The Countervailing Effects of Weight Stigma on Weight-Loss Motivation and Perceived Capacity for Weight Control

Abstract

We hypothesized that exposure to weight stigma simultaneously increases motivation to lose or avoid gaining weight to avoid future stigma and decreases perceived capacity to do so, by heightening concerns about experiencing stigma and negative affect. Study 1 showed that more frequently experiencing weight-based discrimination was associated with greater concerns about being a victim of weight stigma, which predicted increased motivation to lose weight but decreased perceived capacity for weight control. Study 2 showed that participants randomly assigned to view a weight-stigmatizing (vs. control) message showed increased concerns about being a target of weight stigma, which indirectly increased motivation to lose weight and decreased state self-control. These, in turn, predicted increased willingness to engage in unhealthy weight-loss behaviors and decreased perceived capacity for weight control, respectively. Study 3 showed that increased motivation to avoid stigma and increased negative affect mediate these effects of exposure to weight stigma.

Keywords

stigma stigma avoidance weight stigma weight discrimination weight bias weight-loss motivation

The weight of the U.S. population has increased dramatically over the last several decades, where more than two thirds of adults and almost one in three young people are now considered to be “overweight” or “obese” according to their body mass index (BMI; Ogden et al., 2014). Concerns about rising weight have prompted a variety of approaches to combat it. The majority target individual behavior as the driver of weight gain, and many employ messages that implicitly stigmatize higher weight individuals by blaming them for their size (Puhl & Heuer, 2010). Anti-obesity ad campaigns often contain stigmatizing images and content designed to persuade people to reduce unhealthy habits and to lose weight (Brochu et al., 2014; Heuer et al., 2011). Some public health officials and health policy scholars have explicitly endorsed weight stigma as a health promotion tool to reduce obesity and have called for the use of “tough love” or “stigmatization lite” to shame heavier people into changing their behavior (e.g., Callahan, 2013; Crister, 2004). Such sentiments were echoed in 2019 on national television, when a prominent talk show host asserted “Fat shaming doesn’t need to end it needs to make a comeback. Some amount of shame is good” (Maher, 2019). Implicit or explicit in such campaigns are the fundamental assumptions that (a) exposure to weight stigma will result in successful weight loss because (b) obesity is largely a matter of self-control and (c) stigmatizing higher weight individuals will motivate them to enact positive health behaviors (Puhl & Heuer, 2010; Vartanian & Smyth, 2013).

A growing amount of research, however, undermines the validity of the first assumption—that stigmatizing heavier individuals will result in weight loss (see Hunger et al., 2015; Major et al., 2018; Puhl & Heuer, 2009; Puhl & Suh, 2015, for reviews). Exposure to weight-stigmatizing experiences, such as weight-related teasing, harassment, and discrimination, is associated with weight gain among both children and adults (e.g., Haines et al., 2006; Hunger & Tomiyama, 2014; Quick et al., 2013; Sutin & Terracciano, 2013). Exposure to weight stigma is also associated with binge eating (Durso et al., 2012) and exercise avoidance (Vartanian & Novak, 2011; Vartanian & Shaprow, 2008)—behaviors that are associated with weight gain. In addition, exposing higher body weight children and adults to weight-stigmatizing experiences, such as social exclusion (Salvy et al., 2011), stereotypical representations of heavier people in the media (Schvey et al., 2011), or news articles discussing weight-based discrimination (Major et al., 2014) causes them to eat more in a subsequent task or order higher caloric meals (Brochu & Dovidio, 2014) than those not exposed to such experiences.

A substantial amount of research also contradicts the second assumption—that a person’s weight is largely under his or her control (Mann et al., 2007; Puhl & Heuer, 2010; Tomiyama et al., 2013). It is now well established that neural, physiological, and genetic processes contribute to weight gain as well as to the difficulty of sustained weight loss (e.g., Appelhans et al., 2011). A wide variety of situational factors also influence weight gain and loss (Mann et al., 2007). Consequently, diets seldom result in significant weight loss, even under optimal conditions. Moreover, the vast majority of people who do lose weight will regain it within a few years (Franz et al., 2007).

The third assumption—that exposure to weight-stigmatizing experiences motivates people to lose weight—has received surprisingly little attention. The prevailing view among weight-stigma scholars is that weight stigma de-motivates people to lose weight (Puhl & Heuer, 2010; Vartanian & Smyth, 2013). This perspective is supported by surveys in which higher body weight individuals reported being more likely to overeat and avoid dieting than to go on a diet in response to experiences of weight stigma (Myers & Rosen, 1999; Puhl & Brownell, 2006). The correlational design of these studies, however, limits inferences about the causal effects of weight stigma on motivation. Another study using ecological momentary assessment to track daily experiences with weight stigma found that people reported decreased motivation to diet, exercise, and lose weight on days they experienced weight stigma (Vartanian et al., 2018). This study, however, did not include assessments of motivation to lose weight outside of weight-stigmatizing experiences (e.g., during random signals); thus, participants who reported less motivation to lose weight on days they experienced weight stigma might also report less motivation to lose weight in their daily life, independent of their stigma experiences.

