Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025-12
Does Comparing with Generative Artificial Intelligence Harm Self-Esteem? Testing a Model Linking Social Comparison Orientation to Rejection-Identification Process
While the effects of interpersonal social comparison have been widely explored, the potential consequences of human-machine comparison remain understudied. The present survey research investigates how individuals compare themselves to generative artificial intelligence (GAI), by extending the concept of social comparison orientation to human–GAI interactions. Using a large Chinese sample (N = 1302), we examine the relationships between two subtypes of human-GAI comparison orientation (ability-based and opinion-based), self-esteem, perceived identity threat, anthropocentric beliefs, and personal relative deprivation within the framework of the Rejection-Identification Model. The findings reveal that both ability-based and opinion-based comparisons with GAI positively relate to self-esteem, diverging from relevant findings on interpersonal comparisons. In addition, ability-based comparisons with GAI significantly heighten the perceived identity threat, whereas opinion-based comparisons with GAI may alleviate it. Furthermore, anthropocentric beliefs (i.e., human-first attitudes) suppress the negative effect of identity threat on self-esteem, which is also mediated by personal relative deprivation. In addition, a post hoc exploratory multigroup analysis was conducted based on usage frequency. The present study highlights the importance of investigating human-AI comparison and expands the explanatory power of classical concepts and frameworks from the self and identity domains, contributing to psychological interventions aimed at mitigating the potential adverse effects driven by human-machine relationships.
YaarG, ErelH. Who’s better? Exploring the effects of social comparison in HRI on self-esteem and self-efficacy. Proc ACM/IEEE Int Conf Human-Robot Interact, 2025; 2025:978–988; doi:10.1109/HRI61500.2025.10973842
2.
CloudyJ, BanksJ, BowmanND. The str(AI)ght scoop: Artificial intelligence cues reduce perceptions of hostile media bias. Digit Journal, 2023; 11(9):1577–1596; doi: 10.1080/21670811.2021.1969974
3.
ZhangY, GoslineR. Human favoritism, not AI aversion: People’s perceptions (and bias) toward generative AI, human experts, and human–GAI collaboration in persuasive content generation. Judgm Decis Mak, 2023; 18:e41; doi: 10.1017/jdm.2023.37
4.
RappA, BoldiA, CurtiL, et al.How do people ascribe humanness to chatbots? An analysis of real-world human-agent interactions and a theoretical model of humanness. Int J Hum Comput Interact, 2024; 40(19):6027–6050; doi: 10.1080/10447318.2023.2247596
5.
WangJL, WangHZ, GaskinJ, et al.The mediating roles of upward social comparison and self-esteem and the moderating role of social comparison orientation in the association between social networking site usage and subjective well-being. Front Psychol, 2017; 8:233971; doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00771
6.
SchmuckD, KarsayK, MatthesJ, et al.“Looking Up and Feeling Down”. The influence of mobile social networking site use on upward social comparison, self-esteem, and well-being of adult smartphone users. Telemat Inform, 2019; 42:101240; doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2019.101240
7.
SalahM, AlhalbusiH, IsmailMM, et al.Chatting with ChatGPT: Decoding the mind of chatbot users and unveiling the intricate connections between user perception, trust and stereotype perception on self-esteem and psychological well-being. Curr Psychol, 2024; 43(9):7843–7858; doi: 10.1007/s12144-023-04989-0doi:
8.
ZłotowskiJ, YogeeswaranK, BartneckC. Can we control it? Autonomous robots threaten human identity, uniqueness, safety, and resources. Int J Hum Comput Stud, 2017; 100:48–54; doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.12.008
9.
ZhuC, HuangD, ZuoB. The influence of AI robot threats on right-wing authoritarianism and the mitigating role of human uniqueness. Curr Psychol, 2024; 43(34):27509–27520; doi: 10.1007/s12144-024-06347-0
10.
SulsJ, WheelerL. Social comparison theory. In: Handb Theor Soc Psychol. (PaulVL, ArieWK, EdwardTH, eds.) SAGE Publication Ltd: USA, 2012; pp. 460–482.
11.
