| Literature DB >> 31193561 |
Yvonne Kelly1, Afshin Zilanawala1, Cara Booker2, Amanda Sacker1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests social media use is associated with mental health in young people but underlying processes are not well understood. This paper i) assesses whether social media use is associated with adolescents' depressive symptoms, and ii) investigates multiple potential explanatory pathways via online harassment, sleep, self-esteem and body image.Entities:
Keywords: Adolescence; Body image; Mental health; Online harassment; Self-esteem; Sleep; Social media
Year: 2019 PMID: 31193561 PMCID: PMC6537508 DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2018.12.005
Source DB: PubMed Journal: EClinicalMedicine ISSN: 2589-5370
Fig. 1Hypothesised pathways between social media use and depressive symptoms in young people.
Prevalence of social media use by potential explanatory factors and confounders.
| Girls ( | Boys ( | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | None | < 1 h | 1 to < 3 h | 3 to < 5 h | ≥ 5 h | Overall | None | < 1 h | 1 to < 3 h | 3 to < 5 h | ≥ 5 h | |
| Overall prevalence | 4.4 | 19.0 | 33.4 | 17.7 | 25.4 | 10.2 | 35.1 | 32.7 | 10.3 | 11.6 | ||
| Online harassment | ||||||||||||
| Not involved | 61.3 | 5.9 | 23.5 | 36.7 | 16.0 | 17.8 | 74.9 | 12.3 | 37.1 | 32.0 | 9.0 | 9.6 |
| Victim | 22.5 | 3.1 | 15.7 | 30.9 | 20.2 | 30.1 | 11.5 | 6.5 | 34.5 | 35.2 | 11.9 | 11.8 |
| Perpetrator | 1.8 | 0.9 | 10.1 | 25.1 | 20.3 | 43.6 | 3.0 | 5.7 | 29.4 | 32.8 | 14.1 | 18.1 |
| Perpetrator-victim | 14.4 | 0.7 | 6.1 | 24.5 | 20.6 | 48.1 | 10.6 | 0.8 | 23.2 | 35.4 | 16.9 | 23.6 |
| Hours of sleep | ||||||||||||
| 10 + h | 16.2 | 10.3 | 30.3 | 33.0 | 13.6 | 12.8 | 20.8 | 14.9 | 41.6 | 29.1 | 7.8 | 6.6 |
| 9 | 38.6 | 4.6 | 20.5 | 37.0 | 17.1 | 20.8 | 40.3 | 10.4 | 38.3 | 31.9 | 9.9 | 9.5 |
| 8 | 31.8 | 2.5 | 15.5 | 32.5 | 20.2 | 29.4 | 28.0 | 7.8 | 30.3 | 35.7 | 11.7 | 14.5 |
| 7 h or less | 13.4 | 1.4 | 9.6 | 25.7 | 18.7 | 44.6 | 10.8 | 7.1 | 22.8 | 35.1 | 12.9 | 22.1 |
| Sleep latency | ||||||||||||
| 0–30 min | 62.6 | 5.1 | 20.4 | 34.5 | 16.6 | 23.4 | 69.3 | 10.1 | 35.9 | 33.2 | 10.2 | 10.5 |
| 31–60 min | 26.8 | 3.5 | 17.5 | 32.8 | 20.2 | 26.0 | 21.4 | 9.8 | 34.1 | 32.4 | 10.9 | 12.8 |
| More than 60 min | 10.7 | 2.9 | 14.5 | 28.9 | 18.1 | 35.7 | 9.2 | 12.6 | 30.9 | 29.5 | 9.8 | 17.2 |
