Personal, community, and societal factors associated with mukbang viewing among adolescents: findings from the Korea Youth Risk Behavior Survey

Cynthia Yursun Yoon; Seungha Shin; Haemi Jun; Hyeeun Park; Minseo Kim

doi:10.4178/epih.e2025055

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Epidemiol Health > Volume 47; 2025 > Article

Original Article Personal, community, and societal factors associated with mukbang viewing among adolescents: findings from the Korea Youth Risk Behavior Survey: Cynthia Yursun Yoon^1,2, Seungha Shin¹, Haemi Jun¹, Hyeeun Park¹, Minseo Kim¹; Epidemiol Health 2025;47:e2025055.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4178/epih.e2025055
Published online: September 30, 2025

¹Department of Food Science and Nutrition, Pusan National University, Busan, Korea

²Kimchi Research Institute, Pusan National University, Busan, Korea

Correspondence: Cynthia Yursun Yoon Department of Food Science and Nutrition, Pusan National University, 2 Busandaehak-ro 63beon-gil, Geumjeong-gu, Busan 46241, Korea E-mail: cyyoon@pusan.ac.kr

• Received: May 26, 2025 • Accepted: September 9, 2025

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

prev next

3,059 Views
116 Download

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT
Key Message
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
Supplementary materials
NOTES
REFERENCES

Abstract

OBJECTIVES
Mukbang refers to livestreamed videos in which hosts consume large amounts of energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods while interacting with viewers. Mukbang is widely viewed by Korean adolescents and has been associated with adverse health outcomes. To inform efforts to prevent excessive engagement with mukbang content among Korean adolescents, this study examined personal, community, and societal factors associated with excessive mukbang viewing (≥7 times/wk) and explored gender differences in these associations.
METHODS
Data were drawn from the 2022 Korea Youth Risk Behavior Survey (n=36,990; mean age, 15.1±1.7 years; 48.6% girls; 53.2% attending middle school). Self-reported measures included personal (e.g., perceived health, weight, stress, depression, anxiety), community (e.g., living arrangement), and societal factors (e.g., socioeconomic status) and mukbang viewing frequency. Logistic and modified Poisson regression models were used to examine associations with excessive mukbang viewing and to evaluate differences by gender.
RESULTS
Intrapersonal factors—namely perceived health, weight, stress, depression, and anxiety—were associated with excessive mukbang viewing (adjusted prevalence ratios, 1.18 to 1.44), with more pronounced relationships among girls. A community-level factor—living arrangement—displayed a significant association in boys but not in girls. Boys living on campus had 1.42 times the prevalence of excessive mukbang viewing than boys residing with family members (95% confidence interval, 1.08 to 1.88) after adjustment. Further mutual adjustment attenuated estimates toward the null. Societal factors were not significantly associated with excessive mukbang viewing among adolescents.
CONCLUSIONS
Personal and community factors were associated with excessive mukbang viewing. Future research should investigate the mechanisms underlying these associations.
Keywords: Adolescents, Media, Binge eating, Eating behavior, Korea Youth Risk Behavior Survey

GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

Key Message

Personal factors such as poor perceived health, stress, depression, and anxiety were strongly related to excessive mukbang viewing, particularly among girls, suggesting that emotional distress may drive girls to engage with mukbang as a form of coping or personal connection. Among boys, those living on campus were more likely to view mukbang excessively than those living with family, indicating that community environment and peer influence may contribute to higher engagement in mukbang. Socioeconomic status was not significantly associated with excessive mukbang viewing, implying that prevention efforts should address emotional well-being and healthy media use across all adolescents, regardless of the background.

INTRODUCTION

Mukbang refers to livestreamed videos in which hosts consume unusually large quantities of energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods while interacting with viewers in real time [1-6]. While mukbang has become a global phenomenon [3], it is particularly prevalent in Korea, particularly among adolescents [6]. Approximately 70.6% of Korean adolescents have been exposed to mukbang during the past year, and 13.2% reported viewing mukbang 5 or more times per week [6]. This high prevalence among Korean adolescents may reflect Korea’s collectivist culture, which places a strong value on communal eating and social connectedness [7,8]. Within this context, mukbang may serve as a digital extension of traditional offline mealtime gatherings and reinforce shared food-related experiences. Additionally, since adolescents are developing their identities and are especially sensitive to the influence of family, peers, and media, mukbang videos hosted by influencers—whom adolescents may view as role models—can provide further appeal. This pattern of mukbang consumption among Korean adolescents is concerning, as it may normalize excessive intake of energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods, often consumed within a short period (e.g., 2 hours). This type of content may also distort viewers’ perceptions of appropriate portion sizes and promote eating driven by external cues (e.g., watching others) or emotional states (e.g., boredom) rather than internal hunger signals [2,5]. These factors could potentially increase the risk of overeating or binge eating, which in turn can contribute to obesity [9-11].

The substantial prevalence of mukbang viewing among Korean adolescents [6] and its potential harmful consequences [9-11] underscore the need to examine factors that may place adolescents at heightened risk of excessive exposure to mukbang. This inquiry is theoretically grounded in the compensatory internet use model, which suggests that individuals may turn to online media to partially fulfill unmet emotional and psychological needs [12]. Additionally, the social ecological model [13] provides a conceptual framework to posit that personal, socio-cultural, and environmental factors influence adolescents’ exposure to mukbang. For example, personal factors such as anxiety and loneliness may increase emotional distress, leading adolescents to engage with mukbang media to cope or seek comfort [1,14,15]. Community-level factors such as living arrangements may also shape adolescents’ engagement in mukbang. Living alone or off campus can result in greater social and emotional isolation, which may increase reliance on online media for comfort or companionship [16,17] in managing these feelings. Societal factors, particularly socioeconomic status (SES), might further compound exposure to online or social media and result in excessive exposure to mukbang. Adolescents from lower-SES backgrounds may turn to online media, including mukbang, for vicarious experiences or emotional support due to limited food access and financial stress [18-21].

Emerging evidence further suggests that media consumption patterns may vary between girls and boys [22,23], reflecting gender differences in motivations for engaging with food-related media [24] and in susceptibility to psychosocial stressors [23]. Studies have documented that personal factors such as emotional loneliness are more commonly experienced by girls than boys [4,25-27], which could increase their likelihood of turning to media as a form of emotional coping. Adolescent girls living alone or off campus may perceive greater social and emotional isolation, potentially heightening their reliance on online media for comfort or companionship [16,17,28]. Societal factors, particularly SES, might also influence mukbang viewing in a gender-specific manner. When offline support is limited, girls from lower-SES backgrounds may seek comfort in portrayals of indulgent foods, social interaction, and a sense of inclusion [29]. For boys, economic or social marginalization may make traditional forms of masculine identity feel out of reach, leading them to symbolic performances—such as observing the consumption of large quantities of food—as a form of compensatory identity construction [30]. Understanding how personal, community, and social factors interact, as well as how they may differ by gender, could help identify adolescents most at risk and inform targeted interventions to prevent excessive exposure to mukbang.

Building on prior research and theoretical models, this study aims to explore personal, community, and societal factors in relation to excessive mukbang viewing (≥7 times/wk) among Korean adolescents and to examine how such factors differ by gender. We hypothesized that personal, community, and societal factors would be associated with excessive mukbang viewing among adolescents. Furthermore, given that girls tend to experience more emotional and social loneliness than boys, these factors were expected to display stronger associations in girls.

Study sample and data: The Korea Youth Risk Behavior Survey (KYRBS) is a nationwide repeated cross-sectional survey that assesses the health and health-related behaviors of Korean adolescents (ages 12 to 18 years) [31]. Selected students voluntarily and anonymously complete a self-administered online questionnaire [31], with de-identified raw data analyzed for this study. Detailed information about the KYRBS is available elsewhere [31].; The 18th wave of the KYRBS was administered in 2022, targeting 56,274 adolescents; 51,984 responded (response rate, 92.4%). Non-participation (n=4,290) occurred mainly because of teachers’ heavy workloads or limited access to computer labs. An additional 14,994 participants were excluded due to missing data, yielding an analytic sample of 36,990 adolescents (19,579 middle school students and 17,311 high school students). A detailed flow diagram of participants is presented in Figure 1.
Measures: Independent variables included self-reported personal, community, and societal factors. The variables, the text of the questions, and the response options are provided in Table 1.; The dependent variable was excessive mukbang viewing, defined as ≥7 times/wk to capture daily or more frequent engagement and to identify adolescents with the most intensive viewing patterns. This cutoff corresponds to approximately the top 10% of viewers in this study and aligns conceptually with thresholds used to define excessive media use in the digital health literature (e.g., ≥3 hr/day in one study, which also reflected the top 10%) [32]. The questions and response options are detailed in Table 1.; Covariates included age, gender, school type, school grade, academic performance, parental highest educational attainment, screen time, physical activity, sleep, smoking status, alcohol use, and body mass index (BMI).
Statistical analysis: Data were analyzed using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). Survey weights were applied according to the KYRBS sampling design. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize respondents. Both overall and gender-stratified analyses were conducted. Although the formal interaction terms between gender and most independent variables did not indicate statistical significance (p for interaction >0.20), gender-stratified results are presented based on theoretical considerations and prior research suggesting gender-specific differences in mukbang and eating-related behaviors. Logistic regression was used to estimate the predicted probability (PP) of excessive mukbang viewing as a function of multilevel factors [33]. Modified Poisson regression was used to estimate prevalence ratios (PRs) and 95% confidence intervals for excessive exposure to mukbang by factor. For the non-stratified analyses, all models were adjusted for age, gender, school type, school grade, academic performance, parental highest educational attainment, screen time, physical activity, sleep, smoking status, alcohol use, and BMI. For gender-stratified analyses, models were adjusted for all covariates except gender. The final model was mutually adjusted for all independent variables.
Ethics statement: The KYRBS received Institutional Review Board approval from the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (No. 117058) and adhered to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Students were enrolled after they expressed interest, provided written informed consent, and were assured of their right to withdraw at any time.

