Fms

CO

a

ARRAA

KSBBSAA

1

rwWtDcimiist

t

h1

Body Image 29 (2019) 17–30

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Body Image

journa l h om epa ge: www.elsev ier .com/ locat e/bodyimage

acebook, body esteem, and body surveillance in adult women: Theoderating role of self-compassion and appearance-contingent

elf-worth

hristopher Modicahio Wesleyan University, Department of Psychology, Phillips Hall 52, Delaware, OH, 43015, United States

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 17 July 2018eceived in revised form 5 February 2019ccepted 5 February 2019vailable online 26 February 2019

eywords:ocial mediaody esteemody surveillanceelf-compassionppearance-contingent self-worth

a b s t r a c t

This study examined how Facebook use and specific Facebook activities were associated with bodyesteem and body surveillance in adult women. This study also examined whether self-compassionand appearance-contingent self-worth moderated the relationship between Facebook appearance com-parison and body esteem, and the relationship between Facebook appearance comparison and bodysurveillance. Self-report measures were administered to adult women (N = 232) between the ages of20 and 72 (M = 35.91) recruited through MTurk. Results indicated that Facebook appearance-exposureand Facebook appearance comparison significantly related to body surveillance, whereas only Facebookappearance comparison significantly related to body esteem. Overall Facebook use and Facebook inten-sity were not significantly associated with either body esteem or body surveillance. Self-compassion andappearance-contingent self-worth significantly related to body esteem and body surveillance. However,neither self-compassion nor appearance-contingent self-worth significantly moderated the relationship

ppearance comparison between Facebook appearance comparison and body surveillance. Similarly, a lack of significant moder-ation was found for the relationship between Facebook appearance comparison and body esteem. Theimportance of studying body image and Facebook activities in adult women is discussed. Additionally,the importance for researchers to examine how specific Facebook activities, beyond Facebook use, arelinked with body image in this population is also highlighted.

. Introduction

Concerns about one’s body and appearance represent a keyisk factor for the development of disordered eating in men andomen (Mitchison et al., 2016; Pellizzer, Tiggemann, Waller, &ade, 2018). Sociocultural theories of eating disorders, such as the

ripartite influence model (Thompson, Heinberg, Altabe, & Tantleff-unn, 1999) and the dual-pathway model (Stice, 1994), regard bodyoncerns as a central component in eating disorder etiology. Specif-cally, the tripartite influence model holds that women receive a

yriad of appearance-related pressures through the media, fam-ly, and peers, which convey an unattainable sociocultural beautydeal. These pressures are thought to lead to body concerns, andubsequent eating pathology, through mediating mechanisms of

hin-ideal internalization and appearance comparison.

Within the tripartite influence model, social media, like tradi-ional media (e.g., television, magazines), can be conceptualized

E-mail address: camodica@owu.edu

ttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2019.02.002740-1445/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

as a potent messenger of appearance ideals with parallel impli-cations for body image. Accordingly, researchers have exploredthe association between social media use and body image inthe context of sociocultural theories (see Fardouly & Vartanian,2016; Holland & Tiggemann, 2016 for reviews). Social media useis ubiquitous among adolescents and young adults in the U.S.(Anderson & Jiang, 2018; Rainie, Smith, & Duggan, 2013). Face-book remains the most popular form of social media worldwide(Ryan, Chester, Reece, & Xenos, 2014). In the U.S., 68% of adults and51% of adolescents use Facebook (Anderson & Jiang, 2018; Smith& Anderson, 2018). While Facebook use among Millennials (born1981–1986) appears to be constant from 2012 to 2018 (Jiang, 2018),recent research on adolescents in the U.S. evidences significantdecreases in Facebook use (71% in 2014–2015 vs. 51% in 2018) andincreases in Instagram, Snapchat, and YouTube use (Anderson &Jiang, 2018; Lenhart, 2015). However, there have been significantincreases in social media use among older Americans. Research

shows that 76% of individuals in Generation X (born 1965–1980;up from 67% in 2012) and 59% of individuals in the Boomer gen-

1 Image

e(

tehwc&2WFn2&basabwu1aHot&

gac2aa(wifb

fiiMCiFttotssc

iiFseia(Scw

8 C. Modica / Body

ration (born 1946–1964, up from 43% in 2012) now use FacebookJiang, 2018).

Facebook has received the most research attention in regardso body image (Fardouly & Vartanian, 2016). However, the findingsmerging from this body of research are mixed and this researchas almost exclusively focused on adolescent girls and young adultomen. Research has shown that time spent on Facebook is asso-

iated with greater body concerns in adolescent girls (Tiggemann Miller, 2010) and young adult women (Fardouly & Vartanian,015; Howard, Heron, MacIntyre, Myers, & Everhart, 2017; Manago,ard, Lemm, Reed, & Seabrook, 2014). In adolescent boys and girls,

acebook use is also positively associated with thin-ideal inter-alization and self-objectification (Trekels, Ward, & Eggermont,018) as well as body dissatisfaction (Marengo, Longobardi, Fabris,

Settanni, 2018). Using a composite index of MySpace and Face-ook, research on pre-adolescent girls (Tiggemann & Slater, 2014)nd adolescent girls (Tiggemann & Slater, 2013) has found that timepent on these platforms was associated with lower body esteemnd higher body surveillance. . Though using single-items to assessoth body dissatisfaction and Facebook use, in a study of men andomen in New Zealand, Stronge et al. (2015) found that Facebookse was associated with body dissatisfaction in all age cohorts from8 to 65 years old. This study stands out as one that has explored thessociation between Facebook use and body image in older women.owever, utilizing single-item measures has been criticized for lackf internal consistency and reliability, and a poor ability to opera-ionalize multifaceted constructs such as body image (Hays, Reise,

Calderon, 2012).Other social media platforms, such as Instagram have also

ained research attention. For example, overall Instagram use isssociated with body dissatisfaction in male and female adoles-ents (Marengo et al., 2018) and young adults (Arroyo & Brunner,016). Instagram use is also associated with body surveillancend self-objectification (Feltman & Szymanski, 2017) as well asppearance anxiety and body dissatisfaction in young adult womenSherlock & Wagstaff, 2018). Specifically, in a sample of young adultomen, Cohen, Newton-John, and Slater (2017) found that follow-

ng health and fitness accounts on Instagram correlated with driveor thinness, whereas following celebrity accounts correlated withody surveillance, after controlling for BMI.

Specifically in regards to Facebook, some studies have failed tond a significant association between overall use and body image

n adolescent girls (e.g., Ferguson, Munoz, Garza, & Galindo, 2013;eier & Gray, 2014) and young adult men and women (Kim &

hock, 2015; Rutledge, Gillmor, & Gillen, 2013). One explanations that some girls and women may spend long periods of time onacebook engaging in activities that are relatively benign in regardso body image (e.g., playing games, work-related activities). Fur-hermore, some individuals’ newsfeeds may not involve posts fromthers that involve images or content that communicates sociocul-ural beauty ideals. These ideas parallel what some scholars havetated; that it may not necessarily be Facebook use per se, but ratherpecific Facebook activities that may be most implicated in bodyoncerns (Fardouly & Vartanian, 2016).

Researches have turned to studying the precise Facebook activ-ties that are implicated in body concerns. For example, Facebookntensity (i.e., high emotional connection to and integration ofacebook into daily life) is associated with body shame and bodyurveillance in adolescent girls and young adult women (Managot al., 2014; Rutledge et al., 2013). Additionally, posting and view-ng pictures on Facebook and other social media platforms are alsossociated with body concerns in young adult women and girls

Manago et al., 2014; McLean, Paxton, Wertheim, & Masters, 2015).imilarly, selfie posting as well as photo-investment (i.e., effort andoncern over posting selfie pictures) on social media are associatedith body satisfaction in young adult women (Cohen, Newton-

29 (2019) 17–30

John, & Slater, 2018). Last, viewing friend’s fitness posts on socialmedia platforms is associated with greater negative self-orientedbody-talk (i.e., disparaging comments to oneself about one’s body)in young adult men and women (Arroyo & Brunner, 2016).

Meier and Gray (2014) also found that Facebook appearance-exposure (i.e., higher frequency of photo-related activity relativeto overall Facebook activity) was associated with lower weightesteem, and higher drive for thinness and self-objectification inadolescent girls. In their analyses overall time spent on Facebookdid not correlate with weight esteem, drive for thinness, or self-objectification. This parallels other research findings that havefound that Facebook appearance-exposure, but not overall Face-book use, was correlated with body surveillance and thin-idealinternalization in young adult women (Cohen et al., 2017). As sug-gested by Fardouly, Diedrichs, Vartanian, and Halliwell (2015), dueto the ubiquity of picture-sharing, Facebook represents a fertileplatform for engaging in appearance comparison. Since Facebookusers often post favorable or edited pictures of themselves, Face-book also provides the opportunity to compare oneself to idealizedimages of friends in a way that could foster disparagement withone’s appearance (Rutledge et al., 2013). Accordingly, research hasfound that not only do women make more extreme upward appear-ance comparisons through social media compared to in-person(Fardouly, Pinkus, & Vartanian, 2017), but that the frequency ofFacebook appearance comparison is directly associated with bodydissatisfaction (Fardouly & Vartanian, 2015; Fardouly et al., 2017;Puccio, Kalathas, Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, & Krug, 2016) and disorderedeating in young adult women (Walker et al., 2015). Like Facebook,research has also shown that appearance comparison on Insta-gram is associated with greater body dissatisfaction (Hendrickse,Arpan, Clayton, & Ridgway, 2017) and viewing fitspiration imageson Instagram (as opposed to travel images) is associated with bodyconcerns (Tiggemann & Zaccardo, 2015). Furthermore, two studieshave explored factors that might moderate the association betweensocial media use and body image. First, Fardouly et al. (2015) foundthat the relationship between Facebook exposure (as opposed to acontrol condition) and face, hair, and skin discrepancy ratings wasmoderated by appearance comparison tendency. Second, Cohenet al. (2018) found that after controlling for age, BMI, and thin-ideal internalization, body surveillance moderated the relationshipbetween selfie-photo investment and bulimia symptomology in asample of young adult women. Each of these Facebook activitiesoffer a more precise glimpse into the exact Facebook behaviors thatcan be associated with body image.

1.1. Self-compassion and body image

In addition to the paucity of research on adult women, therehave been no studies that have examined factors that might mod-erate the relationship between Facebook appearance comparisonand body concerns. Self-compassion may be one such factor. Self-compassion is defined as a way of relating to oneself that involves anon-judgmental, patient, and kindhearted attitude towards one-self, and one’s own suffering and perceived shortcomings (Neff,2003b, 2011). Self-compassion is comprised of self-kindness, mind-fulness, and common humanity, each of which are defined withinthe context of self-compassion, rather than more broadly. Self-kindness involves being caring, forgiving, and kind towards oneselfwhen suffering, rather than adopting a critical or punitive attitudetoward oneself. While mindfulness is a broader construct, in thecontext of self-compassion it can be defined as a non-judgmental

awareness of one’s suffering or distress in a manner that allowsindividuals to acknowledge their experience of suffering while notbeing consumed by it. Last, common humanity involves the per-spective that one’s suffering, failure, or inadequacies are not unique

Image

t2

oKt(oscfwsgtlpa

aase&l2c2aTmuasrteypHmnamhrp

siacasaTwaibbtwpco

C. Modica / Body

o them, but rather shared experiences by all individuals (Neff,003b).

