Abstract
Purpose
Mukbang, defined as an audio–visual broadcast in which broadcasters commonly eat large portions of tasty food, is a sociocultural trend that can be associated with eating disorders. This study was conducted to evaluate the effect of watching mukbang on eating attitudes through uncontrolled eating, cognitive restriction, and emotional eating.
Methods
Questionnaire was included the mukbang addiction scale to assess problematic mukbang viewing, the eating attitude test (EAT-26) to assess eating attitudes, and the three-factor eating scale to assess eating behaviours. The direct and indirect effects of mukbang addiction on eating attitudes were evaluated by meditation analysis. Statistical analyses of the data were conducted using IBM SPSS version 24 and PROCESS v4.0 by Andrew Hayes.
Results
This study was carried out with a total of 329 university students. Mukbang addiction scale, uncontrolled eating, and emotional eating factor scores were found to be significantly higher in those with disordered eating attitudes than those with normal eating attitudes (p < 0.05). Mukbang addiction score had a significant direct effect on the eating attitudes score (β = 0.772, p < 0.001), but "uncontrolled eating" and "emotional eating" factors did not have a significant mediator role in this effect. An increase of a one-unit in the mukbang addiction score causes an increase of 0.82 units in the eating attitudes score (p < 0.001). There was no significant relationship between the “cognitive restriction” factor and the scales used (p > 0.05); therefore, it is not included in the mediator variable analysis.
Conclusions
These findings suggest an association between problematic mukbang viewing and eating attitudes; however, it remains unclear whether this relationship is causal or a consequence of underlying conditions. The absence of significant mediation of uncontrolled and emotional eating in this effect suggests that further studies are needed to understand the possible mechanisms.
This study is based on a cross-sectional design and is classified as level of evidence 4.
Keywords: Mukbang, Eating attitudes, Uncontrolled eating, Cognitive restriction, Emotional eating
Introduction
Recently, mukbang videos broadcast on digital platforms have drawn a lot of attention. The word mukbang is a combination of the Korean words "eating" (meokneun) and "broadcast" (bangsong) [1]. Mukbang is defined as an audio–visual broadcast that can be live or recorded in which broadcasters known as mukbangers often eat large portions of delicious-looking food [1, 2]. These foods can be fast food or traditional foods [1]. In addition, some mukbang content is video- and audio-based, and the creators use a microphone to hear the food sounds [3].
Mukbang first appeared in South Korea in 2014 and were introduced to western countries in 2015 when a popular American YouTuber posted a video commenting on South Korean mukbang videos. Thus, mukbang started to become a content known to the whole world, especially to Asian countries [4]. In the 2 year period between April 2017 and April 2019, mukbang videos on YouTube were viewed by more than 10,000 viewers [1].
It is not surprising that individuals who love eating and/or are food addicts use online platforms for food-related content. For example, individuals who love eating but do not want to suffer the negative consequences of overeating can satiate themselves by watching mukbang, this allows them to feel satiation and vicarious eating [5]. The fact that the people who shoot mukbang videos indirectly give the audience the pleasure of eating with visual and auditory stimuli helps with this saturation [3]. In addition, it was emphasized that mukbang affects social and cultural food behaviors by changing the food and brand preferences of the audience. It has been claimed that this effect may lead to a decrease in homemade food production and an increase in fast-food consumption [6]. Health professionals in South Korea have noted the recent increase in obesity in Korean individuals and suggested that phenomenal trends such as mukbang should be given more attention and may even require government regulation [4].
Watching mukbang has both beneficial (reducing feelings of loneliness and social isolation, creating a virtual social community, etc.) and harmful (changing food preferences, eating habits, and food culture, promoting disordered eating, etc.) consequences. Successful attempts to satisfy different offline eating needs by watching mukbang on social media platforms are likely to lead to repeated use of these activities and excessive (in some cases, problematic or addictive) mukbang watching. Problematic mukbang viewing (addictive) can be another negative coping method used to meet unmet offline social needs and cope with negative emotions (loneliness, depression, etc.) [6].