| Sleep disruption | ||||||||||||
| None of the time | 24.6 | 5.7 | 21.1 | 34.0 | 17.4 | 21.8 | 36.1 | 11.7 | 35.3 | 34.0 | 8.4 | 10.6 |
| A little of the time | 35.1 | 4.5 | 20.2 | 35.4 | 17.7 | 22.2 | 36.3 | 9.4 | 37.1 | 33.6 | 10.8 | 9.1 |
| Often | 27.6 | 3.5 | 16.6 | 33.8 | 18.1 | 28.0 | 20.2 | 8.2 | 33.1 | 32.3 | 11.9 | 14.4 |
| Most of the time | 12.7 | 3.7 | 16.9 | 26.2 | 17.4 | 35.8 | 7.4 | 12.6 | 29.4 | 23.6 | 13.0 | 21.4 |
| Self-esteem | ||||||||||||
| Normal/high | 87.2 | 4.5 | 20.0 | 34.5 | 17.8 | 23.1 | 91.1 | 9.9 | 35.1 | 33.5 | 10.4 | 11.1 |
| Low | 12.8 | 3.7 | 12.1 | 25.9 | 16.9 | 41.4 | 8.9 | 13.8 | 35.1 | 24.9 | 9.6 | 16.6 |
| Body weight satisfaction | ||||||||||||
| Satisfied | 21.8 | 7.7 | 24.9 | 34.5 | 15.6 | 17.3 | 31.7 | 13.8 | 38.2 | 31.0 | 7.8 | 9.1 |
| Dissatisfied | 78.2 | 3.5 | 17.4 | 33.1 | 18.3 | 27.7 | 68.3 | 8.6 | 33.6 | 33.5 | 11.5 | 12.8 |
| Happiness with appearance | ||||||||||||
| Happy | 84.6 | 4.7 | 19.8 | 34.7 | 18.2 | 22.5 | 88.2 | 10.4 | 35.3 | 33.1 | 10.1 | 11.0 |
| Unhappy | 15.4 | 2.7 | 14.8 | 26.3 | 14.7 | 41.4 | 11.8 | 9.0 | 33.2 | 29.8 | 11.9 | 16.1 |
| Internalising score (age 11) | ||||||||||||
| Normal | 74.5 | 3.5 | 18.7 | 34.5 | 18.9 | 24.2 | 75.0 | 8.5 | 35.1 | 34.4 | 10.7 | 11.3 |
| Borderline/abnormal | 25.5 | 7.0 | 19.8 | 30.2 | 14.1 | 28.9 | 25.0 | 15.5 | 35.1 | 27.6 | 9.3 | 12.5 |
| Family income (fifths) | ||||||||||||
| Richest | 31.5 | 5.9 | 22.5 | 37.2 | 16.9 | 17.6 | 31.4 | 10.7 | 40.7 | 31.6 | 8.8 | 8.3 |
| Fourth | 24.1 | 2.3 | 18.3 | 37.0 | 18.3 | 24.1 | 25.8 | 10.6 | 32.9 | 35.9 | 10.2 | 10.4 |
| Third | 19.1 | 3.1 | 18.1 | 29.8 | 19.5 | 29.5 | 19.2 | 9.4 | 33.7 | 32.7 | 10.8 | 13.4 |
| Second | 14.5 | 4.6 | 14.3 | 27.4 | 19.1 | 34.7 | 13.2 | 10.1 | 30.7 | 32.2 | 13.5 | 13.5 |
| Poorest | 10.8 | 7.2 | 18.4 | 29.1 | 13.8 | 31.6 | 10.4 | 9.9 | 31.9 | 28.8 | 10.2 | 19.1 |
| Family structure | ||||||||||||
| Two parent | 76.8 | 4.8 | 19.8 | 35.3 | 17.5 | 22.6 | 77.5 | 10.4 | 35.9 | 33.2 | 9.9 | 10.6 |
| One parent | 23.2 | 3.3 | 16.3 | 27.1 | 18.5 | 34.8 | 22.5 | 9.8 | 32.3 | 31.1 | 11.7 | 15.0 |
Notes: Prevalence estimates are weighted with sample weights. Sample sizes are unweighted.
Mean (geometric) depressive symptom scores and clinically relevant symptoms (percent) by social media use, explanatory factors and confounders.