Some scholars also interpret the finding that people consume more calories and report decreased intention to exercise in public after experiencing weight stigma as evidence that exposure to weight stigma de-motivates people to lose weight (Puhl & Heuer, 2010; Vartanian & Smyth, 2013). We believe, however, that it is crucial to differentiate the effect of weight stigma on people’s motivation to lose weight from its effect on their perceived capacity for self-control over their weight. Experiencing weight-based stigma and discrimination is physiologically stressful, increasing blood pressure (Major et al., 2012) and production of cortisol (Schvey et al., 2014; Tomiyama et al., 2014). It also evokes negative emotions, including shame and guilt (Blodorn et al., 2016; Hatzenbuehler et al., 2009; Himmelstein et al., 2015), and leads to concern about future stigmatization (Blodorn et al., 2016; Hunger et al., 2018; Hunger & Major, 2015). The stress and negative emotions induced by weight stigma can stimulate a drive for high-sugar and high-fat foods, a behavior colloquially known as “comfort eating” (Tomiyama, 2014). Furthermore, weight-stigma exposure can cause higher body weight individuals to perform more poorly on tests of executive functioning necessary for self-control (Major et al., 2012). An increased drive for “comfort foods” and reduced capacity to exercise self-control over eating such foods, however, are distinct from a lack of motivation to lose weight.

Stigma Avoidance

We theorize that exposure to weight-stigmatizing events and messages not only increases stress and negative affect but also motivation to escape or avoid future stigmatization (Goffman, 1963; Hunger et al., 2015). Some devalued identities, such as race or gender, are group identities with which people are often strongly and positively identified. Heavier individuals, however, typically do not embrace their weight as central part of their self-image (Crandall, 1994; Shapiro, 2011). One way people cope with stress and negative emotions elicited by stigmatization, particularly on the basis of an undesired identity which they perceive has permeable boundaries, is to try to escape or exit that group (Goffman, 1963; Tajfel & Turner, 1985). For example, people with a stutter, who smoke, who are poor, or who have a disfiguring scar may seek to avoid or escape stigma by undergoing speech therapy, quitting smoking, pursuing higher education, or undergoing plastic surgery. Likewise, if having a higher body weight is perceived to be a cause of stigma, exposure to weight stigma may motivate people to lose weight—or stay thin—to escape or avoid stigmatization.

Several lines of evidence are consistent with the argument that exposure to stigma increases rather than decreases motivation to lose weight or stay thin in an effort to escape or avoid stigma. Among adolescents, weight-related teasing is associated with unhealthy weight control behaviors such as dieting, skipping meals, and taking diet pills (Haines et al., 2006; Hunger & Tomiyama, 2018; Neumark-Sztainer et al., 2002). In a large nationally representative survey, the more people reported experiencing weight stigma, the more they reported using diet pills, starving themselves, or vomiting to try to lose weight (Himmelstein et al., 2018). As noted above, weight-based stigma and discrimination are also associated with reports of greater motivation to avoid exercising in public (e.g., Vartanian & Shaprow, 2008). We believe that, rather than reflecting a lack of motivation to lose weight, this finding may instead reflect a desire to avoid further stigmatization. Items on the scale used to measure exercise avoidance in response to weight stigma included “I avoid going out in public places because I am afraid that people will make comments about my size,” and “I avoid going to the gym when I know there will be a lot of thin people there” (Vartanian & Shaprow, 2008). Higher weight individuals often encounter or anticipate weight stigma in highly evaluative contexts such as exercising in public. A qualitative study of the experiences of heavier adults found that nearly half were unwilling to participate in exercise because they expected that people would “laugh at,” “ridicule,” “stare at,” or “abuse” them (Lewis et al., 2011).

In sum, we propose that exposure to weight stigma increases, rather than decreases, motivation to lose weight. This, in turn, increases people’s willingness to engage in weight-loss behaviors such as restrictive dieting. Contrary to popular belief, however, restrictive dieting seldom results in weight loss, and often results in long-term weight gain (Mann et al., 2007; Tomiyama et al., 2013). More importantly, efforts to control weight through restrictive eating behaviors such as taking diet pills or vomiting are also unhealthy coping responses that can have serious negative consequences for health and well-being (Herpertz-Dahlmann et al., 2008; Kärkkäinen et al., 2018; Nagata et al 2018; Wade et al., 2012).

We propose that exposure to weight stigma simultaneously decreases self-control, which impairs people’s capacity to control their weight. This is consistent with experimental evidence that exposure to weight stigma led heavier women to perform more poorly on a test of executive functioning (Major et al., 2012), feel less self-efficacy for controlling their eating (Major et al., 2014), and consume more calories in the presence of snack foods (Major et al., 2014). We suggest that the finding that heavier adults and children eat more snack food or consume more calories after exposure to weight stigma reflects decreased self-control (e.g., Major et al., 2014; Salvy et al., 2011; Schvey et al., 2011) rather than decreased weight-loss motivation. Concerns about experiencing weight stigma engender stress and negative emotions, which hinder people’s ability to effectively self-regulate their food intake and enact positive health behaviors.

Current Research

Three studies tested elements of our hypothesized model. Study 1 used a correlational design to test the prediction that the more frequently people report having experienced weight-based discrimination in the past, the more concerned they are about encountering weight stigma in the future, which, in turn, is associated with increased motivation to lose weight yet decreased perceived capacity for weight control. Study 2 used an experimental design to manipulate weight-stigma exposure and added measures of weight-related behavioral intentions and feelings of self-control. We predicted that exposure to messages that stigmatize higher weight would increase concerns about being a target of weight-based stigmatization, which in turn would increase motivation to lose weight and, as a consequence, willingness to engage in unhealthy weight control behaviors. However, we hypothesized that increased concerns about being a target of weight stigma would simultaneously undermine feelings of self-control, which in turn would reduce perceived capacity to control one’s weight. Study 3 provided a full test of our model, replicating and extending Study 2 by directly measuring motivation to avoid stigma and negative affect as mediators of increased weight-loss motivation and reduced self-control, respectively.

