Trends in body image among Australian queer men during COVID-19 lockdowns

Figures & data

Table 1. Participants’ employment statuses, relationship statuses, and living situations during Melbourne’s 2020 and 2021 COVID-19 lockdowns.

		N(%)
Employment status	Full-time	136(51%)
	Part-time or casual	69(26%)
	Unemployed	33(12%)
	Other	16(6%)
	Missing data	14(5%)
Relationship status	Single	157(59%)
	In a monogamous relationship	34(13%)
	In a non-monogamous or polyamorous relationship	24(9%)
	Married	17(6%)
	Separated, divorced, or widowed	14(5%)
	Other	8(3%)
	Missing data	14(5%)
Living situation	Alone	79(30%)
	With only housemate(s)	62(23%)
	With only romantic partner(s)	49(18%)
	With parent(s), grandparent(s), or other older relative(s)	33(12%)
	With romantic partner(s) and housemate(s)	10(4%)
	With romantic partner(s) and child(ren)	5(2%)
	With only child(ren)	1(1%)
	Other	15(6%)
	Missing data	14(5%)

As per G*Power (where alpha = .05, power = 0.8, effect size = 0.02, small), the total sample size needed to detect small effects for a moderation analysis is 395 participants. Therefore, to power our intended mediation analysis we intended to recruit at least 395 participants. Ultimately, however, the number of participants recruited for this study was influenced by funding constraints at the time of data collection. Thus, moderation analyses conducted within the present study were underpowered for small effects but adequately powered for medium effects.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics.

Scale	Subscale	N	Mean(SD)	Skew	Kurtosis
EDE-Q-13	Restrictive eating	189	2.99(1.13)	−0.11	−0.68
	Shape and weight over-evaluation	198	3.73(0.99)	−0.63	0.27
	Body dissatisfaction	209	3.66(1.04)	−0.39	−0.36
	Bingeing	165	3.54(1.02)	−0.54	−0.12
	Purging	59	2.99(1.27)	−0.22	−0.78
	Overexercising	170	2.91(1.44)	0.02	−1.32
DCQ		171	3.37(0.80)	−0.42	0.25
PHQ-4	Anxiety	204	3.78(1.01)	−0.78	0.27
	Depression	208	3.75(0.98)	−0.72	0.16
Suicidal ideation		214 Nyes = 66(31%) Nno = 148(69%)
Suicide attempt		214 Nyes = 11(5%) Nno = 203(95%)

Table 3. Correlation matrix.

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
Restrictive eating^1	_-
Shape and weight over-evaluation^2	.01	-
Body dissatisfaction^3	−.14	.66**	-
Bingeing^4	−.49**	.41**	.53**	-
Purging^5	.12	.45**	.38**	.21	-
Overexercise^6	.61**	−.01	−.09	−.37**	.17	-
DCQ^7	.20*	.65**	.61**	.21*	.52**	.25**	-
Anxiety symptomology^8	−.15	.35**	.36**	.33**	.30*	−.03	.29**	-
Depression symptomology^9	−.12	.23**	.33**	.24**	.36**	−.03	.27**	.70**	-

*p <.05, **p < .001.

Table 4. Body dissatisfaction as predictive of depression symptomology at different levels of restrictive eating.

Level of restrictive eating	Effect	p	LLCI	ULCI
−1SD	.11	.225	−0.07	0.28
Mean	.26	<.001	0.13	0.39
+1SD	.41	<.001	0.24	0.59

Table 5. Body dissatisfaction as predictive of depression symptomology at different levels of overexercising.

Level of restrictive eating	Effect	p	LLCI	ULCI
−1SD	.10	.223	−0.06	0.27
Mean	.24	<.001	0.12	0.37
+1SD	.38	<.001	0.20	0.56

Table 6. Body dissatisfaction as predictive of bingeing depending on living situation during lockdowns.

Living Situation	Effect	p	LLCI	ULCI
Lived alone	.23	.049	0.01	0.46
Lived with others	.62	<.001	0.47	0.77