Abstract
Social comparison is heightened by social media use and is linked to disordered eating. Compared to other developmental groups, emerging adults use social media most often. College-aged women and those who are members of sororities, which place a high value on appearance, may be especially vulnerable to social comparison and disordered eating. To learn about these topics, individual interviews and focus groups were conducted at a large university. A structured protocol covered body image, social media, disordered eating, and campus health programming. Most participants defined body image as externally focused, noting physical appearance. All interviewees talked about appearance with their peers and most had discussed weight and diet. All participants reported that their peers engaged in disordered eating. Instagram was the most influential social media platform and retouching software was universally used to alter the face or slim the body. Focus groups with sorority members elicited similar results. Instagram was the most common platform for chapter accounts and was used for recruitment. Participants noted that attractive members were featured most often and reported pressure to look good when wearing sorority letters. Social media is ingrained in society, making it critical to understand its influence on disordered eating in emerging adults.
“Sorority members reported feeling pressure to meet appearance ideals when wearing sorority-branded clothing on campus or in photos.”
Introduction
Disordered eating (DE) includes cognitions and a range of unhealthful behaviors. This may include skipping meals, consuming diet pills, anxiety related to food, negative thoughts, feelings of shame, chronic dieting, weight fluctuations, rigid routines surrounding food and exercise, restriction of food, or a feeling of losing control around food.1,2 People who engage in DE may fail to meet the eating disorder (ED) diagnostic criteria defined by the American Psychiatric Association. 3 Nevertheless, DE is associated with many of the same adverse outcomes as clinically diagnosed EDs including growth retardation, poor bone health, fluctuations in weight, nutritional deficiencies, and psychosocial disturbances. DE is also associated with an increased risk of developing an ED. 4 Body image concerns, how an individual experiences being in their own body, are a contributing factor to DE. 5 It is established that DE is more prevalent in college women than in the general population. 6
At least 60% of college women are at high risk for EDs. 7 Emerging adulthood, a developmentally distinct timeframe of 18–29 years old, is a period where individuals have the opportunity to explore and develop aspects of their identity. 8 Many college women are making their own food choices for the first time during this life stage. 9 Compared to men, emerging adult women are at greater risk for DE and report higher levels of body dissatisfaction, depression, stress, and anxiety.10,11
In addition, the college campus environment itself enables social comparisons among women. 7 Research conducted by Reno and McNamee found that 68% of sorority members in their study reported that messages they received were complimenting or affirming their weight or appearance. This communicates that physical appearance and weight are important. 12 Sororities are large, existing groups of women that could potentially benefit from programmatic intervention. In their work, Basow and colleagues found that sororities attract women who are at risk for EDs and that living in a sorority house was associated with an increased likelihood of DE. 13 When combined with the social comparison and body surveillance present on campus in general, social physique anxiety is especially problematic. 7 Sorority members are more likely than nonmembers to engage in DE. 14 Social media use can amplify these comparisons.