Study 1

Method

Participants

A total of 527 individuals participated in Study 1 through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk in exchange for 50 cents. After completing measures of interest (see below), participants completed demographic measures, reported their height and weight (used to calculate self-reported BMI), and rated their self-perceived weight on a 7-point scale (1 = very underweight, 4 = average weight, 7 = very overweight). Prior to data analyses, we omitted 39 participants who failed to pass attention checks as well as three who did not provide their height and/or weight. This resulted in a final sample size of 485 (18–77 years old, M = 35.10, SD = 11.57; 53.0% male; 77.7% White/European American, 6.8% Asian/Asian American, 5.6% Latino/a or Hispanic, 4.5% Black/African American, 5.3% Other). Post hoc power analysis using Monte Carlo simulations (Schoemann et al., 2017) indicated that this sample size had excellent power (>.99) to detect the hypothesized indirect effects tested below. Participants’ BMI ranged from 15.87 to 65.22 (M = 26.76, SD = 6.86). According to World Health Organization classifications, 3.3% of the sample was “underweight” (BMI < 18.5), 45.8% was “normal weight” (18.5 ≥ BMI < 25), 28.9% was “overweight” (25 ≥ BMI < 30), and 22.1% was “obese” (BMI ≥ 30).¹ Self-perceived weight ranged from 1 (very underweight) to 7 (very overweight), M = 4.75, SD = 1.14, and was positively correlated with BMI (r = .75, p < .001).

Procedure

Upon providing consent, participants completed the key measures of interest, followed by the demographic and height/weight measures. Participants were then told the study purpose and compensated. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of California, Santa Barbara.

Measures

Experienced weight discrimination

Eight items, adapted from the Everyday Discrimination Scale (Williams et al., 1997), assessed the frequency with which participants had experienced weight-based discrimination (α = .95). Participants indicated how often they had experienced eight different types of interpersonal discrimination (e.g., “You are treated with less respect than other people”; “People act as though you are unattractive or romantically unappealing”) in their day-to-day life “because of your weight.” Each event was rated on a 7-point scale (0 = never, 1 = less than once a year, 2 = a few times a year, 3 = a few times a month, 4 = at least once a week, 5 = almost every day, 6 = daily).

Weight-stigma concerns

Five items developed by Hunger and Major (2015) assessed concerns about future weight-based mistreatment and devaluation (α = .97). Participants rated their agreement with items such as “I am afraid that others will reject me because of my weight” and “I am concerned that I will not be treated fairly by others because of my weight” on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree).

Motivation to lose weight

We assessed motivation to lose weight with three items created for this study (α = .92). Participants rated their agreement with the items “I am motivated to lose weight”; “I am motivated to be thinner”; and “I am motivated to eat less” on 7-point scales (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree).

Perceived capacity for weight control

Perceived capacity for weight control was measured with eight items (adapted from Armitage & Conner, 1999; Povey et al., 2000) assessing participants’ perceived behavioral control and self-efficacy for weight control (α = .90). Participants responded to items such as “I believe I have the ability to reach my desired weight” and “How much personal control do you feel you have over your weight?” on 7-point scales (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree and 1 = no control to 7 = complete control, respectively.

Correlations among measures are presented in Table S1 in the supplementary materials.

Results

Regression analyses

We first conducted hierarchical regression analyses in which we entered centered weight discrimination and BMI on Step 1 and the BMI × Weight Discrimination interaction on Step 2 to predict our proposed mediator (weight-stigma concerns) and outcomes (motivation to lose weight and perceived capacity for weight control). Table 1 reports results of these analyses. Women, higher BMI individuals, and people who reported experiencing more weight-based discrimination reported more weight-stigma concerns, greater motivation to lose weight, and lower perceived capacity for weight control. BMI interacted with weight discrimination to predict weight -stigma concerns (p = .036) such that the association between weight discrimination and weight-stigma concerns, although significant for both, was stronger among lower (–1 SD, BMI = 19.91) versus higher (+1 SD, BMI = 33.62) BMI individuals (β = .559, p < .001 vs. β = .439, p < .001). BMI also interacted with weight discrimination to predict weight-loss motivation such that the association was only significant among lower (–1 SD) but not higher (+1 SD) BMI individuals (β = .301, p < .001 vs. β = .001, p > .98).²

Table 1.

Study 1 Hierarchical Regression Analyses With Perceived Weight Discrimination, BMI, and Their Interaction as Predictors.

Outcome	Step 1	Predictor	β	Step 2	Predictor	β
Weight-stigma concerns	F(2, 482) = 177.93, p < .001, R² = .425	PWD	.499***	∆F(1, 481) = 4.420, p = .036, ∆R² = .005	PWD × BMI	−.086*
		BMI	.323***
Weight-loss motivation	F(2, 482) = 32.372,p < .001, R² = .118	PWD	.153***	∆F(1, 481) = 19.059,p < .001, ∆R² = .034	PWD × BMI	−.218***
		BMI	.379***
Perceived capacity for weight control	F(2, 482) = 100.414,p < .001, R² = .294	PWD	−.484***	∆F(1, 478) = 3.349,p < .068, ∆R² = .005	PWD × BMI	.068
		BMI	−.167***

Note. BMI = body mass index; PWD = perceived weight discrimination.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Tests of hypothesized model

Study 1 tested the hypothesis that experiencing stigmatization leads to greater concerns about being a target of weight stigma in the future, which in turn increases motivation to lose weight but decreases perceived capacity for weight control (see Figure 1). We separately tested the indirect effect of perceived weight discrimination (predictor) on weight-loss motivation and perceived capacity for weight control (outcomes) via weight-stigma concerns (mediator) using Hayes’s PROCESS model 4 (Hayes, 2013), controlling for participant BMI and gender.³

Figure 1.

PROCESS results from Study 1 illustrating the relationships among weight discrimination, weight-stigma concerns, motivation to lose weight, and perceived capacity for weight control, controlling for participant BMI and gender.

