Body Image 28 (2019) 39–43

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Body Image
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/bodyimage

Me, my selfie, and I: The relationship between editing and posting

selfies and body dissatisfaction in men and women
Alexandra Rhodes Lonergan a,∗ , Kay Bussey a , Jonathan Mond b,c , Olivia Brown d ,
Scott Griffiths e,d , Stuart B. Murray f , Deborah Mitchison a,g
a
Centre for Emotional Health, Department of Psychology, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
b
Centre for Rural Health, University of Tasmania, Australia
c
Centre for Health Research, University of Western Sydney, Australia
d
Department of Psychology, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
e
Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
f
Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, USA
g
School of Medicine, Western Sydney University, Sydney Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Factors that promote versus protect against body dissatisfaction remain unclear. Social media may be
Received 12 April 2018 a risk factor, particularly given ubiquitous engagement among young people, and the pervasive use of
Received in revised form 5 December 2018 “selfies.” Conversely, self-compassion has received attention as a protective factor against body dissat-
Accepted 5 December 2018
isfaction. This study examined: (a) the relationships between “manipulation” of selfies posted online,
Available online 17 December 2018
“investment” in others’ responses to selfies, and body dissatisfaction; and (b) whether self-compassion
moderated the relationships between social media variables and body dissatisfaction. Results from 184
Keywords:
Australian men (n = 89) and women (n = 95) suggested that social media variables photo manipulation and
Body image
Gender
investment were associated with greater body dissatisfaction for both genders. Self-compassion did not
Selfies moderate these relationships. Findings suggest that manipulation and concern about selfies posted may
Self-compassion be risk correlates for body dissatisfaction in men and women. Further research is needed to investigate
Social media protective factors against body dissatisfaction in an online environment.
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction research has further indicated that women who took and posted a
selfie to their social media profile reported lower perceived phys-
Body dissatisfaction is associated with negative outcomes, ical attractiveness compared to those who did not take a selfie
including eating disorder pathology and lower quality of life (Mills, Musto, Williams, & Tiggemann, 2018). Social media sites
(Griffiths et al., 2016). It is therefore crucial to investigate the role associated with poor body image outcomes include those that are
played by risk factors, such as social media, in the development of primarily photo-based, such as Instagram (Fardouly, Willburger,
body dissatisfaction. Social media is a common form of commu- & Vartanian, 2017). Research by McLean, Paxton, Wertheim, and
nication, and distinct from traditional media, is highly interactive, Masters, (2015) provided some of the first evidence regarding a
immediate, and targeted towards individual users. Internalization positive association between photo-based social media behaviors
of sociocultural appearance standards exerted by media, including and body dissatisfaction in adolescent girls. Traction in this area
social media, have been implicated in the development of body has expanded to identify similar relationships in adults (Cohen,
dissatisfaction amongst women (Ferguson, 2013; Izydorczyk & Newton-John, & Slater, 2018).
Sitnik-Warchulska, 2018). Although few prospective studies exist, With 90% of young adults accessing social media on a daily
there is evidence from at least one longitudinal study that frequent basis (Perrin, 2015), research has turned away from general use to
social network use results in body dissatisfaction rather than the focus more specifically on photo-based behaviors. This has resulted
reverse (de Vries, Peter, de Graaf, & Nikken, 2016). Experimental in a recent meta-analysis concluding that the use of appearance-
related features, such as posting photographs, has a stronger
relationship with thin-ideal internalization among women, than
the broad use of social media (Mingoia, Hutchinson, Wilson, &
∗ Corresponding author at: C3A 703 First Walk, Macquarie University, NSW, 2019, Gleaves, 2017). Behaviors associated with thin-ideal internalization
Australia. and body disatisfaction include frequent engagement with photo-
E-mail address: [email protected] (A.R. Lonergan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2018.12.001
1740-1445/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
40 A.R. Lonergan et al. / Body Image 28 (2019) 39–43

