Psychological Distress Mediates the Relationship Between Bisexual Discrimination and Disordered Eating Behaviors in Bi + Women

Figures & data

Figure 1. Conceptual Model of Hypothesized Relationships.

Table 1. Retained Demographics of Study Sample.

Demographic	n = 250
Age (range: 18.11 − 30.50)	24.29 (3.59)
Gender
Cisgender	92.4% (231)
Transgender	2.4% (6)
Nonbinary^a	5.2% (13)
Relationship status
Single	46% (115)
In a registered relationship	2.8% (7)
In a relationship	32.8% (82)
De facto	15.2% (38)
Married	3.2% (8)
Education
Year 10	1.4% (3)
Year 11	1.2% (2)
Year 12	26% (65)
Certificate I or Certificate II	1.6% (4)
Certificate III or Certificate IV	6.8% (17)
Diploma	5.2% (13)
Bachelor Degree (including Honors)	39.2% (98)
Graduate Certificate	1.6% (4)
Graduate Diploma	4.4% (11)
Master’s Degree	12% (30)
Postgraduate Degree (Doctorate)	1.4% (3)
Annual income (AUD)
Prefer not to say	8.4% (21)
Less than $20,000/year	35.3% (88)
20,0000–40,000/year	28.4% (71)
40,000–60,000/year	11.6% (29)
60,000–80,000/year	9.6% (24)
80,000–100,000/year	5.2% (13)
Over 100,000/year	1.6% (4)
Cultural/ethnic background
Australian	82.8% (207)
Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander	1.2% (3)
New Zealand	4.4% (11)
British	21.2% (53)
Irish	14.4% (36)
Western European	10.0% (25)
Southern European	5.6% (14)
Mainland South-East Asian	5.2% (13)
Chinese Asian	6.0% (15)
Southern and East African	2.0% (5)

Note. The continuous variable is presented as M(SD). Categorical variables are presented as % (n). ^aWhile nonbinary people would generally not be included in a study focused specifically on women, we recognize the right and validity of nuanced self-identification that may be contextual. Thus, we have retained our nonbinary participants.

Table 2. Sample Differences in the Presence of Disordered Eating Behaviors (n = 250).

	Disordered eating engagement		No disordered eating engagement
Outcome	n	%	n	%
Binge Eating	115	46.0	135	54.0
Restraining	97	38.8	153	61.2
Compensatory Behaviors	92	36.8	158	63.2

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Among Variables of Interest.

	Range of Scores	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5
1. Bisexual Discrimination	10–50	32.97	14.03	–
2. Psychological Distress	8–48	27.39	8.46	.26**	–
3. Binge Eating Behaviors		–	–	.16*	.30**	–
4. Restraining Behaviors		–	–	.28**	.39**	.37**	–
5. Compensatory Behaviors		–	–	.29**	.27**	.31**	.35**	–

Note. M: mean; SD: Standard Deviation; *p < .05, two-tailed; **p < .001, two-tailed.

Figure 2. Model of Bisexual Discrimination as a Predictor of Binge Eating Behaviors, Fully Mediated by Psychological Distress.

Figure 3. Model of Bisexual Discrimination as a Predictor of Restraining Behaviors, Partially Mediated by Psychological Distress.

Figure 4. Model of Bisexual Discrimination as a Predictor of Compensatory Behaviors, Partially Mediated by Psychological Distress.

Data availability statement

Data are available at https://osf.io/9vfks/