General characteristics of study participants: The analytic sample comprised 36,990 students in 2022; 52.9% were middle school students. The mean age was 15.1±1.7 years, and 48.6% were girls (Table 2).
Predicted probabilities and prevalence ratios of excessive mukbang viewing by personal factors: After adjustment (Table 3, model 1), the PP of excessive mukbang viewing was highest among adolescents who perceived their health as extremely unhealthy (PP, 12.2%), followed by those with obesity (PP, 11.9%), severe anxiety (PP, 10.1%), depression (PP, 9.1%), high loneliness (PP, 9.1%), and high perceived stress (PP, 9.0%). Adolescents who perceived their health as extremely unhealthy had 1.46 times the prevalence of excessive mukbang viewing compared with those who perceived their health as extremely healthy (Table 4, model 1). Participants with obesity had 1.68 times the prevalence compared to those who perceived themselves as extremely underweight; those with severe anxiety had 1.44 times the prevalence of those with minimal anxiety (Table 4, model 1). Participants with depression had 1.31 times the prevalence compared to those without depression, those with high loneliness had 1.29 times the prevalence compared to those with low loneliness, and those with high perceived stress had 1.33 times the prevalence relative to those with low perceived stress (Table 4, model 1). These associations were attenuated after mutual adjustment, but the leading personal factors remained consistent (Tables 3 and 4, model 2).; Among girls, the PP of excessive mukbang viewing was highest among those who perceived themselves as having obesity (PP, 12.4%) (Table 3, model 1). After adjustment, this group had 1.52 times the prevalence of excessive mukbang viewing compared with those who perceived themselves as extremely underweight (Table 4, model 1). Associations were attenuated after mutual adjustment for independent variables (Tables 3 and 4, model 2).; High levels of anxiety were also related to excessive mukbang viewing; the PP was 11.7% among those who self-reported severe anxiety (Table 3, model 1), corresponding to 1.48 times the prevalence compared with those reporting minimal anxiety (Table 4, model 1). Other personal factors associated with excessive mukbang viewing included moderate or high loneliness (PP, 10.5%), depression (PP, 10.3%), high perceived stress (PP, 10.2%), and perceiving oneself as extremely unhealthy (PP, 10.0%) (Table 3, model 1). PRs relative to the respective reference groups after adjustment are presented in Table 4, model 1. Associations were attenuated toward the null after further adjustment for other independent variables.; Among personal factors, perceiving one’s health as extremely unhealthy emerged as the factor most strongly associated with excessive mukbang viewing (PP, 13.0%) (Table 3, model 1). Boys with this perception had 1.74 times the prevalence of those who perceived their health as extremely healthy (Table 4, model 1). Other personal factors related to excessive mukbang viewing included perceived obesity (PP, 11.3%), followed by severe anxiety (PP, 8.5%), depression (PP, 8.0%), high loneliness (PP, 7.7%), and high stress (PP, 7.9%) (Table 3, model 1). PRs for these factors, compared with the reference groups, are presented in Table 4, model 1. Little to no change was observed after further mutual adjustment for the independent variables (Tables 3 and 4, model 2).
Predicted probabilities and prevalence ratios of excessive mukbang viewing by community factors: The PP of excessive mukbang viewing was 7.3% among those who had received nutrition education in the past 12 months and 7.7% among those who had not. PPs of excessive mukbang viewing varied from 6.3% to 9.8% by living arrangement; however, the probability of excessive mukbang viewing did not differ significantly by living situation (Table 3, model 1). These findings remained largely unchanged after further mutual adjustment (Table 3, model 2).; Regarding community-level factors, adolescents living off campus had the highest prevalence of excessive mukbang viewing (PP, 13.5%); however, the prevalence of excessive viewing did not differ significantly by living arrangement. In addition, the PP of excessive mukbang viewing was similar between those who had not received nutrition education in the past 12 months (PP, 9.0%) and those who had (PP, 8.4%) (Table 3, model 1). Little to no change was observed after further adjustment for other independent variables (Tables 3 and 4, model 2).; The PP of excessive mukbang viewing was 9.3% among those who lived on campus, followed by those who lived off campus (7.2%), with family members (6.4%), and with relatives (5.4%) (Table 3, model 1). After adjustment, those who lived on campus had 1.42 times the prevalence of excessive mukbang viewing compared with those who lived with family members (Table 4, model 1). No significant difference in excessive mukbang viewing was observed between boys who had not received nutrition education in the past 12 months and those who had (Tables 3 and 4, model 1). No significant changes were observed after mutual adjustment (Tables 3 and 4, model 2).
Predicted probabilities and prevalence ratios of excessive mukbang viewing by societal factors: The PP of excessive mukbang viewing ranged from 7.2% among adolescents with medium SES to 9.9% among those with high SES (Table 3, model 1). However, the prevalence of excessive mukbang viewing did not differ significantly by SES (Table 4, model 1). These results remained consistent after further mutual adjustment (Tables 3 and 4, model 2).; The PP of excessive mukbang viewing was 10.1% among adolescents who self-reported their family’s SES as low, followed by medium (PP, 8.5%) and high (PP, 8.6%) (Table 3, model 1). However, the PRs of excessive mukbang viewing in the medium-SES or low-SES groups did not differ significantly compared with those in the high-SES group (Table 4, model 1). No significant differences were observed after further mutual adjustment (Tables 3 and 4, model 2).; The PP of excessive mukbang viewing among boys with low SES was 8.7%, corresponding to 1.15 times the prevalence among those with high SES (Table 3, model 1). Little to no difference was observed after further adjustment.
Sensitivity analyses: Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the findings across alternative cutoffs for defining excessive mukbang viewing (≥1, ≥3, or ≥5 times/wk). The results of excessive mukbang viewing (≥1 times/week) are reported in Supplementary Materials 1 and 2; results of excessive mukbang viewing (≥3 times/wk) are reported in Supplementary Materials 3 and 4; results of excessive mukbang viewing (≥5 times/wk) are reported in Supplementary Materials 5 and 6 respectively.

DISCUSSION

The overarching aim of this study was to examine gender differences in personal, community, and societal factors related to excessive mukbang viewing (≥7 times/wk) among Korean adolescents. We first discuss overall findings regarding multilevel factors related to mukbang among Korean adolescents and then present gender-stratified findings, given theoretical and empirical evidence suggesting gender-specific differences in factors related to mukbang, despite non-significant interaction terms.

Overall, several personal factors were associated with excessive mukbang viewing (≥7 times/wk), including perceiving oneself as extremely unhealthy, perceiving oneself as having obesity, high perceived stress, high loneliness, depression, and severe anxiety. Notably, loneliness and anxiety were more strongly related to excessive mukbang viewing in girls than in boys. These findings—showing that personal factors such as high loneliness and anxiety are associated with excessive mukbang viewing, especially among girls—partially align with prior studies documenting links between anxiety-related stress and binge-eating behaviors [34] used to soothe negative emotions [35,36]. Additionally, given that mukbang is a contemporary social trend among Korean adolescents, avoiding this trend may amplify fear of missing out, reinforcing repeated exposure to mukbang in pursuit of belonging to a community [1,37]. This effect may be particularly pronounced among girls, whose smaller, more intimate friendship groups can heighten peer influence [38], thus amplifying behaviors, norms, and coping strategies and increasing sensitivity to social trends. Social modeling [39] may further reinforce mukbang viewing, as frequent exposure within peer networks normalizes the behavior. The interplay between personal vulnerability and the socially interactive nature of mukbang content may reflect adolescents’ desire for connection. The direct engagement of hosts with viewers during mukbang, along with real-time chat features, potentially fosters a sense of community [36,40-42]. Considering Korea’s collectivist culture [7]—characterized by conformity [8], uniformity, and a high value placed on communal eating—mukbang may be especially compelling as a socially endorsed activity, offering adolescents, particularly girls a sense of social participation and belonging that may help fulfill their emotional needs.

Although no specific community-level factors were related to excessive mukbang viewing among adolescents overall, gender-stratified analyses revealed that boys living on campus were more likely to engage in excessive viewing, whereas no such association was observed in girls. This finding, together with the observation that boys who described their health as extremely unhealthy, perceived themselves to have obesity, or reported high perceived stress also exhibited greater mukbang viewing, suggests that campus-specific stressors may play a significant role for boys. Such stressors may include academic pressure, the need to fit in, and heightened peer influence [43], which can lead to increased media consumption as a means of alleviating stress. Limited access to supportive offline coping outlets and a tendency toward sedentary routines—particularly among those living in dormitories—may further contribute to excessive mukbang viewing. These factors might reduce motivation for physical activity and encourage obesogenic behaviors. For some boys, mukbang may serve as a form of emotional regulation [15] or social substitution, reinforced by peer norms that normalize or encourage such viewing as a shared activity.

The comparable prevalence of mukbang across socioeconomic strata, with no significant differences by SES or gender, highlights the need for inclusive approaches that target all adolescents, regardless of background, to raise awareness and prevent excessive mukbang viewing, given its associations with adverse health outcomes [9-11].

This study has several strengths. First, it used a nationally representative survey of Korean middle school and high school students in 2022, supporting the generalizability of the results to Korean adolescents. Second, it assessed a wide range of personal, community, and societal factors, enabling a broad examination of their relations to mukbang among adolescents.