Social Media Use and Disordered Eating
Multiple factors contribute to DE, one of which is social media. 15 Social media includes “computer-mediated technologies that facilitate the creation and sharing of information, ideas, and other forms of expression via virtual communities and networks” (p. 35). 16 This interactive environment gives users the ability to create, share, critique, or endorse content through likes, retweets, and comments. Value is derived from user-generated content. 17 The ability for others to comment in a public manner makes social media more interactive and self-exposing than other forms of Internet-related activity. Social media has made selective self-presentation possible. 18 Users can carefully cultivate self-presentation in ways that face-to-face communication does not allow. Emerging adults are active users of social media. 19
Gender differences have been found in both frequency and type of social media use. Women are active on social media for the maintenance of relationships, information gathering, time-passing, entertainment, and to find a sense of belonging. 20 Men use social media to voice their opinions and find new relationships and do not view social media as a means for self-presentation as strongly as women. 20 Women upload photos to social media with greater frequency and spend more time updating and managing their profiles. 21 For both men and women, social media use is associated with increased social comparison and self-objectification, which are related to lower self-esteem, poor mental health outcomes, and body image concerns. 22
Instagram is a popular social media platform, with 76% of adults ages 18-24 reporting daily use. 19 The application is used for photo sharing and image enhancement. 23 Common uses for Instagram include gaining information from others, documenting events, self-promotion, and increasing popularity. 24 Those who place high value on Instagram feedback (e.g., likes and number of followers) had lower self-esteem and lower perceived social status. 25 Likes may also dictate whether a user removes a post if the number does not satisfy their expectations and many compare the number of likes they receive to how many likes others receive.26,27 Users may also strategically time the posting of photos to encourage peak views. 27
Higher Instagram use is also connected to greater self-objectification and body image concerns, which increased when participants looked at female celebrities. 28 This is concerning for this population because self-objectification (viewing one’s body as an object to be gazed upon) and body image concerns are predictors for DE. When social media has a focus on appearance, this results in more negative body image. 29
Comparisons are also being made with peers. Brown and Tiggemann randomly assigned participants to view celebrity images, unknown peer images, or a control set of travel images, all derived from public Instagram pages. 30 The results showed that the first two groups had an increased negative body image. 30 Social media use in this population is consistently and positively linked with negative body image, with appearance comparisons being an important aspect of the link. 31 Undergraduate women who spent more time on Facebook had higher body image concerns. Women rated their own body image lower after viewing female celebrities, close friends, distant peers, and female family members. 32
To mitigate the self-image disturbances caused by social media comparisons, users may engage in photo editing or digital enhancements. Editing includes using filters, removing blemishes, or slimming body parts. This behavior serves as a virtual makeover for better self-presentation in online formats. The act of manipulating photos is based on the evaluation of one’s appearance. Women who photo edit are more likely to compare themselves to ideals and use editing tools to create online identities.33,34 Those with higher body dissatisfaction are more likely to use photo editing. 35
Purpose of This Research
This research study is a content analysis of qualitative data from undergraduate women in four topic areas: body image, eating behavior, DE behavior, and campus programming. In Study 1, individual interviews were conducted with college women. In Study 2, focus groups were conducted with sorority members. The following research questions guide this work:
How are college women defining and talking about body image?
How is social media affecting body image and appearance ideals?
Are disordered eating behaviors being observed on campus?
Have college women received any education about disordered eating?
Study 1: Individual Interviews
Participants and Procedure
Participants were recruited on campus using a variety of methods. Instructors in multiple departments were asked to share study information with students. A snowball sampling method was then utilized, with participants being asked to share study information with other female students. This research was approved by an Institutional Review Board and all participants completed an informed consent form. Fourteen female undergraduate students from a large mid-Atlantic university participated in individual, in-person interviews. Seven participants were seniors, 3 were juniors, and 4 were sophomores. The age of participants ranged from 19 to 22 years old. The mean age was 20.57 (SD = 1.01). Interviews were 10 to 28 minutes in length, audio recorded, and transcribed for analysis. A sample of questions is provided in the Appendix. Participants were not compensated in exchange for participation.
Analytic Approach
A content analysis of the interview data was conducted. After data collection, a codebook was developed. The final codebook is available by request from the first author. Two independent coders were trained to use the codebook. The coding procedure entailed (1) compiling a list of defined codes corresponding to participant responses to each question and (2) judging whether a specific code was present or absent. To establish inter-coder reliability, 15% of interviews were coded. The coding completed by each person was then compared. When disagreements occurred, the coders discussed the coding criteria, and decision rules were established. Then, all interviews were coded and the results were aggregated. Percent agreement for the two coders was 96.2% with a Cohen’s Kappa of .71 indicating substantial agreement. 36
Individual Interview Results
Body Image
The first set of questions focused on body image (RQ1). Participants were first asked to define positive body image in their own words. Two categories of internal and external focus emerged. Internal definitions were provided by two participants and focused on cognitions, attitudes, or information inside one’s head. For example, “being comfortable with myself and not being negative toward myself. I feel like people with negative body image issues pick on themselves.” Most participants (n = 12) offered external definitions that focused on physical appearance. For example, “acceptance of what you see in the mirror.”