Self-compassion is linked with a host of positive indicatorsf health such as optimism, positive affect, and happiness (Neff,irkpatrick, & Rude, 2007; Neff, Rude, & Kirkpatrick, 2007). Fur-

hermore, self-compassion is negatively associated with shameMosewich, Kowalski, Sabiston, Sedgwick, & Tracy, 2011), fearf failure and anxiety (Neff, Hsieh, & Dejitterat, 2005), andelf-consciousness and social-comparison (Neff & Vonk, 2009). Self-ompassion has also been shown to buffer the effects of negativeeedback. For example, Neff et al. (2007) found that individuals whoere high in self-compassion, as opposed to low, experienced less

elf-evaluative anxiety after engaging in a writing task about theirreatest weakness. In another study, Choi, Lee, and Lee (2014) foundhat individuals high in self-compassion experienced significantlyess negative affect after scenarios where they were asked to com-are themselves to others who had performed better than them on

task.Conceptually, individuals high in self-compassion may be more

pt to accept their bodies and less apt to disapprove of their appear-nce. Indeed, research on women and girls shows that higherelf-compassion is associated with lower body shame (Mosewicht al., 2011), lower body dissatisfaction (Ferreira, Pinto-Gouveia,

Duarte, 2013; Wasylkiw, MacKinnon, & MacLellan, 2012), andower shape and weight concerns (Kelly, Vimalakanthan, & Carter,014). Self-compassion is also associated with higher body appre-iation and body acceptance (Ferreira, Pinto-Gouveia, & Duarte,011; Raque-Bogdan, Piontkowski, Hui, Ziemer, & Garriott, 2016)nd lower levels of body comparison (Homan & Tylka, 2015).ylka, Russell, and Neal, (2015) suggested that self-compassionay promote a more accepting stance towards one’s body partic-

larly when personal adequacy is threatened, such as when facingppearance-related media pressures. In their study of adult women,elf-compassion moderated the relationship between appearance-elated media pressures and thin-ideal internalization, as well ashe relationship between appearance-related media pressures andating disorder symptomology (Tylka et al., 2015). In their anal-sis, when self-compassion was low, appearance-related mediaressures was associated with greater thin-ideal internalization.owever, when self-compassion was high, appearance-relatededia pressures did not significantly relate to thin-ideal inter-

alization. A similar pattern was found for the link betweenppearance-related media pressures and eating disorder sympto-ology. Tylka et al. (2015) suggested that when women who have

igh levels of self-compassion are confronted with appearance-elated pressures they are less apt to view such influences asressures and less apt to internalize appearance-related standards.

In a similar vein, Homan and Tylka (2015) have also found thatelf-compassion moderated the association between body compar-son and body appreciation in a sample of adult women. In theirnalysis, self-compassion was negatively associated appearance-ontingent self-worth as well as body comparison. Regressionnalyses demonstrated that when self-compassion was high thetrength of the relationship between body comparison and bodyppreciation was weaker than when self-compassion was low.hey suggested that when engaging in appearance comparison,omen with high levels of self-compassion who perceive their

ppearance to fall below social standards of beauty may be lessnclined to engage in self-criticism and concomitantly experienceody dissatisfaction (Homan & Tylka, 2015). Similar to in-personody comparison, Facebook appearance comparison can representhreats to one’s body image. It is plausible that self-compassion,

hich is antithetical to self-criticism and self-judgement, mayrovide a protection against negative self-judgement and self-riticism that can result from comparison one’s appearance tothers on Facebook. Examining self-compassion as a moderator

29 (2019) 17–30 19

of the relationship between Facebook appearance comparison andbody image would allow a test of this prediction and also extendthe findings of Homan and Tylka (2015) and Tylka et al. (2015) toappearance comparisons derived from Facebook.

1.2. Appearance-contingent self-worth and body image

Another factor that may impact the association betweenFacebook appearance comparison and body image concerns isappearance-contingent self-worth; that is, the degree to whichan individual bases their worth and value as a person ontheir appearance (Sanchez & Crocker, 2005). Research hasshown that appearance-contingent self-worth is associated withgreater body comparison and less body appreciation in acommunity sample of adult women (Homan & Tylka, 2015).In young adult women, several studies have demonstratedthat appearance-contingent self-worth is positively correlatedwith body shame and body surveillance and negatively cor-related with appearance esteem (Manago et al., 2014; Noser& Zeigler-Hill, 2014; Overstreet & Quinn, 2012). Beyond directrelationships, there is also evidence that appearance-contingentself-worth moderates the relationship between anxiety and dis-ordered eating and anxiety and dietary restraint in young adultwomen (Bardone-Cone, Brownstone, Higgins, Fitzsimmons-Craft,& Harney, 2013). For example, Bardone-Cone et al. (2013) foundthat when appearance-contingent self-worth was high, the rela-tionship between anxiety and disordered eating was significantlystronger, than when appearance-contingent self-worth was low.More recently, Bardone-Cone, Lin, and Butler, (2017) foundthat appearance-contingent self-worth moderated the relation-ship between perfectionism and disordered eating in youngadult women. In their analysis, when appearance-contingentself-worth was high the relationship between perfectionismand disordered eating was significantly stronger than whenappearance-contingent self-worth was low.

Given that less appearance-contingent self-worth is linked withless body shame, body surveillance, and body comparison, it seemsreasonable to speculate that individuals who have lower levels ofappearance-contingent self-worth are less focused in their appear-ance, and are less apt to experience threats to their appearance asthreats to their self-worth. This may be protective, in that, whenconfronted with situations that involve threats to one’s self-worth,such as comparing one’s appearance to others on Facebook, indi-viduals with low levels of appearance-contingent self-worth maynot experience body concerns or dissatisfaction with their appear-ance as strongly as those with high levels of appearance-contingentself-worth. Thus, similar to self-compassion, it is conceivable thatappearance-contingent self-worth may also moderate the relation-ship between Facebook appearance comparison and body image, aswomen who are less apt to base their self-worth on appearance maybe less vulnerable to the consequences of appearance comparisonson Facebook.

1.3. Body mass index, age, and body image

With increasing age, men and women generally experiencephysiological changes that have implications for body image (e.g.,increased weight and body mass index, loss of skin elasticity).Therefore, age and body mass index (BMI) are important variablesto consider when studying body image. Given that BMI generallyincreases with age until roughly 75 years (Algars et al., 2009; Lev-Ari & Zohar, 2013), these variables are interrelated. Cross-sectional

research has evidenced a consistent association between BMI andbody concerns in young adult women (Stice, 2002), middle-agedwomen (Slevec & Tiggemann, 2011), and older women (e.g., ages60–70) (2013, Mangweth-Matzek et al., 2006) with higher BMI

2 Image

bJ

i2riaRF22AcBGwiy(

bPpa1sl2iaaataitbrssw

1

syaiaii(carbpabfa

tF

0 C. Modica / Body

eing associated with higher body concerns (see also Pruis &anowsky, 2010).

In contrast to BMI, the association between age and body images more nuanced. Research reviews (e.g., Janelli, 1993; Tiggemann,004) have suggested that body dissatisfaction in women remainselatively unchanged across the lifespan. Specific studies compar-ng different aged cohorts of women has shown no significantssociation between age and a desire to be thinner (Allaz, Bernstein,ouget, Archinard, & Morabia, 1998), body esteem (Stokes &rederick-Recascino, 2003), body surveillance (Tiggemann & Lynch,001), nor body satisfaction (Grippo & Hill, 2008; Pruis & Janowsky,010; Tiggemann & Lacey, 2009; Webster & Tiggemann, 2003).lternatively, some research has found evidence that body con-erns decrease with age (Allaz et al., 1998; Hilbert, de Zwaan, &raehler, 2012). For example, in a sample of women ages 50–85,agne et al. (2012) found that age was negatively correlated witheight concerns. Also, Pruis and Janowsky (2010) found that thin-

deal internalization as well as drive for thinness was higher in aounger group of women (ages 25–35) compared to an older groupages 65–80).

Aside from body concerns, there appears to be a relationshipetween age and the importance placed on one’s appearance (Peat,eyerl, & Muehlenkamp, 2008). Research has found that, com-ared to younger women, older women place less importance onspects of their appearance such as weight (Franzoi & Koehler,998), place less investment in their appearance in terms of mea-uring their self-worth (Tiggemann & Lacey, 2009), and engage iness self-objectification and body monitoring (Tiggemann & Lynch,001). Tiggemann and McCourt (2013) also found that age pos-

tively correlated with body appreciation in a sample of womenges 17–75 years. Further, in adult women, the impact of shapend weight on life satisfaction and self-perception decreases withge (Gagne et al., 2012). Webster and Tiggemann (2003) also foundhat age moderated the association between body dissatisfactionnd self-esteem; indicating that dissatisfaction with appearancempacted self-esteem significantly less for older women comparedo younger women. Given these findings, age and BMI are likely toe important variables to consider when examining how womenespond to appearance-related pressures on social media platformsuch as Facebook. Including age in analyses is also important con-idering the significant increases in middle-aged and older-agedomen using Facebook.

.4. Current study

Research on Facebook and body concerns has not kept pace withignificant demographic changes in Facebook users in the past fewears and has almost exclusively concerned young adult womennd adolescent girls. Therefore, the first goal of this study was tonvestigate whether different types of Facebook use and Facebookctivities were associated with body esteem and body surveillancen adult women. Informed by past research and guided by theory,t was hypothesized that (a) Facebook use, (b) Facebook intensity,c) Facebook appearance-exposure, and (d) Facebook appearanceomparison would be negatively associated with body esteemnd positively associated with body surveillance (Hypotheses 1–4,espectively). Given the paucity of research on the associationetween Facebook use and body concerns in adult women, incor-orating several types of Facebook use and Facebook activitiesllowed for a more comprehensive yet refined exploration of Face-ook use and body concerns in this age group and might also mayacilitate comparisons with past research on young adult women

nd girls.