| Girls (n = 5496) | Boys (n = 5408) | Girls (n = 5496) | Boys (n = 5408) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Geometric mean score | Clinically relevant symptoms (%) | |||
| Overall | 4.6 | 2.5 | 23.6 | 8.4 |
| Social media use in hours/weekday | ||||
| None | 2.7 | 2.5 | 11.2 | 7.4 |
| < 1 h | 3.3 | 2.3 | 15.1 | 7.2 |
| 1 to < 3 h | 3.9 | 2.3 | 18.1 | 6.8 |
| 3 to < 5 h | 5.2 | 3.0 | 25.1 | 11.4 |
| > 5 h | 6.6 | 3.5 | 38.1 | 14.5 |
| Gender interaction: | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | ||
| < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | |
| Online harassment | ||||
| Not involved | 3.1 | 2.1 | 13.9 | 5.3 |
| Victim | 7.5 | 4.3 | 35.6 | 17.4 |
| Perpetrator | 6.8 | 3.6 | 32.8 | 7.9 |
| Perpetrator-victim | 8.5 | 4.9 | 44.9 | 20.1 |
| Gender interaction: | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | ||
| < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | |
| Hours of sleep | ||||
| 10 + h | 2.9 | 2.2 | 13.8 | 6.0 |
| 9 | 3.7 | 2.2 | 17.8 | 6.0 |
| 8 | 5.4 | 2.7 | 25.1 | 9.1 |
| 7 h or less | 8.9 | 4.0 | 48.4 | 19.8 |
| Gender interaction: | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | ||
| < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | |
| Sleep latency | ||||
| 0–30 min | 3.6 | 2.1 | 15.4 | 6.3 |
| 31–60 min | 6.2 | 3.2 | 33.0 | 9.7 |
| More than 60 min | 9.0 | 4.5 | 47.8 | 20.5 |
| Gender interaction: | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | ||
| < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | |
| Sleep disruption | ||||
| None of the time | 2.3 | 1.6 | 7.9 | 4.0 |
| A little of the time | 4.1 | 2.5 | 18.0 | 6.0 |
| Often | 6.4 | 3.9 | 32.5 | 14.1 |
| Most of the time | 8.9 | 4.9 | 49.9 | 25.8 |
| Gender interaction: | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | ||
| < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | |
| Self-esteem | ||||
| Normal/high | 3.4 | 2.3 | 15.7 | 5.5 |
| Low | 13.1 | 10.0 | 77.2 | 38.3 |
| Gender interaction: | 0.50 | < 0.001 | ||
| < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | |
| Body weight satisfaction | ||||
| Satisfied | 2.3 | 1.9 | 8.5 | 3.7 |
| Dissatisfied | 5.5 | 2.8 | 27.8 | 10.5 |
| Gender interaction: | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | ||
| < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | |
| Happiness with appearance | ||||
| Happy | 3.7 | 2.4 | 16.0 | 6.1 |
| Unhappy | 12.2 | 6.1 | 65.3 | 25.5 |
| Gender interaction: | 0.001 | < 0.001 | ||
| < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | |
| Internalising score (age 11) | ||||
| Normal | 4.2 | 2.2 | 21.2 | 6.8 |
| Borderline/abnormal | 5.6 | 3.3 | 30.4 | 13.1 |
| Gender interaction: | 0.39 | 0.17 | ||
| < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | |
| Family income (fifths) | ||||
| Richest | 4.5 | 2.5 | 20.4 | 6.8 |
| Fourth | 5.3 | 2.9 | 20.9 | 9.0 |
| Third | 5.0 | 2.6 | 26.3 | 8.0 |
| Second | 4.4 | 2.5 | 30.3 | 11.3 |
| Poorest | 4.0 | 2.3 | 24.8 | 8.5 |
| Gender interaction: | < 0.001 | 0.03 | ||
| 0.003 | 0.042 | < 0.001 | < 0.05 | |
| Family structure | ||||
| Two parent | 4.3 | 2.4 | 22.0 | 7.9 |
| One parent | 5.3 | 2.8 | 28.6 | 10.1 |
| Gender interaction: | 0.14 | 0.03 | ||
| < 0.001 | 0.007 | < 0.001 | < 0.05 | |
Notes: Estimates are weighted with sample weights. Sample sizes are unweighted. Moods and feelings score ranges from 0 to 26 and scores ≥ 12 indicate clinically relevant depressive symptoms.
Wald tests for gender interaction are based on differences in means of logged depression symptom scores by gender. Tests for differences in means across categories within gender are based on non-parametric trend tests of logged depression symptom scores.
