Media Psychology

ISSN: 1521-3269 (Print) 1532-785X (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/hmep20

Explaining Females’ Envy Toward Social Media

Influencers

Jiyoung Chae

To cite this article: Jiyoung Chae (2018) Explaining Females’ Envy Toward Social Media
Influencers, Media Psychology, 21:2, 246-262, DOI: 10.1080/15213269.2017.1328312

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2017.1328312

Published online: 12 Jun 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 33455

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 19 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hmep20
MEDIA PSYCHOLOGY
2018, VOL. 21, NO. 2, 246–262
https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2017.1328312

Explaining Females’ Envy Toward Social Media Influencers

Jiyoung Chae
Department of Communications and New Media, National University of Singapore, Singapore

ABSTRACT
Social media influencers are online celebrities who exhibit their
personal lives to many followers via social media. Media studies
have analyzed influencers’ display of the luxurious life to which
ordinary women can only aspire. Applying a quantitative method
to previous findings, this study examined the psychological pro-
cess through which social media use and personality traits affect
females’ envy toward influencers through social comparison.
Specifically, this study tested whether social media use variables
(exposure to influencers’ social media, interest in specific content
on influencers’ social media) and personality traits (public self-
consciousness and self-esteem) are associated with the frequency
of comparison of one’s life with that of influencers, which, in turn,
predict envy toward them. A two-wave online survey was con-
ducted in South Korea (N = 1,064 at Wave 1 and 782 at Wave 2)
among female smartphone users aged 20–39. A path analysis
revealed that all four independent variables at Wave 1 indirectly
influenced envy at Wave 2 through social comparison at Wave 1,
when envy at Wave 1 was controlled for. The findings extended the
scope of social comparison theory and provided a critical view of
influencers’ self-representation from a feminist perspective.

The age of social media has brought a new type of celebrity. Referred to as micro-
celebrity, this new type of celebrity involves the practice of self-presentation on
social media, which is accomplished by the creation of one’s own online image and
the use of that image to attract attention and a large number of followers (Khamis,
Ang, & Welling, 2016; Marwick, 2015; T. M. Senft, 2008; T. Senft, 2013). People
with micro-celebrity on social media are often called social media influencers
(influencers). Influencers can range from would-be or unknown actresses and
models, fitness trainers, friends of celebrities, and wealthy people who love luxury
brands to pretty high school girls (Abidin, 2016; Marwick, 2015; Saul, 2016).
Regardless of their identity, they both textually and visually exhibit their personal
daily lives to a large number of followers (Abidin, 2016). Successful influencers
who attract and maintain many followers have some common characteristics.
They have a sense of humor and their own perspective, but, more importantly,
they exhibit what followers do not have but wish to have (Saul, 2016). Influencers’

CONTACT Jiyoung Chae [email protected] Department of Communications and New Media, National
University of Singapore, Blk AS6, #03-09, 11 Computing Drive, Singapore 117416.
This work was funded by the National University of Singapore.
© 2018 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
 MEDIA PSYCHOLOGY 247

postings mostly brag about their luxurious life through high-end fashion items,
holidays in exotic locations, interactions with mainstream celebrities, and expen-
sive dinners at famous restaurants (Abidin, 2016; Marwick, 2015). That is, influ-
encer postings are the “catalogs of what many young people dream of having and
the lifestyle they dream of living” (Marwick, 2015, p. 155).
In responding to influencers’ postings, some people might get vicarious satis-
faction, but such postings can also arouse a negative emotion among ordinary
people who cannot achieve such a luxurious life. That negative emotion is envy.
Envy is “the unpleasant emotion that can arise when we compare unfavorably with
others” (Smith & Kim, 2007, p. 46). Envy has been an important topic in
psychology because it leads to aggressive behaviors (e.g., crime, conflicts) and
malicious feelings for the target of envy (Smith & Kim, 2007). By definition, envy
is the result of social comparison (Festinger, 1954). Envy is produced when a
person is aware of the advantageous status of another person or group of persons.
In other words, envy does not exist without the target and upward comparison
between the target and oneself (Smith & Kim, 2007). People experience envy
especially when the comparison target is similar to them except for the desired
domain (Smith, 2004). Influencers are closer to ordinary people than traditional
celebrities, suggesting that ordinary people might envy influencers more than
celebrities.
Based on the findings of cultural media studies implying a connection between
influencers’ postings and envy (e.g., Marwick, 2015), this study sought to quanti-
tatively demonstrate the process leading to envy toward influencers. Previous
studies on envy in the computer-mediated context have reported that Facebook
use, especially passive use (reading rather than posting), is positively associated
with envy (e.g., Krasnova, Wenninger, Widjaja, & Buxmann, 2013; Tandoc,
Ferrucci, & Duffy, 2015; Verduyn et al., 2015). This study aimed to extend the
findings. First, the aforementioned studies showed the effects of social media on
envy but not the mechanism between social media and envy (i.e., social compar-
ison). Second, some people are inherently inclined to social comparison and envy
(Buunk & Gibbons, 2007; Smith & Kim, 2007), and thus the role of personality
should be considered along with social media use. Third, the studies used cross-
sectional data except for Verduyn et al. (2015), who conducted an experimental
and longitudinal study. Fourth, and most important, the target of envy and the
type of content that arouses envy have not been specified. The targets of envy have
been mostly friends (Lin & Utz, 2015; Liu, Carcioppolo, & North, 2016) or those
presented as “others” (Krasnova et al., 2013; Lim & Yang, 2015; Verduyn et al.,
2015), sometimes including both friends and others (Tandoc et al., 2015).
Addressing all these limitations, the purpose of the current study was to
investigate how social media use related to influencers and individual personality
traits predict envy over time through social comparison behavior. This study
involved the analysis of a two-wave panel survey conducted among young female
adults (20–39 years old) in South Korea. The selection of study country and
248 J. CHAE