Additionally, no study has examined moderators of the associa-ion between Facebook appearance comparison and body image.acebook appearance comparison is a robust and theoretically-

29 (2019) 17–30

derived variable that is associated with body concerns. However,Facebook appearance comparison, may not affect all womenequally. Moderation analysis allows for an investigation of whichindividuals the effect of Facebook appearance comparison on bodyimage is stronger or weaker (Hayes, 2018). Exploring moderatorswould also allow for a more complex analysis of the relationshipsbetween Facebook appearance comparison and body image vari-ables, and could identify variables that may attenuate the directassociation between Facebook appearance comparison and bodyimage, which has already been explored in younger women. There-fore, the second goal of this study was to investigate whetherappearance-contingent self-worth and self-compassion moder-ate the relationship between Facebook appearance comparisonand body esteem as well as the relationship between Facebookappearance comparison and body surveillance. Grounded in pastresearch, it was expected that appearance-contingent self-worthwould significantly moderate the association between Facebookappearance comparison and body esteem (Hypothesis 5) as wellas the association between Facebook appearance comparisonand body surveillance (Hypothesis 6). That is, it was expectedthat the strength of the negative association between Facebookappearance comparison and body esteem would be stronger forthose individuals high in appearance-contingent self-worth, andopposed to those who are low in appearance-contingent self-worth. Regarding Hypothesis 6, it was expected that the strengthof the positive association between Facebook appearance compar-ison and body surveillance would be stronger for those individualshigh in appearance-contingent self-worth, and opposed to thosewho are low in appearance-contingent self-worth. Similarly, itwas expected that self-compassion would moderate the associa-tion between Facebook appearance comparison and body esteem(Hypothesis 7) as well as the association between Facebook appear-ance comparison and body surveillance (Hypothesis 8). That is, itwas expected that the strength of the negative association betweenFacebook appearance comparison and body esteem would beweaker for those individuals high in self-compassion, and opposedto those who are low in self-compassion. Regarding Hypothesis 8, itwas expected that the strength of the positive association betweenFacebook appearance comparison and body surveillance would beweaker for those individuals high in self-compassion, and opposedto those who are low in self-compassion.

2. Method

2.1. Participants and procedures

The final sample in this study consisted of 232 women recruitedthrough Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Ages ranged from 20to 72 (M = 35.79, SD = 11.08). Mean BMI was 25.52 (SD = 6.65).The majority of the participants were Caucasian (73.7%), andsmaller proportions were African-American (13.8%), Hispanic(4.7%), Asian (4.3%), American Indian or Alaska Native (0.9%), andthose who marked “other” (2.6%). Concerning employment sta-tus, the majority of participants were employed full time (62.5%),with smaller proportions of individuals employed part-time (9.1%),self-employed (17.2%), unemployed, and looking for work (2.2%),unemployed, not looking for work (0.9%), student (1.3%), retired(1.3%), and full-time parent (5.6%). The majority of participantsreported being married or having a domestic partner (46.1%). Lesserproportions of participants reported being single (27.2%), dating/ina relationship (18.7%), divorced (6.0%), widowed (0.9%), or sepa-

rated (1.7%).

Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was acquired beforeinitiating any part of this study. After IRB approval, a brief advertise-ment to recruit participants was posted to MTurk; a crowdsourcing

Image

osartbaatcfm

2

2

SwyrtdmituAbiaP“Tcw.cF

2

(FbaanitsasaFahfl.

C. Modica / Body

nline website where individuals can post projects (includingocial science surveys) and recruit others to complete them. Thisdvertisement explained the nature of the study, participationequirements, length and nature of participation, and compensa-ion. No mention of body image was specified in the advertisement,ut rather the study was advertised as a study of social mediand attitudes towards oneself. Individuals clicked on a link in thisdvertisement and were then taken to Qualtrics, where data collec-ion occurred. All study questionnaires which were administered inounter-balanced order. Each participant was compensated $3.00or participating. Data collection and compensation was anony-

ous.

.2. Measures

.2.1. Facebook useA total of four questions were used to measure Facebook use.

imilar to Fardouly and Vartanian (2015), two Likert-type itemsere used. The first question was “On a typical day, how often do

ou check Facebook (even if you are logged on all day)?” Responsesanged from 1 (not at all) to 7 (every two minutes). The second ques-ion was “Overall, how long do you spend on Facebook on a typicalay?” with responses ranging from 1 (5 min or less) to 9 (10 h orore). These items were significantly correlated (r = .55) and, sim-

lar to Fardouly and Vartanian (2015), the items were transformedo z-scores and averaged to form a composite Likert-type Facebookse variable. In this study Cronbach’s alpha for these items was .71.dditionally, two free-response questions were taken from a Face-ook questionnaire created by Junco (2012), in order to obtain an

nterval index of Facebook use. The first question was “On aver-ge, about how much time per day do you spend on Facebook?”articipants entered hours and minutes. The second question wasOn average, how many times per day do you check Facebook?”hese items were transformed to z-scores and averaged to form aomposite interval Facebook use variable. In this study, these itemsere significantly correlated (r = .64) and had a Cronbach’s alpha of

83.1 The two Likert-type items and two interval items were highlyorrelated (r = .90) and were thus combined into one compositeacebook use variable.

.2.2. Facebook appearance-exposureThe Facebook Questionnaire (FBQ) created by Meier and Gray

2014) was used to assess Facebook appearance-exposure. On theBQ participants indicate how often they engage in 24 popular Face-ook activities when on Facebook. Because of the rarity of certainctivities (e.g., “Create/share a Facebook Quiz”), 9 of the 24 itemsre responded to using a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (almostever or never) to 5 (more often than once a month). The remaining

tems use a scale ranging from 1 (almost never) to 5 (nearly everyime I log on). Of the 24 items, 8 items make up the Photo sub-cale (PS) (e.g., posting photos, comment on friends’ photos). Meiernd Gray (2014) calculated an Appearance Exposure Scale (AES) byumming the PS items and dividing their sum by the total sum ofll the items on the FBQ. This derives in an index of photo-relatedacebook activity compared to overall Facebook activity and waslso calculated in this study. Higher scores on the AES representedigher relative photo activity on Facebook. Meier and Gray (2014)

ound a Cronbach’s alpha of .87 for the FBQ in a sample of ado-escent girls. In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha for the FBQ was93.

1 Cronbach’s alpha for the two interval Facebook use items after taking the log.

29 (2019) 17–30 21

2.2.3. Facebook appearance comparisonThree modified items from the 5-item Physical Appearance

Comparison Scale (PACS; Thompson, Heinberg, & Tantleff, 1991)were used to assess the frequency of Facebook appearance com-parisons. Originally designed to reflect the tendency to compareone’s appearance to others while in social situations, Fardoulyand Vartanian (2015) modified items to reflect the tendency tocompare one’s appearance to others while using Facebook. Par-ticipants responded to items (e.g., “While on Facebook, I comparemy physical appearance to the physical appearance to others”)using a Likert-type scale with responses ranging from 1 (never) to 5(always). The three items were averaged together such that higherscores represent higher Facebook appearance comparison. Ade-quate Cronbach’s alpha (i.e., .90) has been found for these modifieditems (Puccio et al., 2016) in a sample of young adult women. Theoriginal PACS has demonstrated acceptable internal consistencyand good test-retest reliability in young adult women (Thompsonet al., 1991). The PACS also has demonstrated significant positivecorrelations with measures of social comparison and body imageconcerns in young adult women (Fitzsimmons-Craft et al., 2012). Inthis study, a Cronbach’s alpha of .92 was found for these modifieditems.

2.2.4. Facebook intensityThe 8-item Facebook Intensity Scale (FIS; Ellison, Steinfield, &

Lampe, 2007) was used to measure emotional connection to Face-book and the degree to which Facebook is integrated into one’s dailylife. The FIS consists of six attitudinal items (e.g., “Facebook hasbecome part of my daily routine”) to which participants respondusing a Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) and 5 (strongly agree).Two additional behavioral free-response items assess how manyfriends participants have on Facebook and how much time partici-pants spend on Facebook. The FIS is scored by taking the log of thetwo behavioral items and then computing a mean score for all itemswith higher scores indicating higher Facebook intensity (Steinfield,Ellison, & Lampe, 2008). The FIS has demonstrated adequate Cron-bach’s alpha in two studies (.84 and .88) in sample of young adultmen and women (Steinfield et al., 2008). In a sample of adoles-cent and young adult men and women, the FIS correlated with theSocial Media Use Integration Scale (Jenkins-Guarnieri, Wright, &Johnson, 2013), which assess emotional connection to social mediause and how much such use is integrated into one’s life. In thisstudy, Cronbach’s alpha for the FIS was .87.

2.2.5. Body esteemThe 23-item Body Esteem Scale for Adolescents and Adults

(BESAA; Mendelson, Mendelson, & White, 2001) was used to mea-sure body esteem. The BESAA assesses individuals’ “attitudes andfeelings about their bodies and appearance” and includes threesubscales: Weight, Appearance, and Attribution (Mendelson et al.,2001, p. 93). The 8-item Weight subscale measures an individual’sfeelings and attitudes towards their weight (e.g., “I am satisfied withmy weight”) and the 10-item Appearance subscale measures anindividual’s feelings and attitudes towards their overall appearance(e.g., “I wish I looked better”). The Attribution subscale measureshow an individual thinks others evaluate their appearance, orrather, how an individual feels they look to others (e.g., “I think myappearance would help me get a job,”). Participants respond usinga Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 5 (always). While the entire

BESAA was administered, only two BESAA subscales (i.e., Weightand Appearance) were chosen for analyses, as they were judged tobetter assess body concerns.2 After reverse-coding several items,

2 The Attribution subscale was not included in analyses for several reasons.First, the scale authors have described this subscale as being “distinct from self-

2 Image

iiaona(ars

2

Ctr7atTn2tvOQPt1s

2

tttas(wasscid3it

2

Wwta

estia(o2

2 C. Modica / Body

tems are summed to derive a total scale score, with higher scoresndicating higher esteem on each subscale. The Weight and Appear-nce subscales were summed together to form a composite variablef body esteem. The BESAA has demonstrated acceptable inter-al consistency and adequate test-retest reliability in samples ofdolescent boys and girls as well as young adult men and womenMendelson et al., 2001). In young adult women, the appearancend weight subscales correlate in expected directions with self-eported attractiveness (Pozzebon, Visser, & Bogaert, 2012). In thistudy, the Cronbach’s alpha for the composite variable was .95.

.2.6. Body surveillanceThe 8-item Body Surveillance subscale of the Objectified Body

onsciousness Scale (OBCS) (McKinley & Hyde, 1996) was usedo assess the tendency to monitor one’s appearance. Participantsespond to items (e.g., “I rarely think about how I look”) using a-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (stronglygree). After reverse coding, items are averaged together to form aotal score where higher scores indicate higher body surveillance.he Body Surveillance subscale has demonstrated acceptable inter-al consistency in young adult women (Tylka & Wood-Barcalow,015) and middle-aged women (McKinley & Hyde, 1996). Further,he Body Surveillance subscale has also shown good convergentalidity by correlating in expected directions with the Appearancerientation subscale of the Multidimensional Body Self-Relationsuestionnaire (Brown, Cash, & Mikulka, 1990; Cash, 2000) and theublic Self-Consciousness Scale of the Body Consciousness Ques-ionnaire (Fenigstein, Scheier, & Buss, 1975) (McKinley & Hyde,996). In this study, Cronbach’s alpha for the Body Surveillanceubscale was .87.