related activities, such as editing and posting selfies (Cohen et al., 2.2. Measures
2018), and self-surveillance (e.g., checking “likes”; Fox & Rooney,
2015). 2.2.1. Photo manipulation and investment
Self-compassion has been identified as a protective factor, Photo Manipulation and Investment Scales (McLean et al., 2015)
in women, to mitigate the negative effects of comparing one’s assessed the extent to which participants digitally altered selfies
appearance against sociocultural norms, which may be height- (Photo Manipulation) as well as participants’ effort in choosing
ened in the context of social media (Braun, Park, & Gorin, 2016). a selfie to post to social media and monitoring others’ responses
Self-compassion refers to the capacity to experience unpleasant to such images (Photo Investment). Photo Manipulation was mea-
thoughts and emotions with warmth and self-acceptance, rather sured by 10 Likert-type items regarding the frequency of different
than self-judgment (Raes, Pommier, Neff, & Van Gucht, 2011). manipulation procedures. Scores ranged from 10 to 50, whereby
In regards to social media exposure, one study found that when higher scores indicated greater photo manipulation. Internal con-
women viewed a series of images of idealized bodies and self- sistency (i.e., Cronbach’s alpha) was .79 for men and .86 for women.
compassion statements, they reported greater body satisfaction Photo Investment was measured by eight visual analogue items
(e.g., “satisfied with my body shape”) compared to women who that assessed the degree of concern or effort placed in select-
viewed only idealized body images (Slater, Varsani, & Diedrichs, ing/uploading selfies to social media. The total score was calculated
2017), suggesting that self-compassion may buffer against the from the mean of all items, ranging from 0 to 10, with higher scores
potentially harmful impact of social media. indicating greater photo investment. Cronbach’s alpha was .72 for
Little is known, however, about the differential effect of self- men and .82 for women.
compassion on photo-based social media behaviors across genders.
Of the limited research conducted with male cohorts, it appears that 2.2.2. Body dissatisfaction
men do post and edit selfies, often for external validation and to cul- The 16-item self-report adapted Body Shape Satisfaction Scale
tivate their “best” appearance (Fox & Vendemia, 2016). Moreover, (BSS; Pingitore, Spring, & Garfield, 1997) assessed dissatisfaction
a systematic review, although based on few studies, suggested that with specific body parts. Given the inclusion of male and female
the relationship between body dissatisfaction and social media use participants, the BSS was modified to include items that assessed
appears to be similar across genders (Holland & Tiggemann, 2016). dissatisfaction with features relevant to men (e.g., chest). Dissatis-
Research that includes both males and females is therefore impor- faction was reported on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (not at all
tant to more fully understand the potential negative relationships dissatisfied) to 5 (extremely dissatisfied). A total score was summed,
between photo-based social media on body dissatisfaction within with higher scores indicating greater body dissatisfaction. Cron-
the population. bach’s alpha was .93 for men .94 for women.
The current study aimed to investigate the relationship between
body dissatisfaction and both manipulation of selfies (photo manip- 2.2.3. Self-compassion
ulation) and investment in choosing a selfie to post to social media, The 12-item Self-Compassion Scale Short-Form (SCS-SF; Raes
and others’ responses to such images (photo investment), in male et al., 2011) assessed ability to mindfully contextualize negative
and female users. We also aimed to investigate whether self- emotional states with a sense of kindness and acceptance. Items
compassion moderated these relationships. It was hypothesized were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Items were averaged,
that body dissatisfaction would be positively associated with photo with higher scores indicating greater self-compassion. Cronbach’s
manipulation and photo investment, and that the relationship alpha was .76 for men and .85 for women.
between body dissatisfaction and both photo manipulation/photo
investment would be weaker for participants who reported greater 2.3. Data analysis
self-compassion. No a priori hypotheses were made regarding gen-
der differences. As age has been included as a covariate in prior Analyses of variance (ANOVA) examined gender differences
studies (e.g., Fox & Vendemia, 2016), and in light of research that in key variables: photo manipulation, photo investment, body
suggests higher body mass index (BMI) is related to body dis- dissatisfaction, and self-compassion. Next, Spearman’s Rho corre-
satisfaction (Weinberger, Kersting, Riedel-Heller, & Luck-Sikorski, lations assessed the associations between study variables. To test
2016), both age and BMI were controlled for in regression analyses. whether self-compassion moderated the relationships between
photo manipulation, photo investment, and body dissatisfaction,
two hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted with
2. Method body dissatisfaction as the criterion variable. Both regression anal-
yses consisted of four steps, with age, gender, and BMI entered in
2.1. Procedure and participants Step 1. Photo investment was also entered in Step 1 as a control vari-
able in the first regression analysis, whilst photo manipulation was
Participants were recruited via a university advertisement that entered in the second regression analysis. In Step 2, photo manip-
invited first year psychology students to participate in the ‘Social ulation was entered in the first regression analysis, whilst photo
Media Survey,’ which aimed to: (a) examine associations between investment was entered in Step 2 of the second regression analy-
the use, and frequency, of social media sites and mental health; sis. The moderator variable (self-compassion) was entered in Step
and (b) determine gender differences in the prevalence and cor- 3 in both regression models. Finally, photo manipulation × self-
relates of social media use. Consenting participants completed the compassion was entered in Step 4 of the first regression analysis,
online questionnaire (15 min) and were provided course credit for whilst photo investment × self-compassion was entered in Step 4
their participation. The survey was initiated by N = 215 individuals. of the second regression analysis.
Excluded participants were those who completed < 80% of items Reverse regression analyses (available in the supplementary
(n = 10, 4.6%) or who reported never uploading photos to social material) were conducted, with body dissatisfaction as the pre-
media (n = 21, 9.8%), leaving a final N = 184 (48.4% male), with no dictor variable, and social media measures (photo manipulation
missing data. Age ranged from 17 to 40 years (males: M = 20.13, and photo investment) as the criterion variables. Results indicated
SD = 3.43; females: M = 19.73, SD = 3.48). The majority of partici- that body dissatisfaction and the photo measures were significantly
pants were born in Australia (87%) and average reported BMI fell related when controlling for age, gender, and BMI (i.e., greater
within the “normal” range (M = 20.13, SD = 4.25). body dissatisfaction was related to greater photo manipulation and
 A.R. Lonergan et al. / Body Image 28 (2019) 39–43 41

Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations of Photo Manipulation, Photo Investment, Body Dissatisfaction, and Self-Compassion for Men and Women.

Men Women

n M (SD) n M (SD)

Photo Manipulation 89 15.21 (4.96) 95 19.22a (7.00)***

Photo Investment 89 3.06 (0.55) 95 3.17 (0.43)
Body Dissatisfaction 89 32.42 (12.01) 95 38.77b (14.43)***
Self-Compassion 88 3.12 (0.56) 95 2.83c (0.65)***

Note: Cases excluded pairwise. The Brown-Forsyth F correction was applied due to unequal group variances for photo investment and photo manipulation.
***
p < .001.
a
F(1, 170.12) = 20.44, p < .001, ␩2 = .10.
b
F(1, 182) = 10.46, p < .001, ␩2 = .05.
c
F(1, 181) = 10.65, p < .001, ␩2 = .06.

Table 2
Spearman’s Rho Intercorrelations Among Age, BMI, Photo Manipulation, Photo Investment, Body Dissatisfaction, and Self-Compassion.

Variables 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

1. Age –
2. Gender −.18* –
3. BMI .29** −.16* –
4. Photo Manipulation −.09 .36*** −.18* –
5. Photo Investment .25* .08 .12 .08 –
6. Body Dissatisfaction .04 .24** .17* .27*** .30*** –
7. Self-Compassion −.14 −.23** −.05 −.16* −.33*** −.41***

Note: Cases excluded pairwise, N = 184.