CramerEM, SongH, DrentAM. Social comparison on Facebook: Motivation, affective consequences, self-esteem, and Facebook fatigue. Comput Human Behav, 2016; 64:739–746; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.049
12.
LiuQQ, ZhouZK, YangXJ, et al.Upward social comparison on social network sites and depressive symptoms: A moderated mediation model of self-esteem and optimism. Pers Individ Dif, 2017; 113:223–228; doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2017.03.037
13.
VogelEA, RoseJP, RobertsLR, et al.Social comparison, social media, and self-esteem. Psychol Pop Media Cult, 2014; 3(4):206–222; doi: 10.1037/ppm0000047
14.
HannaE, WardLM, SeabrookRC, et al.Contributions of social comparison and self-objectification in mediating associations between Facebook use and emergent adults’ psychological well-being. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw, 2017; 20(3):172–179; doi: 10.1089/cyber.2016.0247
15.
ReyesME, BuluranCA, CeliciousAB, et al.Social networking sites use and self-esteem among Filipino young adults: Does social comparison mediate or moderate this association? North Am J Psychol, 2023; 25(4):697–716.
16.
FestingerL. A theory of social comparison processes. Hum Relat, 1954; 7(2):117–140.
17.
GibbonsFX, BuunkBP. Individual differences in social comparison: Development of a scale of social comparison orientation. J Pers Soc Psychol, 1999; 76(1):129–142; doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.76.1.129
18.
SchneiderSM, SchuppJ. Individual differences in social comparison and its consequences for life satisfaction: Introducing a short scale of the Iowa-Netherlands Comparison Orientation Measure. Soc Indic Res, 2014; 115(2):767–789; doi: 10.1007/s11205-012-0227-1
19.
YangCC, HoldenSM, CarterMD. Social media social comparison of ability (but not opinion) predicts lower identity clarity: Identity processing style as a mediator. J Youth Adolesc, 2018; 47(10):2114–2128; doi: 10.1007/s10964-017-0801-6
20.
BrandenbergG, OzimekP, BierhoffHW, et al.The relation between use intensity of private and professional SNS, social comparison, self-esteem, and depressive tendencies in the light of self-regulation. Behav Inf Technol, 2019; 38(6):578–591; doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2018.1545049
21.
GiordanoV, SpadaI, ChiarelloF, et al.The impact of ChatGPT on human skills: A quantitative study on twitter data. Technol Forecast Soc Change, 2024; 203:123389; doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123389
22.
ReevesB, NassCI. The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places. Center for the Study of Language and Information; Cambridge University Press; 1996.
23.
MarksG. Thinking one’s abilities are unique and one’s opinions are common. Pers Soc Psychol Bull, 1984; 10(2):203–208.
24.
BranscombeNR, SchmittMT, HarveyRD. Perceiving pervasive discrimination among African Americans: Implications for group identification and well-being. J Pers Soc Psychol, 1999; 77(1):135–149.
25.
Jasinskaja‐LahtiI, LiebkindK, SolheimE. To identify or not to identify? National disidentification as an alternative reaction to perceived ethnic discrimination. Appl Psychol Int Rev, 2009; 58(1):105–128; doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00384.x
26.
SalahM, AbdelfattahF, Al HalbusiH. The good, the bad, and the GPT: Reviewing the impact of generative artificial intelligence on psychology. Curr Opin Psychol, 2024; 59:101872; doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2024.101872
27.
TurnerJC. Social comparison and social identity: Some prospects for intergroup behaviour. Euro J Social Psych, 1975; 5(1):1–34.
28.
BranscombeNR, EllemersN, SpearsR, et al.The context and content of social identity threat. Soc Identity Context Commit Content, 1999; 77:35–58.
29.
ZhouJ, LuY, ChenQ. GAI identity threat: When and why do individuals feel threatened? Inf Manag, 2025; 62(2):104093; doi: 10.1016/j.im.2024.104093
30.
KimJ, ImI. Do users really want “Human-like” AI? The effects of anthropomorphism and ego-morphism on user’s perceived anthropocentric threat. Proc Annu Hawaii Int Conf Syst Sci, 2024; 57:477–487; doi: aisel.aisnet.org/hicss-57/cl/ethics/4
31.