.2.7. Self-compassionThe 26-item Self-Compassion Scale (SCS; Neff, 2003a) was used

o measure self-compassion. On this measure participants respondo items (e.g., “I try to see my failings as part of the human condi-ion”) using a Likert-type scale from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almostlways). The SCS consists of six subscales, three of which mea-ure the presence of self-compassionate attitudes towards oneselfi.e., Self-Kindness, Common Humanity, Mindfulness) and threehich measure the absence of such (i.e., Self-Judgment, Isolation,

nd Over-Identification). After reverse-coding relevant items, eachubscale is averaged and a grand mean is calculated, with highercores indicating higher self-compassion. The SCS has shown goodonstruct validity in young adult men and women by correlatingn expected directions with scales of self-criticism, perfectionism,epression, and anxiety (Neff, 2003a). Neff (2003a) also found good-week test-retest reliability and Cronbach’s alpha for all subscales

n a sample of young adult men and women. Cronbach’s alpha forhe SCS scale was .96 in this study.

.2.8. Appearance-contingent self-worthThe 5-item Appearance subscale of the Contingencies of Self-

orth Scale (CSWS; Crocker, Luhtanen, Cooper, & Bouvrette, 2003)

as used to measure appearance-contingent self-worth, or rather

he degree to which an individual bases their self-worth on theirppearance. An example item is “When I think I look attractive, I

valuations of weight and appearance” (Mendelson et al., 2001, p. 103). Second, thisubscale’s items clearly appear to be distinct from how an individual feels aboutheir own body and appearance. Third, items in this subscale are related to tertiaryssues (“My looks help me get dates”) or related to appearance comparison (e.g., “I’ms good looking as other people”). Last, researchers have also excluded this subscaleChaker, Chang, & Hakim-Larson, 2015), or only utilized subsets of BESAA items inrder to operationalize body esteem (Choukas-Bradley, Nesi, Widman, & Higgins,018).

29 (2019) 17–30

feel good about myself” to which participants respond using a Lik-ert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Mean scoreswere calculated with higher scores indicating higher appearance-contingent self-worth. Scores on the Appearance subscale of theCSWS have demonstrated good test-retest reliabilities at 3, 5.5, and8.5 months, as well as adequate internal consistency in a sampleof young adult men and women (Cronbach’s alpha of .83) (Crockeret al., 2003). The Appearance subscale has shown convergent valid-ity by negatively correlating with self-esteem in young adult menand women (Crocker et al., 2003), and body surveillance in youngadult women specifically (Overstreet & Quinn, 2012). In this studyCronbach’s alpha for the Appearance subscale was .78.

2.2.9. DemographicsParticipants were asked to enter the following demographic

information: gender, age, employment status, relationship status,race, and current estimated height and weight (used to calculateBMI). Individuals also indicated the length of time they have had aFacebook account in years.

2.3. Data analysis

This study employed a correlational design. Correlationsbetween variables were first calculated. Next, Hypotheses 1–4 wereexamined through two separate hierarchical linear regression anal-yses; with body esteem and body surveillance as criterion variables,respectively. SPSS 25 was used for analyses. In each regressionanalysis, age and BMI were entered in Step 1. Facebook use, Face-book intensity, and Facebook appearance-exposure were enteredin Step 2, and Facebook appearance comparison was entered inStep 3. This process allowed for an analysis of the unique con-tribution of each Facebook use variable on either body esteemor body surveillance, over and above the effects of age and BMI.Further, Facebook appearance comparison was judged to be con-ceptually distinct from the other Facebook variables and was thusentered in Step 3. Facebook appearance comparison was thoughtto reflect a more general tendency to make appearance compar-isons, whereas the other Facebook measures may represent truetypes of Facebook use or Facebook activities. Hypotheses 5–8 wereexamined through four regression analyses using PROCESS Version3 for SPSS. In these analyses predictors and moderators were mean-centered and entered in the regression analysis simultaneously. Inthe first regression analysis body esteem was the criterion vari-able, Facebook appearance comparison was the predictor variable,appearance-contingent self-worth was the moderator variable, andage and BMI were covariates in order to control for their effects.In the second regression analysis body surveillance was the crite-rion variable, Facebook appearance comparison was the predictorvariable, appearance-contingent self-worth was the moderatorvariable, and age and BMI were covariates. The third and fourthregression analyses replicated the first two regression analyses, butreplaced appearance-contingent self-worth with self-compassion.PROCESS also calculates the Johnson-Neyman zone of significanceand simple slopes to probe moderation effects at one standard devi-ation above the mean, one standard deviation below the mean, andat the mean.

3. Results

3.1. Preliminary analyses

Before testing hypotheses, data were examined for the pres-ence of missing values, outliers, influential cases, and evaluatedfor assumptions relevant to regression analyses. Initially, 300 indi-viduals took part in the study. Inspection of the data evidenced

Image

ttwcdTcmtavrpTtsouIctotnFsytawf(a

FSucAMmnFeseblaprRsabscwbu

C. Modica / Body

hat three individuals participated twice, and 29 individuals iden-ified as male. These cases were removed from the dataset. Thereere seven missing responses in the remaining dataset, which

omprising less than 0.04% of the responses. Little MCAR tests evi-enced that the missing data were missing completely at random.hus, missing values were replaced via mean-imputation; a pro-ess by replacing a missing value on a certain variable with theean of the existing cases for that variable. Subsequent inspec-

ion revealed that 14 participants took less than 2 s per question,nd one participant took over 6.5 h to complete the entire sur-ey. The aforementioned cases were removed leaving 250 casesemaining. Inspection of the data also revealed that there were twoarticipants who had a Facebook account for less than 3 months.hese participants’ scores were removed from analyses in ordero only include those individuals with Facebook accounts for overix months. Additionally, z-scores evidenced that there were 16utliers across 14 participants, and Mahalanobis distance (D2) val-es evidenced two multivariate outliers across two participants.

ncluding these outliers in analyses altered the statistical signifi-ance of several predictors in the regression analyses. Therefore,hese participants were removed resulting in the final samplef 232 participants. After these analytic steps, data were judgedo meet assumptions of linearity, independence of observations,ormality, and homoscedasticity. One exception was the intervalacebook use items, which showed problematic levels of kurto-is. A log transformation was conducted on these items whichielded kurtosis estimates in an acceptable range. The mean ofhese two items was then computed for a total score. Last, toler-nce and variance inflation factor values suggested no problemsith multicollinearity, and Cook’s D, residuals, standardized dif-

erence in fit (DFFit) values, and standardized difference in betaDFBeta) values suggested no influential cases biasing regressionnalysis estimates.

Results evidenced that the range of time participants had aacebook account was between 0.5 years to 15.00 years (M = 7.95,D = 2.83). Participants reported an average time per day activelysing Facebook in the past week of 57.90 min (SD = 66.61),3 andhecking Facebook an average of 6.15 times per day (SD = 6.69).4

verage number of Facebook friends was 355.93 (SD = 538.74).5

eans, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations for eacheasure are presented in Table 1. Facebook use was not sig-

ificantly correlated with body esteem nor body surveillance.acebook intensity was not significantly correlated with bodysteem, but was significantly positively correlated with bodyurveillance. A similar pattern emerged with Facebook appearance-xposure, which was not significantly correlated with body esteem,ut was significantly positively correlated with body surveil-

ance. Given that the AES employs a ratio score of total Facebookctivity to photo-related activity, it seemed important to furtherrobe whether the Photo subscale (sum total of the 8 photo-elated items) of the FBQ itself was correlated with body esteem.esults evidenced no significant correlation between the Photoubscale and body esteem (r = .05, p = .451). Last, Facebook appear-nce comparison was significantly negatively correlated withody esteem and significantly positively correlated with bodyurveillance. As can be seen in Table 1, age was not significantlyorrelated with body esteem or body surveillance, whereas BMIas negatively correlated with body esteem. Furthermore, Face-

ook intensity was positively correlated with overall Facebookse.

3 Responses from Facebook use item on FIS.4 Responses from Interval Facebook checking item.5 Responses from FIS item regarding number of Facebook friends.

29 (2019) 17–30 23

3.2. Tests of hypotheses

In order to examine Hypotheses 1–4, two regression analyseswere calculated (see Table 2). For body esteem, results evidencedthat the model including age and BMI in Step 1 was significantand explained roughly 23% of the variance in body esteem. As canbe seen in this model, age was not significantly related to bodyesteem, whereas BMI had a significant negative association withbody esteem. In Step 2, Facebook use, Facebook intensity, and Face-book appearance-exposure were not significantly associated withbody esteem, nor improved the overall model (�R2 = .02, p = .216).This was contrary to Hypotheses 1-3. Last, the overall model in Step3 was significant and evidenced that Facebook appearance com-parison was significantly negatively related to body esteem, whichsupported Hypothesis 4 (�R2 = .16, p < .001) (Table 3).

Concerning body surveillance, results evidenced that the modelincluding age and BMI in Step 1 was significant and explainedroughly 3% of the variance in body surveillance. As can be seenin this model, BMI was not significantly related to body surveil-lance, whereas age had a significant negative association with bodysurveillance. In Step 2, Facebook use and Facebook intensity werenot significantly related to body surveillance, which are contraryto Hypotheses 1 and 2. Facebook appearance-exposure howeverwas significantly related to body surveillance, which supportedHypothesis 3. Adding the three Facebook use variables in Step 2significantly improved the model (�R2 = .09, p < .001). Last, resultsin Step 3 evidenced that Facebook appearance comparison was sig-nificantly positively related to body surveillance, which supportedHypothesis 4 (�R2 = .33, p < .001). Regression analyses investigat-ing Hypotheses 1–4 showed no differences in significance valuesfor predictors when removing age and BMI in Step 1.

In order to examine the remaining hypotheses regarding mod-eration a series of regression analyses were calculated. The firstregression analysis examined Hypothesis 5. Results showed thatthe overall model was significant and accounted for 42% of the vari-ance in body esteem. As covariates, BMI was significantly negativelyrelated to body esteem, whereas age was not. Facebook appear-ance comparison as well as appearance-contingent self-worth bothsignificantly negatively related to body-esteem. The interactionvariable was not significantly associated with body esteem, nordid it significantly improve the model (�R2 = .01, F(1, 218) = 1.80,p = .181). Thus, contrary to Hypothesis 5, appearance-contingentself-worth did not significantly moderate the relationship betweenFacebook appearance comparison and body esteem. In regardsto Hypothesis 6, results showed that the overall model wassignificant and accounted for 62% of the variance in body surveil-lance. As covariates, BMI and age were not significantly relatedto body surveillance. Facebook appearance comparison as wellas appearance-contingent self-worth both significantly positivelyrelated to body surveillance. The interaction variable did not signif-icantly relate to body surveillance, nor did it significantly improvethe model (�R2 = .00, F(1, 218) = 0.41, p = .524), which failed tosupport Hypothesis 6.