Multivariable regressions, depressive symptom scores by social media use.
| Model 0 (M0) | Model 1: M0 + online harassment | Model 2: M0 + sleep | Model 3: M0 + self-esteem | Model 4: M0 + body image | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Social media use in hours/weekday | ||||||||||
| Panel A: girls (n = 5496) | ||||||||||
| None | 0.74 | (0.62 to 0.89) | 0.84 | (0.71 to 0.99) | 0.87 | (0.74 to 1.02) | 0.77 | (0.65 to 0.91) | 0.88 | (0.76 to 1.01) |
| < 1 h | 0.88 | (0.80 to 0.96) | 0.94 | (0.86 to 1.02) | 0.93 | (0.86 to 1.00) | 0.87 | (0.80 to 0.95) | 0.96 | (0.89 to 1.03) |
| 1 to < 3 h (ref) | ||||||||||
| 3 to < 5 h | 1.26 | (1.15 to 1.37) | 1.17 | (1.08 to 1.26) | 1.18 | (1.09 to 1.28) | 1.20 | (1.10 to 1.30) | 1.17 | (1.08 to 1.26) |
| > 5 h | 1.50 | (1.39 to 1.62) | 1.30 | (1.21 to 1.40) | 1.28 | (1.19 to 1.38) | 1.26 | (1.17 to 1.35) | 1.30 | (1.21 to 1.40) |
| Wald test, F(4,387) | 48 | P < 0.00005 | 21 | P < 0.00005 | 22 | P < 0.00005 | 31 | P < 0.00005 | 21 | P < 0.00005 |
Notes: All regressions adjust for covariates: family income and structure at age 14, internalising scores at age 11, and age and are weighted with sample weights. Confidence intervals are in parentheses. Sample sizes are unweighted. Regression coefficients have been exponentiated to aid interpretation.
p < 0.05.
p < 0.01.
p < 0.001.
Fig. 2Social media use and depressive symptoms – summary of path analysis.
Path model from social media use to depressive symptoms score (n = 10,904).
| OR (95% CI) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Social media use → hours of sleep1 | ||
| None | 1.86 | (1.56 to 2.22) |
| < 1 h | 1.37 | (1.21 to 1.55) |
| 1 to < 3 h | Ref | |
| 3 to < 5 h | 0.83 | (0.72 to 0.95) |
| ≥ 5 h | 0.53 | (0.46 to 0.60) |
| Online harassment → hours of sleep1 | ||
| Not involved | Ref | |
| Victim | 0.71 | (0.63 to 0.80) |
| Perpetrator | 0.54 | (0.39 to 0.74) |
| Perpetrator-victim | 0.67 | (0.59 to 0.76) |
| Social media use → sleep latency1 | ||
| None | 1.01 | (0.83 to 1.22) |
| < 1 h | 0.94 | (0.81 to 1.09) |
| 1 to < 3 h | Ref | |
| 3 to < 5 h | 1.16 | (0.98 to 1.39) |
| > 5 h | 1.37 | (1.17 to 1.60) |
| Online harassment → sleep latency1 | ||
| Not involved | Ref | |
| Victim | 1.68 | (1.44 to 1.97) |
| Perpetrator | 1.50 | (1.08 to 2.08) |
| Perpetrator-victim | 1.53 | (1.32 to 1.76) |
| Social media use → sleep disruption1 | ||
| None | 0.87 | (0.72 to 1.05) |
| < 1 h | 1.03 | (0.90 to 1.16) |
| 1 to < 3 h | Ref | |
| 3 to < 5 h | 1.16 | (1.01 to 1.34) |
| ≥ 5 h | 1.36 | (1.18 to 1.56) |
| Online harassment → sleep disruption1 | ||
| Not involved | Ref | |
| Victim | 1.93 | (1.70 to 2.20) |
| Perpetrator | 1.21 | (0.90 to 1.62) |
| Perpetrator-victim | 1.93 | (1.66 to 2.23) |
| Social media use → body weight dissatisfaction2 | ||
| None | 0.60 | (0.48 to 0.76) |
| < 1 h | 0.83 | (0.72 to 0.96) |
| 1 to < 3 h | Ref | |
| 3 to < 5 h | 1.09 | (0.89 to 1.32) |
| > 5 h | 1.31 | (1.10 to 1.56) |
| Online harassment → body weight dissatisfaction2 | ||
| Not involved | Ref | |
| Victim | 1.34 | (1.13 to 1.59) |
| Perpetrator | 1.15 | (0.74 to 1.79) |