Although there are many studies in the literature investigating the relationship between internet/social media use/addiction and eating habits/attitudes/disorders [7–12], there are limited studies on the effect of watching mukbang [13–15]. In a study, eating disorder symptoms, particularly binge eating and purging, were associated with higher levels of problematic mukbang watching, and it was stated that future research is needed to determine the direction of the relationship between mukbang watching and eating disorders [15]. This study was conducted to evaluate the effect of watching mukbang on eating attitudes through uncontrolled eating, cognitive restriction, and emotional eating in university students. University students were chosen as they are among the groups most exposed to digital media and mukbang content, and they exhibit more variable eating attitudes and behaviours [16]. Mukbang videos are quite popular on social media platforms; therefore, this study, which examines students' mukbang viewing habits and the effects of these habits on eating attitudes, is important in terms of trying to explain the relationship between digital media and eating habits.
Methods
Participants
The study was carried out with students (≥ 18 years) studying at different universities in Turkey between December 2021 and June 2022. To collect data, a questionnaire form created by the researchers using Google Forms was delivered online to university students and participation was voluntary. The study was announced to the participants via social media channels, such as WhatsApp and Instagram. Data was collected while maintaining anonymity.
Data were collected by the snowball sampling method. The number of students to be sampled was determined as at least 391 with a 95% confidence interval and 0.05 margin of error by GPower analysis [17], and a total of 644 students filled out the questionnaire. Among these students, the data of 347 (53.9%) students who stated that they watched mukbang was evaluated. Since it is thought that it may affect emotional eating and eating attitudes, the data of 18 participants with diagnosed psychiatric disease (n:10), gastrointestinal disease (n:7) and diabetes (n:1) were extracted and the analyses were made with the data obtained from 329 students (Fig. 1). The study was approved by the Ethics Committee at ………… University (research code: 2021–1118).
Fig. 1.
Flow chart of the study design
Measures
In the first part of the questionnaire, age, gender, educational status, marital status, presence of chronic disease, smoking status, and alcohol use of individuals were questioned to determine sociodemographic characteristics. The body weights and heights of the individuals were self-based, and the body mass index (BMI) was calculated. In addition to the questions about watching mukbang, the mukbang addiction scale [18] was used to assess problematic mukbang watching, the eating attitude test-26 (EAT-26) [19] was used to assess eating disorders, and the three-factor eating questionnaire [20] was used to assess eating behaviours in the questionnaire.
Mukbang addiction scale
The mukbang addiction scale was developed by Kırcaburun et al. [18] in 2020 to evaluate problematic mukbang watching. The scale consists of six questions and is five-point Likert type (1= Never, 2= Rarely, 3= Sometimes, 4= Often, and 5= Always). The scale did not have a certain cutoff point, and the relationship between high scores and addiction to watching mukbang was found to be positive. The original scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.95 [18]. The Cronbach’s alpha value of the scale is calculated as 0.857.
Eating attitude test-26 (EAT-26)
It is a 26-question form of the eating attitude test-40 developed by Garner and Garfinkel [21] in 1979, which was revised and shortened by Garner, Olmstad, Bohr, and Garfinkel [19]. The validity and reliability of the Turkish adaptation of the scale and its use among university students were made by Ergüney–Okumuş and Sertel–Berk. The Turkish version of eating attitudes test-26 demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha =0.84) [22]. In addition to its easy application and scoring, the scale provides advantages in terms of psychometric properties, economy, and practicality [22]. The Cronbach’s alpha value of the scale is calculated as 0.860.