Next, participants were asked if they talked about body image or appearance with their peers (RQ2). All participants said yes (n = 10) or sometimes (n = 4). When asked if they talk to their peers about weight or diet, seven said yes, five said sometimes, and two said never. Along this line of questioning, participants were asked why they think some people are unhappy with their body shape and size. Responses were coded into four categories: pressures from friends or family (n = 7), social media (n = 6), effects of the media in general (n = 4), and comparisons to others (n = 3). Thirteen participants agreed that attitudes about body image have changed over time. Finally, participants were asked about the influence of the campus environment, with the question, “Do you think your peers are more aware or worried about body image while at school compared to home over school breaks?” No participants felt more concerns at home. Ten cited more concerns at school and four said it depends or the concern is constant. One woman said, “I definitely think they are more concerned at school because like a lot of people are in sororities I think and they post pictures all the time of like them in whatever outfits, and then people who aren’t in sororities are like “that kinda sucks.” I don’t know, your thought process can sort of get like disordered in maybe you won’t want to buy certain things that you would eat at home because you want to be all fit and that’s what everyone does.”
Social Media Use
Section two of the interview protocol asked about social media use. This section opened with a general discussion. Participants were asked if they use any social media platforms (RQ3). Instagram (n = 13), Facebook (n = 10), Snapchat (n = 10), Twitter (n = 10), Tumblr (n = 2), Reddit (n = 1), Pinterest (n = 1), and LinkedIn (n = 1) were used. Following that line of questioning, participants were asked which social media platforms are most influential (RQ4). Fourteen participants (88%) said that Instagram was the most influential. Participants said, “Instagram one hundred percent and “I think for like body image definitely Instagram because you see like all of the influencers” One participant said, “Definitely Instagram. I feel like a lot of people are very worried about what they post and get almost like anxious about it and overthink it a lot. Like I know my friend will literally be looking at a picture for hours trying to decide if they should post it or not which is really sad. But I think that’s kind of how it's become recently, in recent years it's become very like… I don’t know how to describe it.”
Next, participants were asked if they think social media influences how people evaluate their own appearance. All participants responded yes to this question. Seven said yes due to unattainable body shapes being presented. Two said yes because it makes people overly concerned about how they present themselves and four said yes without further explanation.
The next set of questions turned to the content posted on social media. Participants were asked whether they or their peers use retouching or resizing features before posting pictures (RQ5). Most participants said yes and described what was being used. Retouching was used to cover blemishes or add makeup (n = 2) and used to slim or enlarge the body (n = 2). Applications such as Facetune were used (n = 2). One participant said, “Yes, some I would say some of them are definitely like slimming parts of their body and enlarging other ones… or like yeah, I would say some of them use Facetune, I don’t think it’s like too aggressive but there are definitely some details they kind of edit.” Four participants said yes without further explanation, one participant said no, and two said they did not know. All participants reported that they and their peers consider the time of day when posting to social media and choose high-traffic times when they will get more engagement and likes on a post. Social comparison was taking place but comparisons to influencers and celebrities were less prevalent and worrisome (RQ6). Participants were more concerned with their peers' social media activities. Celebrities and influencers with editing capabilities and professional photographers were viewed as unattainable.
Finally, participants were asked if they wanted to change anything about social media. Suggestions varied and included: people take it too seriously and should not use it as a profession (n = 6), make it more realistic and not so fake (n = 5), remove the like button (n = 4), have less negativity and people should be nicer (n = 4), and focus on connecting with people (n = 3).
