Body Image 28 (2019) 39–43

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2018.12.001
1740-1445/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
40 A.R. Lonergan et al. / Body Image 28 (2019) 39–43
related activities, such as editing and posting selfies (Cohen et al.,
2018), and self-surveillance (e.g., checking “likes”; Fox & Rooney,
2015).
Self-compassion has been identified as a protective factor,
in women, to mitigate the negative effects of comparing one’s
appearance against sociocultural norms, which may be height-
ened in the context of social media (Braun, Park, & Gorin, 2016).
Self-compassion refers to the capacity to experience unpleasant
thoughts and emotions with warmth and self-acceptance, rather
than self-judgment (Raes, Pommier, Neff, & Van Gucht, 2011).
In regards to social media exposure, one study found that when
women viewed a series of images of idealized bodies and self-
compassion statements, they reported greater body satisfaction
(e.g., “satisfied with my body shape”) compared to women who
viewed only idealized body images (Slater, Varsani, & Diedrichs,
2017), suggesting that self-compassion may buffer against the
potentially harmful impact of social media.
Little is known, however, about the differential effect of self-
compassion on photo-based social media behaviors across genders.
Of the limited research conducted with male cohorts, it appears that
men do post and edit selfies, often for external validation and to cul-
tivate their “best” appearance (Fox & Vendemia, 2016). Moreover,
a systematic review, although based on few studies, suggested that
the relationship between body dissatisfaction and social media use
appears to be similar across genders (Holland & Tiggemann, 2016).
Research that includes both males and females is therefore impor-
tant to more fully understand the potential negative relationships
between photo-based social media on body dissatisfaction within
the population.
The current study aimed to investigate the relationship between
body dissatisfaction and both manipulation of selfies (photo manip-
ulation) and investment in choosing a selfie to post to social media,
and others’ responses to such images (photo investment), in male
and female users. We also aimed to investigate whether self-
compassion moderated these relationships. It was hypothesized
that body dissatisfaction would be positively associated with photo
manipulation and photo investment, and that the relationship
between body dissatisfaction and both photo manipulation/photo
investment would be weaker for participants who reported greater
self-compassion. No a priori hypotheses were made regarding gen-
der differences. As age has been included as a covariate in prior
studies (e.g., Fox & Vendemia, 2016), and in light of research that
suggests higher body mass index (BMI) is related to body dis-
satisfaction (Weinberger, Kersting, Riedel-Heller, & Luck-Sikorski,
2016), both age and BMI were controlled for in regression analyses.
2. Method
2.1. Procedure and participants
Participants were recruited via a university advertisement that
invited first year psychology students to participate in the ‘Social
Media Survey,’ which aimed to: (a) examine associations between
the use, and frequency, of social media sites and mental health;
and (b) determine gender differences in the prevalence and cor-
relates of social media use. Consenting participants completed the
online questionnaire (15 min) and were provided course credit for
their participation. The survey was initiated by N = 215 individuals.
Excluded participants were those who completed < 80% of items
(n = 10, 4.6%) or who reported never uploading photos to social
media (n = 21, 9.8%), leaving a final N = 184 (48.4% male), with no
missing data. Age ranged from 17 to 40 years (males: M = 20.13,
SD = 3.43; females: M = 19.73, SD = 3.48). The majority of partici-