The eating attitude test (EAT) 26 is a helpful scale for detecting and defining eating disorder behaviour in normal individuals as well as being used as a tool to help diagnose anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa, which are also called eating disorders. The scoring of 26 items in the scale is "3 = Always, 2 = Very often, 1 = Often, 0 = Sometimes, 0 = Rarely, 0 = Never". On the other hand, in question 26, reverse scoring is done, that is, "1 = Sometimes, 2 = Rarely, and 3 = Never", while other options still get 0 points. The cutoff point for EAT-26 is 20 points. Scores of 20 and below indicate normal eating behavior, and scores above 20 indicate disordered eating attitudes [22].
Three-factor eating questionnaire-21 (TFEQ-R21)
The three-factor eating questionnaire was first developed by Stunkart and Messick [23] in 1985. Karlsson et al. [20] reduced this 51-item test to 18 items in 2000. Later, it was transformed into a 21-item form and was adapted into Turkish by Karakuş et al. [24] in 2016. The TFEQ-R21 measures individuals' uncontrolled eating behaviours (loss of control while eating as a result of hunger or any external stimulus), cognitive restriction (consciously restricting food intake to control body shape and weight), and emotional eating (overeating in negative emotional situations). It questions uncontrolled eating behaviour with 9 items (items 3, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 19, and 20), and the lowest score that can be obtained in this factor is 9, while the highest score is 36. While Cronbach’s α values were calculated as 0.787 in the original study, it was determined as 0.872 in this study. Cognitive restraint behaviour is questioned with 6 items (items 1, 5, 11, 17, 18, and 21), and the lowest score that can be obtained in this factor is 6, and the highest score is 24. While Cronbach’s alpha values were calculated as 0.801 in the original study, it was determined as 0.852 in this study. The 6 items questioning emotional eating behaviour are items 2, 4, 7, 10, 14, and 16. The lowest score that can be obtained for this sub-factor is 6, and the highest score is 24. While Cronbach’s alpha values were calculated as 0.870 in the original study, it was determined as 0.930 in this study. Responses are scored as "definitely false = 1, mostly false = 2, absolutely true = 3, and mostly true = 4". Transformed scale scores were used for easier interpretation of the scores obtained from the scale, and the total scores ranged from 0 to 100. A high score on any of the sub-factors of the scale indicates a high level of eating behaviour related to that factor [24].
Statistical analyses
Statistical analyses of the data were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 24 (IBM SPSS, Turkey). For categorical variables, numbers and percentages were used, and continuous variables were presented as mean and standard deviation. Compliance with the normal distribution was examined by Kolmogorov–Smirnov/Shapiro–Wilk tests and a histogram plot. Independent t test was used to compare two groups. Spearman’s correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the relationship between the mukbang addiction scale, the three-factor eating questionnaire, and the EAT-26. The direct and indirect effects of problematic mukbang watching on eating attitudes were evaluated by meditation analysis. In mediated structural model analysis, data were analysed with PROCESS v4.0 by Andrew Hayes. The significance level was taken as p<0.05.
Results
The study was carried out with a total of 329 university students, 77 males (23.4%) and 252 females (76.6%). The mean age of the participants was 21.9 ± 2.87 years, with an age range of 18–37 years. Their general characteristics are shown in Table 1. Approximately 36.4% of males and 17.5% of females are overweight or obese.
Table 1.
General characteristics of participants
| Male (n:77) | Female (n:252) | Total (n:329) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % | n | % | n | % | |
| Smoking | ||||||
| Yes | 42 | 54.5 | 59 | 23.4 | 101 | 30.7 |
| No | 35 | 45.5 | 193 | 76.6 | 228 | 69.3 |
| Drinking alcohol | ||||||
| Yes | 46 | 59.7 | 83 | 32.9 | 129 | 39.2 |
| No | 31 | 40.3 | 169 | 67.1 | 200 | 60.8 |
| BMI classification | ||||||
| Underweight | 4 | 5.2 | 33 | 13.1 | 37 | 11.3 |
| Normal weight | 45 | 58.4 | 175 | 69.4 | 220 | 66.9 |
| Overweight | 24 | 31.2 | 34 | 13.5 | 58 | 17.6 |
| Obese | 4 | 5.2 | 10 | 4.0 | 14 | 4.2 |
BMI body mass index
The characteristics of mukbang watching are given in Table 2. Most of the individuals stated that they watched mukbang videos in the evening (38.0%) and at night (42%). Most of them (84.5%) stated that they watched mukbang videos for 0–30 min. 47.1% of them stated that their appetite slightly increased when they watched mukbang videos, while 4.9% stated that it slightly decreased. The majority of individuals watch mukbang videos, because they come across on social media (50.8%) or to pass time (35.0%).