participants was based on the following reasons. First, this study chose only female
participants because, despite the lack of statistics about the gender ratio of
influencers, influencers in previous studies and mass media reports (e.g., Abidin,
2016; Kang, 2015; Khamis et al., 2016; Marwick, 2015; Saul, 2016) have almost
always been young women. Social comparison requires similarities between
comparers and the target of comparison (Corcoran, Crusius, & Musweiler,
2011). Thus, women might be more interested in female influencers than men are.
Moreover, the topic is more meaningful to women. Female influencers’ online
self-presentation is based on post-feminist logic (Duffy & Hund, 2015). Post-
feminism is characterized by a sensibility to see femininity as a “bodily property”;
it supports sexual autonomy of women, emphasizes self-surveillance to achieve
successful femininity, and values individual choice and freedom (Gill, 2007).
Accordingly, influencers’ postings are mostly limited to the embodiment of
traditional femininity (e.g., beauty and fashion) in more self-empowering ways
(Duffy & Hund, 2015). Feminist media scholars have criticized post-feminism
since it undermines achievements of feminism (e.g., McRobbie, 2004). Thus, it is
important to see how women are actually influenced by post-feminist culture
shown in influencers’ postings.
Second, regarding the place of the study, South Korea has a good environ-
ment for testing micro-celebrity issues given its almost saturated use of the
Internet (99.9% of people in their 20s and 99.8% of people in their 30s; Ministry
of Science, ICT, and Future Planning, 2015) and smartphone ownership (88%;
Poushter, 2016). The ratio of social media use is the highest among young
females, the participants of the current study. A recent report showed that the
percentage of social media use is 75.6% in females in their 20s and 65.1% in
females in their 30s (Kim, 2016). Moreover, recently, a lot of media buzz has
been generated about influencers’ private lives due to their scandals (e.g., litiga-
tion among influencers) and influencers have become a familiar topic of debate
in South Korea (K. H. Lee, 2016).

Upward social comparison leads to envy

The question is whether influencers’ life on social media can be the object of
envy. Smith (2004) pointed out four conditions for envy: a) Envy arises when an
individual and the envy target have similarities except for the desired attribute,
b) the desired attribute is personally relevant for the person, c) the person is not
confident about his/her ability to obtain such attribute, and d) the envied
people’s advantage is seen as unfair. These conditions are a good fit for the
context of influencers. Influencers have more similarities with their followers
than traditional celebrities; some influencers are even ordinary high school or
college students. However, they have beauty or wealth that ordinary women
aspire to have but find hard to acquire.
 MEDIA PSYCHOLOGY 249

Due to the proximity between influencers and their followers, individuals might
think that influencers do not deserve the advantages they enjoy. For example, the
wealth of traditional celebrities such as pop stars and actors is hardly a topic of
debate. Mainstream celebrities are often seen as otherworldly. However, influen-
cers are closer to their followers than traditional celebrities. Although followers
never meet influencers in person but they can peep into their lives due to the
online connection. Individuals can be happy about close friends’ positive postings
but not about those of distant friends (Lin & Utz, 2015; Liu et al., 2016).
Influencers fall somewhere between distant friends and acquaintances and tradi-
tional celebrities. According to mainstream media reports in South Korea, influ-
encers’ luxury lives are always the topic of hot debate for females in online
communities. Some influencers become the target of witch hunts, with their
personal information and rumors about them revealed through social media
(Kang, 2015; K. H. Lee, 2016). Such revelations can be seen as hostility as a result
of envy toward influencers.
To notice other people’s advantages and feel envy, individuals must engage in a
social comparison process. Social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954) posits that
individuals evaluate their relative standing through social comparison of their
abilities and opinions with those of others. Social comparison can be either
upward or downward. Downward comparison with inferior people can help
individuals maintain positive views of the self. Upward comparison with superior
people can serve as a means for self-improvement because individuals, motivated
by superior models, try to make progress. However, upward comparison might
also be detrimental because one’s positive self-image can be threatened (see
Corcoran et al., 2011). When social comparison results in a poor self-image,
individuals envy those who have something lacking in themselves; upward com-
parison leads to envy toward the comparison target (Smith & Kim, 2007). Lim and
Yang (2015) showed that social comparison is positively associated with envy.
However, their comparison items (e.g., “I felt unhappy/poor/depressed/miserable
when comparing myself with others on an social networking service”; p. 309) were
more about the results of comparison than the comparison behavior itself, in
which this study was interested. Thus, the following hypothesis was advanced.

H1: Comparison of one’s life with that of influencers’ at Wave 1 (W1)

positively predicts envy toward influencers’ life at Wave 2 (W2).

Predictors of social comparison with influencers

To make a social comparison, individuals need information about others and to
relate that information to themselves (Corcoran et al., 2011). In other words,
individuals must be exposed to comparison-related information and willing to
make a connection between the information and the self. Then a) more exposure
250 J. CHAE

to influencers and b) a greater individual tendency to compare the self with

influencers should lead to more frequent social comparison.