pants were born in Australia (87%) and average reported BMI fell
within the “normal” range (M = 20.13, SD = 4.25).
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Photo manipulation and investment
Photo Manipulation and Investment Scales (McLean et al., 2015)
assessed the extent to which participants digitally altered selfies
(Photo Manipulation) as well as participants’ effort in choosing
a selfie to post to social media and monitoring others’ responses
to such images (Photo Investment). Photo Manipulation was mea-
sured by 10 Likert-type items regarding the frequency of different
manipulation procedures. Scores ranged from 10 to 50, whereby
higher scores indicated greater photo manipulation. Internal con-
sistency (i.e., Cronbach’s alpha) was .79 for men and .86 for women.
Photo Investment was measured by eight visual analogue items
that assessed the degree of concern or effort placed in select-
ing/uploading selfies to social media. The total score was calculated
from the mean of all items, ranging from 0 to 10, with higher scores
indicating greater photo investment. Cronbach’s alpha was .72 for
men and .82 for women.
2.2.2. Body dissatisfaction
The 16-item self-report adapted Body Shape Satisfaction Scale
(BSS; Pingitore, Spring, & Garfield, 1997) assessed dissatisfaction
with specific body parts. Given the inclusion of male and female
participants, the BSS was modified to include items that assessed
dissatisfaction with features relevant to men (e.g., chest). Dissatis-
faction was reported on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (not at all
dissatisfied) to 5 (extremely dissatisfied). A total score was summed,
with higher scores indicating greater body dissatisfaction. Cron-
bach’s alpha was .93 for men .94 for women.
2.2.3. Self-compassion
The 12-item Self-Compassion Scale Short-Form (SCS-SF; Raes
et al., 2011) assessed ability to mindfully contextualize negative
emotional states with a sense of kindness and acceptance. Items
were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Items were averaged,
with higher scores indicating greater self-compassion. Cronbach’s
alpha was .76 for men and .85 for women.
2.3. Data analysis
Analyses of variance (ANOVA) examined gender differences
in key variables: photo manipulation, photo investment, body
dissatisfaction, and self-compassion. Next, Spearman’s Rho corre-
lations assessed the associations between study variables. To test
whether self-compassion moderated the relationships between
photo manipulation, photo investment, and body dissatisfaction,
two hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted with
body dissatisfaction as the criterion variable. Both regression anal-
yses consisted of four steps, with age, gender, and BMI entered in
Step 1. Photo investment was also entered in Step 1 as a control vari-
able in the first regression analysis, whilst photo manipulation was
entered in the second regression analysis. In Step 2, photo manip-
ulation was entered in the first regression analysis, whilst photo
investment was entered in Step 2 of the second regression analy-
sis. The moderator variable (self-compassion) was entered in Step
3 in both regression models. Finally, photo manipulation × self-
compassion was entered in Step 4 of the first regression analysis,
whilst photo investment × self-compassion was entered in Step 4
of the second regression analysis.
Reverse regression analyses (available in the supplementary
material) were conducted, with body dissatisfaction as the pre-
dictor variable, and social media measures (photo manipulation
and photo investment) as the criterion variables. Results indicated
that body dissatisfaction and the photo measures were significantly
related when controlling for age, gender, and BMI (i.e., greater
body dissatisfaction was related to greater photo manipulation and
 A.R. Lonergan et al. / Body Image 28 (2019) 39–43 41

