Results

Frequencies:
Gender

Frequency percentage valid% cumulative%

Male 26 60.5 60.5 60.5

Female 17 39.5 39.5 39.5
Total 43 100 100

Age

Frequency percentage valid% cumulative%

20-30 17 39.5 39.5 39.5

31-40 22 51.2 51.2 90.7
41-50 3 7 7 97.7
51-60 1 2.3 2.3 100
Total 43 100 100

Education

Frequency percentage valid% cumulative%

Intermediate 19 44.2 44.2 44.2

Graduation 19 44.2 44.2 88.4
Masters 5 11.6 11.6 100
Total 43 100 100
Descriptive statistics and Reliability analysis:

Variables Mean std.dev Chronbach’s reliability

Eating behavior 2.8561 .34800 .728

Quality of Life 3.1627 .60145 .845
Depression 2.3540 .50875 .637
Social media 2.9269 .50214 .779

Interpretation of Descriptive analysis:

As per this data, the mean value of Eating behavior is 2.8561 which is less than neutral and it
tends towards disagreement, which means all the 43 respondents are agreeing on average that the
concept of eating behavior does not prevail in their respective organizations.

As per this data, the average value of Quality of Life is 3.1627, which is more than the neutral
and it tends towards agreement, which means all the 55 respondents are agreeing on average that
the concept of Quality of Life does prevail in their respective organizations.

As per this data, the average value of Depression is 2.3540, which is less than the neutral and it
tends towards disagreement, which means all the 55 respondents are agreeing on average that the
concept of Depression does not prevail in their respective organizations.

As per this data, the average value of Social media is 2.9269 which is less than neutral and it
tends towards disagreement, which means all the 55 respondents are agreeing on average that the
concept of Social media does not prevail in their respective organizations.

If the Cronbach's Alpha of any variable is greater than .07, then it should be considered as good.
The Cronbach's Alpha of Eating behavior is .728, the Cronbach's Alpha of Quality of Life
is .845, while the Cronbach's Alpha of Depression is .637. And the Cronbach's Alpha of Social
media is .779. It means alpha reliabilities of all the variables are considerably good except
depression which is less then 0.7.
One way Anova

Demographics F-Value P-Value

Gender 0.384 0.539
Marital Status 0.108 0.955
Age 0.401 0.673

Interpretation of On Way Anova

Gender:
The P value for the demographic factor of gender is 0.539, which is higher than 0.05, which
means the demographic factor of gender has no potential to bring any variation in the dependent
variable of Depression.
Age:
The P value for the demographic factor of age is 0.955, which is higher than 0.05, which means
the demographic factor of marital status has no potential to bring any variation in the dependent
variable of Depression.
Education:
The P value for the demographic factor of education is 0.673, which is higher than 0.05, which
means the demographic factor of age has no potential to bring any variation in the dependent
variable of Depression.
Correlation analysis:

EB QOL DP SM

Eating Pearson Correlation 1

behavior Sig.
N 43
Quality of life Pearson Correlation .299 1
Sig. .052
N 43 43
Depression Pearson Correlation .337 *
.323* 1
Sig. .27 .0883
N 43 43 43 1
Social media Pearson Correlation .066 .556 **
-.040
Sig. .673 .000 .798

N 43 43 43 43

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Correlation analysis interpretation:

H1: The correlation coefficient (r) value between eating behavior and depression is .337*, the
significance value is more than 0.05, so there is no relationship between the two variables. Hence
H2 is not supported.
H2: The correlation coefficient (r) value between eating behavior and quality of life is .337, the
significance value is more than 0.05, so there is no relationship between the two variables. Hence
H2 is not supported.

H3: The correlation coefficient (r) value between quality of life and depression is .323* the
significance value is more than 0.05, so there is no relationship between the two variables. Hence
H3 is not supported.

H4: The correlation coefficient (r) value between eating behavior, quality of life and depression
is .02067, the significance value is more than 0.05, so there is no relationship between the three
variables. Hence H4 is not supported.
H5: The correlation coefficient (r) values between social media and quality of life, social media
and depression are .556 and -0.40, the significance value is more than 0.05 between social media
and depression, so there is no relationship between the variables. Hence H5 is not supported
Moderated regression
Beta R2 ADJ R2

STEP 1
Control variables
Step 2
Eating behavior .449
Social media -.064 .118 .073
Step 3
Eat beh x soc x med 0.041 .021 -.003

Interpretation of moderated regression analysis:

There is no potential in the demographic factors to bring any change in dependent variable so the
first step has being cleared without any input.
In the 2nd step the value of R2 for Social media is .118, which means that there is a difference
of .118 in the observed values and predicted values. And the values of adjusted R2 is .073.
In the 3rd step the value of R2 for the interaction term is .021 which means that there is a
difference of .021 in the observed values and the predicted values. The adjusted R2 for the
interaction term is -.003.

Mediated regression
Coeff se t p

Eating behavior-Depression 0.1067 0.0839 -0.0355 0.282

Eating behavior-Quality of Life 0.5160 0.2576 2.0032 0.0518
Quality of Life- Depression 0.3860 0.2209 1.7473 0.0883
Eat beh -Qol-Dep 0.02067 o.1278 1.6174 0.1137
Correlation analysis interpretation:

H1: The correlation coefficient (r) value between eating behavior and depression is .337*, the
significance value is more than 0.05, so there is no relationship between the two variables. Hence
H2 is not supported.
H2: The correlation coefficient (r) value between eating behavior and quality of life is .337, the
significance value is more than 0.05, so there is no relationship between the two variables. Hence
H2 is not supported.

H3: The correlation coefficient (r) value between quality of life and depression is .323* the
significance value is more than 0.05, so there is no relationship between the two variables. Hence
H3 is not supported.

H4: The correlation coefficient (r) value between eating behavior, quality of life and depression
is .02067, the significance value is more than 0.05, so there is no relationship between the three
variables. Hence H4 is not supported.
H5: The correlation coefficient (r) values between social media and quality of life, social media
and depression are .556 and -0.40, the significance value is more than 0.05 between social media
and depression, so there is no relationship between the variables. Hence H5 is not supported

H1: eating behavior has a negative relation with depression.

H2: eating behavior has a positive relation with quality of life.
H3: quality of life has a negative relation with depression.
H4: quality of life mediates the relationship between eating behavior and depression.
H5: social media moderates the relationship between eating behavior and depression in such a
way that the relationship weakens when social media is low.