Exposure to comparison-related information

Anticipating effects of exposure to influencers on social comparison, this study
considered both quantitative and qualitative aspects of such exposure. First, as a
quantitative aspect, frequent exposure to influencers’ social media might be linked
to more frequent comparison. Previous studies on body image have shown that
exposure to idealized images from the media leads females to engage in a social
comparison process, which causes body dissatisfaction (Levine & Harrison, 2009).
As more exposure causes greater body dissatisfaction (Grabe, Ward, & Hyde,
2008), it is logical to expect that more exposure is associated with more frequent
social comparison. Other studies more directly indicated the relationship between
information exposure and social comparison in the computer-mediated context.
For example, the intensity of Facebook use is positively related to the frequency of
social comparison (S. Y. Lee, 2014). Mothers’ use of online information about
child-rearing is positively associated with social comparison orientation (i.e., a
tendency to engage in social comparison) and competition (i.e., one result of social
comparison) among mothers (Chae, 2015). Thus, exposure to the luxurious life of
influencers can provide more opportunity for individuals to engage in comparison
between the self and influencers.
Second, regarding the qualitative aspects of exposure, the content of postings
was divided into two broad categories: postings about a specific interest and
postings about daily life (Abidin, 2016; Duffy & Hund, 2015; Marwick, 2015).
Some influencers have in-depth knowledge about certain domains, such as fash-
ion, cosmetics, interior design, food, and travel, and their social media provide
information about such topics. Other influencers focus on displaying their daily
life (e.g., shopping at luxury brand stores, interacting with friends at fancy
restaurants, spending leisure time at expensive hotels or resorts) and are often
referred to as lifestyle bloggers (Abidin, 2016). In Korean mass media, the former
are sometimes labeled as power bloggers and the latter as luxury bloggers (e.g.,
Kang, 2015), although these are not official terms. The postings about daily life can
include information, but the purpose is to exhibit the blogger’s personal life.
According to uses and gratification theory, individuals choose media with their
own goals and motivations, and such differences lead to different media effects
(Blumler & Katz, 1974). Individuals with specific interests look for influencers
who can provide practical information relevant for them and it is less likely that
such practical information brings about social comparison.
On the other hand, individuals interested in influencers’ lives may be more
prone to social comparison. For example, females engage in social comparison
with the thin body in the media—although such comparison is inappropriate—
just as they do with peers because such body is the ideal that they admire (Jones,
 MEDIA PSYCHOLOGY 251

2001). However, practical information to get that thin body (e.g., diet information,
exercise information) itself does not entail social comparison; the target of com-
parison is not clear. Likewise, interest in the fancy lives of influencers might be
related to social comparison because such life is the ideal that young females want,
but interest in specific information that influencers provide might not be. Thus,
the following hypotheses were developed. Of note, all these associations were
cross-sectionally tested (all W1 data) because social comparison almost automa-
tically occurs (Gilbert, Giesler, & Morris, 1995).

H2: At W1, exposure to influencers’ social media is positively associated with

comparison of one’s life to that of influencers.

H3: At W1, interest in influencers’ postings about their daily life (but not the
postings providing specific information) is positively associated with
comparison of one’s life to that of influencers.

Individual characteristics
Some people are more likely to engage in social comparison due to their
personality traits. Generally, those who a) are highly conscious about the
self, b) are interested in others’ opinions, and c) have a negative self-view
tend to engage in more social comparison (see Buunk & Gibbons, 2007). To
include these characteristics, this study considered two personality traits. One
is public self-consciousness (Fenigstein, Scheier, & Buss, 1975), which may be
related to both the first and second characteristics of typical comparers men-
tioned above. Public self-consciousness is a tendency to focus on oneself as a
social object (Fenigstein, 1979). Individuals with high public self-conscious-
ness are highly aware of themselves and care what others think of them. To
evaluate the self, they engage in social comparison. Studies have shown that
public self-consciousness is a strong predictor of an individual’s tendency
toward social comparison (Buunk & Gibbons, 2007). People with high public
self-consciousness are likely to compare themselves to others, including
influencers.
The second personality that can influence social comparison behavior is self-
esteem, which shows how a person evaluates the self. Individuals who are
insecure about the self tend to more frequently engage in social comparison.
One example that can represent a negative self-image is low self-esteem (Buunk
& Gibbons, 2007). Previous studies have reported a negative association between
self-esteem and a tendency to engage in social comparison (Gibbons & Buunk,
1999). When people with a deflated view of themselves are exposed to the
glamorous lives of influencers, they are more likely to compare themselves to
the influencers, compared to people with a positive view of themselves.
252 J. CHAE

H4: At W1, public self-consciousness is positively associated with compar-

ison of one’s life with that of influencers.

H5: At W1, self-esteem is negatively associated with comparison of one’s life

with that of influencers.

