Body dissatisfaction is a risk factor for the development of eating disorders (EDs, Grabe et al., 2008; Rohde et al., 2015) and is strongly associated with appearance comparisons: The tripartite influence model of body image and eating disturbance proposes that comparing one’s appearance to that of others mediates the influence of peers, parents, and media on body dissatisfaction (Thompson et al., 1999). In line with this, girls and women with ED symptoms have been found to engage more frequently in appearance comparisons than women without ED symptoms (Corning et al., 2006; Hamel et al., 2012). Moreover, the association between appearance comparisons and body dissatisfaction is assumed to be stronger in women than in men (Myers and Crowther, 2009), and research shows that women are more likely to engage in such comparisons (Strahan et al., 2006).

Adapted from Festinger (1954), appearance comparisons can take the form of upward comparisons, in which others are perceived as more attractive than oneself, or downward comparisons, in which others are perceived as less attractive. Upward appearance comparisons have frequently been related to lower self-esteem (Schmuck et al., 2019; Rüther et al., 2023), disordered eating (Blechert et al., 2009; Arigo et al., 2014), negative mood, and body dissatisfaction (Leahey et al., 2007, 2011; Ridolfi et al., 2011; Myers et al., 2012). The associations and effects of downward appearance comparisons, by contrast, are less clear. While many studies have reported associations of downward appearance comparisons with increased self-esteem (Pan and Peña, 2020), positive mood, and body satisfaction (van den Berg and Thompson, 2007; Bailey and Ricciardelli, 2010), others suggested that downward appearance comparisons do not have protective effects against body dissatisfaction and eating pathology (Fitzsimmons-Craft, 2017; Rogers et al., 2017), or even found associations with higher levels of body dissatisfaction (Vartanian and Dey, 2013), disordered eating (Drutschinin et al., 2018), drive for thinness, and restrained eating among women (Lin and Soby, 2016). The latter effect might be explained by the consideration that in general, downward comparisons are more commonly used as a coping strategy by individuals with low self-esteem (Wills, 1981). Additionally, the tendency to make upward appearance comparisons and the tendency to make downward appearance comparisons are associated with one another (O’Brien et al., 2009), indicating that people who engage in appearance comparisons do so in both directions, although upward appearance comparisons are often more prevalent (Ridolfi et al., 2011; McCarthy et al., 2023).

To assess general appearance comparisons in German-speaking individuals, the German version of the Physical Appearance Comparison Scale (PACS, original version: Thompson et al., 1991) is available and has been validated for women and men without EDs and women with anorexia nervosa (Mölbert et al., 2017). However, the PACS does not differentiate between upward and downward appearance comparisons. To overcome this limitation, O’Brien et al. (2009) developed the English-language Upward and Downward Physical Appearance Comparison Scales (UPACS and DACS). The UPACS and DACS are short and therefore economic scales consisting of 10 and eight items, respectively, with good internal reliability and construct validity. Principal component analysis revealed a one-factor solution for each scale. To the best of our knowledge, to date, there is no validated German-language questionnaire for the assessment of upward and downward appearance comparisons.

Therefore, the aim of the present study was to translate the UPACS and DACS into German and to examine the psychometric properties of the translated versions of both scales in a sample of women and men without EDs and women with EDs. We expected that women without EDs would show higher scores on the UPACS and DACS than men without EDs, as women tend to engage in appearance comparisons to a greater extent than men (Davison and McCabe, 2005; Strahan et al., 2006; O’Brien et al., 2009). Furthermore, we assumed that women with EDs would show higher scores on both scales than women without EDs, as appearance comparisons play a crucial role in the development of body dissatisfaction, which is in turn associated with EDs (Thompson et al., 1999; Leahey et al., 2011). Consistent with the original versions of the scales, we hypothesized a one-factor structure for both the UPACS and the DACS for all examined subsamples (O’Brien et al., 2009). In terms of construct validity, when examining the correlations of the UPACS and DACS with related measures, we assumed (1) positive correlations with established questionnaires regarding general physical appearance comparisons and eating pathology, in line with the original research (O’Brien et al., 2009), and (2) negative correlations with self-esteem, given that upward appearance comparisons have been found to be harmful for self-esteem (Schmuck et al., 2019), while downward comparisons are more frequently used as a coping mechanism by individuals with low self-esteem (Wills, 1981). Overall, from a descriptive perspective, we postulated stronger effects for the UPACS than for the DACS, as upward appearance comparisons have been more conclusively related to body image disturbances.

The aim of the present study was to investigate the German-language versions of the UPACS and DACS in different samples of women and men without EDs and women with EDs. Using data collected over nine studies, we examined the psychometric properties and factor structure of both scales.