Table 2.
Characteristics of mukbang watching
| Characteristics of mukbang watching | Male (n:77) | Female (n:252) | Total (n:329) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % | n | % | n | % | |
| Time to mukbang watching | ||||||
| Morning | 3 | 3.9 | 7 | 2.8 | 10 | 3.0 |
| Afternoon | 8 | 10.4 | 48 | 19.0 | 56 | 17.0 |
| Evening | 25 | 32.5 | 100 | 39.7 | 125 | 38.0 |
| Night | 41 | 53.2 | 97 | 38.5 | 138 | 42.0 |
| Mukbang watching duration | ||||||
| 0–30 min | 64 | 83.1 | 214 | 84.9 | 278 | 84.5 |
| 30–60 min | 12 | 15.6 | 31 | 12.3 | 43 | 13.1 |
| 60–90 min | 1 | 1.3 | 6 | 2.4 | 7 | 2.1 |
| 90–120 min | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| >120 min | – | – | 1 | 0.4 | 1 | 0.3 |
| Preferred cuisine | ||||||
| Turkish cuisine | 29 | 37.7 | 81 | 32.1 | 110 | 33.4 |
| Foreign cuisine | 48 | 62.3 | 171 | 67.9 | 219 | 66.6 |
| The effect of the mukbang watching | ||||||
| Be hungry despite being full | 19 | 24.7 | 67 | 26.6 | 86 | 26.1 |
| Be satiated despite being hungry | 1 | 1.3 | 11 | 4.4 | 12 | 3.6 |
| Slightly increased appetite | 34 | 44.2 | 121 | 48.0 | 155 | 47.1 |
| Slightly decreased appetite | 4 | 5.2 | 12 | 4.8 | 16 | 4.9 |
| Not be impressed | 19 | 24.7 | 41 | 16.3 | 60 | 18.2 |
| The most impressive feature of mukbang | ||||||
| Visual | 41 | 53.2 | 123 | 48.8 | 164 | 49.8 |
| Auditory | 7 | 9.1 | 17 | 6.7 | 24 | 7.3 |
| Visual and Auditory | 29 | 37.7 | 112 | 44.4 | 141 | 42.9 |
| Purpose of mukbang watching | ||||||
| For coming across on social media | 37 | 48.1 | 130 | 51.6 | 167 | 50.8 |
| To suppress the urge to eat | 2 | 2.6 | 8 | 3.2 | 10 | 3.0 |
| To increase the desire to eat | 4 | 5.2 | 7 | 2.8 | 11 | 3.3 |
| To spend time | 25 | 32.5 | 90 | 35.7 | 115 | 35.0 |
| To reduce the feeling of social loneliness | 1 | 1.3 | 6 | 2.4 | 7 | 2.1 |
| Due to lack of access to various foods | 3 | 3.9 | 7 | 2.8 | 10 | 3.0 |
| Other | 5 | 6.5 | 4 | 1.6 | 9 | 2.7 |
When evaluated according to EAT-26, it was found that 18.5% (n:61) of the individuals had disordered eating attitudes, and the mean EAT-26 score was found to be 29.5 ± 8.87 in those with disordered eating attitudes and 7.1 ± 4.64 in those with a normal eating attitudes. In Table 3, the scores of the individuals on the mukbang addiction scale and the TFEQ-R21 were compared according to the presence of disordered eating attitudes. Mukbang addiction scale, “uncontrolled eating”, and “emotional eating” factor scores were found to be significantly higher in those with disordered eating attitudes than those with normal eating attitudes (p < 0.05).