However, this study also has several limitations. First and foremost, although a nationally representative dataset was used, applying the findings to populations outside adolescents or beyond Korea may be challenging. Additionally, the cross-sectional design precludes the establishment of causal relationships. For instance, although the factors assessed in this study were assumed to be predictors of excessive mukbang viewing, reverse causation or a feedback loop may exist given the cross-sectional nature of the design. In other words, excessive mukbang viewing might contribute to greater depressive symptoms, heightened anxiety, or poorer self-rated health and weight perception. Individuals experiencing depressive symptoms may also be more likely to engage in excessive mukbang viewing as a coping mechanism, which in turn may reinforce or exacerbate their psychological distress over time, creating a potential feedback loop between emotional states and mukbang media consumption. Thus, longitudinal studies are also needed to determine whether these personal, community, and societal factors have short-term effects that persist only through adolescence or whether they influence exposure to mukbang into emerging adulthood. Furthermore, “excessive exposure” in this study referred to the frequency of viewing within a week rather than the amount of time (i.e., duration) spent watching such content. Future research should explore how personal, community, and societal factors relate to both the frequency and the amount of time spent on such media. Additionally, because the exposure timeframe was limited to the past 12 months, adolescents who were excessively exposed prior to this period may not have been captured, and the measure does not distinguish between acute and chronic exposure.

Moreover, this study relies exclusively on self-reported exposure, outcome, and covariate data, introducing the potential for misclassification bias. Underreporting of mukbang viewing and psychological symptoms (e.g., depression, anxiety) may occur due to recall difficulties or social desirability, whereas some variables, such as perceived health, might be overreported. SES may also be inaccurately reported if adolescents conflate their current and aspirational circumstances. These errors are likely non-differential, which may bias results toward the null and potentially underestimate the true associations. Nevertheless, differential misclassification cannot be entirely ruled out; for instance, adolescents with greater psychological distress might report mukbang viewing or health characteristics differently, which could either inflate or attenuate observed associations. These limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings of this study. Furthermore, the results may have been influenced by unmeasured residual confounding variables. Lastly, we conducted gender-stratified analyses to explore potential differences in associations with excessive mukbang viewing. Although conceptually justified based on prior evidence of gender differences in media use, food attitudes, and emotional coping, the interaction terms for gender-specific associations were not statistically significant for most variables, and confidence intervals for PRs frequently overlapped between girls and boys. Therefore, our findings should be considered exploratory and hypothesis-generating rather than conclusive, and the observed patterns should be interpreted with caution.

The findings of this study have important implications for researchers and clinicians. For researchers, the associations between personal factors related to emotion—such as loneliness, depression, and anxiety—and excessive mukbang viewing highlight the need to examine emotion regulation processes and their role in mukbang. Investigating gender differences in these mechanisms is especially warranted. Longitudinal studies are also needed to track how personal, community, and societal influences on mukbang viewing evolve over time.

For clinicians, the link between emotion-related personal factors and excessive mukbang viewing points to a subgroup of adolescents who may be particularly vulnerable. Interventions should focus on improving self-esteem, promoting positive body image, and developing healthy coping strategies to reduce reliance on mukbang as a form of emotional avoidance or regulation.

Supplementary materials

Supplementary material is available at https://doi.org/10.4178/epih.e2025055.

Supplementary Material 1.

Predicted probabilities of mukbang viewing (≥ once/week) by personal, community, and societal level factors among Korean adolescents (n=36,990)

epih-47-e2025055-Supplementary-1.docx

Supplementary Material 2.

Prevalence ratios of mukbang viewing by personal, community, and societal level factors among Korean adolescents (n=36,990)

epih-47-e2025055-Supplementary-2.docx

Supplementary Material 3.

Predicted probabilities of mukbang viewing (≥ 3 times /week) by personal, community, and societal level factors among Korean adolescents (n=36,990)

epih-47-e2025055-Supplementary-3.docx

Supplementary Material 4.

Prevalence ratios of mukbang viewing by personal, community, and societal level factors among Korean adolescents (n=36,990)

epih-47-e2025055-Supplementary-4.docx

Supplementary Material 5.

Predicted probabilities of mukbang viewing (≥ 5 times /week) by personal, community, and societal level factors among Korean adolescents (n=36,990)

epih-47-e2025055-Supplementary-5.docx

Supplementary Material 6.

Prevalence ratios of mukbang viewing by personal, community, and societal level factors among Korean adolescents (n=36,990)

epih-47-e2025055-Supplementary-6.docx

NOTES

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare for this study.

Funding

None.

Acknowledgements

None.

Author contributions

Conceptualization: Yoon CY. Data curation: Yoon CY. Formal analysis: Yoon CY. Funding acquisition: None. Methodology: Yoon CY. Project administration: Yoon CY. Visualization: Yoon CY, Shin S, Jun H, Park H, Kim M. Writing – original draft: Yoon CY. Writing – review & editing: Yoon CY, Shin S, Jun H, Park H, Kim M.

Figure 1.

Flow chart. KYRBS, Korea Youth Risk Behavior Survey; BMI, body mass index.

Table 1.

Questions, response options, and cutoff points for independent, dependent, and moderator variables

Variables	Questions	Response options	Cutoff points
Independent variables
Perceived health	How would you describe your health status?	Very healthy
		Slightly healthy
		Neither healthy nor unhealthy
		Slightly unhealthy
		Extremely unhealthy
Perceived weight	How would you describe your weight?	Very underweight
		Slightly underweight
		Normal weight
		Overweight
		Obesity
Perceived stress	How much stress do you normally feel?	I feel a lot of stress	Low: I do not feel much stress or I do not feel stress at all
		I feel a little stress
		I do not feel much stress	Moderate: I feel a little stress
		I do not feel stress at all	High: I feel a lot of stress
Loneliness	In the past 12 months, how often have you felt lonely?	I felt lonely all the time	Low: I rarely felt lonely or I did not feel lonely at all
		I felt lonely often	Low: I rarely felt lonely or I did not feel lonely at all
		I felt lonely sometimes	Moderate: I felt lonely sometimes
		I rarely felt lonely	High: I felt lonely all the time or I felt lonely often
		I did not feel lonely at all	High: I felt lonely all the time or I felt lonely often
Depression	Have you ever felt so sad or hopeless that it interrupted your daily life for more than 2 weeks in the past 12 months?	Yes
Depression		No
Anxiety	Over the past 2 weeks ….	Not at all	0 points: Not at all
	I felt nervous, anxious, or on the edge	Several days	1 point: Several days
	I was unable to stop worrying	More than half of the days	2 points: More than half the days
	I had trouble relaxing	Nearly every day	3 points: Nearly every day
	I was so restless that it was hard to sit still		Total score: 0 to 21 points
	I became easily annoyed or irritable		Normal (minimal anxiety): 0-4 points
	I felt afraid, as if something awful might happen		Mild: 5-9 points
			Moderate: 10-14 points
			Severe: 15-21 points
Nutrition education	Over the past 12 months, did your school provide nutrition education for you?	Yes
Nutrition education		No
Living arrangement	Which option best describes your living situation?	Living with immediate family members
		Living with relatives
		Living off campus (including with friends)
		Living at a dormitory or on campus
Socioeconomic status	What is the financial situation of your household?	High	Low: Low
		Medium to high	Medium: Medium to low, medium, or medium to high
		Medium	Medium: Medium to low, medium, or medium to high
		Medium to low	High: High
		Low
Dependent variable
Excessive exposure to binge eating-centric media	Over the past 12 months, how often have you watched mukbang (eating broadcast) or cookbang (cooking broadcast)?	Not at all	Excessive exposure to binge eating-centric media: 7 times or more per week
		Less than once per month
		Once or twice per week
		Three to four times per week
		Five to six times per week
		Daily (7 times or more per week)
Moderator
Gender	What was your gender assigned at birth?	Male
Gender	What was your gender assigned at birth?	Female

Table 2.

General characteristics of study participants in 2022

Characteristics	Girls (n=17,964)	Boys (n=19,026)	Total (n=36,990)	p-value
Age (yr)¹	15.1±1.7	15.1±1.7	15.1±1.7	0.01
School level				0.04
Middle school	9,556 (53.8)	10,023 (52.7)	19,679 (53.2)
High school	8,308 (46.3)	9,003 (47.3)	17,311 (46.8)
BMI (kg/m²)	20.5±3.2	22.2±4.0	21.3±3.7	<0.01
Mukbang viewing frequency (times/wk)				<0.01
At least 1	8,461 (47.1)	7,014 (36.9)	15,475 (41.8)
At least 3	5,026 (28.0)	3,913 (20.6)	8,939 (24.2)
At least 5	2,680 (14.9)	2,066 (10.9)	4,746 (12.8)
At least 7	1,641 (9.1)	1,325 (7.0)	2,966 (8.0)

Values are presented as mean±SD or number (%).

SD, standard deviation; BMI, body mass index.

¹ Mean age values are rounded to 1 decimal place; The unrounded mean±SD was 15.14±1.74 years for boys and 15.10±1.73 years for girls; The small but statistically significant difference (t(36,988)=2.46, p=0.014) is likely due to the large sample size and is not considered clinically meaningful.

Table 3.