*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.

photo investment). Effect sizes for the reverse regressions were gender, BMI, and photo investment: higher levels of photo manip-
small to moderate (effect of body dissatisfaction on photo manip- ulation were associated with higher levels of body dissatisfaction.
ulation, f2 = .20, and photo investment, f2 = .18). Conversely, effect Self-compassion also emerged as a main effect. Results indicated
sizes for the presented models were large (f2 = .45 for both regres- a nonsignificant photo manipulation × self-compassion interaction
sions presented in Tables 3 and 4). Bootstrapping analyses were associated with body dissatisfaction.
conducted to provide bias-corrected p-values and confidence inter-
vals, which is considered preferable to transformations or relying
3.3.2. Moderation of self-compassion on photo investment
on robustness of F-test (Field & Wilcox, 2017). Power analysis using
Full results are shown in Table 4. Photo investment was sig-
G*Power v3.1 (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009) indicated 184
nificantly related to body dissatisfaction when controlling for
participants were sufficient to conduct multiple regression analy-
age, gender, BMI, and photo manipulation: higher levels of photo
ses with power set at .80, f2 effect size of .10, and six predictors. An
investment were associated with greater body dissatisfaction. Self-
alpha of .05 was set for all analyses.
compassion also emerged as a main effect. Results indicated a
nonsignificant photo manipulation × self-compassion interaction
3. Results associated with body dissatisfaction.

3.1. Descriptive statistics

4. Discussion
Means and standard deviations for key measures are reported
In line with the aims of the study, body dissatisfaction was pos-
in Table 1. The ANOVA revealed significant gender effects, whereby
itively associated with photo manipulation and photo investment
women scored significantly higher on photo manipulation and
when controlling for demographic factors. This is consistent with
body dissatisfaction, but lower on self-compassion than men. No
research that found photo-based social media activities coincide
gender differences were obtained on photo investment scores.
with body dissatisfaction (Fardouly et al., 2017; Mingoia et al.,
2017). Those that are dissatisfied with their appearance may be
3.2. Correlations more likely to cultivate their image in an online environment, such
as digitally editing, and choosing the “best” selfie to present on
Correlations between age, gender, BMI, photo manipulation, social media (Cohen et al., 2018; Fox & Rooney, 2015). Alterna-
photo investment, body dissatisfaction, and self-compassion are tively, the act of manipulating, selecting, and attending to others’
displayed in Table 2. There were moderate positive associations responses to such images may increase body dissatisfaction. While
between the social media measures and body dissatisfaction, and interpretation of the direction of effects in our study must be
weak to moderate negative associations between social media vari- tempered by its cross-sectional nature, the present results are con-
ables and self-compassion. sistent with those of de Vries et al. (2016), which found that greater
frequency of social media use predicted greater body dissatisfaction
3.3. Moderation analyses rather than vice versa. Whether this prospective relationship holds
for specific photo-based social media behaviors, as investigated in
3.3.1. Moderation of self-compassion on photo manipulation this study, remains to be discovered.
Full results are shown in Table 3. Photo manipulation was sig- Results did not support the second hypothesis that self-
nificantly related to body dissatisfaction when controlling for age, compassion would moderate the relationship between photo
42 A.R. Lonergan et al. / Body Image 28 (2019) 39–43

Table 3
Hierarchical Multiple Regression Examining Associations between Age, Gender, BMI, Photo Manipulation, Photo Investment, and Self-Compassion on Body Dissatisfaction.

Step 1a Step 2b Step 3c Step 4d

Variable
B 95% CI B 95% CI B 95% CI B 95% CI

Age .01 [−.156, .206] −.01 [−.174, .193] −.05 [−.199, .126] −.07 [−.206, .112]
Gender .38* [.073, .688] .32* [.027, .621] .19 [−.080, .489] .19 [−.082, .489]
BMI .26** [.102, .387] .24** [.083, .376] .21** [.065, .345] .20** [.045, .336]
Photo Manipulation .23** [.089, .371] .22** [.079, .344] .18** [043, .308] .18** [.043, .305]
Photo Investment .27** [.166, .38] .18** [.076, .284] .20** [.083, .314]
Self-Compassion −.36** [−.474, −.220] −.36** [−.483, .226]
Photo Investment × Self-Compassion −.11 [−.024, .031]

Note: Unstandardized regression coefficients and confidence intervals from bootstrapped analyses are presented. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. a R2 = .13, F(4, 178) = 8.07***;
b 2
R = .20, F(5, 177) = 10.09***; c R2 = .30, F(6, 176) = 14.23***; d R2 = .31, F(7, 175) = 12.60***.

