This study explores the individual differences associated with adolescents’ exposure to “ana-mia” websites (i.e., websites where people discuss ways to be very thin, such as being anorexic). Participants were adolescents from a large cross-national survey in 25 European countries (N = 18,709, aged 11–16, 50% girls). Sociodemographic and individual factors (i.e., variables related to Internet use and personality traits) were included in a logistic regression performed separately for girls and boys. The results showed that sensation seeking and online disinhibition were both associated with an increased risk of exposure to “ana-mia” websites in girls as well as in boys, although some gender differences were apparent. In girls, but not in boys, the older the child and higher the socioeconomic status, higher the chance of being exposed to “ana-mia” websites. Further research is recommended to understand the real impact of “ana-mia” website exposure on adolescent health.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
PerloffRM. Social media effects on young women's body image concerns: theoretical perspectives and an agenda for research. Sex Roles, 2014; 71:363–377.
2.
de VriesDA, PeterJ, de GraafH, et al.Adolescents’ social network site use, peer appearance-related feedback, and body dissatisfaction: testing a mediation model. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 2016; 45:211–224.
3.
Amichai-HamburgerY. (2013) The social net: understanding our online behavior. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
4.
RodgersRF, LowyAS, HalperinDM, et al.A meta-analysis examining the influence of pro-eating disorder websites on body image and eating pathology. European Eating Disorders Review, 2016; 24:3–8.
5.
RouleauCR, von RansonKM. Potential risks of pro-eating disorder websites. Clinical Psychology Review, 2011; 31:525–531.
6.
BoeppleL, ThompsonJK. A content analytic comparison of fitspiration and thinspiration websites. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 2016; 49:98–101.
7.
BorzekowskiDLG, SchenkS, WilsonJL, et al.e-Ana and e-Mia: a content analysis of pro-eating disorder web sites. American Journal of Public Health, 2010; 100:1526–1534.
8.
GhaznaviJ, TaylorLD. Bones, body parts, and sex appeal: an analysis of #thinspiration images on popular social media. Body Image, 2015; 14:54–61.
9.
CasilliAA, MounierL, PaillerF, et al.Les jeunes et le web des troubles alimentaires: dépasser la notion de “pro-ana.” Rapport du projet de recherche ANR ANAMIA “La sociabilité Ana-mia: une approche des troubles alimentaires par les réseaux sociaux en ligne et hors-ligne.” www.webcitation.org/6ce6HJibd (accessed Oct.29, 2015).
10.
LivingstoneS, SmithPK. Annual research review: harms experienced by child users of online and mobile technologies: the nature, prevalence and management of sexual and aggressive risks in the digital age. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 2014; 55:635–654.
11.
HarperK, SperryS, ThompsonJK. Viewership of pro-eating disorder websites: association with body image and eating disturbances. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 2008; 41:92–95.
12.
RodgersRF, SkowronS, ChabrolH. Disordered eating and group membership among members of a pro-anorexic online community. European Eating Disorders Review, 2012; 20:9–12.
13.
CustersK, Van den BulckJ. Viewership of pro-anorexia websites in seventh, ninth and eleventh graders. European Eating Disorders Review, 2009; 17:214–219.
14.
TiggemannM, MillerJ. The Internet and adolescent girls’ weight satisfaction and drive for thinness. Sex Roles, 2010; 63:79–90.
15.
KoronczaiB, KökönyeiG, UrbánR, et al.The mediating effect of self-esteem, depression and anxiety between satisfaction with body appearance and problematic internet use. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 2013; 39:259–265.
16.
ClaesL, MüllerA, NorréJ, et al.The relationship among compulsive buying, compulsive Internet use and temperament in a sample of female patients with eating disorders. European Eating Disorders Review, 2012; 20:126–131.
17.
RodgersRF, MelioliT, LaconiS, et al.Internet addiction symptoms, disordered eating, and body image avoidance. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 2013; 16:56–60.
18.
WooldridgeT, MokC, ChiuS. Content analysis of male participation in pro-eating disorder web sites. Eating Disorders: The Journal of Treatment & Prevention, 2014; 22:97–110.
19.
OrchardLJ, FullwoodC. Current perspectives on personality and Internet use. Social Science Computer Review, 2010; 28:155–169.
20.
ZuckermanM. (2007) Sensation seeking and risky behavior. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
21.
LivingstoneS, HelsperEJ. Taking risks when communicating on the Internet: the role of offline social-psychological factors in young people's vulnerability to online risks. Information, Communication & Society, 2007; 10:619–644.
