| Literature DB >> 35162562 |
Federica Pedalino1, Anne-Linda Camerini1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Instagram is one of the most popular social media platforms among young females. Idealized body images shared on the platform have been associated with lower levels of body satisfaction in this population, likely due to social comparison processes. In the present study, we tested a mediation model linking Instagram use (i.e., browsing through others' profiles, commenting on others' looks, posting one's own photos or stories) to body dissatisfaction (i.e., body image discrepancy and lack of body appreciation), mediated by upward social comparison with close peers, distant peers, and social media influencers.Entities:
Keywords: Instagram; body dissatisfaction; females; influencers; structural equation modeling; upward social comparison
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35162562 PMCID: PMC8834897 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19031543
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Hypothesized mediation model, all relationships are expected to be positive.
CFA results for items of the final Body Appreciation Scale.
| Items | M | SD | Factor Loading | SE | CILO | CIHI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| On the whole, I am satisfied with my body. | 2.99 | 1.04 | 0.891 | 0.015 | 0.861 | 0.921 |
| My feelings toward my body are positive, for the most part. | 2.95 | 1.03 | 0.884 | 0.015 | 0.854 | 0.914 |
| Despite its imperfections, I still like my body. | 2.87 | 1.05 | 0.871 | 0.018 | 0.837 | 0.906 |
| I feel good about my body. | 2.92 | 1.01 | 0.869 | 0.018 | 0.835 | 0.904 |
| I take a positive attitude toward my body. | 2.73 | 1.03 | 0.843 | 0.020 | 0.803 | 0.883 |
| Despite its flaws, I accept my body for what it is. | 2.82 | 1.09 | 0.813 | 0.024 | 0.766 | 0.861 |
| I feel that my body has at least some good qualities. | 2.38 | 1.00 | 0.727 | 0.029 | 0.670 | 0.784 |
| I respect my body. | 2.25 | 0.90 | 0.609 | 0.041 | 0.528 | 0.690 |
| My self-worth is independent of my body shape or weight. | 3.18 | 1.15 | 0.439 | 0.054 | 0.333 | 0.545 |
| I do not allow unrealistically thin images of women presented in the media to affect my attitudes toward my body. | 2.93 | 1.24 | 0.429 | 0.053 | 0.324 | 0.533 |
| I do not focus a lot of energy being concerned with my body shape or weight. | 3.31 | 1.10 | 0.282 | 0.064 | 0.157 | 0.408 |
Note: All items are reverse coded with a final scale range from 1 “Always” to 5 “Never”, CILO = lowest level CI, CIHI = highest level CI.
Descriptive statistics and bivariate Pearson’s correlations (n = 291).
| Variables | M (SD) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Age (adolescent) | 0.47 (0.50) | - | |||||||||
| 2. BMI z-scores | 0.02 (0.98) | −0.15 ** | - | ||||||||
| 3. Body image discrepancy | 1.11 (1.17) | 0.02 | 0.47 ** | - | |||||||
| 4. Lack of body appreciation | 2. 85 (0.77) | 0.15 * | 0.23 ** | 0.37 ** | - | ||||||
| 5. Upward comparison with close peers | 3.09 (0.59) | 0.12 * | 0.13 * | 0.13 * | 0.38 ** | - | |||||
| 6. Upward comparison with distant peers | 3.18 (0.76) | 0.05 | 0.11 | 0.09 | 0.34 ** | 0.46 ** | - | ||||
| 7. Upward comparison with influencers | 3.62 (0.89) | 0.02 | 0.07 | 0.13 * | 0.33 ** | 0.32 ** | 0.39 ** | - | |||
| 8. Browsing on Instagram | 3.49 (1.08) | 0.01 | −0.18 ** | 0.09 | 0.10 | −0.05 | −0.06 | 0.24 ** | - | ||
| 9. Commenting on others’ photos/stories on Instagram | 2.14 (1.78) | 0.20 ** | −0.01 | 0.02 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.14 * | 0.31 ** | - | |
| 10. Posting own photos/stories on Instagram | 3.78 (1.30) | −0.20 ** | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.02 | −0.03 | 0.00 | 0.10 | 0.27 ** | 0.24 ** | - |
Note: ** p < 0.01 (2-tailed); * p < 0.05 (2-tailed).
Path and correlation coefficients for all direct associations in the final mediation model.
| Direct Associations | B | SE | β |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Browsing TO Upward comparison with close peers | −0.037 | 0.028 | −0.067 | 0.181 |
| Commenting TO Upward comparison with close peers | 0.028 | 0.026 | 0.084 | 0.271 |
| Posting TO Upward comparison with close peers | −0.013 | 0.034 | −0.029 | 0.696 |
| Browsing TO Upward comparison with distant peers | −0.058 | 0.039 | −0.082 | 0.137 |
| Commenting TO Upward comparison with distant peers | 0.032 | 0.031 | 0.076 | 0.291 |
| Posting TO Upward comparison with distant peers | 0.001 | 0.035 | 0.002 | 0.976 |
| Browsing TO Upward comparison with influencers | 0.170 | 0.050 | 0.206 | 0.001 |
| Commenting TO Upward comparison with influencers | 0.036 | 0.030 | 0.071 | 0.242 |
| Posting TO Upward comparison with influencers | 0.019 | 0.042 | 0.028 | 0.646 |
| Upward comparison with close peers TO Body image discrepancy | 0.077 | 0.120 | 0.039 | 0.521 |
| Upward comparison with distant peers TO Body image discrepancy | −0.029 | 0.102 | −0.019 | 0.779 |
| Upward comparison with influencers TO Body image discrepancy | 0.124 | 0.064 | 0.095 | 0.051 |
| Age (adolescent) TO Body image discrepancy | 0.193 | 0.123 | 0.83 | 0.118 |
| BMI (z-scores) TO Body image discrepancy | 0.564 | 0.072 | 0.473 | <0.001 |
| Upward comparison with close peers TO Lack of body appreciation | 0.273 | 0.090 | 0.215 | 0.002 |
| Upward comparison with distant peers TO Lack of body appreciation | 0.135 | 0.057 | 0.135 | 0.018 |
| Upward comparison with influencers TO Lack of body appreciation | 0.173 | 0.045 | 0.203 | <0.001 |
| Age (adolescent) TO Lack of body appreciation | 0.216 | 0.084 | 0.143 | 0.010 |
| BMI (z-scores) TO Lack of body appreciation | 0.149 | 0.038 | 0.192 | <0.001 |
| Upward comparison with close peers WITH Upward comparison with distant peers | 0.203 | 0.037 | 0.458 | <0.001 |
| Upward comparison with close peers WITH Upward comparison with influencers | 0.170 | 0.036 | 0.335 | <0.001 |
| Upward comparison with distant peers WITH Upward comparison with influencers | 0.269 | 0.041 | 0.416 | <0.001 |
| Body image discrepancy WITH Lack of body appreciation | 0.190 | 0.042 | 0.281 | <0.001 |
Note: χ2 (12) = 23.374, p = 0.025; CFI = 0.963; RMSEA = 0.057 (90 CILO% = 0.021, 90 CIHI% = 0.094); SRMR = 0.042.
Figure 2Final mediation model, * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. Only significant standardized path coefficients for continuous variables are displayed. Dotted lines display non-significant paths.