Indirect effects
Previous studies have not demonstrated the mechanism through which social
media use and personality is linked to envy through social comparison. For
example, studies have reported a positive association between Facebook use and
envy (Chou & Edge, 2012) and also shown that envy mediates the relationship
between social media use and life satisfaction or depression (Krasnova et al., 2013;
Tandoc et al., 2015; Verduyn et al., 2015). These studies were interested in envy as
a mechanism to other negative emotions, not a mechanism to envy. On the other
hand, the aim of the current study was to show the mechanism leading to envy
through social comparison. Because the longitudinal impact of Facebook use on
envy has been established (Verduyn et al., 2015), this study tested whether this
relationship is mediated by the frequency of social comparison behavior and valid
in the context of influencers. Regarding personality, Appel, Crusius, and Gerlach
(2015) demonstrated that people with higher levels of depression feel more
envious through upward comparison than those with less depression. Low self-
esteem and low life satisfaction are strongly associated with depression
(Koivumaa-Honkanen, Kaprio, Honkanen, Viinamäki, & Koskenvuo, 2004;
Sowislo & Orth, 2013) and, thus, low self-esteem might lead to envy through a
similar process. Public self-consciousness is positively associated with both envy
(Schroeder & Dugal, 1995) and social comparison tendency (Buunk & Gibbons,
2007). Thus, this study tested whether social comparison behavior mediates the
association between public self-consciousness and envy.

H6: Social comparison with influencers at W1 mediates the relationship

between the aforementioned independent variables at W1 and envy
toward influencers’ life at W2.

In summary, the current study hypothesized that those who frequently see
influencers’ postings and those who have interest in influencers’ everyday life
postings would compare their lives to those of influencers and such comparison
would be associated with envy. Similarly, those with high public self-conscious-
ness and low self-esteem would engage in social comparison with influencers,
which, in turn, predicts envy.
 MEDIA PSYCHOLOGY 253

Methods
Participants and procedures
The current dataset is part of a larger project about selfies and social media. Thus,
this study shared the same sample characteristics (e.g., sociodemographics) with
other studies from the same project but each study had a distinct topic and
purpose (e.g., Chae, 2017). For the project, an online survey company located in
South Korea conducted a two-wave longitudinal panel survey. Participation was
limited to women aged 20–39 with smartphones because smartphone ownership
is important for the use of social media. The company had 1,148,766 online panels
and women aged 20–39 numbered 453,298. The company randomly chose 7,625
among the females in that age group. The number of panel members who were
invited was 7,424 and those who opened the e-mail numbered 2,355. Panel
members who agreed to participate proceeded to the online questionnaire and
1,064 completed the W1 survey in March 2016. A month later, those who
completed the W1 survey were invited to complete the W2 survey and 782
panel members participated. The completion rate was 14% and the attrition rate
was 27%. Both were calculated based on the formula that Callegaro and DiSogra
(2008) suggested for opt-in online panels. Detailed online surveys often result in a
low completion rate (10–25%; Sauermann & Roach, 2013), and the completion
rate of this survey was moderate. Overall, participants were 29.3 years old and
most were employed and not married. For descriptive statistics, see Table 1.

Measures

Exposure to influencers’ social media (Independent Variable 1; IV1).

Participants reported how often in the past 30 days they had seen the social
media of influencers based on a 5-point scale (1 = never to 5 = every day). To
see the actual frequency of the behavior per week, the responses were
transformed. For example, response 1 was recoded as 0 and response 2
(once per week) was recoded as 1.

Interest in Specific Content (IV2). Participants indicated whether they were

interested in specific content, including food, travel, fashion, cosmetics,
interior design, and daily life, posted by influencers based on a 5-point
scale (1 = not at all interested to 5 = extremely interested). These five variables
were not averaged and were used independently.

Public Self-Consciousness (IV3). Fenigstein et al.’s (1975) 7-item scale was

used. Items included “I’m self-conscious about the way I look” and “I usually
worry about making a good impression” (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly
agree; α = .83 at W1).
254 J. CHAE

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics.

Wave 1
M (SD) or %
Age 29.30 (5.32)
Marital status (single = 1) 69.6%
Employment status (employed=1) 66.4%
Education years 14.86 (1.76)
Monthly income (KRW) 4,313,000 (2,457,700)
General media use (the average hour of print media, TV, and the Internet use) 1.17 (.32)
Exposure to Influencers’ social media (frequency per week) 1.99 (2.12)
Interest in food posting 3.09 (1.07)
Interest in fashion posting 2.91 (1.07)
Interest in travel posting 3.24 (1.08)
Interest in interior design posting 2.78 (1.12)
Interest in cosmetics posting 3.10 (1.10)
Interest in daily life posting 2.49 (1.12)
Social media use (the average use of eight social media platform) 1.91 (1.46)
Life satisfaction 3.07 (.72)
Self-esteem 3.36 (.59)
Public self-consciousness 3.62 (.58)
The frequency of social comparison with influencers 2.04 (1.07)
Envy toward influencers 2.43 (1.05) at Wave 1
2.41 (1.03) at Wave 2
Note: N = 1,064 at Wave 1, 782 at Wave 2.

Self-Esteem (IV4). Participants responded to 10 items from Rosenberg’s (1979)

self-esteem scale. Items included “I feel that I have a number of good qualities” and
“All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure.” Negatively stated items were
reverse-coded so that higher scores represented higher self-esteem (1 = strongly
disagree to 5 = strongly agree; α = .85 at W1).

Comparison of life with influencers (the Mediator). The frequency of com-

parison with influencers was measured by asking how often participants had
compared their life to that of influencers’ in the past 30 days, based on a 5-point
scale (1 = never to 5 = always).