Results confirmed our hypothesized model. More frequent experiences of weight-based discrimination significantly predicted increased weight-stigma concerns (β = .473, b = .767, p < .001), which in turn predicted both increased motivation to lose weight (β = .542, b = .423, p < .001; standardized indirect effect = .189, SE = .026, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [.138, .242]) and decreased perceived capacity for weight control (β = −.203, b = −.137, p < .001; standardized indirect effect = −.097, SE = .025, 95% CI = [0–.149, –.052]).

Discussion

As predicted, the more often people reported experiencing weight-based discrimination in their day-to-day life, the more concerned and anxious they were about experiencing weight stigma in the future. Greater stigma concerns, in turn, were associated not only with increased motivation to lose weight but also with lower perceived capacity for weight control. Notably, these effects held whether or not we controlled for BMI or gender, factors that are themselves reliably associated with weight-stigma concerns, motivation to lose weight, and reduced perceived capacity for weight control. This illustrates that perceived discrimination and weight-stigma concerns are associated with weight-loss motivation and perceived capacity for weight control independent of gender or body weight per se.

Although Study 1 provides initial support for parts of our theorized model, its methodology does not provide causal support. To address this limitation, Study 2 used an experimental design to manipulate people’s exposure to weight-stigmatizing messages. We theorized that exposure to such messages increases weight-stigma concerns, which indirectly increases motivation to lose weight and decreases perceived capacity to do so. In addition, to investigate whether motivation to lose weight influences behavior, participants were asked how willing they would be to engage in weight-loss behaviors that are risky to health to lose weight/avoid gaining weight, such as purposely vomiting after eating. Finally, we assessed state self-control as a mechanism by which heightened weight-stigma concerns may lead to reduced perceived capacity for weight control (Sasaki & Vorauer, 2010).

Study 2

Method

Participants

A total of 403 individuals participated in Study 2 through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk in exchange for $1. Prior to data analyses, we omitted 89 participants who were smokers (indicated they smoked at least once a month or more often) and 12 who failed to pass basic attention checks, resulting in a final sample of 302 participants (18–83 years old, M = 34.99, SD = 11.36; 54.6% female; 83.1% White/European American, 5.0% Asian/Asian American, 5.3% Black/African American, 4.0% Latino/a or Hispanic, 0.7% Other). Self-reported BMI ranged from 17.43 to 53.37 (M = 27.15, SD = 6.20), with 1.7% classified as “underweight,” 42.1% as “normal weight,” 29.8% as “overweight,” and 26.5% as “obese.” Self-perceived weight (M = 4.86, SD = 1.12) was positively correlated with BMI (r = .76, p < .001). Of the 302 participants, four had missing data on key variables, and one in the weight-stigma condition and two in the control condition incorrectly identified the sentence included with the image. These were excluded from the primary analysis of our hypothesized model.

Post hoc power analysis using Monte Carlo simulations (Schoemann et al., 2017) indicated that this sample size had adequate power (.73–.93) to detect the hypothesized indirect effects tested below.

Procedure

Upon providing consent, participants were informed the study concerned how people “remember and respond to images found in health campaigns and advertisements.” They were told they would have up to 30 s to view one of several images and would then be asked to describe it. Participants were randomly assigned to condition. Participants viewed a stigmatizing image and a message indicating that, “nearly two in three people say they look down on people who are overweight” [vs. look down on people who smoke]. Sex of the person depicted in image was counterbalanced (see Supplementary Materials).

After viewing the message/image, participants were asked to describe it as accurately as possible and to rate its comprehensibility for ninth-grade students as a means of disguising the true purpose of the study. Participants then completed our key dependent measures (see below), demographic measures, and reported their height and weight, self-perceived weight, and how frequently they smoke cigarettes. Finally, participants completed a manipulation check, were provided with a debriefing form, asked for permission to use their data, and compensated. The Institutional Review Board of the University of California, Santa Barbara approved the study.

Measures

Measures assessing weight-stigma concerns (α = .97), motivation to lose weight (α = .94), and perceived capacity for weight control (α = .90) were identical to Study 1. Participants were instructed to answer all items based on their feelings at this moment.

Unhealthy weight control behaviors

Eight items created for the purpose of the study assessed participants’ willingness to engage in unhealthy weight control behaviors to lose weight or avoid gaining weight (α = .80). These included fast (go without eating) for a day or longer, purge (purposely throw-up) after eating, smoke cigarettes, and exercise beyond exhaustion, each rated on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all willing to 7 = extremely willing).

State self-control

Nine items assessed feeling a loss of self-control (α = .93; Sasaki & Vorauer, 2010). These included items such as “I feel mentally exhausted,” “My mental energy is running low,” “I feel like my willpower is gone,” and “If I were tempted by something right now, it would be very difficult to resist,” each rated on a 7-point scale (1 = not true to 7 = very true).

Manipulation check

Participants were asked to identify which of four sentences was included with the image that they saw initially: “Do you look down on people who . . . ”: “are single?” “who are overweight?” “who smoke?” or “who break traffic laws?

Results

Regression analyses

Correlations among measures are shown in Table S2 in the supplementary materials, and results of hierarchical regression analyses are shown in Table 2. As predicted, participants in the weight-stigma condition reported significantly greater weight-stigma concerns (β = .201, p < .001) than participants in the control condition. In addition, participants in the weight-stigma condition reported significantly lower perceived capacity for weight control (β = −.117, p = .031), relative to participants in the control condition. No other condition effects were significant (ps > .228). BMI significantly predicted all outcomes in the expected direction (ps < .009) with the exception of a non-significant effect for willingness to engage in unhealthy weight control behaviors (β = .022, p = .709). However, BMI did not moderate the effect of condition on any outcome variable (ps > .068).⁴

Table 2.

Study 2 Hierarchical Regression Analyses With Condition, BMI, and Their Interactions as Predictors.