Eating Behavior
Section three asked participants about eating behaviors (RQ7). They were first asked to define the term diet. Responses included: what you eat daily (n = 10), eating for an outcome such as weight loss or gain (n = 3), and how you eat to lose weight (n = 2). Participants were also asked to define the term restricted eating. Responses included: not eating enough or restricting calories (n = 8), avoiding or limiting certain foods (n = 6), and ignoring hunger cues (n = 2). Next participants were asked to explain what a healthy relationship with food means to them. Eight participants said eating without concerns or food freedom, six said having balance in diet and eating a variety of foods, five said eating when hungry, and four said eating enough food. Nearly all participants (n = 13) reported eating differently based on who was around (RQ8).
Participants were asked to define DE or unhealthy eating behaviors. Responses included restricted eating (n = 7), eating disorders in general (n = 4), Anorexia (n = 2), specific diets (n = 2), Bulimia (n = 1), and unhealthy relationship with food (n = 1). When asked if their peers engage in these unhealthy eating behaviors (RQ9), all participants said yes (undereating = 6, overeating = 3, yes with no explanation given = 3, and normalizing unhealthy behaviors = 2). Participants were also asked about the weight control behaviors they observed. Responses included: cutting out foods (n = 5), fasting (n = 5), Keto diet (n = 4), exercise (n = 4), and veganism or vegetarianism (n = 3).
Life events and times of stress affected eating behavior. All participants said that life events influence eating behaviors with elaborative responses including spring or summer break (n = 9), events with pictures (n = 4), fitting into a dress (n = 3), starting freshman year of college (n = 1), and winter holidays (n = 1). Participants mentioned stress lowering appetite (n = 8), stress increasing appetite (n = 6), school-related stress (n = 5), and using food as a reward (n = 2). Finally, participants were asked if there was anything else we should know about eating behaviors on the University campus. The most common responses were that students should be more educated on health (n = 2), the influence of sorority life (n = 2), and the influence of dining halls (n = 2).
Future Programming
The findings of the individual interviews revealed that there is a lack of programming for undergraduate students in the area of DE (RQ10). Participants were asked, “Have you ever received any education—formal or informal—about disordered eating?” None of the students reported receiving formal education at the University. Participants who received informal education were not confident in their knowledge, for example, one woman said “well I’ve taken a bunch of nutrition classes, and like it’s been like a few chapters or something about disordered eating. So I just know the facts, not really like how to prevent it and whatnot.”
Recommendations for a campus-based intervention were mixed (RQ11). In terms of format, seven participants said web-based would be best, six participants preferred face-to-face, and one participant suggested a hybrid approach. Arguments in favor of a web-based intervention were privacy, not forcing a mandatory in-person program, and reaching a larger number of people on campus. While undergraduates who suggested face-to-face had a variety of reasons supporting that choice, one participant stated “I feel like people might get more out of it if they hear it vs just looking at a screen, sometimes it doesn’t connect or even get through to the person.”
As for who should lead the program, five participants recommended a peer leader, three said a staff leader, and six participants preferred a combination of both. One participant said, “I would probably say peer I think the closer in age you can get the better. Definitely, also someone who struggled with a disorder like talking about their experience kind of makes it feels more real to people and makes it more relatable.” More research is needed on future programming, specifically regarding how to combine peer and staff leadership. It needs to be determined what experiences peer leaders should have and how to combine that with staff expertise.
Individual interviews and previous literature suggested that sorority life (i.e., the Greek system or Greek life) and campus activities influenced eating behavior. One participant stated, “I mean definitely the social media aspect [affects body image], and also I think that on-campus Greek life can be very pressuring. If you’re not in Greek life you know it’s because you don’t look as good or like things like that. I just think that a lot of—and that ties in with social media so mainly social media and like you know just like wanting to be like somebody or like acquiring likes and all those kinds of things.” In addition, sororities have social media accounts for the chapter and use these platforms as tools for recruitment and promotion. In Study 2, the same structured interview protocol was used to conduct focus groups with sorority women at the University to examine the unique influence of sorority life on DE and social media use.