Predicted probabilities of excessive mukbang viewing by personal, community, and societal factors among Korean adolescents (n=36,990)

Variables			Excessive mukbang viewing (≥7 times/wk)
			Model 1¹			Model 2²
			Total	Girls	Boys	Total	Girls	Boys
Personal	Perceived health	Extremely healthy (n=7,624)(girls, n=2,647; boys, n=4,977)	8.3 (7.7, 8.9)	9.3 (8.2, 10.4)	7.3 (6.6, 8.0)	8.6 (7.9, 9.3)	9.8 (8.6, 11.0)	7.5 (6.7, 8.3)
		Slightly healthy (n=16,141)(girls, n=7,958; boys, n=8,183)	6.9 (6.5, 7.3)	8.0 (7.4, 8.6)	6.0 (5.5, 6.5)	6.9 (6.5, 7.3)	8.1 (7.5, 8.7)	5.9 (5.4, 6.4)
		Normal (n=9,582)(girls, n=5,403; boys, n=4,179)	7.6 (7.1, 8.1)	8.9 (8.1, 9.7)	6.3 (5.6, 7.0)	7.3 (6.8, 7.8)	8.6 (7.9, 9.3)	6.0 (5.3, 6.7)
		Slightly unhealthy (n=3,439)(girls, n=1,871; boys, n=1,568)	8.5 (7.6, 9.4)	10.0 (8.6, 11.4)	7.0 (5.7, 8.3)	7.5 (6.6, 8.4)	8.8 (7.5, 10.1)	6.2 (5.0, 7.4)
		Extremely unhealthy (n=204)(girls, n=85; boys, n=119)	12.2 (7.8, 16.6)	10.0 (4.0, 16.0)	13.0 (7.4, 18.9)	10.2 (6.4, 14.0)	8.3 (3.2, 13.4)	10.7 (5.6, 15.8)
	Perceived weight	Extremely underweight (n=1,877)(girls, n=576; boys, n=1,301)	7.0 (5.7, 8.3)	8.0 (7.8, 8.2)	6.1 (4.6, 7.6)	6.8 (5.6, 8.0)	7.9 (5.7, 10.1)	5.9 (4.5, 7.3)
		Slightly underweight (n=8,242)(girls, n=3,517; boys, n=4,725)	6.3 (5.7, 6.9)	7.8 (6.8, 8.8)	5.0 (4.3, 5.7)	6.3 (5.7, 6.9)	7.8 (6.8, 8.8)	4.9 (4.2, 5.6)
		Normal weight (n=13,419)(girls, n=7,408; boys, n=6,011)	7.3 (6.9, 7.7)	8.6 (8.0, 9.2)	6.2 (5.6, 6.8)	7.3 (6.8, 7.8)	8.6 (7.9, 9.3)	6.1 (5.5, 6.7)
		Overweight (n=11,352)(girls, n=5,630; boys, n=5,722)	8.1 (7.5, 8.7)	9.0 (8.1, 9.9)	7.5 (6.6, 8.4)	7.9 (7.3, 8.5)	8.7 (7.8, 9.6)	7.4 (6.5, 8.3)
		Obesity (n=2,100)(girls, n=833; boys, n=1,267)	11.9 (10.0, 13.8)	12.4 (9.5, 15.3)	11.3 (8.8, 13.8)	11.5 (9.7, 13.3)	11.7 (9.0, 14.4)	11.3 (8.8, 13.8)
	Perceived stress	Low (n=6,230)(girls, n=2,324; boys, n=3,906)	6.7 (6.4, 7.3)	8.0 (6.9, 9.1)	5.7 (5.0, 6.4)	7.0 (6.3, 7.7)	8.5 (7.3, 9.7)	5.8 (5.0, 6.6)
		Moderate (n=15,615)(girls, n=7,235; boys, n=8,380)	6.5 (6.1, 6.9)	7.2 (6.6, 7.8)	5.8 (5.0, 6.3)	6.6 (6.2, 7.0)	7.4 (6.8, 8.0)	5.9 (5.4, 6.4)
		High (n=15,145)(girls, n=8,405; boys, n=6,740)	9.0 (8.5, 9.5)	10.2 (9.6, 10.8)	7.9 (7.3, 8.5)	8.5 (8.0, 9.0)	9.6 (8.9, 10.3)	7.5 (6.8, 8.2)
	Loneliness	Low (n=16,859)(girls, n=6,929; boys, n=9,930)	7.0 (6.6, 7.4)	7.9 (7.3, 8.5)	6.2 (5.7, 5.7)	7.5 (7.1, 7.9)	8.5 (7.8, 9.2)	6.5 (6.0, 7.0)
		Moderate (n=13,751)(girls, n=7,228; boys, n=6,523)	7.5 (7.1, 7.9)	8.5 (7.9, 9.1)	6.6 (6.0, 7.2)	7.2 (6.8, 7.6)	8.4 (7.8, 9.0)	6.2 (5.6, 6.8)
		High (n=6,380)(girls, n=3,807; boys, n=2,573)	9.1 (8.4, 9.8)	10.5 (9.5, 11.5)	7.7 (6.7, 8.7)	7.7 (7.0, 8.4)	9.1 (8.1, 10.1)	6.5 (5.5, 7.5)
	Depression	No (n=26,547)(girls, n=12,050; boys, n=14,497)	6.9 (6.6, 7.2)	8.0 (7.5, 8.5)	6.1 (5.7, 6.5)	7.1 (6.8, 7.4)	8.2 (7.7, 8.7)	6.1 (5.7, 6.5)
	Depression	Yes (n=10,443)(girls, n=5,914; boys, n=4,529)	9.1 (8.6, 9.6)	10.3 (9.5, 11.1)	8.0 (7.2, 8.8)	8.4 (7.8, 9.0)	9.4 (8.6, 10.2)	7.4 (6.6, 8.2)
	Anxiety	Minimal (n=23,967)(girls, n=10,528; boys, n=13,439)	7.0 (6.7, 7.3)	7.8 (7.3, 8.3)	6.2 (5.8, 6.6)	7.2 (6.8, 7.6)	8.2 (7.6, 8.8)	6.3 (5.9, 6.7)
		Mild (n=8,723)(girls, n=4,814; boys, n=3,909)	8.2 (7.6, 8.8)	9.4 (8.6, 10.2)	7.1 (6.3, 7.9)	7.6 (7.0, 8.2)	8.9 (8.1, 9.7)	6.5 (5.7, 7.3)
		Moderate (n=3,047)(girls, n=1,829; boys, n=1,218)	9.2 (8.2, 10.2)	10.6 (9.2, 12.0)	7.9 (6.4, 9.4)	8.1 (7.1, 9.1)	9.4 (8.0, 10.8)	6.8 (5.4, 8.2)
		Severe (n=1,253)(girls, n=793; boys, n=460)	10.1 (8.5, 11.7)	11.7 (9.5, 13.9)	8.5 (6.1, 11.0)	8.7 (7.2, 10.2)	10.1 (8.0, 12.2)	7.2 (5.0, 9.4)
Community	Nutrition education	No (n=19,707)(girls, n=9,677; boys, n=10,030)	7.7 (7.3, 8.1)	9.0 (8.4, 9.6)	6.6 (6.1, 7.1)	7.6 (7.2, 8.0)	8.9 (8.3, 9.5)	6.5 (6.0, 7.0)
	Nutrition education	Yes (n=17,283)(girls, n=8,287; boys, n=8,996)	7.3 (6.9, 7.7)	8.4 (7.8, 9.0)	6.4 (5.9, 6.9)	7.2 (6.8, 7.6)	8.3 (7.7, 8.9)	6.3 (5.8, 6.8)
	Living arrangement	With family members (n=35,515)(girls, n=17,332; boys, n=18,183)	7.5 (7.2, 7.8)	8.7 (8.3, 9.1)	6.4 (6.0, 6.8)	7.4 (7.1, 7.7)	8.6 (8.2,9.0)	6.3 (6.0, 6.6)
		With relatives (n=159)(girls, n=62; boys, n=97)	6.3 (2.6, 10.0)	7.3 (1.0, 13.2)	5.4 (1.1, 9.7)	6.3 (2.6, 10.0)	7.1 (1.0, 13.2)	5.5 (1.2, 9.8)
		Off campus (n=215)(girls, n=84; boys, n=131)	9.8 (6.0, 13.6)	13.5 (6.4, 20.6)	7.2 (3.0, 11.4)	9.4 (5.7, 13.1)	13.1 (6.2, 20.0)	6.8 (2.8, 10.8)
		On campus (n=1,025)(girls, n=451; boys, n=574)	8.6 (6.9, 10.3)	7.8 (5.3, 10.3)	9.3 (6.9, 11.7)	8.5 (6.8, 10.2)	7.7 (5.2, 10.2)	9.1 (6.7, 11.5)
Societal	Socioeconomic status	High (n=4,349)(girls, n=1,818; boys, n=2,531)	9.9 (7.7, 12.1)	8.6 (5.4, 11.8)	10.6 (7.6, 13.6)	9.0 (7.0, 11.0)	7.9 (5.0, 10.8)	9.6 (6.9, 12.3)
		Medium (n=32,131)(girls, n=15,989; boys, n=16,142)	7.2 (6.9, 7.5)	8.5 (8.0, 9.0)	6.1 (5.7, 6.5)	7.2 (6.9, 7.5)	8.4 (7.9, 8.9)	6.0 (5.6, 6.4)
		Low (n=601)(girls, n=248; boys, n=353)	9.5 (8.6, 10.4)	10.1 (8.6, 11.6)	8.7 (7.6, 9.8)	9.4 (8.5, 10.3)	10.1(8.6, 11.6)	8.5 (7.4, 9.6)

Values are presented as predicted probability (95% confidence interval).

¹ In model 1, each value represents adjusted for socio-demographic variables (i.e., age, school type, school grade, academic performance, parental highest educational attainment), screen time, physical activity, sleep, smoking status, alcohol use, and body mass index.

² Model 2 is simultaneously adjusted for all independent variables.

Table 4.