Envy (the Dependent Variable; DV). The degree to which participants envied
influencers’ life was measured by three items adapted from Appel et al. (2015): “I
envy the influencers’ life shown on social media,” “My life is inferior to influencers’
life shown on social media,” and “I wish to live like influencers on social media.”
The items were based on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree)
and internal consistency was high (α = .93 at W1 and .94 at W2).

Controls. Three types of controls were included. First, sociodemographic vari-

ables were included to see the effects of exposure and personality regardless of
sociodemographic differences. Participants reported their age, employment status
(1 = employed, 0 = else), marital status (1= single, 0 = else), education (1 =
elementary school to 6 = postgraduate), monthly income (1 = KRW 0–2,990,000
 MEDIA PSYCHOLOGY 255

to 6 = more than KRW 7,000,000), and general media use. KRW 2,990,000
corresponds to USD $2,700 (USD 1 = KRW 1,100). Income and education were
recoded. For example, education was recoded as the number of education years;
response 5 (college graduate) was recoded as 16. Income was recoded as the mean
value of each interval (e.g., 1 = KRW 1,500,000).
Second, general media use and social media use were controlled for because
media consumption is associated with social comparison orientation (Chae,
2015). General media use was assessed by three items asking the amount of
time spent on reading print media, watching television, and using the Internet
on an average weekday (1 = never to 5 = more than two hours). Social media use
(blog, online communities, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn, Band, and
Kakao Story) was measured by asking how often participants used each medium
on an average weekday based on a 7-point scale (1 = never to 7 = more than 10
times a day). Band and Kakao Story are social media platforms especially
popular in South Korea. In contrast, Pinterest and Flickr are not popular and
this study did not include them. Both general and social media use were also
transformed to indicate the time spent or a frequency of behavior per day. For
example, general media use 1 (never) was recoded as 0. Social media use 3 (once a
day) was recoded as 1. Then all items were averaged to create an index.
Third, life satisfaction was controlled for because it is associated with self-
esteem (Diener & Diender, 2009) and upward social comparison (Frieswijk,
Buunk, Steverink, & Slaets, 2004). It was measured by four items from
Koivumaa-Honkanen et al. (2001) based on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree
to 5 = strongly agree): “My life is interesting,” “My life is happy,” “Life is hard,”
and “I feel lonely.” The last two items were reverse-coded so that higher scores
represented greater satisfaction. All four items were averaged (α = .79 at W1).
For means and standard deviations of all variables, see Table 1.

Results
A path analysis was conducted using Mplus 7.11. To handle missing values across
W1 and W2, this study adopted the full information maximum likelihood
method. To test Hypothesis 1 (the effect of social comparison frequency on
envy), envy at W2 was regressed on social comparison with influencers at W1,
all IVs, and envy at W1. Envy at W1 was included to see the effect of the IVs at W1
on envy at W2 beyond the effect of envy at W1 (Campbell & Kwak, 2011; Eveland
& Thomson, 2006). Then social comparison at W1 was regressed on all IVs to test
Hypothesis 2 through H5. Envy at W1 was also regressed on IVs and its residual
covariance with social comparison at W1 was included. To create a concise model,
only controls that had a significant bivariate relationship with each dependent
variable were used. Thus, for social comparison, general media use and income
were adopted. For envy, age, employment, and general media use were used. As
256 J. CHAE

Hayes (2013) suggested, bootstrapping was used to test the indirect effects
(Hypothesis 6).
Hu and Bentler (1999) suggested criteria for a good model: root mean square
error of approximation (RMSEA) of ≤.06, a comparative fit index (CFI) of ≥.95,
and a standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) < than .08. The model
perfectly fit the data: χ2 (4) = 6.794, p > .05, RMSEA = .026, CFI = .998, and
SRMR = .006. As expected, social comparison at W1 predicted envy at W2 over
and above envy at W1, supporting Hypothesis 1. All IVs significantly predicted
social comparison behavior (the mediator), supporting Hypotheses 2–5. As
expected, among five types of interest in specific information (food, travel,
fashion, cosmetics, and interior design), none predicted social comparison
behavior. Among controls, social media use, life satisfaction, and income sig-
nificantly predicted comparison frequency. Self-esteem and life satisfaction
predicted envy at W2 both directly without social comparison and indirectly
through social comparison. No other variables directly influenced envy at W2.
The bootstrapped confidence interval (5,000 resample; bias corrected) indicated
that exposure to influencers’ social media (95% CI: .004, .018), interest in
influencers’ daily life (95% CI: .007, .034), public self-consciousness (95% CI:
.016, .070), and self-esteem (95% CI: -.066, –.013) exerted indirect effects on
envy at W2 through social comparison with influencers. For unstandardized
coefficients and standard errors, see Figure 1.

