Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Jun;53(6):852-863.
doi: 10.1002/eat.23282. Epub 2020 May 2.

Examining the self-reported advantages and disadvantages of socially networking about body image and eating disorders

Patricia A Cavazos-Rehg  1 , Ellen E Fitzsimmons-Craft  1 , Melissa J Krauss  1 , Nnenna Anako  1   2 , Christine Xu  1   2 , Erin Kasson  1 , Shaina J Costello  1 , Denise E Wilfley  1
Affiliations

Examining the self-reported advantages and disadvantages of socially networking about body image and eating disorders

Patricia A Cavazos-Rehg et al. Int J Eat Disord. 2020 Jun.

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study is to understand the self-reported advantages and disadvantages of socially networking about body image/eating disorders (EDs) and to examine the openness of these participants to online outreach and support for ED symptoms.

Method: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted with a sample of N = 598. Eligible participants were ≥15 years old, English-speaking, and U.S. residents who endorsed posting or following thin-ideal/body-image content on social media. Quantitative measures were used to assess online peer support and online interaction preferences, and to identify ED symptoms. Deductive and inductive qualitative approaches were used to analyze open-ended items about the advantages and disadvantages of social networking about thin-ideal content on social media platforms (SMPs).

Results: Among those who posted about the thin-ideal on social media, 70% felt that the peer responses were positive and supportive. Participants generally favored online interaction, and a third stated that they would accept support from someone they did not know online (38%). The most common advantages noted for posting/following thin-ideal content on SMPs were motivation/encouragement to engage in a certain behavior, socializing, and information giving/seeking. The most common disadvantages mentioned for posting/following thin-ideal content on SMPs were that the content elicits negative/bad feelings, having to deal with the negative consequences/reactions of others when socially networking about this topic, and that it triggers a desire to engage in ED behaviors.

Discussion: With these findings, researchers, health practitioners, and social media administrators can devise ways to reduce harmful consequences of posting/following body-image/ED content on social media.

Keywords: body image; eating disorders; social media.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

There are no conflicts of interest to report.

References

    1. Alhabash S, & Ma M (2017). A tale of four platforms: Motivations and uses of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat among college students? Social Media+ Society, 3(1), 2056305117691544.
    1. Almenara CA, Machackova H, & Smahel D (2016). Individual Differences Associated with Exposure to “Ana-Mia” Websites: An Examination of Adolescents from 25 European Countries. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 19(8), 475–480. doi:10.1089/cyber.2016.0098 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Borzekowski DL, Schenk S, Wilson JL, & Peebles R (2010). e-Ana and e-Mia: A content analysis of pro-eating disorder Web sites. Am J Public Health, 100(8), 1526–1534. doi:10.2105/ajph.2009.172700 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Branley DB, & Covey J (2017). Pro-ana versus pro-recovery: A content analytic comparison of social media users’ communication about eating disorders on Twitter and Tumblr. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 1356. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Caplan SE (2005). A social skill account of problematic Internet use. Journal of communication, 55(4), 721–736.

Publication types