Hypotheses 7 and 8 were similarly tested via regression anal-yses (see Table 4). In the first regression analysis, results showedthat the overall model was significant and accounted for 58% of thevariance in body esteem. As covariates, both BMI and age signifi-cantly negatively related to body esteem. Results also showed thatFacebook appearance comparison significantly negatively relatedto body esteem and self-compassion was positively associated withbody esteem. The interaction variable was not significantly associ-ated with body esteem, nor did it significantly improve the model

(�R2 = .00, F(1, 218) = 0.26, p = .609). Thus, contrary to Hypothesis7, self-compassion did not significantly moderate the relationshipbetween Facebook appearance comparison and body esteem. Inregards to Hypothesis 8, the last regression analysis showed that

24 C. Modica / Body Image 29 (2019) 17–30

Table 1Means, standard deviations, and correlations for study variables.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Age –2. BMI .22** –3. Duration of Use .01 .04 –4. Facebook Use −.07 .09 .06 –5. Intensity .00 .08 .04 .66** –6. Appearance-Exposure −.01 −.03 .04 −.15* −.01 −−7. Appearance Comparison −.26* −.05 −.02 .24** .36** .15* −−8. Self-Compassion .27* −.11 −.15* −.08 .04 .05 −.31** −−9. Appearance Self-Worth −.10 .12 .16* .04 .17** .17** .53** −.46** −−10. Body Esteem −.04 −.48** −.14* −.10 −.00 .10 −.32** .59** −.45** −−11. Body Surveillance −.13 .07 .11 .08 .12* .27** .60** −.37** .74** −.45** −−M 35.91 25.52 7.95 0.59 3.02 0.35 3.01 3.15 4.66 54.20 4.05SD 11.07 6.65 2.83 0.62 0.84 0.04 1.37 0.92 1.24 16.22 1.26

Note: N = 232. Duration of Use = Length of Facebook use in years; Intensity = Facebook Intensity Scale. Statistics in this table represent non-mean-centered data.** p < .01.* p < .05.

Table 2Hierarchical multiple regression analyses predicting body esteem and body surveillance.

B SEB t 95%CI

Model 1 – Body EsteemStep 1Age 0.10 0.09 .07 1.08 −0.08, 0.28BMI −1.22 0.15 −.49 −8.18*** −1.52, −0.93R = .48, R2 = .23, F(2, 223) = 33.74, p < .001Step 2Facebook Use −3.19 2.13 −.12 −1.50 −7.38, 1.01Facebook Intensity 2.17 1.55 .11 1.40 −0.88, 5.21Facebook Appearance Exposure 28.27 26.97 .06 1.05 −24.88, 81.42R = .50, R2 = .25, �R2 = .02, F(5, 223) = 14.49, p < .001Step 3Facebook Appearance Comparison −5.42 0.71 −.45 −7.68*** −6.81, −4.03R = .64, R2 = .41, �R2 = .16, F(6, 223) = 25.11, p < .001Model 2 – Body SurveillanceStep 1Age −0.02 0.01 −.16 −2.40* −0.03, −0.00BMI 0.02 0.01 .11 1.56 −0.01 0.05R = .17, R2 = .03, F(2, 223) = 3.44, p = .034Step 2Facebook Use 0.09 0.18 .05 0.52 −0.26, 0.44Facebook Intensity 0.15 0.13 .10 −1.14 −0.11, 0.40Facebook Appearance Exposure 9.50 2.25 .27 4.21*** 5.05, 13.94R = .35, R2 = .12, �R2 = .09, F(5, 223) = 5.92, p < .001Step 3Facebook Appearance Comparison 0.60 0.05 .65 11.29*** 0.49, 0.70R = .67, R2 = .45, �R2 = .33, F(6, 223) = 29.05, p < .001

Note: N = 232. Model 1 = Body esteem as criterion variable; Model 2 = Body surveillance as criterion variable; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval upper and lower limits for B.***p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05.

Table 3Multiple regression analyses predicting body esteem and body surveillance moderated by appearance-contingent self-worth.

B SE B t 95% CI

Model 1 – Body EsteemAgecov −0.03 0.08 −0.40 −0.19, 0.13BMIcov −1.13 0.13 −8.43*** −1.40, −0.87Facebook Appearance Comparison −2.26 0.76 −2.97** −3.76, −0.76Appearance Self-Worth −3.81 0.83 −4.60*** −5.44, −2.18Facebook Appearance Comparison × Appearance Self-Worth 0.62 0.46 1.34 −0.29, 1.54R = .65, R2 = .42, F(5, 218) = 3.44, p < .001

Model 2 – Body SurveillanceAgecov −0.00 0.01 −0.26 −0.01, 0.01BMIcov 0.00 0.01 0.44 −0.01, 0.02Facebook Appearance Comparison 0.30 0.05 6.39*** 0.21, 0.40Appearance Self-Worth 0.57 0.05 11.01*** 0.47, 0.67Facebook Appearance Comparison × Appearance Self-Worth 0.02 0.03 0.64 −0.04, 0.08R = .79, R2 = .62, F(5, 218) = 71.63, p < .001

Note: N = 232. Model 1 = Body esteem as criterion variable; Model 2 = Body surveillance as criterion variable; Values represent mean-centered data for predictor and moderatorvariables; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval upper and lower limits for B; cov = Covariate.

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

C. Modica / Body Image 29 (2019) 17–30 25

Table 4Multiple regression analyses predicting body esteem and body surveillance moderated by self-compassion.

B SE B t 95% CI

Model 1 – Body EsteemAgecov −0.21 0.07 −2.91** −0.35, −0.07BMIcov −0.99 0.11 −8.71*** −1.22, −0.77Facebook Appearance Comparison −2.64 0.57 −4.68*** −3.76, −1.53Self-Compassion 9.19 0.85 10.78*** 7.51, 10.87Facebook Appearance Comparison × Self-Compassion 0.26 0.51 0.51 −0.74, 1.27R = .76, R2 = .58, F(5, 218) = 59.23, p < .001

Model 2 – Body SurveillanceAgecov 0.01 0.01 0.75 −0.01, 0.01BMIcov 0.01 0.01 1.35 −0.01, 0.03Facebook Appearance Comparison 0.54 0.05 10.79*** 0.44, 0.64Self-Compassion −0.28 0.08 −3.71** −0.43; −0.13Facebook Appearance Comparison × Self-Compassion 0.03 0.05 0.61 −0.06, 0.12R = .67, R2 = .45, F(5, 218) = 35.25, p < .001

Note: N = 232. Model 1 = Body esteem as criterion variable; Model 2 = Body surveillance as criterion variable; Values represent mean-centered data for predictor and moderatorv iate.

tvdtarnicmi

3datjlzasbtm

4

barnaisaeIaeociat

ariables; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval upper and lower limits for B; cov = Covar*** p < .001.** p < .01.

he overall model was significant and accounted for 45% of theariance in body surveillance. As covariates, both BMI and ageid not significantly relate to body surveillance. Results showedhat Facebook appearance comparison was significantly positivelyssociated with body surveillance and self-compassion negativelyelated to body surveillance. The interaction variable was not sig-ificantly associated with body surveillance, nor did it significantly

mprove the model (�R2 = .00, F(1, 218) = 0.37, p = .545). Thus,ontrary to Hypothesis 8, self-compassion did not significantlyoderate the relationship between Facebook appearance compar-

son and body surveillance.A post-hoc power analysis using G*Power software (Version

.1) (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009) was conducted toetermine if there was sufficient power to detect a significant inter-ction. Given that interaction effects in non-experimental researchend to be small (McClelland & Judd, 1993) a small effect size wasudged to be appropriate for this analysis. The power analysis uti-ized the linear multiple regression, fixed model, R2 deviation fromero option, specifying 5 predictors (i.e., 3 predictors, 2 covari-tes), small effects (i.e., f = .02), � = .05, and a power of .80. Resultshowed that for a small effect, a sample of 647 participants woulde required. As such, this study does not have the requisite powero reliably detect interaction effects, indicating that results of the

oderation analyses should be treated with caution.

. Discussion

The first goal of this study was to explore the associationetween different types of Facebook use and Facebook activitiesnd body esteem and body surveillance in adult women across aange of ages, which has been neglected in prior research. Whileot all hypotheses were supported, results indicated that Facebookppearance comparison and Facebook appearance-exposure pos-tively related to body surveillance among adult women in thistudy, even when controlling for age and BMI. Furthermore, out ofll Facebook-related variables, Facebook appearance comparisonmerged as the only variable significantly related to body esteem.n this study, overall time spent using Facebook, Facebook intensity,s well as Facebook appearance-exposure were unrelated to bodysteem. In some ways, these latter findings run counter to researchn young women and adolescent girls which has evidenced signifi-

ant correlations between overall Facebook use as well as Facebookntensity and body shame (Manago et al., 2014), and Facebookppearance-exposure and body concerns (Meier & Gray, 2014). Ofhe Facebook activities measured in this study, Facebook appear-

ance comparison evidenced the largest correlations with bodyesteem as well as body surveillance, suggesting that viewing andcomparing one’s appearance to pictures of others on Facebook maybe most strongly related to one’s view of their body as well as habit-ually monitoring one’s body and appearance. It should be noted thatit is conceivable that in some participants, Facebook appearancecomparison simply represents a pre-existing tendency to compareappearance with others and may not be only unique to Facebook.This finding conforms to past research (Fardouly & Vartanian, 2015;Fardouly et al., 2017; Puccio et al., 2016) and theory (Thompsonet al., 1999) which suggest that appearance comparison is an impor-tant variable in terms of body concerns among young adult womenand adolescent girls.

Other findings in this study are worth noting. In this study ofadult women, overall Facebook use did not significantly correlatewith or relate to body esteem or body surveillance, which is incon-sistent with some past research on adolescent girls and young adultwomen (Tiggemann & Slater, 2014; Trekels et al., 2018). There maybe several explanations for this each of which are speculative. Forexample, compared to adult women, adolescent girls and youngadult women are at different stages of psychological developmentwhich are often marked by identity formation and heightenedsocial comparison (Arnett, 2000; Dolgin, 2011). Thus, they may bemore sensitive to sociocultural pressures conveyed through Face-book than are older women because of the developmental tasksthey are working through. Second, the Facebook profiles of adoles-cent girls and young adult women may simply be different than theprofiles of adult and older women. Perhaps adult women’s Face-book profiles may include fewer images of friends, celebrities, orother images that correspond to beauty ideals which may make theprofiles more benign in terms of body concerns. Last, older women,compared to adolescent girls and young adult women, may utilizeFacebook in ways that have less focus on appearance (e.g., play-ing games, working). Related to these speculations, age could havebeen examined as a moderating variable, instead of a covariate, inorder to probe how Facebook use may have been differentially asso-ciated with body esteem and body surveillance across ages. Futureresearch, particularly with larger samples, could explore the inter-action between age and types of Facebook use when it comes tobody image in order to shed light on potential unique relationships.