Figure 1. Results. Notes: NS = not significant; displayed values are unstandardized coefficients
and standard errors; control variables and envy toward influencers at Wave 1 were used in the
analysis but not shown in the figure; control variables were used for envy at Wave 1 and Wave 2,
and social comparison at Wave 1; residual covariance between social comparison with influen-
cers at Wave 1 and envy toward influencers at Wave 1 was .31(.02)***; interest in informational
postings consists of five independent variables and all were independently used in the analysis
but none of them was significant. **p < .01; ***p < .001.
 MEDIA PSYCHOLOGY 257

Discussion
This study, using longitudinal data, examined how social media use and person-
ality traits influence women’s envy toward influencers through social comparison.
All hypotheses were supported. All IVs at W1 had indirect effects on envy toward
influencers at W2 through social comparison with influencers at W1, when envy
at baseline was controlled for. The findings have several implications.
Regarding the role of social media exposure, those who frequently see influen-
cers’ social media and those who are interested in postings about the daily life of
influencers (but not informational postings) were more likely to compare their
lives to those of influencers. In turn, that comparison behavior positively predicted
envy toward the influencer measured one month later. As expected, greater
exposure to influencers’ social media seems to provide more information that
can be used as a standard of comparison. An interesting point involves the type of
content. This study included interest in five types of informational postings (food,
fashion, travel, cosmetics, and interior design), traditionally considered to be
popular topics for females, but none was related to social comparison or envy
toward influencers. As hypothesized, those who use informational postings and
those who see daily life postings have different goals and objectives related to their
media use. People interested in information acquisition did not compare them-
selves with influencers and only obtained information from them. Thus, the type
of content that arouses envy among ordinary females is daily life posting. Previous
cultural analyses of influences have also focused on the self-presentation of
influencers in their daily life (e.g., Abidin, 2016; Marwick, 2015) and the current
study quantitatively demonstrated the role of such content.
Relatedly, the effect of social media use in general (one of the controls) is also
interesting. The variable was the averaged use of eight social media platforms.
Influencers exist only on some of these platforms. The effect might be associated
with the personality of heavy users of social media (e.g., extraversion; Correa,
Hinsley, & De Zuniga, 2010). Otherwise, it might be due to greater exposure to
comparison-related information in general (although not specifically about
influencers). While using social media, people expose themselves to compar-
ison-related information provided by others. Frequent exposure might have an
impact on their behavior so that their general comparison behavior increases.
The role of personality traits in the current study confirmed and extended
previous findings. This study suggested that individuals with high awareness of
the self and others’ evaluation (high public self-consciousness) and poor self-
image (low self-esteem) more frequently engage in social comparison with
influencers. The comparison behavior, in turn, predicts envy. The findings
confirmed frequent comparers’ tendency to evaluate themselves. Due to their
lack of confidence about the self (self-esteem) or their consciousness about
others’ perception (public self-consciousness), they constantly evaluate
258 J. CHAE

themselves and, in this case, upward comparison with influencers led to negative
psychological outcomes such as envy.
Another important point is that self-esteem and life satisfaction (a control
variable that is closely related to self-esteem; Diener & Diender, 2009) had direct
effects on envy at W2 without social comparison. Other significant predictors had
only an indirect effect on envy at W2 through social comparison at W1 or envy at
W1. The findings suggested that a negative view of oneself and one’s life is a strong
predictor of envy. However, theoretically, envy always requires upward compar-
ison with a target (Smith & Kim, 2007). The effect may suggest a strong statistical
direct relationship but does not imply that the two variables serve as the under-
lying theoretical mechanism leading to envy in the lack of social comparison.
Theoretically, this study, as a quantitative media effect study, used a topic usually
adopted in cultural or media studies (i.e., influencers) and thereby extended the
scope of social comparison theory. Scholars have examined visual and textual
online self-presentation of influencers and suggested cultural meanings of their
self-presentation (Abidin, 2016; Duffy & Hund, 2015; Marwick, 2015). Based on
such findings, this study has shown the impact of influencers on female adults
through social comparison. Previous studies regarding social comparison and
social media focused on comparison with friends, although some studies distin-
guished between close friends and distant friends (e.g., Lin & Utz, 2015; Liu et al.,
2016). However, social comparison on social media is not limited to friends.
Festinger (1954) stated that the comparison target should have a similarity to the
comparer along critical dimensions. However, many later studies have shown that
a more important factor is the similarity of related attributes that partly influence
the critical dimension (Corcoran et al., 2011); this is identical to the conditions of
envy that Smith (2004) pointed out. As mentioned, influencers occupy a unique
place somewhere between our acquaintances and traditional celebrities. A popular
women’s magazine in South Korea reported that influencers who display their
luxurious life on social media are usually housewives with very young children, but
they have beauty and wealth (Kang, 2015). The participants in this study were all
females in the same generation, but usually they did not possess such beauty or
wealth, the critical dimensions. Due to the similarity of related attributes, ordinary
women compare themselves to influencers and experience envy.
This study also has implications for women from a feminist point of view.
Envy toward influencers’ life can negatively affect women. However, such envy
may be based on a fantasy or illusion that influencers create. Based on the post-
feminist approach, influencers get visibility and achieve self-branding through
highly gendered content and practices, which portray them as successful women
“having it all” (Duffy & Hund, 2015). Influencers’ glamorous lives on social
media look effortless, but their self-presentation is based on time, energy,
calculation, and management (Duffy & Hund, 2015). Influencer selfies are
produced with expertise and require carefully chosen makeup, clothing, and
posture, aided by lighting and photo-editing apps (Abidin, 2016). Therefore,
 MEDIA PSYCHOLOGY 259

influencers’ image of having it all is just another fantasy that provides an illusory
sense of the empowerment of women. The findings of this study suggested that
women feel envious toward something that does not even exist. Given that many
influencers make money by engaging followers in their posts that promote
brands either obviously or naturally (Abidin, 2016; Saul, 2016), women should
take a more critical view of influencers’ postings rather than envy their life.