Outcome	Step 1	Predictor	β	Step 2	Predictor	β
Weight-stigma concerns	F(2, 296) = 54.927,p < .001, R² = .271	Cond	.201***	∆F(1, 295) = .133,p = .716, ∆R² = .000	Condition × BMI	.027
		BMI	.479***
Weight-loss motivation	F(2, 296) = 23.039,p < .001, R² = .135	Cond	.025	∆F(1, 295) = .074,p = .786, ∆R² = .000	Condition × BMI	−.022
		BMI	.366***
Unhealthy weight control behaviors	F(2, 296) = .399,p = .672, R² = .003	Cond	.047	∆F(1, 295) = .067,p = .796, ∆R² = .000	Condition × BMI	.023
		BMI	.022
Perceived capacity for weight control	F(2, 296) = 23.282,p < .001, R² = .136	Cond	−.117*	∆F(1, 295) = .011,p = .916, ∆R² = .000	Condition × BMI	.009
		BMI	−.349***
State self-control	F(2, 296) = 4.298,p = .014, R² = .028	Cond	−.069	∆F(1, 295) = 3.330,p = .069, ∆R² = .011	Condition × BMI	−.156
		BMI	−.153**

Note. BMI = body mass index; Cond = weight stigma (1) versus control (0).

p< .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Test of hypothesized model

We conducted path analysis using the lavaan R package (Rosseel, 2012) and 5,000 bootstrapping samples to test our hypothesized model. Using manifest variables, we created a structural model, with condition specified as an exogenous variable; weight-stigma concerns, motivation to lose weight, and state self-control specified as serial mediators; willingness to engage in unhealthy weight control behavior and perceived capacity for weight control were specified as endogenous variables. As in Study 1, participant gender and BMI were controlled for.⁵ Model fit indices indicated that our model provided excellent fit to the observed data: χ²(9) = 13.480, p = .142; comparative fit index (CFI) = .988; standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = .038; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .041. The full model and path coefficients are shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Path model tested in Study 2, illustrating the impact of weight stigma on willingness to engage in unhealthy weight control behavior and perceived capacity for weight control, via weight-stigma concerns, motivation to lose weight, and state self-control, controlling for participant BMI and gender.

Path analyses revealed that participants who were exposed to weight stigma reported significantly greater weight-stigma concerns (β = .198, p < .001), relative to participants in the control condition. Greater weight-stigma concerns were associated with a significant increase in motivation to lose weight (β = .382, p < .001), which was in turn correlated with a significant increase in willingness to engage in unhealthy weight control behaviors (β = .194, p = .006). The indirect effect of exposure to weight stigma (vs. control) on willingness to engage in unhealthy weight control behaviors, via weight-stigma concerns and motivation to lose weight, was significant (β = .015, p = .030, SE = .016, 95% CI = [.009, .071]). Simultaneously, greater weight-stigma concerns were also significantly correlated with lower state self-control (β = −.409, p < .001), which was in turn associated with reduced perceived capacity for weight control (β = .234, p < .001). The indirect effect of exposure to weight stigma (vs. control) on perceived capacity for weight control, via weight-stigma concerns and state self-control, was significant (β = −.019, p = .009, SE = .018, 95% CI = [–.086, –.018]).

Discussion

Results of Study 2 replicate and extend Study 1 by showing that experimental exposure to messages that stigmatize higher weight significantly increases concerns about being a target of weight-based stigmatization, which in turn increases motivation to lose weight and, as a consequence, willingness to engage in unhealthy weight control behaviors. Simultaneously, however, concerns about being a target of weight stigma undermine feelings of self-control, which in turn reduce perceived capacity to control one’s weight. Thus, Study 2 offers evidence that encountering weight-stigmatizing messages directly heightens anticipated stigma, and that anticipated stigma has downstream implications for both heightened motivation to engage in extreme behaviors to achieve weight loss and decreased perceived capacity for weight control.

According to our theorizing, weight-stigma concerns increased motivation to lose weight because weight loss is one way of avoiding future stigma, and weight-stigma concerns reduced self-regulation because they increase negative affect and stress (Major et al., 2012, 2018). Study 3 aimed to provide a full test of our model by directly measuring motivation to avoid stigma and negative affect as additional mediators, thus replicating and extending Study 2.

Study 3

Study 3 was pre-registered on the Open Science Framework (OSF).

Method

Participants

A priori power analyses using Monte Carlo simulations (Schoemann et al., 2017) revealed that, to detect our hypothesized indirect effects, a sample size greater than 593 was required. To maximize power, and in the anticipation of participant loss due to incomplete data or failed attention checks, 1,039 participants were recruited in Study 3 through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk in exchange for $0.75. Of those, 338 participants were excluded from analyses for one or more of the following reasons: they were smokers, they failed basic attention or manipulation checks, or they did not give permission for their data to be used in analyses. In addition, three participants reported a height and weight that indicated a BMI below 11 or above 80. Such BMI values are implausible (Nakamura et al., 2013), and likely due to self-report error or indicative of a population that is beyond the scope of this study. Therefore, these participants were also excluded from analyses. This resulted in a final sample of N = 698 (18–78 years, M = 36.93, SD = 12.25; 48.4% female; 70.8% White/European American, 7.0% Asian/Asian American, 10.5% Black/African American, 7.2 % Latino/Latina/Hispanic, 0.1% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 0.4% Other). BMI calculated from self-reported height and weight ranged from 13.68 to 65.18 (M = 27.29, SD = 7.03), with 3.7% classified as “underweight,” 40.1% as “normal weight,” 28.9% as “overweight,” and 27.2% as “obese.” Self-perceived weight (M = 4.86, SD = 1.15) was positively correlated with BMI (r = .76, p < .001).