Table 3.
Mukbang addiction scale, EAT-26 and TFEQ-R21 scores according to the presence of disordered eating attitudes
| Measurements | Disordered eating attitudes (n:61) X̅±SD | Normal eating attitudes (n:268) X̅±SD | p |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mukbang addiction scale | 10.2±5.17 | 8.2±3.17 | <0.001 |
| TFEQ-R21 | |||
| Uncontrolled eating | 54.7±24.25 | 43.8±20.91 | <0.001 |
| Cognitive restriction | 15.0±4.50 | 33.6±20.40 | <0.001 |
| Emotional eating | 57.9±33.53 | 43.2±25.74 | <0.001 |
TFEQ-R21 three-factor eating questionnaire-21
Table 4 shows the linear regression analysis results of the mukbang addiction scale, EAT-26, and TFEQ-R21 scores. There was no significant relationship between the “cognitive restriction” factor of the TFEQ-R21 and the mukbang addiction scale (p > 0.05), but significant correlations were found between the mukbang addiction scale and the EAT-26 and the “uncontrolled eating” and “emotional eating” factors of the TFEQ-R21 (p < 0.05) (Table 4).
Table 4.
Linear regression analysis of mukbang addiction scale, EAT-26, and TFEQ-R21 scores
| Mukbang addiction scale | EAT-26 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| β | SE | p | β | SE | p | |
| Mukbang addiction scale | 0.822 | 0.149 | <0.001* | |||
| TFEQ-R21 | ||||||
| Uncontrolled Eating | 0.888 | 0.325 | 0.007* | 0.067 | 0.026 | 0.010* |
| Cognitive Restriction | − 0.131 | 0.433 | 0.694 | 0.126 | 0.025 | <0.001* |
| Emotional Eating | 1.067 | 0.414 | 0.010* | 0.055 | 0.020 | 0.008* |
TFEQ-R21 three-factor eating questionnaire-21, EAT-26 eating attitude test-26, *p < 0.05
Since mukbang addiction scale score was not associated with the "cognitive restriction" factor score, the direct and indirect effects of mukbang addiction on eating attitude were evaluated by taking “uncontrolled eating” and “emotional eating” factors as mediators. The mukbang addiction scale score had a significant direct (β = 0.772, p < 0.001) and total (β = 0.822, p < 0.001) effect on the eating attitude score, but "uncontrolled eating" and "emotional eating" factors did not have a mediator role in this effect (total indirect effect with Bootstrap β = 0.049, SE = 0.044, 95% CI − 0.008–0.160). An increase of a one-unit in the mukbang addiction scale score causes an increase of 0.82 units in the eating attitude score (p < 0.001) (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2.
Mediated analysis model. *p <0.01
Discussion
Mukbang, a relatively recent internet phenomenon, is a sociocultural trend that may be associated with eating disorders [15]. In this study, which was conducted to evaluate the effect of watching mukbang, which has recently become popular in our country, on eating attitude mediated by uncontrolled eating, cognitive restriction, and emotional eating, it was found that the mukbang addiction scale score had a significant direct effect on the eating attitude score. Such that an increase of a one-unit in the mukbang addiction scale score causes an increase of 0.82 units in the eating attitude score. Although there is limited data in the literature on the subject, the results of this study support the existing literature [15, 17].