Table 4
Hierarchical Multiple Regression Examining Associations between Age, Gender, BMI, Photo Investment, Photo Manipulation, and Self-Compassion on Body Dissatisfaction.

Step 1a Step 2b Step 3c Step 4d

Variable
B 95% CI B 95% CI B 95% CI B 95% CI

Age −.01 [−.158, .207] −.01 [−.174, .201] −.05 [−.192, .127] −.07 [−.250, .094]
Gender .44** [.196, .727] .32* [.040, .648] .19 [−.080, .477] .18 [−.209, .111]
BMI .21** [.082, .347] .24** [.114, .381] .21** [.078, .356] .21** [−.082, .470]
Photo Investment .28** [.161, .404] .27** [.153, .393] .18** [072, .288] .17** [.091, .361]
Photo Manipulation .21** [.083 .344] .18** [.051, .307] .21** [.073, .340]
Self-Compassion −.36** [−.481, −.215] −.36** [−.483, −.220]
Photo Manipulation × Self-Compassion .10 [.008, .265]

Note: Unstandardized regression coefficients and confidence intervals from bootstrapped analyses are presented. *p < .05; **p < .01**; ***p < .001. a R2 = .16, F(4, 178) = 9.78***;
b 2
R = .20, F(5, 177) = 10.09***; c R2 = .30, F(6, 176) = 14.23***; d R2 = .31, F(7, 175) = 12.76***.

manipulation, photo investment, and body dissatisfaction. On the and development, with heightened focus on appearance and peer
one hand, regression analyses indicated that lower levels of self- relations. Constructing an online image, through photo manipula-
compassion were related to greater body dissatisfaction. This is tion, may therefore be influenced by attention and time taken to
consistent with the notion that those with greater capacity for self- choose a photo, and peers’ responses to such photos. Conversely,
compassion are better able to offset appearance-related threats, adults may have greater self-efficacy in constructing their online
which in turn, may reduce thin-ideal internalization and muscu- image, without reliance on peers’ responses. Accordingly, the social
larity related concerns (Braun et al., 2016; Tylka, Russell, & Neal, media behaviours, photo manipulation and photo investment, may
2015). Current results were at odds with prior research that found be mutually informing behaviours for adolescents, but distinct pro-
self-compassion mitigated the negative effect on body image, after cesses in adults. An alternative explanation is that adolescents who
female participants viewed images of women with lean and toned are invested in their photos on social media are more likely to
bodies on social media (Slater et al., 2017). This may be due to manipulate such photos, possibly due to knowledge and skill in
Slater et al. (2017) examining ‘passive’ viewing of others’ images, using photo-editing applications. The lack of a relationship among
whilst the current study examined ‘active’ behaviors aimed at adults, such that a highly invested adult who cares about his or her
one’s own image. Moreover, Slater et al.’s study involved an inter- photos on social media, may not manipulate these images due to
vention to raise self-compassion above baseline levels, whilst the limited technological knowledge when using recently developed
present study relied on those baseline levels to influence body digital applications.
dissatisfaction. Trait self-compassion may therefore not be suffi- Prior research has indicated bias in the body image field
cient to influence the relationship between body dissatisfaction towards young adult women has contributed to poor “mental
and more cognitively-engaged social media behaviors related to health literacy” among sufferers, healthcare providers, and the pub-
the self. Another possibility for the nonsignificant interactions is lic (Mitchison, Basten, Griffiths, & Murray, 2017). Current findings
that the present study was not sufficiently powered to be able may inform the development of targeted prevention programs for
to detect a significant interaction effect. While the present study male and female populations. Specifically, it may be important to
was adequately powered to detect an (f2 ) effect size of .10, sig- screen for digital manipulation of selfies, effort exerted in choosing
nificant interactions commonly only account for between 1–3% selfies, and investment in others’ responses to selfies in male and
of incremental variance (McClelland & Judd, 1993). In the present female body dissatisfaction interventions. Emerging experimental
study, the incremental amount of variance of each interaction was research (McLean, Wertheim, Masters, & Paxton, 2017) has demon-
1%. strated that social media literacy is a potentially useful approach
Results shed light on relationship between gender and photo- for prevention of risk for eating disorders in adolescent girls. Larger
based social media activities. Regression analyses indicated that randomized control trials that focus on photo-based social media,
gender only accounted for variance in body dissatisfaction in the incorporate a broader age range, and male users will be a promising
first and second step of the models, with the final step indicating step forward.
that men and women experienced similar levels of body dissatis- Several study limitations should be acknowledged. Firstly, the
faction when taking into account demographic and risk correlates social media variables did not distinguish whether participants
(photo manipulation and photo investment). Whilst McLean et al. referred to selfies that captured bodies and face, or simply the face.
(2015) reported a positive relationship between photo manipula- Prior research has suggested that exposure to Instagram images
tion and photo investment, that study consisted of females with with a high number of “likes” (Tiggemann, Hayden, Brown, &
a mean age of 13 years. Photo manipulation and photo invest- Veldhuis, 2018), and Facebook use in the context of appearance
ment may be related for adolescents, as it is a time of rapid change comparison (Fardouly, Diedrichs, Vartanian, & Halliwell, 2015), are
 A.R. Lonergan et al. / Body Image 28 (2019) 39–43 43