Regarding the factor structure of the scales, the results of the SEM and tests of measurement invariance indicated that the one-factor structure of the original English-language version is adequate for the DACS but not for the UPACS in all subsamples. Exploratory re-specifications based on modification indices indicated that the poor fit could be due to two similar items, concerning upward appearance comparisons with “magazine models” and with “models and movie stars.” When allowing for correlation of the residuals of these two items, the fit of the one-factor model improved noticeably, suggesting that these items are closely interrelated, possibly due to the similar wording of the items. As both items include comparisons with models, with one specifying comparisons with magazine models, it is evident that the two items heavily overlap in content and in item wording. Moreover, it is questionable whether comparisons with models and celebrities like movie stars have the same qualities as they did back in 2009, when the original scale was developed, as the rise of social media since that time has led to a new type of comparisons, namely with so-called influencers (Ye et al., 2021). Nowadays, people tend to compare themselves with celebrities and influencers on social media rather than with models seen in traditional media, especially magazines or billboard advertisements (Fardouly et al., 2017), and may therefore identify themselves more with influencers than with other celebrities (Schouten et al., 2020). To account for this change, Roberts et al. (2022) adapted the tripartite influence model (Thompson et al., 1999) and identified social media as a separate factor influencing body dissatisfaction apart from traditional media. Additionally, the standardized loadings and item-total correlations of the two items in question were descriptively the smallest in each subsample, indicating that they are not associated as strongly with the underlying factor or the rest of the scale, respectively. Therefore, future studies should consider adapting the wording to the modern context or the removal of these two items. Until then, the complete version of the UPACS should only be used while taking into account the possible limitations regarding the factor structure and the possibly outdated item wording.

The internal consistencies were acceptable for both scales in all examined subsamples. The item-total correlations indicate that each item correlates sufficiently with each respective scale. Furthermore, the test–retest reliability was good in all examined subsamples. Taken together, the reliability of the UPACS and DACS can be considered adequate.

Additionally, women without EDs showed significantly higher scores on the UPACS and DACS than did men without EDs, which was expected due to women’s greater tendency to engage in appearance comparisons (Davison and McCabe, 2005; Strahan et al., 2006). Moreover, in line with expectations, women with EDs scored significantly higher on both scales than did women without EDs, which confirms the higher tendency for appearance comparisons in women with EDs (Blechert et al., 2009; Arigo et al., 2014). The findings indicate that the UPACS and DACS are able to detect differences in the tendency for upward and downward appearance comparisons.

Regarding the construct validity, the correlation patterns differed between the examined subsamples. It is important to note that the following discussion is based on descriptive effect sizes, as the correlations were not tested against each other. A further study evaluating the construct validity and including further inferential statistical data analyses is needed. Nevertheless, the correlation patterns provide a first overview indicating the construct validity of the scales. Most importantly, in each subsample, the UPACS and DACS correlated with the PACS. This is in line with expectation, as the PACS assesses general appearance comparisons and is therefore closely connected to the constructs of upward and downward physical appearance comparisons. In accordance with this, the effect sizes of the correlations with the PACS were descriptively higher than the effect sizes of the correlations with other related measures in each subsample. As expected, the effect size for the correlation between the UPACS and PACS was descriptively higher than that between the DACS and PACS, as upward appearance comparisons are generally more prevalent than downward appearance comparisons (Ridolfi et al., 2011; McCarthy et al., 2023) and should therefore be more closely related to the general tendency of making appearance comparisons. Accordingly, these results indicate that the scales do, in fact, assess appearance comparisons.

For women without EDs, the correlation patterns followed the overall expectations regarding positive associations with eating pathology, body dissatisfaction, and drive for thinness and negative associations with self-esteem. Furthermore, all effect sizes were descriptively higher for the correlations of the UPACS compared to those of the DACS, supporting the more conclusive and closer relationship of upward appearance comparisons with body image disturbance (Leahey et al., 2007). Findings regarding the influence of downward appearance comparisons on body image, by contrast, are inconsistent, with some studies reporting a positive influence (van den Berg and Thompson, 2007; Bailey and Ricciardelli, 2010) and others showing no positive effects, or even detrimental effects (Lin and Soby, 2016; Fitzsimmons-Craft, 2017; Drutschinin et al., 2018). The present study tends to support the latter findings.

For men without EDs, the UPACS and DACS showed positive correlations with the measures of eating pathology, body dissatisfaction, and drive for thinness and negative correlations with self-esteem. The pattern of effect sizes was not as conclusive as for women without EDs, as descriptively, the effect sizes for the correlations with the EDE-Q only differed marginally between the UPACS and DACS, and the effect size for the correlation of the DACS with the EDI-2 subscale Drive for thinness was descriptively slightly smaller than the correlation of the UPACS with this subscale. The similar effect sizes for the correlations with the UPACS and DACS might be due to the overall low scores and the limited variability on the EDE-Q and EDI-2 subscale Drive for thinness in men without EDs, because men generally show lower eating disorder pathology than women (Smink et al., 2012) and because thinness might be less important for evaluating one’s own appearance in men compared to women (Anderson and Bulik, 2004).