TurelO, KalhanS. Prejudiced against the machine? Implicit associations and the transience of algorithm aversion. Mis Q, 2023; 47(4):1369–1394; doi: 10.25300/MISQ/2022/17961
FortunaP, WróblewskiZ, GorbaniukO. The structure and correlates of anthropocentrism as a psychological construct. Curr Psychol, 2023; 42(5):3630–3642; doi: 10.1007/s12144-021-01835-z
34.
MussweilerT, GabrielS, BodenhausenGV. Shifting social identities as a strategy for deflecting threatening social comparisons. J Pers Soc Psychol, 2000; 79(3):398–409; doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.79.3.398
35.
HuangY, YangJ, GaoY. Multiple identities as buffer or catalyst? An investigation of psycho-behavioral effects of sports fans’ exposure to abusive social media content. Mass Commun Soc. 2024, 2025; 28(5):805–831; doi: 10.1080/15205436.2024.2390618
36.
ChoB. Individual reactions to a group merger: An integration of relative deprivation theory and social identity theory. Seoul J Bus, 2007; 13(1):49–75.
37.
KhooSS, YangH, TohWX. Leveraging Instagram to enhance self-esteem: A self-affirmative intervention study and multilevel mediation analysis. Comput Human Behav, 2024; 150:107972; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2023.107972
38.
YangD, NiP. Discussion on validity of relative deprivation research tool [IN CHINESE]. J Chongqing Norm Univ (Soc Sci Ed), 2022; 42(5):36–46; doi: 10.19742/j.cnki.50-1164/C.220504
39.
HairJF, BlackWC, BabinBJ, et al.Multivariate data analysis. 7th ed. Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ; 2009.
40.
CheungGW, Cooper-ThomasHD, LauRS, et al.Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations. Asia Pac J Manag, 2024; 41(2):745–783; doi: 10.1007/s10490-023-09871-y
ChenFF. Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Struct Equ Model, 2007; 14(3):464–504; doi: 10.1080/10705510701301834
43.
HwangY, JeongSH. Generative artificial intelligence and misinformation acceptance: An experimental test of the effect of forewarning about artificial intelligence hallucination. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw, 2025; 28(4):284–289; doi: 10.1089/cyber.2024.0407
44.
XuZ, ZhangX. A cross-platform comparison of public discussions regarding ChatGPT on Twitter and Weibo: Data-driven analysis. Int J Hum Comput Interact, 2025:1–17; doi: 10.1080/10447318.2025.2508311
45.
KimJ, MerrillK, CollinsC. AI as a friend or assistant: The mediating role of perceived usefulness in social AI vs. functional AI. Telemat Inform, 2021; 64:101694; doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2021.101694
46.
HoorensV. Self-enhancement and superiority biases in social comparison. Eur Rev Soc Psychol, 1993; 4(1):113–139; doi: 10.1080/14792779343000040
47.
HuangC. Relation between self-esteem and socially desirable responding and the role of socially desirable responding in the relation between self-esteem and performance. Eur J Psychol Educ, 2013; 28(3):663–683; doi: 10.1007/s10212-012-0134-5doi:
48.
GrundkeA. If machines outperform humans: Status threat evoked by and willingness to interact with sophisticated machines in a work-related context. Behav Inf Technol, 2024; 43(7):1348–1364; doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2023.2210688
49.
MarkusHR, KitayamaS. Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychol Rev, 1991; 98(2):224–253; doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
50.
Van NoortC. On the use of pride, hope and fear in China’s international artificial intelligence narratives on CGTN. AI Soc, 2024; 39(1):295–307; doi: 10.1007/s00146-022-01393-3
51.
WangMJ, WangL, ShiJQ. Reliability and validation of the social comparison orientation scale. J Chin Ment Health, 2006; 20:302–305; doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-6729.2006.05.008
52.
LamCK, HuangX. Managing social comparison processes among Chinese employees. In: Handbook of Chinese Organizational Behavior: Integrating Theory, Research and Practice. (HuangX, BondMH, eds.) Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd: Cheltenham, UK; 2012; pp. 118–139.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