The popularity of mukbang broadcasts, where creators consume large amounts of food without disclosing nutritional information, may influence individuals' eating behaviors and attitudes [25]. The hypothesis of the study has been established that the effect of watching mukbang on eating attitude may be mediated by uncontrolled eating, cognitive restriction, and emotional eating, but it was not included in the cognitive restriction in the mediated analysis. It was determined that the factors of uncontrolled eating and emotional eating did not have a significant mediating effect. In a study, positive relationship was also found between emotional eating and mukbang addiction. It was found that mukbang addiction had a partial mediator role in the effect of problematic internet use on emotional eating [26]. Whereas, von Ash et al. [15] found that watching mukbang was associated with loss of eating control with or without binge eating. In another recent study, it was determined that there was no significant relationship between the frequency of watching mukbang and emotional eating and restrictive eating behaviors, but external eating behaviors were significantly related to the frequency of watching mukbang [27]. External eating refers to eating in response to an external food-related stimulus (look or smell of food), independent of the internal state of hunger or satiety, derived from the theory of externality [28]. Manafi Anari and Eghtesadi [27], stated that with the increase in mukbang viewing, individuals consume more food in response to external stimuli, possibly because they lose their ability to recognize and act on internal hunger signals. In this study, the external eating factor was not evaluated, and it is thought that watching problematic mukbang may affect the eating attitude through external eating.
It has been stated in the literature that individuals watch mukbang for different motivations [3, 29]. Some individuals feel emotionally attached to mukbangers and other viewers to satisfy their need to eat with friends; some watch to overcome loneliness; and some watch just for fun. Some viewers report that they enjoy listening to the sounds of eating and preparing food, resulting in a sense of happiness and relaxation. It has also been reported that individuals who are on a diet or cannot access certain types of food follow mukbang to experience the indirect satisfaction of binge-eating through mukbanger [15, 18]. In this study conducted with Turkish university students, it was determined that the most important reasons for watching mukbang were seeing these videos on social media (50.8%) and wanting to spend time (35.0%). In other words, most individuals do not watch these videos for a special purpose. The fact that the majority of individuals (85.8%) do not watch mukbang for eating purposes and have a normal body weight (67%) may be associated with a lower risk of uncontrolled eating and emotional eating. It is thought that there may not have been a significant mediator effect in its possible effect on eating disorders. In addition, although mukbang videos may stimulate emotional eating for some individuals, they can encourage positive emotions with their entertaining content, while for others, watching others eat and interacting on a common interest can help regulate emotions [30]. This may be an important factor in mukbang videos stimulating food intake for some individuals and suppressing food intake for others. It is thought that this dual effect may be the reason why uncontrolled eating and emotional eating factors do not mediate the negative effect of watching problematic mukbang on eating attitudes.
In recent study, among all adolescents, 71.5% reported watching mukbang and cookbang videos, with 13.5% viewing them more than five times a week. Regarding the self-rated impact, 15.1% stated that they ate or cooked the foods featured in the videos, while 7.7% reported developing inappropriate eating habits [31]. Kırcaburun et al. [8] reported that problematic mukbang viewing is positively associated with eating disorders (r = 0.24, p < 0.01). In this study, mukbang addiction scale, uncontrolled eating and emotional eating factor scores were found to be significantly higher in those with disordered eating attitudes than those with normal eating attitudes. The directional relationship between mukbang viewing and disordered eating is not yet fully understood. However, individuals who exhibit disordered eating behaviours may be more likely to view mukbang. Individuals who exhibit restrictive eating behaviours are more likely to be preoccupied with food, which may lead them to seek out food-related content such as mukbang [7]. In addition, most individuals stated that watching mukbang increases their appetite (47.1%) or they feel hungry (26.1%), even though they are full. Frequent mukbang watchers may consume more food than normal, because individuals' consumption norms can be easily influenced by the consumption of mukbangers, who often eat very large portions during a single broadcast [32]. Because viewing problematic mukbang is more likely to be associated with more serious adverse outcomes than viewing recreational mukbang, viewing problematic mukbang may be more likely to be associated with increased real-life problematic eating behaviours [17].