Prevalence ratios of excessive mukbang viewing by personal, community, and societal factors among Korean adolescents (n=36,990)

Variables			Excessive mukbang viewing (≥7 times/wk)
			Model 1¹			Model 2²
			Total	Girls	Boys	Total	Girls	Boys
Personal	Perceived health	Extremely healthy (n=7,624)(girls, n=2,647; boys, n=4,977)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)
		Slightly healthy (n=16,141)(girls, n=7,958; boys, n=8,183)	0.84 (0.76, 0.93)	0.87 (0.75, 1.01)	0.82 (0.71, 0.93)	0.81 (0.73, 0.89)	0.83 (0.72, 0.96)	0.79 (0.69, 0.90)
		Normal (n=9,582)(girls, n=5,403; boys, n=4,179)	0.92 (0.83, 1.03)	0.97 (0.83, 1.13)	0.87 (0.74, 1.02)	0.84 (0.76, 0.94)	0.87 (0.75, 1.02)	0.80 (0.68, 0.94)
		Slightly unhealthy (n=3,439)(girls, n=1,871; boys, n=1,568)	1.03 (0.90, 1.18)	1.08 (0.89, 1.30)	0.95 (0.77, 1.18)	0.87 (0.76, 1.01)	0.90 (0.74, 1.09)	0.82 (0.66, 1.02)
		Extremely unhealthy (n=204)(girls, n=85; boys, n=119)	1.46 (1.01, 2.15)	1.08 (0.57, 2.03)	1.74 (1.07, 2.85)	1.16 (0.78, 1.71)	0.84 (0.45, 1.60)	1.38 (0.84, 2.27)
	Perceived weight	Extremely underweight (n=1,877)(girls, n=576; boys, n=1,301)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)
		Slightly underweight (n=8,242)(girls, n=3,517; boys, n=4,725)	0.91 (0.76, 1.10)	0.97 (0.73, 1.30)	0.83 (0.65, 1.07)	0.93 (0.77, 1.12)	0.98 (0.74, 1.32)	0.84 (0.66, 1.08)
		Normal weight (n=13,419)(girls, n=7,408; boys, n=6,011)	1.06 (0.87, 1.28)	1.06 (0.80, 1.42)	1.02 (0.79, 1.32)	1.08 (0.89, 1.31)	1.08 (0.81, 1.45)	1.03 (0.80, 1.33)
		Overweight (n=11,352)(girls, n=5,630; boys, n=5,722)	1.16 (0.93, 1.45)	1.12 (0.81, 1.55)	1.23 (0.91, 1.65)	1.16 (0.93, 1.45)	1.10 (0.80, 1.53)	1.25 (0.92, 1.68)
		Obesity (n=2,100)(girls, n=833; boys, n=1,267)	1.68 (1.27, 2.23)	1.52 (1.01, 2.31)	1.83 (1.23, 2.70)	1.66 (1.24, 2.20)	1.45 (0.96, 2.21)	1.88 (1.27, 2.78)
	Perceived stress	Low (n=6,230)(girls, n=2,324; boys, n=3,906)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)
		Moderate (n=15,615)(girls, n=7,235; boys, n=8,380)	0.96 (0.86, 1.08)	0.90 (0.76, 1.06)	1.01 (0.87, 1.18)	0.95 (0.85, 1.07)	0.88 (0.74, 1.04)	1.02 (0.87, 1.19)
		High (n=15,145)(girls, n=8,405; boys, n=6,740)	1.33 (1.19, 1.48)	1.27 (1.08, 1.48)	1.37 (1.17, 1.59)	1.22 (1.08, 1.38)	1.12 (0.94, 1.34)	1.30 (1.10, 1.55)
	Loneliness	Low (n=16,859)(girls, n=6,929; boys, n=9,930)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)
		Moderate (n=13,751)(girls, n=7,228; boys, n=6,523)	1.07 (0.99, 1.16)	1.09 (0.97, 1.22)	1.06 (0.95, 1.20)	0.97 (0.89, 1.06)	0.99 (0.88, 1.12)	0.97 (0.85, 1.10)
		High (n=6,380)(girls, n=3,807; boys, n=2,573)	1.29 (1.17, 1.42)	1.34 (1.17, 1.52)	1.25 (1.07, 1.45)	1.03 (0.92, 1.16)	1.07 (0.92, 1.26)	1.01 (0.84, 1.20)
	Depression	No (n=26,547)(girls, n=12,050; boys, n=14,497)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)
	Depression	Yes (n=10,443)(girls, n=5,914; boys, n=4,529)	1.31 (1.21, 1.41)	1.30 (1.17, 1.43)	1.32 (1.17, 1.49)	1.18 (1.08, 1.29)	1.16 (1.03, 1.30)	1.22 (1.07, 1.40)
	Anxiety	Minimal (n=23,967)(girls, n=10,528; boys, n=13,439)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)
		Mild (n=8,723)(girls, n=4,814; boys, n=3,909)	1.18 (1.09, 1.29)	1.21 (1.08, 1.35)	1.15 (1.01, 1.32)	1.06 (0.97, 1.17)	1.09 (0.96, 1.23)	1.03 (0.89, 1.19)
		Moderate (n=3,047)(girls, n=1,829; boys, n=1,218)	1.32 (1.17, 1.49)	1.35 (1.16, 1.57)	1.28 (1.05, 1.57)	1.12 (0.98, 1.28)	1.15 (0.96, 1.36)	1.08 (0.871.35)
		Severe (n=1,253)(girls, n=793; boys, n=460)	1.44 (1.22, 1.70)	1.48 (1.20, 1.81)	1.37 (1.01, 1.86)	1.19 (0.98, 1.43)	1.22 (0.97, 1.53)	1.14 (0.82, 1.58)
Community	Nutrition education	No (n=19,707)(girls, n=9,677; boys, n=10,030)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)
	Nutrition education	Yes (n=17,283)(girls, n=8,287; boys, n=8,996)	0.95 (0.88, 1.02)	0.93 (0.84, 1.03)	0.97 (0.87, 1.09)	0.95 (0.88, 1.02)	0.93 (0.84, 1.03)	0.97 (0.87, 1.08)
	Living arrangement	With family members (n=35,515)(girls, n=17,332; boys, n=18,183)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)
		With relatives (n=159)(girls, n=62; boys, n=97)	0.82 (0.45, 1.49)	0.80 (0.33, 1.93)	0.83 (0.37, 1.85)	0.83 (0.46, 1.50)	0.79 (0.33, 1.92)	0.85 (0.38, 1.90)
		Off campus (n=215)(girls, n=84; boys, n=131)	1.28 (0.85, 1.92)	1.50 (0.86, 2.60)	1.11 (0.61, 2.02)	1.24 (0.83, 1.87)	1.47 (0.85, 2.56)	1.07 (0.59, 1.94)
		On campus (n=1,025)(girls, n=451; boys, n=574)	1.13 (0.92, 1.40)	0.89 (0.64, 1.25)	1.42 (1.08, 1.88)	1.14 (0.92, 1.41)	0.90 (0.64, 1.25)	1.42 (1.08, 1.88)
Societal	Socioeconomic status	High (n=4,349)(girls, n=1,818; boys, n=2,531)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)
		Medium (n=32,131)(girls, n=15,989; boys, n=16,142)	0.75 (0.67, 0.84)	0.83 (0.71, 0.98)	0.69 (0.60, 0.81)	0.75 (0.67, 0.84)	0.82 (0.70, 0.97)	0.70 (0.60, 0.81)
		Low (n=601)(girls, n=248; boys, n=353)	0.99 (0.77, 1.27)	0.81 (0.54, 1.21)	1.15 (0.83, 1.58)	0.91 (0.70, 1.17)	0.74 (0.49, 1.12)	1.05 (0.76, 1.45)

Values are presented as prevalence ratio (95% confidence interval).

¹ In model 1, adjusted for socio-demographic variables (i.e., age, school type, school grade, academic performance, parental highest educational attainment), screen time, physical activity, sleep, smoking status, alcohol use, and body mass index.

² Model 2 is simultaneously adjusted for all independent variables.