related to dissatisfaction of facial features in women. A valuable Fox, J., & Rooney, M. C. (2015). The Dark Triad and trait self-objectification as
extension to this research would be to examine whether male and predictors of men’s use and self-presentation behaviors on social networking
sites. Personality and Individual Differences, 76, 161–165. http://dx.doi.org/10.
female users edit and post photos to social media differently in 1016/j.paid.2014.12.017
line with whether they are presenting the ideal face, body, or both. Fox, J., & Vendemia, M. A. (2016). Selective self-presentation and social comparison
Given the cross-directional study design, further research is needed through photographs on social networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and
Social Networking, 19, 593–600. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2016.0248
to determine the direction of the relationship between photo-based Griffiths, S., Hay, P., Mitchison, D., Mond, J. M., McLean, S. A., Rodgers, B., . . . &
social media behaviors and body dissatisfaction. We also encourage Paxton, S. J. (2016). Sex differences in the relationships between body
researchers to examine the interactions of self-compassion with dissatisfaction, quality of life and psychological distress. Australian and New
Zealand Journal of Public Health, 40, 518–522. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1753-
photo manipulation and photo investment with larger samples.
6405.12538
The current study nonetheless adds to a limited body of research Holland, G., & Tiggemann, M. (2016). A systematic review of the impact of the use
indicating that trait self-compassion may not be a substantial pro- of social networking sites on body image and disordered eating outcomes.
Body Image, 17, 100–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2016.02.008
tective factor for all types of social media exposure, particularly
Izydorczyk, B., & Sitnik-Warchulska, K. (2018). Sociocultural appearance standards
when users actively manipulate and scrutinize images to present and risk factors for eating disorders in adolescents and women of various ages.
their “best” physical self. Further research is required to identify Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 429. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00429
protective factors to cope with not meeting body image ideals in a McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting
interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulltetin, 114, 376–390.
photo-based social media environment. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.2.376
McLean, S. A., Paxton, S. J., Wertheim, E. H., & Masters, J. (2015). Photoshopping the
Declarations of interest selfie: Self photo editing and photo investment are associated with body
dissatisfaction in adolescent girls. The International Journal of Eating Disorders,
48, 1132–1140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eat.22449
None. McLean, S. A., Wertheim, E. H., Masters, J., & Paxton, S. J. (2017). A pilot evaluation
of a social media literacy intervention to reduce risk factors for eating
disorders. The International Journal of Eating Disorders, 50, 847–851. http://dx.
Appendix A. Supplementary data doi.org/10.1002/eat.22708
Mills, J., Musto, S., Williams, L., & Tiggemann, M. (2018). Selfieḧarm: Effects on
Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in mood and body image in young women. Body Image, 27, 86–92. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2018.08.007
the online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2018. Mingoia, J., Hutchinson, A. D., Wilson, C., & Gleaves, D. H. (2017). The relationship
12.001. between social networking site use and the internalization of a thin ideal in
females: A meta-analytic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1351. http://dx.doi.
org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01351
