating behaviors, 49, 101722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2023.101722

Silva, C., Jiménez-Cruz, B. E., Rosales, J. R., Hernández, A., Brito, K., & Moreno, A. (2016). Adaptación del inventario de esquemas sobre la apariencia-revisado (ASI-R) para población de habla hispana. Revista Iberoamericana de Diagnóstico y Evaluación Psicológica, 2(42), 85-94. http://doi.org/10.21865/RIDEP42_85

Song, S., Mohd-Adnan, H., & Shamsul-Ibrahim, M. (2025). The impact of functionality-focused social media images on positive body image: an experimental study among young Chinese women. Frontiers in Communication, 10, 1623759. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2025.1623759

Skowronski, M., Busching, R., & Krahé, B. (2021). Links between exposure to sexualized Instagram images and body image concerns in girls and boys. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 34(1), 55-62. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000296

Tiggemann, M., Anderberg, I., & Brown, Z. (2020). Uploading your best self: Selfie editing and body dissatisfaction. Body Image, 33, 175-182. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2020.03.002

To, J. (2016). Mindfulness may improve body dissatisfaction and body dysmorphic disorder by reducing destructive social comparisons. Inkblot, 5, 9-13. https://inkblotuoft.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/janice-to.pdf

Varaona, A., Alvarez-Mon, M. A., Serrano-Garcia, I., Díaz-Marsá, M., Looi, J. C. L., & Molina-Ruiz, R. M. (2024). Exploring the relationship between Instagram use and self-criticism, self-compassion, and body dissatisfaction in the Spanish population: Observational study. Journal of medical internet research, 26, e51957. https://doi.org/10.2196/51957

Vázquez, C., Duque, A., & Hervás, G. (2013). Escala de Satisfacción con la Vida (SWLS) en una muestra representativa de españoles adultos: Validación y datos normativos. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 16(82), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2013.82

Voelker, D. K., Reel, J. J., & Greenleaf, C. (2015). Weight status and body image perceptions in adolescents: Current perspectives. Adolescent Health, Medicine and Therapeutics, 6, 149-158. http://doi.org/10.2147/AHMT.S68344

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063

Notes

^* Research article.

Disclosure of Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest to report. They also state that this research did not receive funding from any public or private entity.

Disciplinary areas: This article falls within the fields of Health Psychology and Social, Environmental, and Community Psychology.

AI Usage Statement: The authors declare they have used AI services, specifically DeepL Translate, for grammar correction and minor style refinements. They carefully reviewed all suggestions from these services to ensure the original meaning and factual accuracy were preserved.

Author notes

^a Correspondence author. Email: desire.abrante@universidadeuropea.es

Additional information

How to cite: Abrante, D., & Carballeira, M. (2025) Photo editing on Instagram: effects on body image, coping and well-being in young Spanish women. Universitas Psychologica, 24, 1-XX. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.upsy24.peie