| Perpetrator-victim | 1.71 | (1.41 to 2.06) |
| Social media use → low self-esteem2 | ||
| None | 1.75 | (1.19 to 2.58) |
| < 1 h | 1.21 | (0.94 to 1.57) |
| 1 to < 3 h | Ref | |
| 3 to < 5 h | 1.05 | (0.82 to 1.34) |
| > 5 h | 1.56 | (1.25 to 1.95) |
| Online harassment → low self-esteem2 | ||
| Not involved | Ref | |
| Victim | 2.03 | (1.66 to 2.47) |
| Perpetrator | 1.81 | (1.00 to 3.27) |
| Perpetrator-victim | 1.99 | (1.56 to 2.53) |
| Happiness with appearance → low self-esteem2 | ||
| 25.89 | (16.45 to 40.76) | |
| Body weight dissatisfaction → low self-esteem2 | ||
| 2.00 | (1.52 to 2.64) | |
| Social media use → online harassment3 | ||
| Victim | ||
| None | 0.51 | (0.38 to 0.68) |
| < 1 h | 0.78 | (0.66 to 0.93) |
| 1 to < 3 h | Ref | |
| 3 to < 5 h | 1.35 | (1.11 to 1.63) |
| > 5 h | 1.64 | (1.37 to 1.97) |
| Perpetrator | ||
| None | 0.32 | (0.15 to 0.68) |
| < 1 h | 0.83 | (0.52 to 1.34) |
| 1 to < 3 h | Ref | |
| 3 to < 5 h | 2.12 | (1.17 to 3.86) |
| > 5 h | 2.71 | (1.71 to 4.28) |
| Perpetrator-victim | ||
| None | 0.09 | (0.05 to 0.17) |
| < 1 h | 0.54 | (0.43 to 0.69) |
| 1 to < 3 h | Ref | |
| 3 to < 5 h | 1.69 | (1.35 to 2.12) |
| > 5 h | 2.69 | (2.24 to 3.24) |
| Social media use → happiness with appearance4 | ||
| None | − 0.10 | (− 0.16 to − 0.04) |
| < 1 h | − 0.03 | (− 0.06 to 0.00) |
| 1 to < 3 h | Ref | |
| 3 to < 5 h | 0.05 | (0.01 to 0.09) |
| > 5 h | 0.08 | (0.05 to 0.12) |
| Online harassment → happiness with appearance4 | ||
| Not involved | Ref | |
| Victim | 0.22 | (0.18 to 0.26) |
| Perpetrator | 0.13 | (0.03 to 0.22) |
| Perpetrator-victim | 0.21 | (0.18 to 0.25) |
| Social media use → SMFQ score4 | ||
| None | 0.09 | (0.02 to 0.17) |
| < 1 h | 0.10 | (− 0.04 to 0.06) |
| 1 to < 3 h | Ref | |
| 3 to < 5 h | 0.10 | (0.04 to 0.16) |
| > 5 h | 0.10 | (0.05 to 0.16) |
| Online harassment → SMFQ score4 | ||
| Not involved | Ref | |
| Victim | 0.33 | (0.28 to 0.38) |
| Perpetrator | 0.30 | (0.20 to 0.39) |
| Perpetrator-victim | 0.38 | (0.33 to 0.43) |
| Hours of sleep → SMFQ score4 | ||
| 7 h or less | 0.17 | (0.11 to 0.22) |
| 8 | 0.11 | (0.07 to 0.16) |
| 9 | Ref | |
| 10 + h | − 0.06 | (− 0.11 to − 0.01) |
| Sleep latency → SMFQ score4 | ||
| 0–30 min | Ref | |
| 31–60 min | 0.13 | (0.08 to 0.17) |
| > 60 min | 0.21 | (0.14 to 0.27) |
| Sleep disruption → SMFQ score4 | ||
| None of the time | Ref | |
| A little of the time | 0.23 | (0.19 to 0.28) |
| Often | 0.40 | (0.35 to 0.45) |
| Most of the time | 0.48 | (0.42 to 0.54) |
| Low self-esteem → SMFQ score4 | ||
| 0.56 | (0.51 to 0.61) | |
| Happiness with appearance → SMFQ score4 | ||
| 0.47 | (0.43 to 0.51) | |
| Body weight dissatisfaction → SMFQ score4 | ||
| 0.14 | (0.10 to 0.18) | |
Notes [1]: Ordinal logistic regression [2]; Logistic regression [3]; Multinomial logistic regression [4]; Linear regression. All regressions adjust for confounders: family income and structure at age 14, internalising scores at age 11 and age. Regression estimates are weighted with sample weights. Confidence intervals are in parentheses. Sample sizes are unweighted.