References Mitchison, D., Basten, C., Griffiths, S., & Murray, S. (2017). Beneath the tip of the
iceberg: Why so many people with eating disorders are not referred for
Braun, T. D., Park, C. L., & Gorin, A. (2016). Self-compassion, body image, and treatment. Australian Family Physician, 46, 539–540.
disordered eating: A review of the literature. Body Image, 17, 117–131. http:// Perrin, A. (2015). Social media usage: 2005-2015: 65% of adults now use social
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2016.03.003 networking sites – A nearly tenfold jump in the past decade Retrieved from Pew
Cohen, R., Newton-John, T., & Slater, A. (2018). ‘Selfie’-objectification: The role of Research Centre. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/08/social-networking-
selfies in self-objectification and disordered eating in young women. Computers usage-2005-2015/
in Human Behavior, 79, 68–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.027 Pingitore, R., Spring, B., & Garfield, D. (1997). Gender differences in body
de Vries, D. A., Peter, J., de Graaf, H., & Nikken, P. (2016). Adolescents’ social satisfaction. Obesity Research, 5, 402–409.
network site use, peer appearance-related feedback, and body dissatisfaction: Raes, F., Pommier, E., Neff, K. D., & Van Gucht, D. (2011). Construction and factorial
Testing a mediation model. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45, 211–224. validation of a short form of the Self-Compassion Scale. Clinical Psychology and
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0266-4 Psychotherapy, 18, 250–255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cpp.702
Fardouly, J., Diedrichs, P. C., Vartanian, L. R., & Halliwell, E. (2015). Social Slater, A., Varsani, N., & Diedrichs, P. C. (2017). #fitspo or #loveyourself? The
comparisons on social media: The impact of Facebook on young women’s body impact of fitspiration and self-compassion Instagram images on women’s body
image concerns and mood. Body Image, 13, 38–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. image, self-compassion, and mood. Body Image, 22, 87–96. http://dx.doi.org/
bodyim.2014.10.004 10.1016/j.bodyim.2017.06.004
Fardouly, J., Willburger, B. K., & Vartanian, L. R. (2017). Instagram use and young Tiggemann, M., Hayden, S., Brown, Z., & Veldhuis, J. (2018). The effect of Instagram
women’s body image concerns and self-objectification: Testing mediational “likes” on women’s social comparison and body dissatisfaction. Body Image, 26,
pathways. New Media & Society, 1–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 90–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2018.07.002
1461444817694499 Tylka, T. L., Russell, H. L., & Neal, A. A. (2015). Self-compassion as a moderator of
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses thinness-related pressures’ associations with thin-ideal internalization and
using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior disordered eating. Eating Behaviors, 17, 23–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149 eatbeh.2014.12.009
Ferguson, C. J. (2013). In the eye of the beholder: Thin-ideal media affects some, Weinberger, N. A., Kersting, A., Riedel-Heller, S. G., & Luck-Sikorski, C. (2016). Body
but not most, viewers in a meta-analytic review of body dissatisfaction in dissatisfaction in individuals with obesity compared to normal-weight
women and men. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 2, 20–37. http://dx.doi. individuals: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Obesity Facts, 9, 424–441.
org/10.1037/a0030766 http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000454837
Field, A. P., & Wilcox, R. R. (2017). Robust statistical methods: A primer for clinical
psychology and experimental psychopathology researchers. Behaviour
Research and Therapy, 98, 19–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2017.05.013