22.
WalkerM, ThorntonL, De ChoudhuryM, et al.Facebook use and disordered eating in college-aged women. Journal of Adolescent Health, 2015; 57:157–163.
23.
Amichai-HamburgerY. (2009) Personality, individual differences and Internet use. In JoinsonAN, McKennaKYA, PostmesT, ReipsUD, eds. The Oxford handbook of Internet psychology. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 187–204.
24.
CassinSE, von RansonKM. Personality and eating disorders: a decade in review. Clinical Psychology Review, 2005; 25:895–916.
25.
JoinsonAN. (2007) Disinhibition and the Internet. In GackenbachJ, ed. Psychology and the Internet: intrapersonal, interpersonal and transpersonal implications. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 75–92.
26.
CasaleS, FiovarantiG, CaplanS. Online disinhibition. Journal of Media Psychology, 2015; 27:170–177.
27.
StanleyT, BarnesJ, ShortE. Appearance-focused Internet use and the thin-beauty ideal. Studies in Media and Communication, 2015; 3:38–50.
28.
RansomDC, La GuardiaJG, WoodyEZ, et al.Interpersonal interactions on online forums addressing eating concerns. The International Journal of Eating Disorders, 2010; 43:161–170.
29.
LivingstoneS, HaddonL, GörzigA, et al. (2011). Technical report and user guide: The 2010 EU Kids Online Survey. London: EU Kids Online. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/45270/ (accessed Jan.29, 2015).
30.
StephensonMT, HoyleRH, PalmgreenP, et al.Brief measures of sensation seeking for screening and large-scale surveys. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 2003; 72:279–286.
31.
RodgersRF, MelioliT. The relationship between body image concerns, eating disorders and Internet use, Part I: a review of empirical support. Adolescent Research Review, 2016; 1:95–119.
32.
RodgersRF. The relationship between body image concerns, eating disorders and Internet use, Part II: an integrated theoretical model. Adolescent Research Review, 2016; 1:121–137.
33.
SlaterA, TiggemannM, HawkinsK, et al.Just one click: a content analysis of advertisements on teen Web sites. Journal of Adolescent Health, 2012; 50:339–345.
34.
LewisSP, ArbuthnottAE. Searching for thinspiration: the nature of Internet searches for pro-eating disorder websites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 2012; 15:200–204.
35.
MarkeyCN. Invited commentary: why body image is important to adolescent development. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 2010; 39:1387–1391.
36.
KeelPK. (2010) Epidemiology and course of eating disorders. In AgrasWS, ed. The Oxford handbook of eating disorders. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 25–32.
37.
FerreiroF, SeoaneG, SenraC. Toward understanding the role of body dissatisfaction in the gender differences in depressive symptoms and disordered eating: a longitudinal study during adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 2014; 37:73–84.
38.
WilsonJL, PeeblesR, HardyKK, et al.Surfing for thinness: a pilot study of pro-eating disorder Web site usage in adolescents with eating disorders. Pediatrics, 2006; 118:e1635–e1643.
39.
JenkinsH. (2009) Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: media education for the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
40.
CiaoAC, LothKA, Neumark-SztainerDR. Preventing eating disorder pathology: common and unique features of successful eating disorders prevention programs. Current Psychiatry Reports, 2014; 16:453.
41.
WolkS. (2013) Caring hearts and critical minds: literature, inquiry, and social responsibility. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
42.
JohnsonM. (2015) Digital literacy and digital citizenship: approaches to girls’ online experiences. In BaileyJ, SteevesV, eds. eGirls, eCitizens. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, pp. 339–360.
43.
O'ReillyT. (2013). Open data and algorithmic regulation. In: GoldsteinB, DysonL, eds. Beyond transparency: open data and the future of civic innovation. San Francisco: Code for America Press, pp. 289–300.
44.
WellsC, ThorsonK. (2015). How gatekeeping still matters: understanding media effects in an era of curated flows. In VosT, HeinderyckxF, eds. Gatekeeping in transition. New York: Routledge, pp. 26–44.
45.
Graells-GarridoE. (2015) Biased behavior in web activities: from understanding to unbiased visual exploration. http://hdl.handle.net/10803/294280 (accessed Oct.31, 2015).
46.
VeldhuisJ, KonijnEA, SeidellJC. Negotiated media effects. Peer feedback modifies effects of media's thin-body ideal on adolescent girls. Appetite, 2014; 73:172–182.