Study 2: Focus Groups with Sorority Women
Participants and Procedure
Three focus groups were held in person, on campus, in a private conference room and took place for three consecutive weeks. A member of the research team and a research assistant, who was a sorority member at the University, moderated all three group interviews. Each focus group was approximately 90 minutes and was audio recorded. The focus groups had 11, five, and nine participants, respectively. A moderator guide is available by request from the first author. This research was approved by an Institutional Review Board.
Focus group recruitment took place in two ways. Emails were sent to a representative of each sorority explaining the study and inviting chapters to participate. If a chapter was interested, a recruitment flier was provided. Research assistants also attended chapter meetings and shared the recruitment flier. Sororities agreed to offer chapter accreditation points as an incentive to participate. This University has twelve sorority chapters that are members of the National Panhellenic Association, the governing body for women’s sororities in the United States and Canada. Eight chapters have houses on campus, one chapter has a house off campus, and three do not have houses.
Analytic Approach
Focus groups were transcribed for analysis. The transcripts were analyzed using the same codebook discussed above in the analysis of the individual interviews. Further, the transcripts were analyzed through several rounds of close reading by three members of the research team. The results of the analyses are discussed in aggregate in the sections that follow.
Focus Group Results
Body Image
Body image was defined by participants as how they see themselves as well as expectations and comparisons (RQ1). A participant said, “This is what you think about yourself physically, socially, and mentally, as a person in general. What you see rather than what people are telling you.” Body image was contrasted to appearance, defined as how you present yourself to others and the representation of who you are as a person. A participant said, “Appearance is what you see in the mirror but also the energy and vibe you give out, how you present yourself, and what others are seeing.” This distinction is similar to the external and internal delineation that emerged as a theme in the individual interviews. When discussing appearance and body image, the women mentioned that the topic came up in conversations with sisters before events, such as the lead-up to formal dances and preparing to look good in pictures (RQ2). This was described as “joking” about dieting for events, further defined as “very casual statements about being fat, needing to diet, or making comparisons.” Before important events, talking about dieting and weight was common. Participants were more likely to talk about these topics privately with close friends, rather than publicly with the entire sorority chapter membership. The women reported feeling most self-conscious when they have to wear certain clothing, especially a tight dress.
Overall, there was agreement that gaining weight was a “bigger deal” for women compared to men. A participant said, “Generally women are unhappy with their bodies and can always find something they are unhappy about.” Comparisons are a concern on campus, especially at the gym. It was stated that campus makes comparisons more prevalent and comparisons would not be “so big” at an off-campus gym. One woman said, “Everyone at the gym is fit in college.”
Some participants felt pressure to avoid wearing sorority letters (chapter-branded clothing) when they were not looking their best. There were social comparisons taking place between chapters and the general message was “don’t go out in letters if you don’t look good.” It was stated that women dress up for other women. Some felt pressure to wear makeup to class or ask sisters which outfit looks best. A sorority's reputation was based on appearance, “this chapter is good, they’re good-looking.”
Social Media Use
All three focus groups discussed how likes on social media can be negative and be used as an indicator of “telling me how to feel about myself.” The women felt both proud and worried about likes. These are a measure of how you are doing and how positively others are responding to you. In a discussion of whether the like feature should be removed, the general consensus was that removal would be futile. People would find another way to measure the worth of their photos without likes. Participants agreed that social media portrays perfection not reality.
Turning to sorority chapter social media accounts, there are unique features that are distinctive from personal accounts. Instagram is also the most common application for chapter accounts (RQ3). Sorority chapter Instagram accounts have themes and are moderated by social media chairs (RQ4). One participant mentioned that in her chapter, everyone sends in pictures to be featured, and “some girls get featured a lot.” Another participant said her sorority only posts pictures of the prettiest girls, sometimes the same members repeatedly. It was mentioned that “exceptionally” pretty girls get featured and people judge each other on what sorority they are members of. In contrast, another participant said that her sorority makes an effort to include everyone. One participant noted that some members are simply more interested in being featured on the chapter account and submit more pictures.