p < 0.05.
p < 0.01.
p < 0.001.
| Measure | Questionnaire items | Analysis variable |
|---|---|---|
| Depressive symptoms | Participants completed the Mood and Feelings Questionnaire – short version (SMFQ) from which a summed score was created. The SMFQ comprises 13 items on affective symptoms in the last 2 weeks as follows: felt miserable or unhappy; didn't enjoy anything at all; so tired just sat around and did nothing; was very restless; felt I was no good anymore; cried a lot; found it hard to think properly or concentrate; hated myself; was a bad person; felt lonely; thought nobody really loved me; thought I could never be as good as other kids; did everything wrong. | Log transformed continuous variable used in modelling; generated dichotomous variable indicating clinically relevant symptoms (cut point ≥ 12) |
| Social media use | Respondents were asked “On a normal week day during term time, how many hours do you spend on social networking or messaging sites or Apps on the internet such as Facebook, Twitter and WhatsApp?” (response categories: None, less than half an hour, half an hour to less than 1 h, 1 h to less than 2 h, 2 h to less than 3 h, 3 h to less than 5 h, 5 h to less than 7 h, 7 h or more). | Categories were collapsed to generate a variable as follows: none, < 1 h, 1 to < 3 h, 3 to < 5 h, ≥ 5 h. |
| Online harassment | “How often have other children sent you unwanted or nasty emails, texts or messages or posted something nasty about you on a website?”; | Combined responses capturing any involvement as victim and/or perpetrator to generate a variable with 4 categories: no involvement; victim; perpetrator; perpetrator-victim. (Adapted from Fahy |
| Sleep duration | “About what time do you usually go to sleep on a school night?” “About what time do you usually wake up in the morning on a school day?”. | A 4-category variable was generated: 7 h or less, 8, 9, 10 + h |
| Sleep latency | A sleep latency variable was constructed from answers to the question “During the last four weeks, how long did it usually take for you to fall asleep?” | A 3-category variable was created: 0–30, 30–60, > 60mins. |
| Sleep disruption | Disruptions to sleep were assessed using the question “During the last four weeks, how often did you awaken during your sleep time and have trouble falling back to sleep again?” | A 4-category variable was created: all/most of the time; often; a little of the time; and none of the time. |
| Self-esteem | Self-esteem was assessed using the items on self-satisfaction from the Rosenberg scale: having good qualities; able to do things similar to others; person of value; and feel good about oneself. | A dichotomised variable (low vs normal/high) derived from the sum of the items, scores ≥ 7 (i.e. the top 20% of the distribution) indicate low self-esteem. |
| Happiness with appearance | Happiness with appearance was measured, as follows: “On a scale of 1 to 7 where ‘1’ means completely happy and ‘7’ means not at all happy, how do you feel about the way you look?” | A log transformed continuous variable was used in modelling. A dichotomised variable (1–6 vs 7) was used for display purposes in |
| Body weight satisfaction | Body weight satisfaction was assessed from 3 items: “Which of these do you think you are?” (underweight, about the right weight, slightly overweight, very overweight), “Have you ever exercised to lose weight or to avoid gaining weight?”, “Have you ever eaten less food, fewer calories, or foods low in fat to lose weight or to avoid gaining weight?”. | Responses other than ‘about the right weight’ or affirmative to exercising or eating to lose or maintain weight were combined to generate a body satisfaction variable (satisfied vs dissatisfied). |
Alternative specifications that assumed a continuous normal distribution were rejected due to heteroscedasticity.
Treating the online harassment victim and -perpetrator variables as ordinal and testing for an interaction between the two variables resulted in an unwieldy number of parameters. Assuming the variables to be continuous was not tenable due to their distributional patterns.
The Rosenberg Scale had a distinctly non-normal distribution for which no transformation was satisfactory. Regression models using the raw scale show significant heteroscedasticity.