Procedure

Study 3 used the same procedure as Study 2. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of California, Santa Barbara.

Measures

The manipulation check and measures assessing weight-stigma concerns (α = .97), motivation to lose weight (α = .93), unhealthy weight control behavior (α = .81), state self-control (α = .95), and perceived capacity for weight control (α = .90) were identical to Study 2. Participants were instructed to answer all items based on their feelings at this moment.

Motivation to avoid stigma

Five items developed for this study assessed motivation to avoid stigma (α = .96), including “I am motivated to lose weight or avoid gaining weight to avoid being devalued by others because of my weight” and “I am motivated to lose weight or avoid gaining weight to avoid being teased or harassed by others because of my weight.” Participants responded to each item on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all to 7 = extremely).

Negative affect

A nine-item scale (adapted from Blodorn et al., 2016), assessed current experience of nine negative emotions: stressed, anxious, embarrassed, ashamed, confident, proud, disgusted, uncomfortable, and pleased (α = .89). Participants responded to each emotion on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all to 7 = extremely).

Results

Test of hypothesized model

Correlations among all measures are reported in Table S3 in the supplementary materials. As in Study 2, we conducted path analyses using the lavaan R package and 5,000 bootstrapping samples to test our hypothesized model. We created the same structural model as in Study 2, with two additional mediators: motivation to avoid stigma and negative affect. Participant gender and BMI were controlled for.⁶ Model fit indices indicated that our hypothesized model provided good fit to the observed data: χ²(18) = 63.439, p < .001; CFI = .980; SRMR = .034; RMSEA = .060. The full hypothesized model and path coefficients are shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Path model tested in Study 3, illustrating the impact of weight stigma on willingness to engage in unhealthy weight control behavior and perceived capacity for weight control, via weight-stigma concerns, motivation to avoid stigma, motivation to lose weight, negative affect, and state self-control, controlling for participant BMI and gender.

Path analyses supported our hypothesized model and replicated findings from Study 2. Specifically, exposure to weight stigma (vs. control) was associated with a significant increase in weight-stigma concerns (β = .089, p = .010). Greater weight-stigma concerns were significantly correlated with greater motivation to avoid stigma (β = .667, p < .001), which was in turn associated with increased motivation to lose weight (β = .655, p < .001) and subsequent willingness to engage in unhealthy weight control behaviors (β = .322, p < .001). The indirect effect of exposure to weight stigma (vs. control) on willingness to engage in unhealthy weight control behaviors, via weight-stigma concerns, motivation to avoid stigma, and motivation to lose weight, was significant (β = .012, p = .019, SE = .013, 95% CI = [.007, .058]). Simultaneously, greater weight-stigma concerns were significantly associated with heightened negative affect (β = .610, p < .001), which was in turn correlated with reduced state self-control (β = −.684, p < .001) and subsequent lower perceived capacity for weight control (β = .168, p < .001). The indirect effect of exposure to weight stigma (vs. control) on perceived capacity for weight control, via negative affect and state self-control, was significant (β = −.006, p = .044, SE = .007, 95% CI = [–.032, –.015]).

Discussion

As theorized, Study 3 showed that exposure to weight-stigmatizing (vs. control) messages indirectly led to increased willingness to engage in unhealthy weight control behaviors, via the mediators of increased weight-stigma concerns, increased motivation to avoid stigma, and increased motivation to lose weight. Simultaneously, however, exposure to weight-stigmatizing (vs. control) messages also indirectly led to reduced perceived capacity for weight control, via the mediators of increased weight-stigma concerns, increased negative affect, and reduced feelings of state self-control.

General Discussion

Fueled by concerns about the growing prevalence of obesity in the Western world, public health campaigns that implicitly or explicitly stigmatize higher body weight individuals are proliferating. Such campaigns assume that stigmatizing messages and images will motivate heavier individuals to change their eating behavior and thus will result in successful weight loss. Growing evidence indicates, however, that exposure to weight stigma results in weight gain rather than weight loss. Some scholars argue that one reason for this is that experiencing weight stigma de-motivates rather than motivates weight-loss efforts among heavier individuals. In contrast, we propose that exposure to weight stigma motivates people to lose weight or avoid gaining weight because it heightens their concern about experiencing weight stigma in the future and their desire to avoid such stigma. At the same time, we propose that the stress and negative emotions stemming from experiencing or anticipating weight stigma undermine people’s perceived (and actual) capacity to control their food intake, thereby contributing to weight gain.

Three studies provided strong support for our hypotheses. Study 1 showed that the more people had experienced weight-based discrimination in the past, the more concerned they were about being a victim of weight stigma in the future. These concerns, in turn, predicted increased motivation to lose weight as well as decreased perceived capacity for weight control. Study 2 replicated and extended these findings using an experimental design. Exposing people to messages that emphasized the social devaluation associated with obesity caused them to become more concerned about being a target of weight stigma in the future. This, in turn, increased their motivation to lose weight and, as a consequence, willingness to engage in unhealthy weight control behaviors. Simultaneously, however, increased concerns about being a target of weight stigma undermined feelings of self-control, which in turn reduced perceived capacity to control one’s weight. Study 3 provided support for our full model, illustrating that increased motivation to avoid stigma mediated the effects of exposure to weight-stigmatizing (vs. control) messages on increased motivation to lose weight and consequent willingness to engage in unhealthy weight control behaviors, and that increased negative affect mediated the effects of exposure to weight-stigmatizing (vs. control) messages on reduced feelings of state self-control and consequent reduced perceived capacity for weight control. Thus, Studies 2 and 3 offered evidence that encountering weight-stigmatizing messages directly heightens anticipated stigma, and that anticipated stigma has downstream implications for both heightened motivation to engage in extreme behaviors to achieve weight loss and decreased perceived capacity for weight control.