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

Men Women

n M (SD) n M (SD)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: Cases excluded pairwise, N = 184.

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

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

3.1. Descriptive statistics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

manipulation, photo investment, and body dissatisfaction. On the
one hand, regression analyses indicated that lower levels of self-
compassion were related to greater body dissatisfaction. This is
consistent with the notion that those with greater capacity for self-
compassion are better able to offset appearance-related threats,
which in turn, may reduce thin-ideal internalization and muscu-
larity related concerns (Braun et al., 2016; Tylka, Russell, & Neal,
2015). Current results were at odds with prior research that found
self-compassion mitigated the negative effect on body image, after
female participants viewed images of women with lean and toned
bodies on social media (Slater et al., 2017). This may be due to
Slater et al. (2017) examining ‘passive’ viewing of others’ images,
whilst the current study examined ‘active’ behaviors aimed at
one’s own image. Moreover, Slater et al.’s study involved an inter-
vention to raise self-compassion above baseline levels, whilst the
present study relied on those baseline levels to influence body
dissatisfaction. Trait self-compassion may therefore not be suffi-
cient to influence the relationship between body dissatisfaction
and more cognitively-engaged social media behaviors related to
the self. Another possibility for the nonsignificant interactions is
that the present study was not sufficiently powered to be able
to detect a significant interaction effect. While the present study
was adequately powered to detect an (f2 ) effect size of .10, sig-
nificant interactions commonly only account for between 1–3%
of incremental variance (McClelland & Judd, 1993). In the present
study, the incremental amount of variance of each interaction was
1%.
Results shed light on relationship between gender and photo-
based social media activities. Regression analyses indicated that
gender only accounted for variance in body dissatisfaction in the
first and second step of the models, with the final step indicating
that men and women experienced similar levels of body dissatis-
faction when taking into account demographic and risk correlates
(photo manipulation and photo investment). Whilst McLean et al.
(2015) reported a positive relationship between photo manipula-
tion and photo investment, that study consisted of females with
a mean age of 13 years. Photo manipulation and photo invest-
ment may be related for adolescents, as it is a time of rapid change
and development, with heightened focus on appearance and peer
relations. Constructing an online image, through photo manipula-
tion, may therefore be influenced by attention and time taken to
choose a photo, and peers’ responses to such photos. Conversely,
adults may have greater self-efficacy in constructing their online
image, without reliance on peers’ responses. Accordingly, the social
media behaviours, photo manipulation and photo investment, may
be mutually informing behaviours for adolescents, but distinct pro-
cesses in adults. An alternative explanation is that adolescents who
are invested in their photos on social media are more likely to
manipulate such photos, possibly due to knowledge and skill in
using photo-editing applications. The lack of a relationship among
adults, such that a highly invested adult who cares about his or her
photos on social media, may not manipulate these images due to
limited technological knowledge when using recently developed
digital applications.
Prior research has indicated bias in the body image field
towards young adult women has contributed to poor “mental
health literacy” among sufferers, healthcare providers, and the pub-
lic (Mitchison, Basten, Griffiths, & Murray, 2017). Current findings
may inform the development of targeted prevention programs for
male and female populations. Specifically, it may be important to
screen for digital manipulation of selfies, effort exerted in choosing
selfies, and investment in others’ responses to selfies in male and
female body dissatisfaction interventions. Emerging experimental
research (McLean, Wertheim, Masters, & Paxton, 2017) has demon-
strated that social media literacy is a potentially useful approach
for prevention of risk for eating disorders in adolescent girls. Larger
randomized control trials that focus on photo-based social media,
incorporate a broader age range, and male users will be a promising
step forward.
Several study limitations should be acknowledged. Firstly, the
social media variables did not distinguish whether participants
referred to selfies that captured bodies and face, or simply the face.
Prior research has suggested that exposure to Instagram images
with a high number of “likes” (Tiggemann, Hayden, Brown, &
Veldhuis, 2018), and Facebook use in the context of appearance
comparison (Fardouly, Diedrichs, Vartanian, & Halliwell, 2015), are
 A.R. Lonergan et al. / Body Image 28 (2019) 39–43
related to dissatisfaction of facial features in women. A valuable
extension to this research would be to examine whether male and
female users edit and post photos to social media differently in
line with whether they are presenting the ideal face, body, or both.
Given the cross-directional study design, further research is needed
to determine the direction of the relationship between photo-based
social media behaviors and body dissatisfaction. We also encourage
researchers to examine the interactions of self-compassion with
photo manipulation and photo investment with larger samples.
The current study nonetheless adds to a limited body of research
indicating that trait self-compassion may not be a substantial pro-
tective factor for all types of social media exposure, particularly
when users actively manipulate and scrutinize images to present
their “best” physical self. Further research is required to identify
protective factors to cope with not meeting body image ideals in a
photo-based social media environment.
Declarations of interest
None.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in
the online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2018.
12.001.
References
Braun, T. D., Park, C. L., & Gorin, A. (2016). Self-compassion, body image, and
disordered eating: A review of the literature. Body Image, 17, 117–131. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2016.03.003
