Moderation effects of perceived resilience on the relationship between screen time, unstructured socializing, and self-perceived overweight

Figures & data

Table 1. Frequencies, means, and standard deviations of dependent, independent, and control variables

Variable	M (SD)	n (%)
Self-perceived overweight (SPO)
Not overweight		2641 (60.45%)
Overweight		1728 (39.55%)
Misperceptions of overweight (MO)
Not overweight		2541 (58.16%)
Overweight		1828 (41.84%)
Screen time (ST)
Television (TV)	12.73 (13.11)
Computer/ video games (CV)	4.74 (9.16)
Unstructured Socializing (UnS)	4.45 (2.35)
Perceived Resilience (PR)	0.83 (0.13)
Age	21.81 (1.80)
Gender
Male		2033 (46.53%)
Female		2336 (53.47%)
Education (In formal Years)	13.23 (1.98)
Ethnic Group
White		3101 (70.98%)
Black or AfricanAmerican		1045 (23.92%)
American Indian orNative American		198 (4.53%)
Asian or PacificIslander		211 (4.83%)
Multiracial		163 (3.73%)
Body Mass Index (BMI)
Underweight		125 (2.86%)
Normal weight		1993 (45.62%)
Overweight		1199 (27.44%)
Obesity		1052 (24.08%)

Note. N = 4369

Figure 1. Conceptual Model of Moderated Relationship between UnS, TV, CV, and SPO. In this figure, UnS represents unstructured socializing, TV represents television exposure, CV represents computer /video games exposure, PR represents perceived resilience, and SPO represents self-perceived overweight.

Table 2. Correlations with confidence intervals of independent, and control variables

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Gender
2. Age	−.06**
	[−.09, −.03]
3. Education	.09**	.20**
	[.06, .12]	[.17, .23]
4. TV	−.04*	.01	−.14**
	[−.07, −.01]	[−.02, .04]	[−.17, −.11]
5. CV	−.18**	−.02	.01	.16**
	[−.21, −.15]	[−.05, .01]	[−.02, .04]	[.13, .19]
6. UnS	.04**	−.15**	.09**	.03*	.07**
	[.01, .07]	[−.18, −.12]	[.06, .12]	[.00, .06]	[.04, .10]
7. PR	−.10**	.02	.14**	−.06**	−.02	.03*
	[−.13, −.07]	[−.01, .05]	[.11, .17]	[−.09, −.03]	[−.05, .01]	[.00, .06]

Note. TV = Television exposure; CV = Computer/ video games exposure, UnS = Unstructured socializing, PR = Perceived resilience. Values in square brackets indicate the 95% confidence interval for each correlation. * indicates p < .05. ** indicates p < .01.

Table 3. Results of binary logistic regression models explaining self-perceived overweight

Predictor	Model 1						Model 2
	β	SE β	W	p	OR($e^{\beta })$	95 % CI for OR	β	SE β	W	p	OR($e^{\beta })$	95% CI for OR
Constant	−0.886	0.054	271.3	<.001	0.41	.37, .46	−0.868	0.054	256.8	<.001	0.42	.38, .47
TV	0.011	0.003	17.8	<.001	1.01	1.01, 1.02	0.010	0.003	15.1	<.001	1.01	1.00, 1.02
CV	0.007	0.004	4.1	<.05	1.01	1.00, 1.01	0.009	0.004	5.3	<.05	1.01	1.00, 1.02
UnS	−0.018	0.014	1.6	.203	0.98	.96, 1.01	−0.018	0.014	1.7	.184	0.98	.96, 1.01
Age	0.075	0.018	16.9	<.001	1.08	1.04, 1.12	0.075	0.018	16.4	<.001	1.08	1.04, 1.12
Gender (1 = f)	0.877	0.067	174.3	<.001	2.40	2.11, 2.74	0.845	0.067	158	<.001	2.33	2.04, 2.66
Education	−0.021	0.017	1.5	.216	0.98	.95, 1.01	−0.007	0.017	0.15	.673	0.99	.96, 1.03
Ethnicity (Ref = White)
Black	−0.136	0.077	3.2	.076	0.87	.75, 1.01	−0.128	0.077	2.7	.096	0.88	.76, 1.02
American Indian	0.295	0.183	2.6	.106	1.34	.94, 1.92	0.278	0.184	2.3	.139	1.32	.91, 1.89
Asian/Pacific Islander	0.009	0.154	.004	.953	1.01	.74, 1.36	−0.04	0.155	.066	.772	0.96	.71, 1.30
Multiracial	−0.273	0.208	1.7	.189	0.76	.50, 1.14	−0.274	0.209	1.7	.200	0.76	.50, 1.14
PR							−1.417	0.258	30.1	<.001	0.24	.15, .40
UnS*PR							−0.205	0.106	3.7	.055	0.81	.66, 1.00
TV*PR							−0.012	0.018	0.49	.937	099	.95, 1.02
CV*PR							0.05	0.022	5.1	<.05	1.05	1.01, 1.10
Overall Model Evaluation	χ^2	df	p				χ^2	df	p
Likelihood ratio test	213.5	10	<.001				37.71	4	<.001
Wald test	202.2	10	<.001				37.3	4	<.001
GOF test
Hosmer-Lemeshow (H-L)	13.956	8	.083				9.703	8	.286
Nagelkerke R^2	0.065						0.076

Note. N = 4369. TV = Television exposure, CV = Computer /video games exposure, UnS = Unstructured socializing; PR = Perceived resilience, BMI = Body Mass Index, GOF = Goodness of fit test.

Table 4. Results of binary logistic regression model explaining misperceptions of overweight

Predictor	β	SE β	Wald’s χ^2	p	OR($e^{\beta })$	95 % forOR
						Lower	Upper
Constant	0.235	0.46	26.7	< .001	1.27	1.16	1.38
TV	0.006	0.003	6.4	<.05	1.01	1.00	1.01
CV	0.002	0.004	0.4	.53	1.00	1.00	1.01
UnS	−0.024	0.014	2.8	.093	0.98	.95	1.00
Age (in years)	0.059	0.019	10.1	< .01	1.06	1.02	1.10
Gender (1 = female)	−1.11	0.065	288.1	< .001	0.33	.29	.37
Education (in formal years)	−0.087	0.017	26.5	< .001	0.92	.89	.95
Overall model Evaluation	χ^2	df	p
Likelihood ratio test	391.94	6	< .001
Wald test	366.4	6	< .001
Goodness-of-fit test
Hosmer-Lemeshow	12.289	8	.139
Nagelkerke R^2	0.115

Note. N = 4369. TV = Television exposure; CV = Computer /video games exposure, UnS = Unstructured socializing; PR = Perceived resilience.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the three resources: The Odum Institute at UNC, the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR), and the Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA) https://addhealth.cpc.unc.edu/data/ The data was derived from the following resource available in the public domain: https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/pages/