These studies are the first to our knowledge to show these dual and countervailing effects of weight stigma. Consistent with our claim, exposure to weight stigmatization does not decrease motivation to lose weight, but rather increases it due to a desire to avoid or escape stigma. Nonetheless, this increased motivation to lose weight is unlikely to result in actual weight loss, due to the negative downstream effects of stigma on self-regulation and perceived capacity for weight control. Furthermore, engaging in unhealthy weight-loss behaviors has been shown prospectively to lead to weight gain (Nagata et al., 2018), as well as poorer mental and physical health (Herpertz-Dahlmann et al., 2008; Kärkkäinen et al., 2018; Nagata et al., 2018; Wade et al., 2012). Thus, both motivational and self-regulatory processes resulting from weight stigmatization are likely to undermine rather than promote both weight loss and general health and well-being. Importantly, these countervailing processes of increased weight-loss motivation coupled with decreased perceived capacity for weight control may lead to a downward spiral of yo-yo dieting, self-blame, and internalized weight stigma, all of which also have negative implications for health and well-being (Major et al., 2018). Of particular concern are the implications for eating disorder risk. Maladaptive eating behavior, driven by a desire to lose weight or avoid weight gain, is a key characteristic of bulimia nervosa (BN). In addition, both BN and binge eating disorder (BED) are characterized by feelings of a loss of self-control (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Therefore, exposure to stigmatizing campaigns may increase people’s risk of developing an eating disorder, maintaining an existing disorder, or triggering a relapse.

One limitation of the current research is that we assessed the impact of stigma exposure on perceived capacity for weight control (e.g., self-efficacy, feelings of self-control) rather than actual self-regulation of behavior or a direct measure of executive functioning. As noted above, however, prior experiments have established that experiencing or anticipating weight stigma increases stress, anxiety, and negative emotions (e.g., Blodorn et al., 2016; Major et al., 2012); decreases executive resources necessary for self-regulation (Major et al., 2012); decreases perceived self-efficacy for dietary control (Major et al., 2014); and increases food consumption among individuals with heavier body weight (Major et al., 2014). The current research adds to this body of research by demonstrating that increased negative affect and reduced feelings of state self-control mediate the effects of exposure to weight stigma on reduced perceived capacity for weight control.

As would be expected, heavier individuals experienced more weight stigma, anticipated more weight-stigmatizing experiences, were more motivated to lose weight, and felt less capable of controlling their weight. Results were similar, however, whether or not we controlled for body weight or gender in tests of our model. Furthermore, neither gender nor body weight interacted with stigma exposure to predict our outcomes, with the exception that experiencing weight discrimination predicted weight-stigma concerns and motivation to lose weight more strongly among individuals with lower versus higher body weights in Study 1. While unexpected, it may be that for those with lower BMIs, exposure to weight stigma creates a “fear of fat” that motivates them to control their weight to avoid being part of the stigmatized group. The negative affect and stress that accompanies this fear, however, may undermine their feelings of self-control over their weight. Given that these interactions of stigma with BMI were unpredicted, did not emerge in Studies 2 or 3, and were of small magnitude, however, they may be of limited evidential value. Thus, we urge caution in interpreting this result until it is replicated using a well-powered, pre-registered approach. Overall, our findings suggest that the effects of experiencing weight stigmatization on concerns about being stigmatized in the future, and the downstream effects of these concerns, can be quite similar for those who are, and are not, “objectively” a higher body weight.

In sum, these studies show that experiencing or being exposed to weight stigma (enacted stigma) increases concerns about being a target of future stigma (anticipated stigma), which in turn motivates the desire to escape or avoid stigmatization. This subsequently increases motivation to lose weight, which increases people’s willingness to engage in unhealthy weight-loss behaviors. At the same time, anticipated stigma undermines perceived capacity for weight self-control by increasing negative affect and decreasing self-control, consistent with findings of past research (e.g., Major et al., 2012, 2014). Thus, despite the motivational effects of stigma, the current findings add to a growing body of research illustrating the dangers of using stigma as a health promotion tool. Efforts to lose weight through dieting, fasting, taking diet pills, vomiting, or avoiding exercise are not healthy coping responses, seldom result in long-term weight loss (Mann et al., 2007; Tomiyama et al., 2013), prospectively predict weight gain (Nagata et al., 2018), and can negatively affect health and well-being (Herpertz-Dahlmann et al., 2008; Kärkkäinen et al., 2018; Nagata et al., 2018; Wade et al., 2012). Independent of BMI, experiencing weight stigma is associated with weight gain, poorer health (Major et al., 2018; Puhl & Suh, 2015), and increased risk for mortality (Sutin et al., 2015). In addition, weight-stigmatizing images and media promote bias against heavier individuals (Brochu et al., 2014). Thus, use of weight-stigmatizing images and messages as health promotion tools is not only ineffective but also damaging to health.

Supplemental Material

Methodology_File__The_countervailing_effects_of_weight_stigma_on_weight – Supplemental material for The Countervailing Effects of Weight Stigma on Weight-Loss Motivation and Perceived Capacity for Weight Control

Supplemental material, Methodology_File__The_countervailing_effects_of_weight_stigma_on_weight for The Countervailing Effects of Weight Stigma on Weight-Loss Motivation and Perceived Capacity for Weight Control by Brenda Major, Joanne A. Rathbone, Alison Blodorn and Jeffrey M. Hunger in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

Supplemental Material

Supplementary_Materials_resubmission_final – Supplemental material for The Countervailing Effects of Weight Stigma on Weight-Loss Motivation and Perceived Capacity for Weight Control

Supplemental material, Supplementary_Materials_resubmission_final for The Countervailing Effects of Weight Stigma on Weight-Loss Motivation and Perceived Capacity for Weight Control by Brenda Major, Joanne A. Rathbone, Alison Blodorn and Jeffrey M. Hunger in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Summer West and Professor Nancy Collins for their assistance with this project.

