Looking good but tweeting bad? The social perception of orthodontic-related posts on Twitter and Instagram

Head & Face Medicine

Table 2 Multiple comparisons of estimated marginal means of perceptions of posters’ pleasure, arousal and dominance between different values of categorial predictors

		Pleasure			Arousal			Dominance
Predictor	Category	EMM	Sig. diff.	SE	EMM	Sig. diff.	SE	EMM	Sig. diff.	SE
Platform	Instagram (1)	3.54	(2)	0.08	3.73	n. s.	0.06	3.42	(2)	0.07
	Twitter (2)	3.19	(1)	0.10	3.81	n. s.	0.08	3.19	(1)	0.08
Content	random/other (0)	3.76	(1),(2),(3)	0.08	3.52	(1),(3)	0.06	3.49	(1),(2),(3)	0.07
	braces removed (1)	4.64	(0),(2),(3)	0.10	4.10	(0),(2),(3)	0.08	4.40	(0),(2),(3)	0.08
	braces received (2)	2.64	(0),(1)	0.11	3.64	1	0.08	2.67	(0),(1)	0.09
	personal orthodontic-related information (3)	2.42	(0),(1)	0.11	3.80	(0),(1)	0.08	2.68	(0),(1)	0.09
Comedic value	No (0)	3.35	n. s.	0.05	3.62	(1)	0.05	3.33	n. s.	0.05
	Yes (1)	3.38	n. s.	0.09	3.92	(0)	0.07	3.29	n. s.	0.08
Selfie	No (0)	3.19	(2)	0.07	3.78	n. s.	0.06	3.16	(2)	0.06
	yes, without braces (1)	3.41	n. s.	0.12	3.71	n. s.	0.09	3.33	n. s.	0.10
	yes, with braces (2)	3.50	(0)	0.09	3.81	n. s.	0.07	3.44	(0)	0.08

Note: Estimated marginal means (EMM) and standard errors (SE) are reported as predicted by the regression model. Significant differences (Sig. diff.) between a given category and other categories within the same categorial predictor are denoted with the respective comparison category identifiers in brackets (p < .05, Bonferroni-adjusted for multiple comparisons)

ISSN: 1746-160X