There are, however, indications that age is not an explanation

for the lack of association between overall Facebook use and bodyesteem and body surveillance. Age was uncorrelated with Facebookappearance-exposure, Facebook intensity, and overall Facebookuse in this study. Furthermore, while an inspection of the Facebook

2 Image

d(lasacniabu22dowtisa

nryMmnatbmpidotleiiuetebriom(oaa

bwtm(amal(y

6 C. Modica / Body

ata show that non-photo-related activities were indeed populare.g., view friends’ status updates – most popular; view friends’inks to news stories – third most popular), other photo-relatedctivities were also popular (e.g., view friends’ photos of them-elves – second most popular) suggesting that women in this studyre engaging in activities on Facebook that are reasonably impli-ated in body concerns. Thus, the ages of women in this study mayot fully explain different types of use Facebook activities which

n turn could explain the lack of association between Facebook usend body esteem and body surveillance. Furthermore, there haveeen mixed findings in the association between overall Facebookse and body image in both young adult women (e.g., Kim & Chock,015; Manago et al., 2014) and adolescent girls (e.g., Meier & Gray,014; Tiggemann & Miller, 2010). Though it is unclear from theseata why overall Facebook use did not correlate with body esteemr body surveillance, one conclusion that can be gleaned is thathat individuals do on Facebook may have greater importance in

erms of body esteem and body surveillance, rather than how oftenndividuals use Facebook. This contention, previously alluded to bycholars (e.g., Fardouly & Vartanian, 2016), may also hold true fordult women across a range of ages, as in this study.

A second intriguing finding is that, contrary to hypotheses,either Facebook appearance-exposure nor Facebook intensity cor-elated with body esteem. This is contrary to past research onoung adult women and adolescent girls (Manago et al., 2014;eier & Gray, 2014). One explanation is that Facebook intensityay be more conceptually akin to simple Facebook use, which was

ot correlated with body esteem. The fact that Facebook intensitynd overall Facebook use were correlated, may lend support forhis contention. It may also be that perhaps the lack of correlationetween Facebook appearance-exposure and body esteem may beeasurement-related. For example, the AES is a ratio score (i.e.,

hoto activity relative to overall Facebook activity), such that twondividuals can have the same degree of photo-activity, but pro-uce different scores in the AES depending on the degree of theirverall Facebook activity. Thus, the AES measures relative exposureo photos, not absolute exposure, which may have obscured corre-ations with body esteem. Further, a high AES score assesses photoxposure on one’s own Facebook page, and does not necessarilyndicate exposure to images that conform to a sociocultural beautydeal. An alternative analytic approach might have been to onlytilize the Photo subscale of the FBQ as an index of Facebook photo-xposure. However, additional correlational analyses showed thathe Photo subscale did not correlate with body esteem. Anotherxplanation for the lack of association between body esteem andoth Facebook appearance-exposure and Facebook intensity mayelate to findings that show that as women age they place lessmportance on appearance (Peat et al., 2008), place less emphasisn their weight (Franzoi & Koehler, 1998), and place less invest-ent in their appearance in terms of measuring their self-worth

Tiggemann & Lacey, 2009). It is conceivable that adult women andlder women place less importance on their outward appearances an indicator of their self-worth and are thus impacted differentlys a result of exposure to photos on Facebook.

This study was the first to explore and find that the relationshipetween Facebook appearance-exposure was uniquely associatedith body surveillance in adult women. While acknowledging

he correlational, rather than causative relationship, perhaps theental processes involved in photo-related Facebook activity

e.g., “viewing friends’ photos they’ve added of you”) fosters negative form of self-monitoring (i.e., body surveillance) andight thus be more toxic in terms of body surveillance for

dult women. Given that body surveillance correlates with pub-ic self-consciousness (i.e., focusing on how one appears to others)McKinley & Hyde, 1996) as well as appearance comparison inoung adult women (Tylka & Iannantuono, 2016), it is also con-

29 (2019) 17–30

ceivable that adult women who engage in more body surveillanceare simply more apt to attend to pictures of others and themselveswhen using Facebook. Results also evidenced a positive correlationbetween Facebook intensity and body surveillance, but, like Face-book appearance-exposure, the directionality of this association ispurely speculative. While it is certainly plausible that integratingFacebook into one’s daily life may promote body surveillance, it isequally reasonable to assume that individuals who engage in morebody surveillance might be more apt to use Facebook, perhaps toassess how their appearance compares to others.

The second purpose of this study was to examine whetherappearance-contingent self-worth and self-compassion moder-ated the association between Facebook appearance comparisonand body esteem and body surveillance. Regarding appearance-contingent self-worth, it was thought that individuals who basetheir self-worth on their appearance may be more vulnerable tosituations where their appearance or body image is threatened.In such situations, such as comparing their appearance to oth-ers in Facebook, it was thought that individuals who base theirself-worth on appearance might experience less body esteem andperhaps are more apt to engage in body surveillance in order torectify any perceived flaws. However, analyses did not find sup-port for any moderation. The strength of the relationship betweenFacebook appearance comparison and body esteem as well asFacebook appearance comparison and body surveillance was notimpacted by appearance-contingent self-worth. However, as pre-viously mentioned, this study did not have sufficient power todetect these hypothesized moderating effects, which tend to besmall and account for between 1–3% of variance in nonexperimen-tal research designs (McClelland & Judd, 1993). Future researchmight explore these hypotheses regarding moderation with largersamples that are capable of detecting such effects in order to morereliably examine whether moderation exists. Analyses did revealthat appearance-contingent self-worth negatively related to bodyesteem and positively related to body surveillance. These findingsare in line with past research on young adult women (Managoet al., 2014; Noser & Zeigler-Hill, 2014; Overstreet & Quinn, 2012).A similar pattern emerged for self-compassion. As suggested byHoman and Tylka (2015), it was thought that the positive quali-ties of self-compassion may be protective to the self, particularly intimes when one’s personal adequacy is threatened or when individ-uals judge their appearance to fall below some standard. This studyconceptualized Facebook appearance comparison as a powerfulexperience of such a threat which could not only have deleteriouseffects on body esteem, but also lead to body surveillance. Similarto past research in younger women and girls (Ferreira et al., 2013;Kelly et al., 2014), analyses did find that higher self-compassionwas negatively associated with body surveillance and negativelyassociated with body esteem in this sample of adult women. How-ever, findings did not find evidence of moderation. The strengthof the relationship between Facebook appearance comparison andbody esteem as well as Facebook appearance comparison and bodysurveillance were not impacted by self-compassion when age andBMI were controlled. Similar to the lack of moderation mentionedpreviously, the results of analyses regarding self-compassion asa moderator should be interpreted with caution, since this studydid now have sufficient power to detect such moderation. Thus,it would be important for researchers to re-explore whether self-compassion moderates these associations with larger samples thatare sufficient to reliably examine moderation to more accuratelytest these hypotheses.

The lack of moderation by self-compassion and appearance-

contingent self-worth may have been related to the measurementof body image through body esteem. The BESAA assesses bodyimage through attitudinal items oriented around evaluations aboutweight and appearance. However, some items tap into constructs

Image

tcbsrcpm(apbmmgtsm

dFsbwbiButaovitfdtiBmurrcwti

ptmabbSmctcie1iie(

C. Modica / Body

hat may not assess satisfaction (e.g., “I’m proud of my body”). It isonceivable that operationalizing body image through measures ofody dissatisfaction, body shame, or specific measures focused onatisfaction with specific body parts may have produced differentesults. Correlational analyses in this study evidenced a signifi-ant positive correlation between age and self-compassion, andast research has shown that as women age they place less invest-ent in their appearance in terms of measuring their self-worth

Tiggemann & Lacey, 2009) and engage in less self-objectificationnd body monitoring (Tiggemann & Lynch, 2001). Therefore, whileurely speculative, another reason for the lack of moderation maye that self-compassion and appearance-contingent self-worth areore protective in younger women due to the fact that they may beore susceptible to sociocultural pressures regarding appearance

iven their age and developmental stage. This idea again indicateshat future studies should explore age as a moderating variable inuch analyses, either as a sole moderator or in a more complexoderated moderation analysis.The results of this study have broad implications as well as

irections for future research. First, this study demonstrated thatacebook appearance-exposure is uniquely associated with bodyurveillance and Facebook appearance comparison is related tooth body esteem and body surveillance in an older sample ofomen. While the research is not entirely consistent in regards to

ody image and age, scholars have suggested that body concernsn women remain relatively stable across age (Tiggemann, 2004).eing one of two studies that have specifically examined Facebookse and body image in older women, this study provides supporthat, similar to younger women, Facebook appearance comparisons well as Facebook appearance-exposure are important correlatesf body esteem and body surveillance in older women. This pro-ides some justification for researchers to focus on these variablesn older age cohorts. Second, it may be promising for future researcho explore how social media activities might differ between dif-erent age groups of women, and whether there are associatedifferences in body image. Given that media literacy (i.e., the abilityo identify, critique, and challenge messages through the media)mpacts body image among adolescents (Wade, Wilksch, Paxton,yrne, & Austin, 2017), it may also be important to explore howedia literacy is involved in the association between social media

se and body image in adult women at different ages. While faremoved from clinical intervention research, this study also echoesesearch on the salutary benefits of developing and practicing self-ompassion (Neff & Germer, 2012). Future research could explorehich components of self-compassion (e.g., self-kindness, isola-

ion, mindfulness) are linked with body image or body surveillancen order to provide a more fine-grained analysis.

This study included several limitations, first being the sam-le size in light of the moderation analyses conducted. As stated,his study did not have a large enough sample to reliably detect

oderation. As such, conclusions regarding self-compassion andppearance contingent self-worth moderating the relationshipetween Facebook appearance comparison and body esteem andody surveillance should be interpreted in light of this limitation.econd, it may have been worthwhile to examine age and BMI asoderators instead of covariates in regression analyses. Instead of

ontrolling for age, it may be promising to conceptualize and inves-igate the association between Facebook use and body image asonditional as a result of age. Third, the homogeneity of this samplen terms of race, ethnicity, and gender is a limitation. Given differ-nt body ideals between men and women in the U.S. (Field et al.,999; Labre, 2005), generalizing the findings of this study to males

s unwarranted. Further, roughly three-fourths of the participantsn this study identified as Caucasian. There are significant differ-nces in body image concerns between White and Black womenRakhkovskaya & Warren, 2014), as well as significant differences

29 (2019) 17–30 27

in body surveillance between White and Latina women (Breitkopf,Littleton, & Berenson, 2007). Thus, it is important to refrain fromgeneralizing these findings to non-white women. Fourth, this studyincluded women who were of a non-clinical population. Extendingthe findings of this study to women who may have an eating dis-order is not warranted. Fifth, this study was cross-sectional andcorrelational in nature which precludes statements of direction orcausality between variables. Sixth, there was a potential for differ-ent forms of recruitment/self-section bias and mono-method biasin this study. It is conceivable that the advertisement for this study,as well as the fact that this study included incentives may haveimpacted who chose to participate. The potential for systematicdifferences between those who participated and those who did notlimits generalizability of these findings. Last, given that all vari-ables were measured via self-report, it is possible that there existedforms of method-bias that can impact the validity of measurementof constructs and explained variance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee,& Podsakoff, 2003). In particular, overall Facebook use was self-reported and asking individuals to accurately assess how muchtime they spend on Facebook per day across different times theycheck the site may have been difficult and led to imprecision. It ispossible that this limitation could be overcome in future studiesby including a measure of Facebook checking and use that involvesparticipants downloading software on their phones or computersas done is other research studies (e.g., Junco, 2013).