For women with EDs, the lack of association of both the UPACS and DACS with the EDI-2 subscale Body dissatisfaction might be due to a lack of variance in the subscale. The distribution of scores on the EDI-2 is left-skewed in this subsample, since most women with EDs show high body dissatisfaction per se, given that body dissatisfaction is a prevalent risk factor for EDs (Grabe et al., 2008; Rohde et al., 2015). The RSES only showed a negative correlation with the UPACS and not with the DACS, which might indicate that comparisons with people who are perceived to look better have a greater impact on self-esteem in women with EDs. This finding might be attributable to negative cognitive biases in women with EDs, which lead to more body checking behavior (Williamson et al., 2004) that possibly encompasses more upward appearance comparisons with women perceived to be more attractive than oneself as compared to downward comparisons.

Several limitations of the present study should be mentioned. First, the initial translation process did not include a back-translation by a native English speaker; thus, complete correspondence between the original version and the German version of the UPACS and DACS cannot be fully ensured. However, a bilingual translator did subsequently compare the two versions and found only three minor expressions that could have been altered but would not have meaningfully changed the item contents. This suggests that the translation can be deemed as acceptable. Second, the data are derived from nine different studies with varying study aims, designs, and target populations, conducted at different time points between 2016 and 2023. While all studies included the same German-language version of the UPACS and DACS, the studies differed in length and the questionnaires were administered at different positions within the studies. Therefore, it cannot be ensured that certain preceding questionnaires or contents in the respective studies influenced participants’ responses to the UPACS and DACS. Third, in three of the studies, EDs were not diagnosed with a structured clinical interview, but rather relied on participants’ self-reports. It is possible that some participants may have provided a false or only presumed diagnosis. However, compared to participants with EDs diagnosed as part of a study, those with self-reported EDs had comparable or even higher scores on relevant questionnaires regarding ED pathology, suggesting that the majority of self-reported diagnoses were appropriate for the category of EDs. It might be the case that individuals with higher levels of ED pathology were more likely to participate in studies in which self-reported diagnoses were sufficient because the procedure was less stressful, more anonymous, and the studies were easier to access. Fourth, the psychometric properties and factor structure of the UPACS and DACS were examined for women with EDs in general rather than separately for women with anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, and binge eating disorder. Despite some overlap in the characteristics of the different EDs, e.g., possible binge-eating episodes, the EDs differ, for instance, regarding weight and compensatory behavior (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). We chose to analyze all EDs within one group to enable sufficient sample sizes, especially for the SEM analyses and the assessment of test–retest reliability. However, future studies should examine the validity of the scales for each form of ED separately. Fifth, due to the lack of men with eating disorders and non-binary people in the final sample, no statement can be made regarding the suitability of the UPACS and DACS for assessing upward and downward appearance comparisons in these two groups. Future evaluations of the scales should therefore endeavor to include these groups. Finally, we only examined questionnaires that were related to the concepts of appearance comparisons in some way, thus focusing most on convergent validity. To ensure divergent validity, future studies should encompass more measures assessing variables that are less or not related to appearance comparisons.

Despite these limitations, the present study is the first to evaluate German-language versions of the UPACS and DACS, and might thus constitute a first step towards enabling the use of both scales in future research. Overall, the reliability and validity of the German-language UPACS and DACS are satisfactory, with limitations especially regarding the factor structure of the UPACS. Moreover, as the data were collected across nine studies, it was possible to examine the properties of the UPACS and DACS in women and men without EDs as well as women with EDs with sufficient sample sizes.

Future studies should seek to refine the scales, especially the UPACS, to account for modern-day developments in comparison processes or to generate a more general assessment of appearance comparisons that can be used outside the context of the rapidly changing media environment. The proposed re-specifications of the UPACS were only examined for exploratory purposes and need to be confirmed in independent samples. As the data were derived from several different studies, a future study should be designed and conducted solely for the purpose of validating the UPACS and the DACS.

Overall, the German-language versions of the UPACS and DACS seem to be useful scales to assess upward and downward appearance comparisons in women and men without EDs and women with EDs. Differentiating the direction of appearance comparisons allows for a more specific examination of the influence of appearance comparisons on body image and related constructs and as a risk factor for EDs. In sum, this study is the first to indicate that the German-language UPACS and DACS might be suitable for use in research and clinical practice.

The datasets presented in this article are not readily available because the informed consent in four of the studies (Voges et al., 2018, 2019, 2020; Quittkat et al., 2023) excludes the distribution of data to third parties, so that only the data from the remaining five study waves can be made available upon request. Requests to access the datasets should be directed to kristine.schoenhals@uni-osnabrueck.de.

The studies involving humans were approved by the Ethics committee of Osnabrück University. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

KS: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Visualization, Writing – original draft. HQ: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – review & editing. MV: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. GL: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. F-JH: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. SV: Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.