There is an evaluation of sororities using social media prior to the recruitment of new members (“sorority rush”), which takes place once per year. The purpose of the chapter accounts is glorifying the chapter for recruitment. Comparisons between sororities take place. Participants said, “you’re cool if you’re in that chapter” and based on looks certain people are expected to be in certain sororities. The participants agreed that social media use is a recruitment strategy, an advertisement. After recruitment (which is in the winter of each year at the University) it is common for accounts to take a break from posting, this can be a few weeks to months. During recruitment, potential new members look at Instagram to see events, people, and chapters. The accounts portray the best—“not everyone is actually friends in real life.”
The difference between how men and women use social media emerged in the conversations. Overall, it was established that girls look at other girls’ pictures more than guys do. The prevailing opinion was that girls use filters more, analyze pictures more, zoom in, time when to post pictures, and care more about their pages. Girls want other girls to compliment them, more than they want guys to compliment them. It was stated that likes are a “self-esteem thing.” It is common to delete a post if it does not “get enough likes” within an hour. A lack of engagement (too few likes) is discouraging.
Continuing this point, editing pictures prior to posting is very common (RQ5). Most reported editing every time a picture was posted. Editing behaviors included lighting, effects, filters, teeth whitening, and body enhancement. Phone applications such as Facetune were prevalent and some edited their appearance so much that they were no longer recognizable. One participant said, “you know these people in real life though, so it doesn't make much sense because you know what they look like.” It was mentioned that people edit pictures when they lack confidence or simply because everyone else is doing it. Others mentioned that all posted pictures are edited in some way, using filters or presets being the most common. One participant mentioned that people do not take editing seriously because everyone does it. Instagram was described as the most curated of the social media applications or “your best life.” Participants were more likely to compare themselves to their peers, rather than celebrities or influencers because influencers are held to a different standard (RQ6). The consensus was that influences are heavily edited and have professional photographers making this level of curation unattainable to the average person.
Thoughtfully considering when to post content was also discussed. Posting at certain times of day and monitoring likes were common. One participant mentioned taking down photos in as few as five minutes if the post was not getting enough likes. There are also sorority events that people attend for the purpose of taking pictures. This included themed parties, mixers, or photoshoots outside. One participant said that her friend group spends an “excessive amount of time taking pictures.”
Eating Behavior
Moving to a discussion of eating behavior (RQ7), a healthy relationship with food was defined as eating for energy, eating when hungry, not restricting, not overeating, not being scared to eat something, and not feeling guilty. This included listening to your body, knowing what you want, moderation, and eating what makes you feel good. Participants mentioned sometimes hearing girls discuss not eating or people not realizing “they have a problem.” One participant mentioned that talking about dieting and weight could be positive, because it makes her eat healthier. Diet was defined as what you eat in general, good and bad. Dieting was described as “going extreme,” restrictive eating, or limiting foods. Restricted eating included a “harsh diet,” “you want something but say you’re on a diet so you can’t,” “eating fewer calories than your body needs or wants,” or “cutting things out.”
Observed DE included (RQ9): Pretending you already ate, obsessing over calories, thoughts of overeating secondary to undereating, not eating the day of an event or before a date, women being expected to diet or eat less, wishing or pretending to have food intolerances, not eating enough, not knowing what food provides for you, food and eating being consuming, thinking about food a lot, eating low carb, taking Adderall to not feel hungry all day, skipping meals for coffee, eating differently because of planning to drink alcohol that night or the day after, eating a lot tonight and not eating the next day, going to the gym to be able to eat something specific, and controlling weight by tracking food intake.