Cohen, R., Newton-John, T., & Slater, A. (2018). ‘Selfie’-objectification: The role of
selfies in self-objectification and disordered eating in young women. Computers
in Human Behavior, 79, 68–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.027
de Vries, D. A., Peter, J., de Graaf, H., & Nikken, P. (2016). Adolescents’ social
network site use, peer appearance-related feedback, and body dissatisfaction:
Testing a mediation model. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45, 211–224.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0266-4
Fardouly, J., Diedrichs, P. C., Vartanian, L. R., & Halliwell, E. (2015). Social
comparisons on social media: The impact of Facebook on young women’s body
image concerns and mood. Body Image, 13, 38–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
bodyim.2014.10.004
Fardouly, J., Willburger, B. K., & Vartanian, L. R. (2017). Instagram use and young
women’s body image concerns and self-objectification: Testing mediational
pathways. New Media & Society, 1–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1461444817694499
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses
using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior
Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
Ferguson, C. J. (2013). In the eye of the beholder: Thin-ideal media affects some,
but not most, viewers in a meta-analytic review of body dissatisfaction in
women and men. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 2, 20–37. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1037/a0030766
Field, A. P., & Wilcox, R. R. (2017). Robust statistical methods: A primer for clinical
psychology and experimental psychopathology researchers. Behaviour
Research and Therapy, 98, 19–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2017.05.013
43
Fox, J., & Rooney, M. C. (2015). The Dark Triad and trait self-objectification as
predictors of men’s use and self-presentation behaviors on social networking
sites. Personality and Individual Differences, 76, 161–165. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.paid.2014.12.017
Fox, J., & Vendemia, M. A. (2016). Selective self-presentation and social comparison
through photographs on social networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and
Social Networking, 19, 593–600. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2016.0248
Griffiths, S., Hay, P., Mitchison, D., Mond, J. M., McLean, S. A., Rodgers, B., . . . &
Paxton, S. J. (2016). Sex differences in the relationships between body
dissatisfaction, quality of life and psychological distress. Australian and New
Zealand Journal of Public Health, 40, 518–522. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1753-
6405.12538
Holland, G., & Tiggemann, M. (2016). A systematic review of the impact of the use
of social networking sites on body image and disordered eating outcomes.
Body Image, 17, 100–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2016.02.008
Izydorczyk, B., & Sitnik-Warchulska, K. (2018). Sociocultural appearance standards
and risk factors for eating disorders in adolescents and women of various ages.
Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 429. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00429
McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting
interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulltetin, 114, 376–390.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.2.376
McLean, S. A., Paxton, S. J., Wertheim, E. H., & Masters, J. (2015). Photoshopping the
selfie: Self photo editing and photo investment are associated with body
dissatisfaction in adolescent girls. The International Journal of Eating Disorders,
48, 1132–1140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eat.22449
McLean, S. A., Wertheim, E. H., Masters, J., & Paxton, S. J. (2017). A pilot evaluation
of a social media literacy intervention to reduce risk factors for eating
disorders. The International Journal of Eating Disorders, 50, 847–851. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1002/eat.22708
Mills, J., Musto, S., Williams, L., & Tiggemann, M. (2018). Selfieḧarm: Effects on
mood and body image in young women. Body Image, 27, 86–92. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2018.08.007
Mingoia, J., Hutchinson, A. D., Wilson, C., & Gleaves, D. H. (2017). The relationship
between social networking site use and the internalization of a thin ideal in
females: A meta-analytic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1351. http://dx.doi.
org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01351
Mitchison, D., Basten, C., Griffiths, S., & Murray, S. (2017). Beneath the tip of the
iceberg: Why so many people with eating disorders are not referred for
treatment. Australian Family Physician, 46, 539–540.
Perrin, A. (2015). Social media usage: 2005-2015: 65% of adults now use social
networking sites – A nearly tenfold jump in the past decade Retrieved from Pew
Research Centre. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/08/social-networking-
usage-2005-2015/
Pingitore, R., Spring, B., & Garfield, D. (1997). Gender differences in body
satisfaction. Obesity Research, 5, 402–409.
Raes, F., Pommier, E., Neff, K. D., & Van Gucht, D. (2011). Construction and factorial
validation of a short form of the Self-Compassion Scale. Clinical Psychology and
Psychotherapy, 18, 250–255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cpp.702
Slater, A., Varsani, N., & Diedrichs, P. C. (2017). #fitspo or #loveyourself? The
impact of fitspiration and self-compassion Instagram images on women’s body
image, self-compassion, and mood. Body Image, 22, 87–96. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.bodyim.2017.06.004
Tiggemann, M., Hayden, S., Brown, Z., & Veldhuis, J. (2018). The effect of Instagram
“likes” on women’s social comparison and body dissatisfaction. Body Image, 26,
90–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2018.07.002
Tylka, T. L., Russell, H. L., & Neal, A. A. (2015). Self-compassion as a moderator of
thinness-related pressures’ associations with thin-ideal internalization and
disordered eating. Eating Behaviors, 17, 23–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
eatbeh.2014.12.009
Weinberger, N. A., Kersting, A., Riedel-Heller, S. G., & Luck-Sikorski, C. (2016). Body
dissatisfaction in individuals with obesity compared to normal-weight
individuals: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Obesity Facts, 9, 424–441.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000454837