4.1. Conclusion

Given the preponderance of research on Facebook use and bodyimage in younger women and adolescent girls, this study providesevidence that different types of Facebook use and Facebook activ-ities are associated with body esteem and body surveillance inadult women. This is important given the increases in Facebook useamong adult women. Notwithstanding its limitations, correlationalresults in this study results are in line with the corpus of literatureon Facebook and body image in younger populations; that asidefrom time spent on Facebook, there exist specific and perniciousFacebook activities that may be more directly associated with bodyesteem and body surveillance that are also important to considerin adult women.

Declarations of interest

None.

Acknowledgement

No external funding sources were used for this study.

References

Algars, M., Santtila, P., Varjonen, M., Witting, K., Johansson, A., & Jern, P. (2009). Theadult body: How age, gender, and body mass index are related to body image.Journal of Aging and Health, 21, 1112–1132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0898264309348023

Allaz, A.-F., Bernstein, M., Rouget, P., Archinard, M., & Morabia, A. (1998). Bodyweight preoccupation in middle-age and ageing women: A general populationsurvey. The International Journal of Eating Disorders, 23, 287–294. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-108X(199804)23:3<287::AID-EAT6>3.0.CO;2-F

Anderson, M., & Jiang, J. (2018). Teens, social media, and technology in 2018 May,2018 Report. Retrieved from. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewinternet.org/2018/05/31/teens-social-media-technology-2018/

Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the lateteens through the twenties. The American Psychologist, 55, 469–480. http://dx.

doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.55.5.469

Arroyo, A., & Brunner, S. R. (2016). Negative body talk as an outcome of friends’fitness posts on social networking sites: Body surveillance and socialcomparison as potential moderators. Journal of Applied CommunicationResearch, 44, 216–235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2016.1192293

2 Image

B

B

B

B

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

D

E

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

8 C. Modica / Body

ardone-Cone, A. M., Brownstone, L. M., Higgins, M. K., Fitzsimmons-Craft, E. E., &Harney, M. B. (2013). Anxiety, appearance contingent self-worth, andappearance conversations with friends in relation to disordered eating:Examining moderator models. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 37, 953–963.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10608-013-9520-9

ardone-Cone, A. M., Lin, S. L., & Butler, R. M. (2017). Perfectionism and contingentself- worth in relation to disordered eating and anxiety. Behavior Therapy, 48,380–390. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2016.05.006

reitkopf, C. R., Littleton, H., & Berenson, A. (2007). Body image: A study in atri-ethnic sample of low income women. Sex Roles, 56, 373–380. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9177-x

rown, T. A., Cash, T. F., & Mikulka, P. J. (1990). Attitudinal body-image assessment:Factor analysis of the body-self relations questionnaire. Journal of PersonalityAssessment, 55, 135–144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5501&2 13

ash, T. F. (2000). The multidimensional body-shape relations questionnaire users’manual Available from the author at:.(3rd ed.). www.body-images.com

haker, Z., Chang, F. M., & Hakim-Larson, J. (2015). Body satisfaction, thin-idealinternalization, and perceived pressure to be thin among Canadian women:The role of acculturation and religiosity. Body Image, 14, 85–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2015.04.003

hoi, Y. M., Lee, D., & Lee, H.-K. (2014). The effect of self-compassion on emotionswhen experiencing a sense of inferiority across comparison situations. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 114, 949–953. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.813

houkas-Bradley, S., Nesi, J., Widman, L., & Higgins, M. K. (2018). Camera-ready:Young women’s appearance-related social media consciousness. Psychology ofPopular Media Culture, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000196. Advance onlinepublication

ohen, R., Newton-John, T., & Slater, A. (2017). The relationship between Facebookand Instagram appearance-focused activities and body image concerns inyoung women. Body Image, 23, 183–187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2017.10.002

ohen, R., Newton-John, T., & Slater, A. (2018). “Selfie”-objectification: The role ofselfies in self-objectification and disordered eating in young women. Computersin Human Behavior, 79, 68–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.027

rocker, J., Luhtanen, R. K., Cooper, M. L., & Bouvrette, A. (2003). Contingencies ofself- worth in college students: Theory and measurement. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 85, 894–908. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.894

olgin, K. (2011). The adolescent: Development, relationships, and culture (13th ed.).Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc.

llison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:”Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal ofComputer-Mediated Communication, 12, 1143–1168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x

ardouly, J., & Vartanian, L. R. (2015). Negative comparisons about one’sappearance mediate the relationship between Facebook usage and body imageconcerns. Body Image, 12, 82–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2014.10.004

ardouly, J., & Vartanian, L. R. (2016). Social media and body image concerns:Current research and future directions. Current Opinion in Psychology, 9, 1–5.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.09.005

ardouly, J., Diedrichs, P. C., Vartanian, L. R., & Halliwell, E. (2015). The mediatingrole of appearance comparisons in the relationship between media usage andself-objectification in young women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39,447–457. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0361684315581841

ardouly, J., Pinkus, R. T., & Vartanian, L. R. (2017). The impact of appearancecomparisons made through social media, traditional media, and in person inwomen’s everyday lives. Body Image, 20, 31–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2016.11.002

aul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analysesusing G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. BehaviorResearch Methods, 41, 1149–1160. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/brm.41.4.1149

eltman, C. E., & Szymanski, D. M. (2017). Instagram use and self-objectification:The roles of internalization, comparison, appearance commentary, andfeminism. Sex Roles, 78, 311–324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0796-1

enigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and privateself-consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and ClinicalPsychology, 43, 522–527. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0076760

erguson, C. J., Munoz, M. E., Garza, A., & Galindo, M. (2013). Concurrent andprospective analyses of peer, television and social media influences on bodydissatisfaction, eating disorder symptoms and life satisfaction in adolescentgirls. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 1–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9898-9

erreira, C., Pinto-Gouveia, J., & Duarte, C. (2011). The validation of the Body ImageAcceptance and Action Questionnaire: Exploring the moderator effect ofacceptance on disordered eating. International Journal of Psychology andPsychological Therapy, 11, 327–345.

erreira, C., Pinto-Gouveia, J., & Duarte, C. (2013). Self-compassion in the face ofshame and body image dissatisfaction: Implications for eating disorders. Eating

Behaviors, 14, 207–210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2013.01.005

ield, A. E., Camargo, C. A., Jr., Taylor, C. B., Berkey, C. S., Frazier, A. L., & Gillman, M.W., et al. (1999). Overweight, weight concerns, and bulimic behaviors amonggirls and boys. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent

29 (2019) 17–30

Psychiatry, 38, 754–760. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00004583-199906000-00024

Fitzsimmons-Craft, E. E., Harney, M. B., Koehler, L. G., Danzi, L. E., Riddell, M. K., &Bardone-Cone, A. M. (2012). Explaining the relation between thin idealinternalization and body dissatisfaction among college women: The roles ofsocial comparison and body surveillance. Body Image, 9, 43–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2011.09.002

Franzoi, S. L., & Koehler, V. (1998). Age and gender differences in body attitudes: Acomparison of young and elderly adults. International Journal of Aging & HumanDevelopment, 47, 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/fvg1-ge5a-8g5y-dxct

Gagne, D. A., Von Holle, A., Brownley, K. A., Runfola, C. D., Hofmeier, S., & Branch, K.E., et al. (2012). Eating disorder symptoms and weight and shape concerns in alarge web-based convenience sample of women ages 50 and above: Results ofthe gender and body image (GABI) study. The International Journal of EatingDisorders, 45, 832–844. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eat.22030

Grippo, K. P., & Hill, M. S. (2008). Self-objectification, habitual body monitoring,and body dissatisfaction in older European American women: Exploring ageand feminism as moderators. Body Image, 5, 173–182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2007.11.003

Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional processanalysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Hays, R. D., Reise, S., & Calderon, J. L. (2012). How much is lost in using singleitems? Journal of General Internal Medicine, 27, 1402–1403. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11606-012-2182-6

Hendrickse, J., Arpan, L. M., Clayton, R. B., & Ridgway, J. L. (2017). Instagram andcollege women’s body image: Investigating the roles of appearance-relatedcomparisons and intrasexual competition. Computers in Human Behavior, 74,92–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.04.027

Hilbert, A., de Zwaan, M., & Braehler, E. (2012). How frequent are eatingdisturbances in the population? Norms of the eating disorderexamination-questionnaire. PloS One, 7, e29125 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0029125

Holland, G., & Tiggemann, M. (2016). A systematic review of the impact of the useof 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

Homan, K. J., & Tylka, T. L. (2015). Self-compassion moderates body comparisonand appearance self-worth’s inverse relationships with body appreciation.Body Image, 15, 1–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2015.04.007

Howard, L. M., Heron, K. E., MacIntyre, R. I., Myers, T. A., & Everhart, R. S. (2017). Isuse of social networking sites associated with young women’s bodydissatisfaction and disordered eating? A look at Black-White racial differences.Body Image, 23, 109–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2017.08.008

Janelli, L. M. (1993). Are there body image differences between older men andwomen? Western Journal of Nursing Research, 15, 327–339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/019394599301500305

Jenkins-Guarnieri, M. A., Wright, S. L., & Johnson, B. (2013). Development andvalidation of a social media use integration scale. Psychology of Popular MediaCulture, 2, 38–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0030277

Jiang, J. (2018). Millennials stand out for their technology use, but older generationsalso embrace digital life.. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/02/millennials-stand-out-for-their-technology-use-but-older-generations-also-embrace-digital-life/

Junco, R. (2012). The relationship between frequency of Facebook use,participation in Facebook activities, and student engagement. Computers &Education, 58, 162–171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.004

Junco, R. (2013). Comparing actual and self-reported measures of Facebook use.Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 626–631. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.11.007

Kelly, A. C., Vimalakanthan, K., & Carter, J. C. (2014). Understanding the roles ofself-esteem, self-compassion, and fear of self-compassion in eating disorderpathology: An examination of female students and eating disorder patients.Eating Behaviors, 15, 388–391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2014.04.008

Kim, J. W., & Chock, T. M. (2015). Body image 2.0: Associations between socialgrooming on Facebook and body image concerns. Computers in HumanBehavior, 48, 331–339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.009

Labre, M. P. (2005). The male body ideal: Perspectives of readers and non-readersof fitness magazines. The Journal of Men’s Health & Gender, 2, 223–229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmhg.2005.03.001

Lenhart, A. (2015). Teens, social media, and technology overview 2015 Retrievedfrom http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/09/teens-social-media-technology-2015.