The participants reported eating differently based on who was present (RQ8). Some reported feeling uncomfortable eating in front of other people. One example provided was eating ice cream when others were not, and that makes you feel bad, “it feels justified if everyone around you is eating bad to eat bad too.” The participants discussed feeling self-conscious around boys and thinking about what they were ordering when on a date. Participants discussed being “lady-like,” showing they care about appearance, and food orders as a reflection of who they are. In contrast, it was mentioned that “some guys actually like when girls eat a lot” and they see this message in the media and popular culture. In another context, one participant said, “everyone eats healthy around a healthy girl.” There is peer pressure when dining out, if the first person orders something healthy, everyone else might as well.
Consuming alcohol and going out drinking was also a factor. Eating before drinking, not eating to “get drunk faster,” and not eating in anticipation of eating a lot after drinking were all mentioned. The campus dining hall was described as problematic in terms of “eating too much,” “not feeling mentally satisfied so eat something healthier and then going back to the food you wanted first,” and “having all the options in your face.”
Campus Programming
Overall, no participants liked the existing required University health programming (e.g., AlcoholEdu and Bystander intervention). Participants have not received any education about DE from their chapters, despite the prevalence of DE on campus (RQ10). The assessment was that requiring these programs makes people not want to be there. Suggestions for improving a program of this type were to make the program peer-led, with staff supervising, to make the content more relatable and “more of a conversation” (RQ11). This is in line with the suggestions made in the individual interviews. A web-based program was suggested because this format may encourage participation but feel more private. Others felt that an online program would not feel personal and that would be a negative. Other suggestions included making the program women-only (or separate women and men), including interactive components (e.g., yoga, cooking, meal prep, social media training, and exercise), and keeping the program brief. Many agreed that skills should be taught to help women feel prepared to talk to someone they are concerned about. Overall, the consensus was to make the content available 24/7 to accommodate all schedules, make it informal, make it relaxed, and make the content relatable.
Conclusion
Across two studies, most participants recalled and reported externally focused definitions of body image, focusing on physical appearance. These college-aged women reported discussing appearance, weight, and diet with their peers. All participants reported that their peers engaged in DE. Social media was widely used, with Instagram being the most commonly used application and the most influential platform for personal accounts. Instagram was also the most commonly used platform for sorority chapter accounts. Chapter social media accounts are moderated, carefully crafted, and used as a tool for new member recruitment. Sorority members reported feeling pressure to meet appearance ideals when wearing sorority-branded clothing on campus or in photos. Retouching software, to alter the face or slim the body, was universally used. Social comparison was taking place but comparisons to influencers and celebrities were less prevalent and worrisome. Participants were more concerned with peer comparisons. Celebrities and influencers with editing capabilities and professional photographers were viewed as unattainable. As social media platforms have evolved, individual interaction with media may have changed; it is important to understand social media use and DE among college women. In this study, no participants had received formal education about DE since coming to college. Most said they would prefer programming led by a peer rather than a staff member and viewed DE as important as other topics offered by the university. Participants did not report positive evaluations of existing programming about other health topics, such as alcohol use, and advocated for future DE programming to be interactive and voluntary.
This study is not without limitations. Participants were limited to a convenience sample of female college students on a single campus. The campus population is majority White with National Panhellenic Council sorority chapters and without chapters from the National Pan-Hellenic Council (Black Greek letter organizations). Therefore, results may not be generalizable to other populations.
Overall, social comparison based on appearance is prevalent among peers on college campuses. Social comparison is enabled by Instagram and appearance modification is standard when posting on the application. Sorority members believe that their sororities should feature more physically attractive women and feel pressure to look a certain way when wearing letters or representing their sorority. DE is ubiquitous but not discussed by college women. Educational programming targeting college women, and taking their preferences into account, could allow for the identification of, discussion about, and prevention of DE. Future research directions should include the examination of these issues with a larger sample, representative of the campus the programming is being designed for.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
