SynthesisNature human behaviour2025
Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials examining social comparison as a behaviour change technique across the behavioural sciences.
Synthesis in Nature human behaviour, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effects of carbohydrate-restricted diets and macronutrient replacements on cardiovascular health and body composition in adults: a meta-analysis of randomized trials.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2025Pooled it
- Adults have rather stable, yet domain-specific tendencies in social and temporal comparisons.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The role of comparison processes in maintenance goals: Evidence from the health and relationship domains.Applied psychology. Health and well-being · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Research on social comparison as a behaviour change technique (SC-BCT) has increased substantially. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials investigating SC-BCTs across the behavioural sciences (PROSPERO: CRD42022343154). We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Web of Science from inception to January 2024. Seventy-nine randomized controlled trials (N = 1,356,521) investigating effects on behaviours related to climate change mitigation, health, performance and service were included. In the short term (mean 3.7 months post-intervention), SC-BCTs produced small effects relative to both passive (Hedges' g = 0.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.23; k = 37; P < 0.001) and active control conditions (g = 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.31; k = 42; P < 0.001). A greater number of SC-BCT sessions and emphasis on desired (versus undesired) behaviours were associated with larger effects. Moderation effects were observed in only a few analyses, highlighting the need for further testing. SC-BCTs also produced significant small effects in the long term (mean 6.2 months post-intervention). Small effects should be interpreted in the context of low cost and scalability (for example, sending one or two emails). Certainty of evidence, using GRADE criteria, ranged from low to moderate depending on the analysis. More high-quality research is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.