Limitations and suggestions for future research

First, the sample was drawn from opt-in online panels. It is impossible to
generalize the results. However, this study had a specific target—public, young
women with smartphones—and thus the need for a nationally representative
sample was less salient in this study. Second, some elements such as comparison
with influencers and exposure to influencers’ social media were measured with a
single item, making them susceptible to measurement error. Third, this study
also did not differentiate active use of social media and passive use of social
media (Krasnova et al., 2013; Verduyn et al., 2015). However, exposure to
influencers’ social media was measured by asking about the frequency of seeing
influencers’ media, and thus it actually represents passive use. Finally, future
studies should address the limitations of the current study and it would be
worthwhile to replicate the findings of the current study in other countries.
Influencers’ strategic self-presentation on social media is similar worldwide.
Future studies should also investigate the outcome of envy toward influencers
or ways to relieve such negative emotion among females.

Conclusion
The current study aimed to explain why and how females feel envy toward social
media influencers who show their luxurious private life on social media. The
results suggested that both quantitative (frequency of exposure) and qualitative
(type of content) aspects of exposure to influencers’ postings are related to the
frequency of social comparison behavior, which predicts envy over time.
Individuals’ personality also played a role. Those who care about others’ percep-
tion of them and those who are not confident in themselves engaged in social
comparison with influencers, which led to envy. The results not only extended the
scope of social comparison theory, but also suggested that women need to
critically evaluate influencers’ postings from a feminist view.

References
Abidin, C. (2016). “Aren’t these just young, rich women doing vain things online?”:
Influencer selfies as subversive frivolity. Social Media + Society, 2(2), 1–17. doi:10.1177/
2056305116641342
260 J. CHAE

Appel, H., Crusius, J., & Gerlach, A. L. (2015). Social comparison, envy, and depression on
Facebook: A study looking at the effects of high comparison standards on depressed
individuals. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 34(4), 277–289. doi:10.1521/
jscp.2015.34.4.277
Blumler J. G., & Katz, E. (1974). The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on
gratifications research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Buunk, A. P., & Gibbons, F. X. (2007). Social comparison: The end of a theory and the
emergence of a field. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102, 3–21.
doi:10.1177/2056305116641342
Callegaro, M., & DiSogra, C. (2008). Computing response metrics for online panels. Public
Opinion Quarterly. 72(5), 1008–1032. doi:10.1093/poq/nfn065
Campbell, S. W., & Kwak, N. (2011). Mobile communication and civil society: Linking
patterns and places of use to engagement with others in public. Human Communication
Research, 37(2), 207–222. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01399.x
Chae, J. (2015). “Am I a better mother than you?: Media and twenty-first century mother-
hood in the context of the social comparison theory. Communication Research, 42(4), 503–
525. doi:10.1177/0093650214534969
Chae, J. (2017) “Virtual makeover”: Selfie-taking and social media use increase photo editing
frequency through social comparison. Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 370–376,
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.10.007
Chou, H. T. G., & Edge, N. (2012). “They are happier and having better lives than I am”: The
impact of using Facebook on perceptions of others’ lives. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and
Social Networking, 15(2), 117–121. doi:10.1089/cyber.2011.0324
Corcoran, K., Crusius, J., & Musweiler, T. (2011). Social comparison: Motives, standards, and
mechanisms. In D. Chadee (Eds.), Theories in social psychology (pp. 119–139). Oxford, UK:
Wiley-Blackwell. Retrieved from http://soco.unikoeln.de/docs/Corcoran_Crusius_Mussweiler_
2011_Social_Comparison.pdf
Correa, T., Hinsley, A. W., & De Zuniga, H. G. (2010). Who interacts on the Web?: The
intersection of users’ personality and social media use. Computers in Human Behavior, 26,
247–253. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.09.003
Diener, E., & Diener, M. (2009). Cross-cultural correlates of life satisfaction and self-esteem.
In E. Diender (Ed.), Culture and well-being (pp. 71–91). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Springer.
Duffy, B. E., & Hund, E. (2015). “Having it all” on social media: Entrepreneurial femininity
and self-branding among fashion bloggers. Social Media + Society, 1(2), 1–11. doi:10.1177/
2056305115604337
Eveland, W. P., & Thomson, T. (2006). Is it talking, thinking, or both? A lagged dependent
variable model of discussion effects on political knowledge. Journal of Communication, 56
(3), 523–542. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00299.x
Fenigstein, A. (1979). Self-consciousness, self-attention, and social interaction. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 75–86. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.1.75
Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness:
Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 522–527.
doi:10.1037/h0076760
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.
doi:10.1177/001872675400700202
Frieswijk, N., Buunk, B. P., Steverink, N., & Slaets, J. P. (2004). The effect of social
comparison information on the life satisfaction of frail older persons. Psychology and
Aging, 19(1), 183–190. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.19.1.183
 MEDIA PSYCHOLOGY 261

Gibbons, F. X., & Buunk, B. P. (1999). Individual differences in social comparison:

Development of a scale of social comparison orientation. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 76(1), 129–141. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.129
Gilbert, D. T., Giesler, R. B., & Morris, K. A. (1995). When comparisons arise. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 227–236. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.2.227
Gill, R. (2007). Postfeminist media culture: Elements of a sensibility. European Journal of
Cultural Studies, 10, 147–166. doi:10.1177/1367549407075898
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, 460–476. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.460
Hayes, A. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis.
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
Jones, D. C. (2001). Social comparison and body image: Attractiveness comparisons to
models and peers among adolescent girls and boys. Sex roles, 45(9–10), 645–664. doi:
10.1023/A:1014815725852
Kang, E. J. (2015). A bitter-sweet thought on luxury blogs. Lady Kyung-Hyang. Retrieved
from http://lady.khan.co.kr/khlady.html?mode=view&code=11&artid=
201412291523411&pt=nv
Khamis, S., Ang, L., & Welling, R. (2016). Self-branding, “micro-celebrity” and the rise of
social media influencers. Celebrity Studies. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/
19392397.2016.1218292
Kim. Y. H. (2016). An analysis on the usage trend and patterns of social network service. Korea
Information Society Development Institute STAT reports. Retrieved from http://www.
kisdi.re.kr/kisdi/fp/kr/publication/selectResearch.do?cmd=fpSelectResearch& sMenuType=
3&controlNoSer=43&controlNo=13868&langdiv=1
Koivumaa-Honkanen, H., Honkanen, R., Viinamaeki, H., Heikkilae, K., Kaprio, J., &
Koskenvuo, M. (2001). Life satisfaction and suicide: a 20-year follow-up study. American
Journal of Psychiatry, 158(3), 433–439. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.158.3.433
Koivumaa-Honkanen, H., Kaprio, J., Honkanen, R., Viinamäki, H., & Koskenvuo, M. (2004).
Life satisfaction and depression in a 15-year follow-up of healthy adults. Social Psychiatry
and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 39(12), 994–999. doi:10.1007/s00127-004-0833-6
Krasnova, H., Wenninger, H., Widjaja, T., & Buxmann, P. (2013). Envy on Facebook: A
hidden threat to users’ life satisfaction? Wirtschaftsinformatik, 92, 1–16. doi:10.17645/mac.
v3i1.199
Lee, K. H. (Producer). (2016, March 27). The confession of two women: The shadow of luxury
bloggers. SBS Special. Seoul, Korea: Seoul Broadcasting.
Lee, S. Y. (2014). How do people compare themselves with others on social network sites?:
The case of Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 253–260. doi:10.1016/j.
chb.2013.12.009
Levine, M. P., & Harrison, K. (2009). Effects of media on eating disorders and body image. In
J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research. (pp. 490–
516). New York, NY: Routledge.
Lim, M., & Yang, Y. (2015). Effects of users’ envy and shame on social comparison that
occurs on social network services. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 300–311.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.013
262 J. CHAE

Lin, R., & Utz, S. (2015). The emotional responses of browsing Facebook: Happiness, envy,
and the role of tie strength. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 29–38. doi:10.1016/j.
chb.2015.04.064
Liu, J., Li, C., Carcioppolo, N., & North, M. (2016). Do our Facebook friends make us feel
worse? A study of social comparison and emotion. Human Communication Research, 42
(4),619–640. doi:10.1111/hcre.12090
Marwick, A. E. (2015). Instafame: Luxury selfies in the attention economy. Public Culture, 27
(1), 137–160. doi:10.1215/08992363-2798379
McRobbie, A. (2004). Post-feminism and popular culture. Feminist Media Studies, 4, 255–264.
doi:10.1080/1468077042000309937
Ministry of Science, ICT, and Future Planning. (2015). 2015 Survey on internet usage.
Retrieved from http://www.korea.kr/archive/expDocView.do?docId=37024#filedown
Poushter, J. (2016). Smartphone ownership and Internet usage continues to climb in emerging
economies. Retrieved from http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/02/22/smartphone- ownership-
and-internet-usage-continues-to-climb-in-emerging-economies/
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Sauermann, H., & Roach, M. (2013). Increasing web survey response rates in innovation
research: An experimental study of static and dynamic contact design features. Research
Policy, 42, 273–286. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1618295
Saul, H. (2016). Instafamous: Meet the social media influencers redefining celebrity. The
Independent. Retrieved from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/instagram-
model-natasha-oakley-iskra-lawrence-kayla-itsines-kendall-jenner-jordyn-woods-
a6907551.html
Schroeder, J. E., & Dugal, S. S. (1995). Psychological correlates of the materialism construct.
Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10(1), 243–253. doi:10.1037/a0018220
Senft, T. (2013). Microcelebrity and the branded self. In J. Hartley, J. Burgess, & A. Bruns
(Eds.), A companion to new media dynamics. (pp. 346–354). Malden, MA: Wiley.
Senft, T. M. (2008). Camgirls: Celebrity & community in the age of social networks. New York,
NY: Peter Lang.
Smith, R. H. (2004). Envy and its transmutations. In L. Z. Tiedens & C. W. Leach (Eds.), The
social life of emotions (pp. 43–63). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, R. H., & Kim, S. H. (2007). Comprehending envy. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 46–
64. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.46
Sowislo, J. F., & Orth, U. (2013). Does low self-esteem predict depression and anxiety? A
meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 139(1), 213–240. doi:10.1037/
a0028931
Tandoc, E. C., Ferrucci, P., & Duffy, M. (2015). Facebook use, envy, and depression among
college students: Is facebooking depressing?. Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 139–146.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.053
Verduyn, P., Lee, D. S., Park, J., Shablack, H., Orvell, A., Bayer, J.,. . .Kross, E. (2015). Passive
Facebook usage undermines affective well-being: Experimental and longitudinal evidence.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(2), 480–488. doi:10.1037/xge0000057