Evaluation of problematic mukbang viewing with a valid and reliable scale and determining the degree of effect of watching mukbang on eating attitude are the strengths of the study, but there are also some limitations. In this study, the fact that the appetite status of the individuals and external eating were not evaluated makes it difficult to explain the possible relationships. Another limitation of the study is that the monitoring frequencies of individuals were not evaluated when questioning the duration of watching mukbang. Finally, the cross-sectional nature of this study does not allow for identification of cause–effect relationships.
In conclusion, this study demonstrates that watching mukbang can lead to deterioration in eating attitudes and offers an approach to detecting the existence of a relationship between watching mukbang and eating disorders using mediator variable analysis. The findings suggest an association between problematic mukbang viewing and eating attitudes; however, it remains unclear whether this relationship is causal or a consequence of underlying conditions. The absence of significant mediation of uncontrolled and emotional eating in this effect indicates that further studies are needed to understand the possible mechanisms. In addition, studies that it is thought that studies that evaluate individuals' mood and daily energy and food intake and mukbang viewing frequency may contribute to the development of possible interventions by examining this relationship more comprehensively.
This study highlights the need for greater awareness about the influence of digital media, particularly mukbang viewing, on eating attitudes. It suggests that healthcare professionals, educators, and therapists should consider incorporating media literacy programs into their practice, promoting healthier media consumption habits as part of overall health education and therapy strategies.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank all the participants who participated in this study.
Author contributions
Hatice Bölükbaşi: Conceptualization, Data collection, Data analysis, Writing. Beyda Yörük: Data collection Buse Beliz Şimşek: Data collection Seda Çelik: Data collection Talha Karakaya: Data collection Emine Yassibaş: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing, Review, Editing, Project administration.
Availability of data and materials
No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
Declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Kang E et al (2020) The popularity of eating broadcast: content analysis of “mukbang” YouTube videos, media coverage, and the health impact of “mukbang” on public. Health Inform J 26(3):2237–2248 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Yun S, Kang H, Lee H (2020) Mukbang-and Cookbang-watching status and dietary life of university students who are not food and nutrition majors. Nutr Res Pract 14(3):276–285 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Choe H (2019) Eating together multimodally: collaborative eating in mukbang, a Korean livestream of eating. Lang Soc 48(2):171–208 [Google Scholar]
- 4.Strand M, Gustafsson SA (2020) Mukbang and disordered eating: a netnographic analysis of online eating broadcasts. Cult, Med, Psychiatry 44(4):586–609 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Kircaburun K et al (2021) Compensatory usage of the internet: the case of mukbang watching on YouTube. Psychiatry Invest 18(4):269 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Kircaburun K et al (2021) The psychology of mukbang watching: a scoping review of the academic and non-academic literature. Int J Mental Health Addict 19:1190–1213 [Google Scholar]
- 7.TayhanKartal F, YabancıAyhan N (2021) Relationship between eating disorders and internet and smartphone addiction in college students. Eat Weight Disord-Stud Anorexia, Bulimia Obesity 26:1853–1862 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Ayran G et al (2021) The effect of Internet addiction on eating attitude and body image in university students. J Child Adolesc Psychiatric Nurs 34(3):199–205 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Imperatori C et al (2022) The association between social media addiction and eating disturbances is mediated by muscle dysmorphia-related symptoms: a cross-sectional study in a sample of young adults. Eat Weight Disord-Stud Anorexia, Bulimia Obesity 27(3):1131–1140 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Yurtdaş-Depboylu G, Kaner G, Özçakal S (2022) The association between social media addiction and orthorexia nervosa, eating attitudes, and body image among adolescents. Eat Weight Disord-Stud Anorexia, Bulimia