REFERENCES

1. Kim Y. Sell your loneliness: mukbang culture and multisensorial capitalism in South Korea. In: Lim L, Lee HK, editors. Routledge handbook of cultural and creative industries in Asia. London: Routledge; 2019, p. 227-238.
2. Kang E, Lee J, Kim KH, Yun YH. The popularity of eating broadcast: content analysis of “mukbang” YouTube videos, media coverage, and the health impact of “mukbang” on public. Health Informatics J 2020;26:2237-2248. https://doi.org/10.1177/1460458220901360Article PubMed
3. Kircaburun K, Yurdagül C, Kuss D, Emirtekin E, Griffiths MD. Problematic mukbang watching and its relationship to disordered eating and internet addiction: a pilot study among emerging adult mukbang watchers. Int J Ment Health Addict 2021;19:2160-2169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-020-00309-wArticle
4. Kircaburun K, Balta S, Emirtekin E, Tosuntas ŞB, Demetrovics Z, Griffiths MD. Compensatory usage of the internet: the case of mukbang watching on YouTube. Psychiatry Investig 2021;18:269-276. https://doi.org/10.30773/pi.2019.0340Article PubMed PMC
5. von Ash T, Huynh R, Deng C, White MA. Associations between mukbang viewing and disordered eating behaviors. Int J Eat Disord 2023;56:1188-1198. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.23915Article PubMed
6. Sung J, Hong JY, Kim J, Jung J, Choi S, Kang JY, et al. Mukbang and Cookbang watching and dietary behavior in Korean adolescents. Nutr Res Pract 2024;18:523-533. https://doi.org/10.4162/nrp.2024.18.4.523Article PubMed PMC
7. Kim U, Triandis H, Kagitcibasi C, Choi SC, Yoon G. Individualism and collectivism: theory, method, and applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1994. p 157-174.
8. Jiang Y, Bong M, Kim SI. Conformity of Korean adolescents in their perceptions of social relationships and academic motivation. Learn Individ Differ 2015;40:41-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.04.012Article
9. Amson A, Bagnato M, Remedios L, Pritchard M, Sabir S, Gillis G, et al. Beyond the screen: exploring the dynamics of social media influencers, digital food marketing, and gendered influences on adolescent diets. PLOS Digit Health 2025;4:e0000729. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000729Article PubMed PMC
10. Bruno AL, Chung S. Mŏkpang: pay me and I’ll show you how much I can eat for your pleasure. J Jpn Korean Cine 2017;9:155-171. https://doi.org/10.1080/17564905.2017.1368150Article
11. Lister NB, Baur LA, Felix JF, Hill AJ, Marcus C, Reinehr T, et al. Child and adolescent obesity. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2023;9:24. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41572-023-00435-4Article PubMed
12. Kardefelt-Winther D. A conceptual and methodological critique of internet addiction research: towards a model of compensatory internet use. Comput Human Behav 2014;31:351-354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.059Article
13. Bronfenbrenner U. Toward an experimental ecology of human development. Am Psychol 1977;32:513-531. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513Article
14. Kim JH, Kim J, Jang SY, Park EC. Association between watching eating broadcasts like mukbang and cookbang and generalized anxiety disorder among Korean adolescents. BMC Psychiatry 2024;24:536. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-024-05957-zArticle PubMed PMC
15. Kircaburun K, Harris A, Calado F, Griffiths MD. Emotion regulation difficulties and problematic mukbang watching: the mediating role of psychological distress and impulsivity. Psychiatry Res Commun 2024;4:100152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psycom.2023.100152Article
16. Primack BA, Shensa A, Sidani JE, Whaite EO, Lin LY, Rosen D, et al. Social media use and perceived social isolation among young adults in the U.S. Am J Prev Med 2017;53:1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2017.01.010Article PubMed PMC
17. Kim Y, Lee M. Social media use and loneliness among adolescents: the moderating role of media literacy. Online Inf Rev 2025;49:585-599. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-12-2023-0664Article
18. Yoon C, Mai D, Kinariwala K, Ledoux T, Betts R, Johnston C. Sex and ethnic/racial differences in disordered eating behaviors and intuitive eating among college student. Front Psychol 2023;14:1221816. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1221816Article PubMed PMC
19. Businelle MS, Mills BA, Chartier KG, Kendzor DE, Reingle JM, Shuval K. Do stressful events account for the link between socioeconomic status and mental health? J Public Health (Oxf) 2014;36:205-212. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdt060Article PubMed PMC
20. Pechey R, Monsivais P. Socioeconomic inequalities in the healthiness of food choices: exploring the contributions of food expenditures. Prev Med 2016;88:203-209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.04.012Article PubMed PMC
21. Rahal D, Chiang JJ, Huynh VW, Bower JE, McCreath H, Fuligni AJ. Low subjective social status is associated with daily selection of fewer healthy foods and more high-fat/high sugar foods. Appetite 2023;180:106338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2022.106338Article PubMed PMC
22. Liu M, Zhuang A, Norvilitis JM, Xiao T. Usage patterns of short videos and social media among adolescents and psychological health: a latent profile analysis. Comput Human Behav 2024;151:108007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.108007Article
23. Twenge JM, Martin GN. Gender differences in associations between digital media use and psychological well-being: evidence from three large datasets. J Adolesc 2020;79:91-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2019.12.018Article PubMed
24. Amson A, Pauzé E, Ramsay T, Welch V, Hamid JS, Lee J, et al. Examining gender differences in adolescent exposure to food and beverage marketing through go-along interviews. Appetite 2024;193:107153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2023.107153Article PubMed
25. Latikka R, Koivula A, Oksa R, Savela N, Oksanen A. Loneliness and psychological distress before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: relationships with social media identity bubbles. Soc Sci Med 2022;293:114674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114674Article PubMed PMC
26. McQuaid RJ, Cox SM, Ogunlana A, Jaworska N. The burden of loneliness: implications of the social determinants of health during COVID-19. Psychiatry Res 2021;296:113648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113648Article PubMed PMC
27. Balakrishnan J, Griffiths MD. Social media addiction: what is the role of content in YouTube? J Behav Addict 2017;6:364-377. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.6.2017.058Article PubMed PMC
28. Southerland K. The eating challenge: mukbangs in Korea. SSRN [Preprint]. 2023 [cited 2025 Apr 22]. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4497512Article
29. Smith D, Leonis T, Anandavalli S. Belonging and loneliness in cyberspace: impacts of social media on adolescents’ well-being. Aust J Psychol 2021;73:12-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530.2021.1898914Article
30. Sanskriti S, Guglani I, Joshi S, Anjankar A. The spectrum of motivations behind watching mukbang videos and its health effects on its viewers: a review. Cureus 2023;15:e44392. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.44392Article PubMed PMC
31. Kim Y, Choi S, Chun C, Park S, Khang YH, Oh K. Data resource profile: the Korea Youth Risk Behavior Web-based Survey (KYRBS). Int J Epidemiol 2016;45:1076-1076e. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyw070Article PubMed
32. Oh Y, Baek JH, Joung YS. Intelligence-dependent differential effects of media exposure on executive function changes in children: a population-based cohort study with a longitudinal design. J Korean Med Sci 2023;38:e411. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2023.38.e411Article PubMed PMC
33. Lash TL. The harm done to reproducibility by the culture of null hypothesis significance testing. Am J Epidemiol 2017;186:627-635. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwx261Article PubMed
34. Lim MC, Parsons S, Goglio A, Fox E. Anxiety, stress, and binge eating tendencies in adolescence: a prospective approach. J Eat Disord 2021;9:94. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40337-021-00444-2Article PubMed PMC
35. Gomez-Baya D, Salinas-Perez JA, Sanchez-Lopez A, Paino-Quesada S, Mendoza-Berjano R. The role of developmental assets in gender differences in anxiety in Spanish youth. Front Psychiatry 2022;13:810326. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.810326Article PubMed PMC
36. Hosseini L, Khazali H. Comparing the level of anxiety in male & female school students. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 2013;84:41-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.506Article
37. Strand M, Gustafsson SA. Mukbang and disordered eating: a netnographic analysis of online eating broadcasts. Cult Med Psychiatry 2020;44:586-609. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11013-020-09674-6Article PubMed PMC
38. Lindsey EW. Emotion regulation with parents and friends and adolescent internalizing and externalizing behavior. Children (Basel) 2021;8:299. https://doi.org/10.3390/children8040299Article PubMed PMC
39. Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. 1st ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall; 1986. p 94-106.
40. Tomova L, Andrews JL, Blakemore SJ. The importance of belonging and the avoidance of social risk taking in adolescence. Dev Rev 2021;61:100981. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2021.100981Article
41. Gul H, Firat S, Sertcelik M, Gul A, Gurel Y, Kilic BG. Effects of psychiatric symptoms, age, and gender on fear of missing out (FoMO) and problematic smartphone use: a path analysis with clinical-based adolescent sample. Indian J Psychiatry 2022;64:289-294. https://doi.org/10.4103/indianjpsychiatry.indianjpsychiatry_34_21Article PubMed PMC
42. Jeong H, Lee E, Han G. Association between mukbang and cookbang viewing and body image perception and BMI in adolescents. J Health Popul Nutr 2024;43:61. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41043-024-00552-0Article PubMed PMC
43. Lavoie L, Dupéré V, Dion E, Crosnoe R, Lacourse É, Archambault I. Gender differences in adolescents’ exposure to stressful life events and differential links to impaired school functioning. J Abnorm Child Psychol 2019;47:1053-1064. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-018-00511-4Article PubMed PMC

Figure & Data

References

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

PubReader
ePub Link
Cite

CITE

export Copy Format

Close

XML Download

Figure

Related articles

Behavioral and psychosocial factors associated with sugar-sweetened beverage consumption among Korean adolescents: a path analysis using the 2022 Korea Youth Risk Behavior Survey

Personal, community, and societal factors associated with mukbang viewing among adolescents: findings from the Korea Youth Risk Behavior Survey

Figure 1. Flow chart. KYRBS, Korea Youth Risk Behavior Survey; BMI, body mass index.

Graphical abstract

Figure 1.

Graphical abstract

Personal, community, and societal factors associated with mukbang viewing among adolescents: findings from the Korea Youth Risk Behavior Survey

Variables	Questions	Response options	Cutoff points
Independent variables
Perceived health	How would you describe your health status?	Very healthy
		Slightly healthy
		Neither healthy nor unhealthy
		Slightly unhealthy
		Extremely unhealthy
Perceived weight	How would you describe your weight?	Very underweight
		Slightly underweight
		Normal weight
		Overweight
		Obesity
Perceived stress	How much stress do you normally feel?	I feel a lot of stress	Low: I do not feel much stress or I do not feel stress at all
		I feel a little stress
		I do not feel much stress	Moderate: I feel a little stress
		I do not feel stress at all	High: I feel a lot of stress
Loneliness	In the past 12 months, how often have you felt lonely?	I felt lonely all the time	Low: I rarely felt lonely or I did not feel lonely at all
		I felt lonely often	Low: I rarely felt lonely or I did not feel lonely at all
		I felt lonely sometimes	Moderate: I felt lonely sometimes
		I rarely felt lonely	High: I felt lonely all the time or I felt lonely often
		I did not feel lonely at all	High: I felt lonely all the time or I felt lonely often
Depression	Have you ever felt so sad or hopeless that it interrupted your daily life for more than 2 weeks in the past 12 months?	Yes
Depression		No
Anxiety	Over the past 2 weeks ….	Not at all	0 points: Not at all
	I felt nervous, anxious, or on the edge	Several days	1 point: Several days
	I was unable to stop worrying	More than half of the days	2 points: More than half the days
	I had trouble relaxing	Nearly every day	3 points: Nearly every day
	I was so restless that it was hard to sit still		Total score: 0 to 21 points
	I became easily annoyed or irritable		Normal (minimal anxiety): 0-4 points
	I felt afraid, as if something awful might happen		Mild: 5-9 points
			Moderate: 10-14 points
			Severe: 15-21 points
Nutrition education	Over the past 12 months, did your school provide nutrition education for you?	Yes
Nutrition education		No
Living arrangement	Which option best describes your living situation?	Living with immediate family members
		Living with relatives
		Living off campus (including with friends)
		Living at a dormitory or on campus
Socioeconomic status	What is the financial situation of your household?	High	Low: Low
		Medium to high	Medium: Medium to low, medium, or medium to high
		Medium	Medium: Medium to low, medium, or medium to high
		Medium to low	High: High
		Low
Dependent variable
Excessive exposure to binge eating-centric media	Over the past 12 months, how often have you watched mukbang (eating broadcast) or cookbang (cooking broadcast)?	Not at all	Excessive exposure to binge eating-centric media: 7 times or more per week
		Less than once per month
		Once or twice per week
		Three to four times per week
		Five to six times per week
		Daily (7 times or more per week)
Moderator
Gender	What was your gender assigned at birth?	Male
Gender	What was your gender assigned at birth?	Female