Lev-Ari, L., & Zohar, A. H. (2013). Nothing gained: An explorative study of thelong-term effects of perceived maternal feeding practices on women’s andmen’s adult BMI, body image dissatisfaction, and disordered eating.International Journal of Psychology, 48, 1201–1211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2013.779378

Manago, A. M., Ward, L. M., Lemm, K. M., Reed, L., & Seabrook, R. (2014). Facebookinvolvement, objectified body consciousness, body shame, and sexualassertiveness in college women and men. Sex Roles, 72, 1–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-014-0441-1/cyber.2013.0305

Mangweth-Matzek, B., Hoek, H. W., Rupp, C. I., Kemmler, G., Pope, H. G., Jr., & Kinzl,

J. (2013). The menopausal transition-A possible window of vulnerability foreating pathology. The International Journal of Eating Disorders, 46, 609–616.http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eat.22157

Mangweth-Matzek, B., Rupp, C. I., Hausmann, A., Assmayr, K., Mariacher, E., &Kemmler, G., et al. (2006). Never too old for eating disorders or body

Image

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

O

P

P

P

P

P

P

C. Modica / Body

dissatisfaction: A community study of elderly women. The International Journalof Eating Disorders, 39, 583–586. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eat.20327

arengo, D., Longobardi, C., Fabris, M. A., & Settanni, M. (2018). Highly-visualsocial media and internalizing symptoms in adolescence: The mediating roleof body image concerns. Computers in Human Behavior, 82, 63–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.003

cClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detectinginteractions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 376–390. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.2.376

cKinley, N. M., & Hyde, J. S. (1996). The objectified body consciousness scale:Development and validation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 181–215.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1996.tb00467.x

cLean, S. A., Paxton, S. J., Wertheim, E. H., & Masters, J. (2015). Photoshopping theselfie: Self photo editing and photo investment are associated with bodydissatisfaction in adolescent girls. The International Journal of Eating Disorders,48, 1132–1140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eat.22449

eier, E. P., & Gray, J. (2014). Facebook photo activity associated with body imagedisturbance in adolescent girls. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and SocialNetworking, 17, 199–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2013.0305

endelson, B. K., Mendelson, M. J., & White, D. R. (2001). Body-esteem scale foradolescents and adults. Journal of Personality Assessment, 76, 90–106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa7601 6

itchison, D., Hay, P., Griffiths, S., Murray, S. B., Bentley, C., & Gratwick-Sarll, K.,et al. (2016). Disentangling body image: The relative associations ofovervaluation, dissatisfaction, and preoccupation with psychological distressand eating disorder behaviors in male and female adolescents. The InternationalJournal of Eating Disorders, 50, 118–126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eat.22592

osewich, A. D., Kowalski, K. C., Sabiston, C. M., Sedgwick, W. A., & Tracy, J. L.(2011). Self-compassion: A potential resource for young women athletes.Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 33, 103–123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/jsep.33.1.103

eff, K. (2011). Self-compassion, self-esteem, and well-being. Social and PersonalityPsychology Compass, 5, 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00330.x

eff, K. (2003a). The development and validation of a scale to measureself-compassion. Self and Identity, 2, 223–250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15298860309027

eff, K. (2003b). Self-compassion: An alternative conceptualization of a healthyattitude toward oneself. Self and Identity, 2, 85–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15298860309032

eff, K. D., & Germer, C. K. (2012). A pilot study and randomized controlled trial ofthe mindful self-compassion program. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 69, 28–44.http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jclp.21923

eff, K. D., & Vonk, R. (2009). Self-compassion versus global self-esteem: Twodifferent ways of relating to oneself. Journal of Personality, 77, 23–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00537.x

eff, K. D., Hsieh, Y.-P., & Dejitterat, K. (2005). Self-compassion, achievement goals,and coping with academic failure. Self and Identity, 4, 263287 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13576500444000317

eff, K. D., Kirkpatrick, K. L., & Rude, S. S. (2007). Self-compassion and adaptivepsychological functioning. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 139–154.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.03.004

eff, K. D., Rude, S. S., & Kirkpatrick, K. L. (2007). An examination ofself-compassion in relation to positive psychological functioning andpersonality traits. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 908–916. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.08.002

oser, A., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2014). Investing in the ideal: Does objectified bodyconsciousness mediate the association between appearance contingentself-worth and appearance self-esteem in women? Body Image, 11, 119–125.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2013.11.006

verstreet, N. M., & Quinn, D. M. (2012). Contingencies of self-worth andappearance concerns: Do domains of self-worth matter? Psychology of WomenQuarterly, 36, 314–325. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0361684311435221

eat, C. M., Peyerl, N. L., & Muehlenkamp, J. J. (2008). Body image and eatingdisorders in older adults: A review. The Journal of General Psychology, 135,343–358. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/genp.135.4.343-358

ellizzer, M. L., Tiggemann, M., Waller, G., & Wade, T. D. (2018). Measures of bodyimage: Confirmatory factor analysis and association with disordered eating.Psychological Assessment, 30, 143–153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pas0000461

odsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Commonmethod biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature andrecommended remedies. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

ozzebon, J. A., Visser, B. A., & Bogaert, A. F. (2012). Do you think you’re sexy, tall,and thin? The prediction of self-rated attractiveness, height, and weight.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 2671–2700. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00957.x

ruis, T. A., & Janowsky, J. S. (2010). Assessment of body image in younger andolder women. The Journal of General Psychology, 137, 225–238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2010.484446

uccio, F., Kalathas, F., Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, M., & Krug, I. (2016). A revised

examination of the dual pathway model for bulimic symptoms: Theimportance of social comparisons made on Facebook and sociotropy.Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 142–150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.018

29 (2019) 17–30 29

Rainie, L., Smith, A., & Duggan, M. (2013). Coming and going on Facebook.. Retrievedfrom http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Coming-and-going-on-facebook.aspx

Rakhkovskaya, L. M., & Warren, C. S. (2014). Ethnic identity, thin-idealinternalization, and eating pathology in ethnically diverse college women.Body Image, 11, 438–445. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2014.07.003

Raque-Bogdan, T. L., Piontkowski, S., Hui, K., Ziemer, K. S., & Garriott, P. O. (2016).Self- compassion as a mediator between attachment anxiety and bodyappreciation: An exploratory model. Body Image, 19, 28–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2016.08.001

Rutledge, C. M., Gillmor, K. L., & Gillen, M. M. (2013). Does this profile picture makeme look fat? Facebook and body image in college students. Psychology ofPopular Media Culture, 2, 251–258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000011

Ryan, T., Chester, A., Reece, J., & Xenos, S. (2014). The uses and abuses of Facebook:A review of Facebook addiction. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 3, 133–148.http://dx.doi.org/10.1556/jba.3.2014.016

Sanchez, D. T., & Crocker, J. (2005). How investment in gender ideals affectswell-being: The role of external contingencies of self-worth. Psychology ofWomen Quarterly, 29, 63–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00169.x

Sherlock, M., & Wagstaff, D. L. (2018). Exploring the relationship betweenfrequency of Instagram use, exposure to idealized images, and psychologicalwell-being in women. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000182. Advance online publication

Slevec, J., & Tiggemann, M. (2011). Media exposure, body dissatisfaction, anddisordered eating in middle-aged women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35,617–627. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0361684311420249

Smith, A., & Anderson, M. (2018). Social media use in 2018.. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2018/03/01/social-media-use-in-2018/

Steinfield, C., Ellison, N. B., & Lampe, C. (2008). Social capital, self-esteem, and useof online social network sites: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of AppliedDevelopmental Psychology, 29, 434–445. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2008.07.002

Stice, E. (1994). Review of the evidence for a sociocultural model of bulimianervosa and an exploration of the mechanisms of action. Clinical PsychologyReview, 14, 633–661. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0272-7358(94)90002-7

Stice, E. (2002). Risk and maintenance factors for eating pathology: Ameta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 825–848. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.5.825

Stokes, R., & Frederick-Recascino, C. (2003). Women’s perceived body image:Relations with personal happiness. Journal of Women & Aging, 15, 17–29.http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/j074v15n01 03

Stronge, S., Greaves, L. M., Milojev, P., West-Newman, T., Barlow, F. K., & Sibley, C.G. (2015). Facebook is linked to body dissatisfaction: Comparing users andnon-users. Sex Roles, 73, 200–213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0517-6

Thompson, J. K., Heinberg, L. J., Altabe, M., & Tantleff-Dunn, S. (1999). Exactingbeauty: Theory, assessment, and treatment of body image disturbance.Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Thompson, J. K., Heinberg, L., & Tantleff, S. (1991). The physical appearancecomparison scale (PACS). The Behavior Therapist, 14, 174.

Tiggemann, M. (2004). Body image across the adult lifespan: Stability and change.Body Image, 1, 29–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1740-1445(03)00002-0

Tiggemann, M., & Lacey, C. (2009). Shopping for clothes: Body satisfaction,appearance investment, and functions of clothing among female shoppers.Body Image, 6, 285–291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2009.07.002

Tiggemann, M., & Lynch, J. E. (2001). Body image across the life span in adultwomen: The role of self-objectification. Developmental Psychology, 37,243–253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.37.2.243

Tiggemann, M., & McCourt, A. (2013). Body appreciation in adult women:Relationships with age and body satisfaction. Body Image, 10, 624–627. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2013.07.003

Tiggemann, M., & Miller, J. (2010). The Internet and adolescent girls’ weightsatisfaction and drive for thinness. Sex Roles, 63, 79–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9789-z

Tiggemann, M., & Slater, A. (2013). NetGirls: The internet, facebook, and bodyimage concern in adolescent girls. The International Journal of Eating Disorders,46, 630–633. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eat.22141

Tiggemann, M., & Slater, A. (2014). NetTweens. The Internet and body imageconcerns in preteenage girls. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 34, 606–620.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272431613501083

Tiggemann, M., & Zaccardo, M. (2015). “Exercise to be fit, not skinny”: The effect offitspiration imagery on women’s body image. Body Image, 15, 61–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2015.06.003

Trekels, J., Ward, L. M., & Eggermont, S. (2018). I “like” the way you look: Howappearance- focused and overall Facebook use contribute to adolescents’self-sexualization. Computers in Human Behavior, 81, 198–208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.12.020

Tylka, T. L., & Iannantuono, A. C. (2016). Perceiving beauty in all women:Psychometric evaluation of the Broad Conceptualization of Beauty Scale. BodyImage, 17, 67–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2016.02.005

Tylka, T. L., & Wood-Barcalow, N. L. (2015). The Body Appreciation Scale-2: Itemrefinement and psychometric evaluation. Body Image, 12, 53–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2014.09.006

Tylka, T. L., Russell, H. L., & Neal, A. A. (2015). Self-compassion as a moderator ofthinness- related pressures’ associations with thin-ideal internalization and

3 Image

W

W

0 C. Modica / Body

disordered eating. Eating Behaviors, 17, 23–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2014.12.009

ade, T. D., Wilksch, S. M., Paxton, S. J., Byrne, S. M., & Austin, S. B. (2017). Do

universal media literacy programs have an effect on weight and shape concernby influencing media internalization? The International Journal of EatingDisorders, 50, 731–738. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eat.22689

alker, M., Thornton, L., De Choudhury, M., Teevan, J., Bulik, C. M., & Levinson, C.A., et al. (2015). Facebook use and disordered eating in college-aged women.

29 (2019) 17–30

Journal of Adolescent Health, 57, 157–163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.04.026

Wasylkiw, L., MacKinnon, A. L., & MacLellan, A. M. (2012). Exploring the linkbetween self-compassion and body image in university women. Body Image, 9,

236–245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2012.01.007

Webster, J., & Tiggemann, M. (2003). The relationship between women’s bodysatisfaction and self-image across the life span: The role of cognitive control.The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 164, 241–252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221320309597980