Obesity 27(8):3725–3735 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Mushtaq T et al (2023) Prevalence of eating disorders and their association with social media addiction among youths. Nutrients 15(21):4687 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.He Z, Yang W (2022) Impulsiveness as potential moderators of the relation between social media dependence and eating disorders risk. BMC Psychol 10(1):120 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Anari FM, Eghtesadi S (2023) The relationship between watching mukbang (eating show), eating behaviors, and anthropometric parameters in Iranian female students. J Res Health Sci 23(1):e00574 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Shen S (2023) Commercialising potential as a critical factor of differential media management: a cultural zoning study of China’s regulation of mukbang and online eating disorder communities. Media, Cult Soc 45(2):373–387 [Google Scholar]
- 15.von Ash T et al (2023) Associations between mukbang viewing and disordered eating behaviors. Int J Eat Disord 56(6):1188–1198 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Kim Y, Oh H (2024) Food-related online media (mukbang and cookbang) exposure and dietary risk behaviors in Korean adolescents. J Nutr 154(9):2807–2817 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Kircaburun K et al (2021) Problematic mukbang watching and its relationship to disordered eating and internet addiction: a pilot study among emerging adult mukbang watchers. Int J Mental Health Addict 19:2160–2169 [Google Scholar]
- 18.Kircaburun K et al (2021) Development and validation of the mukbang addiction scale. Int J Mental Health Addict 19:1031–1044 [Google Scholar]
- 19.Garner DM et al (1982) The eating attitudes test: psychometric features and clinical correlates. Psychol Med 12(4):871–878 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Karlsson J et al (2000) Psychometric properties and factor structure of the three-factor eating questionnaire (TFEQ) in obese men and women. Results from the Swedish obese subjects (SOS) study. Int J Obesity 24(12):1715–1725 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Garner DM, Garfinkel PE (1979) The eating attitudes test: an index of the symptoms of anorexia nervosa. Psychol Med 9(2):273–279 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Erguney-Okumus FE, Sertel-Berk HO (2020) Adaptation of the eating attitudes test short form (YTT-26) to Turkish and evaluation of its psychometric properties in a university sample. Stud Psychol. 10.2665/SP2019-0039 [Google Scholar]
- 23.Stunkard AJ, Messick S (1985) The three-factor eating questionnaire to measure dietary restraint, disinhibition and hunger. J Psychosomat Res 29(1):71–83 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Karakuş SŞ, Yıldırım H, Büyüköztürk Ş (2016) Adaptation of the three-factor eating questionnaire to Turkish culture: validity and reliability study. TAF Prevent Med Bull 15(3):229–237 [Google Scholar]
- 25.Olova KRA et al (2024) The influence of social media mukbang contents towards adolescent food consumption behavior. J Public Relat Digit Commun (JPRDC) 2(2):69–76 [Google Scholar]
- 26.Elkin N et al (2024) The relationship between emotional eating disorders and problematic internet use in university students: the mediating role of mukbang behavior. Rev da Assoc Méd Brasil 70(9):e20240343 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.ManafiAnari F, Eghtesadi S (2023) The relationship between watching mukbang (eating show), eating behaviors, and anthropometric parameters in iranian female students. J Res Health Sci. 10.3417/jrhs.2023.109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Van Strien T, Herman CP, Verheijden MW (2009) Eating style, overeating, and overweight in a representative Dutch sample. Does external eating play a role? Appetite 52(2):380–387 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Donnar G (2017) ‘Food porn’or intimate sociality: committed celebrity and cultural performances of overeating in meokbang. Celebrity Stud 8(1):122–127 [Google Scholar]
- 30.Kircaburan K et al (2020) The association of addictive mukbang watching with mukbang watching motives, emotion regulation, impulsivity, and psychiatric distress. J Concurr Disord. 10.5412/XQLF8386 [Google Scholar]
- 31.Sung J et al (2024) Mukbang and Cookbang watching and dietary behavior in Korean adolescents. Nutr Res Pract 18(4):523–533 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Spence C, Mancini M, Huisman G (2019) Digital commensality: eating and drinking in the company of technology. Front Psychol 10:2252 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.