Characteristics	Girls (n=17,964)	Boys (n=19,026)	Total (n=36,990)	p-value
Age (yr)¹	15.1±1.7	15.1±1.7	15.1±1.7	0.01
School level				0.04
Middle school	9,556 (53.8)	10,023 (52.7)	19,679 (53.2)
High school	8,308 (46.3)	9,003 (47.3)	17,311 (46.8)
BMI (kg/m²)	20.5±3.2	22.2±4.0	21.3±3.7	<0.01
Mukbang viewing frequency (times/wk)				<0.01
At least 1	8,461 (47.1)	7,014 (36.9)	15,475 (41.8)
At least 3	5,026 (28.0)	3,913 (20.6)	8,939 (24.2)
At least 5	2,680 (14.9)	2,066 (10.9)	4,746 (12.8)
At least 7	1,641 (9.1)	1,325 (7.0)	2,966 (8.0)

Variables			Excessive mukbang viewing (≥7 times/wk)
			Model 1¹			Model 2²
			Total	Girls	Boys	Total	Girls	Boys
Personal	Perceived health	Extremely healthy (n=7,624)(girls, n=2,647; boys, n=4,977)	8.3 (7.7, 8.9)	9.3 (8.2, 10.4)	7.3 (6.6, 8.0)	8.6 (7.9, 9.3)	9.8 (8.6, 11.0)	7.5 (6.7, 8.3)
		Slightly healthy (n=16,141)(girls, n=7,958; boys, n=8,183)	6.9 (6.5, 7.3)	8.0 (7.4, 8.6)	6.0 (5.5, 6.5)	6.9 (6.5, 7.3)	8.1 (7.5, 8.7)	5.9 (5.4, 6.4)
		Normal (n=9,582)(girls, n=5,403; boys, n=4,179)	7.6 (7.1, 8.1)	8.9 (8.1, 9.7)	6.3 (5.6, 7.0)	7.3 (6.8, 7.8)	8.6 (7.9, 9.3)	6.0 (5.3, 6.7)
		Slightly unhealthy (n=3,439)(girls, n=1,871; boys, n=1,568)	8.5 (7.6, 9.4)	10.0 (8.6, 11.4)	7.0 (5.7, 8.3)	7.5 (6.6, 8.4)	8.8 (7.5, 10.1)	6.2 (5.0, 7.4)
		Extremely unhealthy (n=204)(girls, n=85; boys, n=119)	12.2 (7.8, 16.6)	10.0 (4.0, 16.0)	13.0 (7.4, 18.9)	10.2 (6.4, 14.0)	8.3 (3.2, 13.4)	10.7 (5.6, 15.8)
	Perceived weight	Extremely underweight (n=1,877)(girls, n=576; boys, n=1,301)	7.0 (5.7, 8.3)	8.0 (7.8, 8.2)	6.1 (4.6, 7.6)	6.8 (5.6, 8.0)	7.9 (5.7, 10.1)	5.9 (4.5, 7.3)
		Slightly underweight (n=8,242)(girls, n=3,517; boys, n=4,725)	6.3 (5.7, 6.9)	7.8 (6.8, 8.8)	5.0 (4.3, 5.7)	6.3 (5.7, 6.9)	7.8 (6.8, 8.8)	4.9 (4.2, 5.6)
		Normal weight (n=13,419)(girls, n=7,408; boys, n=6,011)	7.3 (6.9, 7.7)	8.6 (8.0, 9.2)	6.2 (5.6, 6.8)	7.3 (6.8, 7.8)	8.6 (7.9, 9.3)	6.1 (5.5, 6.7)
		Overweight (n=11,352)(girls, n=5,630; boys, n=5,722)	8.1 (7.5, 8.7)	9.0 (8.1, 9.9)	7.5 (6.6, 8.4)	7.9 (7.3, 8.5)	8.7 (7.8, 9.6)	7.4 (6.5, 8.3)
		Obesity (n=2,100)(girls, n=833; boys, n=1,267)	11.9 (10.0, 13.8)	12.4 (9.5, 15.3)	11.3 (8.8, 13.8)	11.5 (9.7, 13.3)	11.7 (9.0, 14.4)	11.3 (8.8, 13.8)
	Perceived stress	Low (n=6,230)(girls, n=2,324; boys, n=3,906)	6.7 (6.4, 7.3)	8.0 (6.9, 9.1)	5.7 (5.0, 6.4)	7.0 (6.3, 7.7)	8.5 (7.3, 9.7)	5.8 (5.0, 6.6)
		Moderate (n=15,615)(girls, n=7,235; boys, n=8,380)	6.5 (6.1, 6.9)	7.2 (6.6, 7.8)	5.8 (5.0, 6.3)	6.6 (6.2, 7.0)	7.4 (6.8, 8.0)	5.9 (5.4, 6.4)
		High (n=15,145)(girls, n=8,405; boys, n=6,740)	9.0 (8.5, 9.5)	10.2 (9.6, 10.8)	7.9 (7.3, 8.5)	8.5 (8.0, 9.0)	9.6 (8.9, 10.3)	7.5 (6.8, 8.2)
	Loneliness	Low (n=16,859)(girls, n=6,929; boys, n=9,930)	7.0 (6.6, 7.4)	7.9 (7.3, 8.5)	6.2 (5.7, 5.7)	7.5 (7.1, 7.9)	8.5 (7.8, 9.2)	6.5 (6.0, 7.0)
		Moderate (n=13,751)(girls, n=7,228; boys, n=6,523)	7.5 (7.1, 7.9)	8.5 (7.9, 9.1)	6.6 (6.0, 7.2)	7.2 (6.8, 7.6)	8.4 (7.8, 9.0)	6.2 (5.6, 6.8)
		High (n=6,380)(girls, n=3,807; boys, n=2,573)	9.1 (8.4, 9.8)	10.5 (9.5, 11.5)	7.7 (6.7, 8.7)	7.7 (7.0, 8.4)	9.1 (8.1, 10.1)	6.5 (5.5, 7.5)
	Depression	No (n=26,547)(girls, n=12,050; boys, n=14,497)	6.9 (6.6, 7.2)	8.0 (7.5, 8.5)	6.1 (5.7, 6.5)	7.1 (6.8, 7.4)	8.2 (7.7, 8.7)	6.1 (5.7, 6.5)
	Depression	Yes (n=10,443)(girls, n=5,914; boys, n=4,529)	9.1 (8.6, 9.6)	10.3 (9.5, 11.1)	8.0 (7.2, 8.8)	8.4 (7.8, 9.0)	9.4 (8.6, 10.2)	7.4 (6.6, 8.2)
	Anxiety	Minimal (n=23,967)(girls, n=10,528; boys, n=13,439)	7.0 (6.7, 7.3)	7.8 (7.3, 8.3)	6.2 (5.8, 6.6)	7.2 (6.8, 7.6)	8.2 (7.6, 8.8)	6.3 (5.9, 6.7)
		Mild (n=8,723)(girls, n=4,814; boys, n=3,909)	8.2 (7.6, 8.8)	9.4 (8.6, 10.2)	7.1 (6.3, 7.9)	7.6 (7.0, 8.2)	8.9 (8.1, 9.7)	6.5 (5.7, 7.3)
		Moderate (n=3,047)(girls, n=1,829; boys, n=1,218)	9.2 (8.2, 10.2)	10.6 (9.2, 12.0)	7.9 (6.4, 9.4)	8.1 (7.1, 9.1)	9.4 (8.0, 10.8)	6.8 (5.4, 8.2)
		Severe (n=1,253)(girls, n=793; boys, n=460)	10.1 (8.5, 11.7)	11.7 (9.5, 13.9)	8.5 (6.1, 11.0)	8.7 (7.2, 10.2)	10.1 (8.0, 12.2)	7.2 (5.0, 9.4)
Community	Nutrition education	No (n=19,707)(girls, n=9,677; boys, n=10,030)	7.7 (7.3, 8.1)	9.0 (8.4, 9.6)	6.6 (6.1, 7.1)	7.6 (7.2, 8.0)	8.9 (8.3, 9.5)	6.5 (6.0, 7.0)
	Nutrition education	Yes (n=17,283)(girls, n=8,287; boys, n=8,996)	7.3 (6.9, 7.7)	8.4 (7.8, 9.0)	6.4 (5.9, 6.9)	7.2 (6.8, 7.6)	8.3 (7.7, 8.9)	6.3 (5.8, 6.8)
	Living arrangement	With family members (n=35,515)(girls, n=17,332; boys, n=18,183)	7.5 (7.2, 7.8)	8.7 (8.3, 9.1)	6.4 (6.0, 6.8)	7.4 (7.1, 7.7)	8.6 (8.2,9.0)	6.3 (6.0, 6.6)
		With relatives (n=159)(girls, n=62; boys, n=97)	6.3 (2.6, 10.0)	7.3 (1.0, 13.2)	5.4 (1.1, 9.7)	6.3 (2.6, 10.0)	7.1 (1.0, 13.2)	5.5 (1.2, 9.8)
		Off campus (n=215)(girls, n=84; boys, n=131)	9.8 (6.0, 13.6)	13.5 (6.4, 20.6)	7.2 (3.0, 11.4)	9.4 (5.7, 13.1)	13.1 (6.2, 20.0)	6.8 (2.8, 10.8)
		On campus (n=1,025)(girls, n=451; boys, n=574)	8.6 (6.9, 10.3)	7.8 (5.3, 10.3)	9.3 (6.9, 11.7)	8.5 (6.8, 10.2)	7.7 (5.2, 10.2)	9.1 (6.7, 11.5)
Societal	Socioeconomic status	High (n=4,349)(girls, n=1,818; boys, n=2,531)	9.9 (7.7, 12.1)	8.6 (5.4, 11.8)	10.6 (7.6, 13.6)	9.0 (7.0, 11.0)	7.9 (5.0, 10.8)	9.6 (6.9, 12.3)
		Medium (n=32,131)(girls, n=15,989; boys, n=16,142)	7.2 (6.9, 7.5)	8.5 (8.0, 9.0)	6.1 (5.7, 6.5)	7.2 (6.9, 7.5)	8.4 (7.9, 8.9)	6.0 (5.6, 6.4)
		Low (n=601)(girls, n=248; boys, n=353)	9.5 (8.6, 10.4)	10.1 (8.6, 11.6)	8.7 (7.6, 9.8)	9.4 (8.5, 10.3)	10.1(8.6, 11.6)	8.5 (7.4, 9.6)

Variables			Excessive mukbang viewing (≥7 times/wk)
			Model 1¹			Model 2²
			Total	Girls	Boys	Total	Girls	Boys
Personal	Perceived health	Extremely healthy (n=7,624)(girls, n=2,647; boys, n=4,977)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)
		Slightly healthy (n=16,141)(girls, n=7,958; boys, n=8,183)	0.84 (0.76, 0.93)	0.87 (0.75, 1.01)	0.82 (0.71, 0.93)	0.81 (0.73, 0.89)	0.83 (0.72, 0.96)	0.79 (0.69, 0.90)
		Normal (n=9,582)(girls, n=5,403; boys, n=4,179)	0.92 (0.83, 1.03)	0.97 (0.83, 1.13)	0.87 (0.74, 1.02)	0.84 (0.76, 0.94)	0.87 (0.75, 1.02)	0.80 (0.68, 0.94)
		Slightly unhealthy (n=3,439)(girls, n=1,871; boys, n=1,568)	1.03 (0.90, 1.18)	1.08 (0.89, 1.30)	0.95 (0.77, 1.18)	0.87 (0.76, 1.01)	0.90 (0.74, 1.09)	0.82 (0.66, 1.02)
		Extremely unhealthy (n=204)(girls, n=85; boys, n=119)	1.46 (1.01, 2.15)	1.08 (0.57, 2.03)	1.74 (1.07, 2.85)	1.16 (0.78, 1.71)	0.84 (0.45, 1.60)	1.38 (0.84, 2.27)
	Perceived weight	Extremely underweight (n=1,877)(girls, n=576; boys, n=1,301)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)
		Slightly underweight (n=8,242)(girls, n=3,517; boys, n=4,725)	0.91 (0.76, 1.10)	0.97 (0.73, 1.30)	0.83 (0.65, 1.07)	0.93 (0.77, 1.12)	0.98 (0.74, 1.32)	0.84 (0.66, 1.08)
		Normal weight (n=13,419)(girls, n=7,408; boys, n=6,011)	1.06 (0.87, 1.28)	1.06 (0.80, 1.42)	1.02 (0.79, 1.32)	1.08 (0.89, 1.31)	1.08 (0.81, 1.45)	1.03 (0.80, 1.33)
		Overweight (n=11,352)(girls, n=5,630; boys, n=5,722)	1.16 (0.93, 1.45)	1.12 (0.81, 1.55)	1.23 (0.91, 1.65)	1.16 (0.93, 1.45)	1.10 (0.80, 1.53)	1.25 (0.92, 1.68)
		Obesity (n=2,100)(girls, n=833; boys, n=1,267)	1.68 (1.27, 2.23)	1.52 (1.01, 2.31)	1.83 (1.23, 2.70)	1.66 (1.24, 2.20)	1.45 (0.96, 2.21)	1.88 (1.27, 2.78)
	Perceived stress	Low (n=6,230)(girls, n=2,324; boys, n=3,906)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)
		Moderate (n=15,615)(girls, n=7,235; boys, n=8,380)	0.96 (0.86, 1.08)	0.90 (0.76, 1.06)	1.01 (0.87, 1.18)	0.95 (0.85, 1.07)	0.88 (0.74, 1.04)	1.02 (0.87, 1.19)
		High (n=15,145)(girls, n=8,405; boys, n=6,740)	1.33 (1.19, 1.48)	1.27 (1.08, 1.48)	1.37 (1.17, 1.59)	1.22 (1.08, 1.38)	1.12 (0.94, 1.34)	1.30 (1.10, 1.55)
	Loneliness	Low (n=16,859)(girls, n=6,929; boys, n=9,930)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)
		Moderate (n=13,751)(girls, n=7,228; boys, n=6,523)	1.07 (0.99, 1.16)	1.09 (0.97, 1.22)	1.06 (0.95, 1.20)	0.97 (0.89, 1.06)	0.99 (0.88, 1.12)	0.97 (0.85, 1.10)
		High (n=6,380)(girls, n=3,807; boys, n=2,573)	1.29 (1.17, 1.42)	1.34 (1.17, 1.52)	1.25 (1.07, 1.45)	1.03 (0.92, 1.16)	1.07 (0.92, 1.26)	1.01 (0.84, 1.20)
	Depression	No (n=26,547)(girls, n=12,050; boys, n=14,497)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)
	Depression	Yes (n=10,443)(girls, n=5,914; boys, n=4,529)	1.31 (1.21, 1.41)	1.30 (1.17, 1.43)	1.32 (1.17, 1.49)	1.18 (1.08, 1.29)	1.16 (1.03, 1.30)	1.22 (1.07, 1.40)
	Anxiety	Minimal (n=23,967)(girls, n=10,528; boys, n=13,439)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)
		Mild (n=8,723)(girls, n=4,814; boys, n=3,909)	1.18 (1.09, 1.29)	1.21 (1.08, 1.35)	1.15 (1.01, 1.32)	1.06 (0.97, 1.17)	1.09 (0.96, 1.23)	1.03 (0.89, 1.19)
		Moderate (n=3,047)(girls, n=1,829; boys, n=1,218)	1.32 (1.17, 1.49)	1.35 (1.16, 1.57)	1.28 (1.05, 1.57)	1.12 (0.98, 1.28)	1.15 (0.96, 1.36)	1.08 (0.871.35)
		Severe (n=1,253)(girls, n=793; boys, n=460)	1.44 (1.22, 1.70)	1.48 (1.20, 1.81)	1.37 (1.01, 1.86)	1.19 (0.98, 1.43)	1.22 (0.97, 1.53)	1.14 (0.82, 1.58)
Community	Nutrition education	No (n=19,707)(girls, n=9,677; boys, n=10,030)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)
	Nutrition education	Yes (n=17,283)(girls, n=8,287; boys, n=8,996)	0.95 (0.88, 1.02)	0.93 (0.84, 1.03)	0.97 (0.87, 1.09)	0.95 (0.88, 1.02)	0.93 (0.84, 1.03)	0.97 (0.87, 1.08)
	Living arrangement	With family members (n=35,515)(girls, n=17,332; boys, n=18,183)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)
		With relatives (n=159)(girls, n=62; boys, n=97)	0.82 (0.45, 1.49)	0.80 (0.33, 1.93)	0.83 (0.37, 1.85)	0.83 (0.46, 1.50)	0.79 (0.33, 1.92)	0.85 (0.38, 1.90)
		Off campus (n=215)(girls, n=84; boys, n=131)	1.28 (0.85, 1.92)	1.50 (0.86, 2.60)	1.11 (0.61, 2.02)	1.24 (0.83, 1.87)	1.47 (0.85, 2.56)	1.07 (0.59, 1.94)
		On campus (n=1,025)(girls, n=451; boys, n=574)	1.13 (0.92, 1.40)	0.89 (0.64, 1.25)	1.42 (1.08, 1.88)	1.14 (0.92, 1.41)	0.90 (0.64, 1.25)	1.42 (1.08, 1.88)
Societal	Socioeconomic status	High (n=4,349)(girls, n=1,818; boys, n=2,531)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)
		Medium (n=32,131)(girls, n=15,989; boys, n=16,142)	0.75 (0.67, 0.84)	0.83 (0.71, 0.98)	0.69 (0.60, 0.81)	0.75 (0.67, 0.84)	0.82 (0.70, 0.97)	0.70 (0.60, 0.81)
		Low (n=601)(girls, n=248; boys, n=353)	0.99 (0.77, 1.27)	0.81 (0.54, 1.21)	1.15 (0.83, 1.58)	0.91 (0.70, 1.17)	0.74 (0.49, 1.12)	1.05 (0.76, 1.45)

Table 1. Questions, response options, and cutoff points for independent, dependent, and moderator variables

Table 2. General characteristics of study participants in 2022

Values are presented as mean±SD or number (%).

SD, standard deviation; BMI, body mass index.

Mean age values are rounded to 1 decimal place; The unrounded mean±SD was 15.14±1.74 years for boys and 15.10±1.73 years for girls; The small but statistically significant difference (t(36,988)=2.46, p=0.014) is likely due to the large sample size and is not considered clinically meaningful.

Table 3. Predicted probabilities of excessive mukbang viewing by personal, community, and societal factors among Korean adolescents (n=36,990)

Values are presented as predicted probability (95% confidence interval).

In model 1, each value represents adjusted for socio-demographic variables (i.e., age, school type, school grade, academic performance, parental highest educational attainment), screen time, physical activity, sleep, smoking status, alcohol use, and body mass index.

Model 2 is simultaneously adjusted for all independent variables.

Table 4. Prevalence ratios of excessive mukbang viewing by personal, community, and societal factors among Korean adolescents (n=36,990)

Values are presented as prevalence ratio (95% confidence interval).

In model 1, adjusted for socio-demographic variables (i.e., age, school type, school grade, academic performance, parental highest educational attainment), screen time, physical activity, sleep, smoking status, alcohol use, and body mass index.

Articles

Abstract

GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

Key Message

INTRODUCTION

MATERIALS AND METHODS

RESULTS

Overall adolescents

Girls

Boys

Overall adolescents

Girls

Boys

Overall adolescents

Girls

Boys

DISCUSSION

Supplementary materials

Supplementary Material 1.

Supplementary Material 2.

Supplementary Material 3.

Supplementary Material 4.

Supplementary Material 5.

Supplementary Material 6.

NOTES

REFERENCES

Figure & Data

References

Citations

Figure 1.

Graphical abstract

Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 4.