Authors’ Note

Alison Blodorn is now affiliated with a private firm based in San Francisco, CA.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by NIH Grant 5R01HL112818 to Brenda Major and Carol Miller.

ORCID iD

Brenda Major

Notes

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Publishing.

Appelhans

B. M.

Whited

M. C.

Schneider

K. L.

Pagoto

S. L.

(2011). Time to abandon the notion of personal choice in dietary counseling for obesity? Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 111, 1130–1136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jada.2011.05.014

Armitage

C. J.

Conner

(1999). Distinguishing perceptions of control from self-efficacy: Predicting consumption of a low-fat diet using the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(1), 72–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb01375.x

Blodorn

Major

Hunger

Miller

(2016). Unpacking the psychological weight of weight stigma: A rejection expectation pathway. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 63, 69–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.12.003

Brochu

P. M.

Dovidio

J. F.

(2014). Would you like fries (380 calories) with that? Menu labeling mitigates the impact of weight-based stereotype threat on food choice. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(4), 414–421. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550613499941

Brochu

P. M.

Pearl

R. L.

Puhl

R. M.

Brownell

K. D.

(2014). Do media portrayals of obesity influence support for weight-related medical policy? Health Psychology, 33, 197–200. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032592

Callahan

(2013). Obesity: Chasing an elusive epidemic. Hastings Center Report, 43(1), 34–40. http://doi.org/10.1002/hast.114

Crandall

C. S.

(1994). Prejudice against fat people: Ideology and self-interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 882–894.

Crister

(2004). Fat land: How Americans became the fattest people in the world. Houghton-Mifflin.

10.

Durso

L. E.

Latner

J. D.

Hayashi

(2012). Perceived discrimination is associated with binge eating in a community sample of non-overweight, overweight, and obese adults. Obesity Facts, 5(6), 869–880. http://doi.org/10.1159/000345931

11.

Franz

M. J.

VanWormer

J. J.

Crain

A. L.

Boucher

J. L.

Histon

Caplan

. . . Pronk

N. P.

(2007). Weight loss outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of weight-loss clinical trials with a minimum 1-year follow-up. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 107, 1755–1767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jada.2007.07.017

12.

Goffman

(1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Simon & Schuster.

13.

Haines

Neumark-Sztainer

Eisenberg

M. E.

Hannan

P. J.

(2006). Weight teasing and disordered eating behaviors in adolescents: Longitudinal findings from Project EAT (Eating Among Teens). Pediatrics, 117(2), e209–e215. http://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2005-1242

14.

Hatzenbuehler

M. L.

Keyes

K. M.

Hasin

D. S.

(2009). Associations between perceived weight discrimination and the prevalence of psychiatric disorders in the general population. Obesity, 17(11), 2033–2039. http://doi.org/10.1038/oby.2009.131

15.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

16.

Herpertz-Dahlmann

Wille

Holling

Vloet

T. D.

Ravens-Sieberer

, & BELLA Study Group. (2008). Disordered eating behaviour and attitudes, associated psychopathology and health-related quality of life: Results of the BELLA study. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 1, 82–91.

17.

Heuer

C. A.

McClure

K. J.

Puhl

R. M.

(2011). Obesity stigma in online news: A visual content analysis. Journal of Health Communication, 16, 976–987.

18.

Himmelstein

M. S.

Incollingo Belsky

A. C.

Tomiyama

A. J.

(2015). The weight of stigma: Cortisol reactivity to manipulated weight stigma. Obesity, 23(2), 368–374. https://doi.org/10.1002/oby.20959

19.

Himmelstein

M. S.

Puhl

R. M.

Quinn

D. M.

(2018). Weight stigma and health: The mediating role of coping responses. Health Psychology, 37, 2139–2147. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000575

20.

Hunger

J. M.

Blodorn

Miller

C. T.

Major

(2018). The psychological and physiological effects of interacting with an anti-fat peer. Body Image, 27, 148–155.

21.

Hunger

J. M.

Major

(2015). Weight stigma mediates the association between BMI and self-reported health. Health Psychology, 34(2), 172–175. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000106

22.

Hunger

J. M.

Major

B. N.

Blodorn

Miller

(2015). Weighed down by stigma: How weight-based social identity threat contributes to weight gain and poor health. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 9, 255–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12172

23.

Hunger

J. M.

Tomiyama

A. J.

(2014). Weight labeling and obesity: A longitudinal study of girls aged 10 to 19 years. JAMA Pediatrics, 168(6), 579–580. http://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.122

24.

Hunger

J. M.

Tomiyama

A. J.

(2018). Weight labeling and disordered eating among adolescent girls: Longitudinal evidence from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute growth and health study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 63, 360–362.

25.

Kärkkäinen

Mustelin

Raevuori

Kaprio

Keski-Rahkonen

(2018). Do disordered eating behaviours have long-term health-related consequences? European Eating Disorders Review, 26, 22–28.

26.

Lewis

Thomas

S. L.

Blood

R. W.

Castle

Hyde

Komesaroff

P. A.

(2011). “I’m searching for solutions”: Why are obese individuals turning to the Internet for help and support with “being fat”? Health Expectations, 14(4), 339–350. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00644.x

27.

Maher

(2019). New rule: The fudge report [Television series episode]. In B. Maher (Executive producer), Real time with bill Maher. HBO.

28.

Major

Eliezer

Rieck

(2012). The psychological weight of weight stigma. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(6), 651–658. http://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611434400

29.

Major

Hunger

J. M.

Bunyan

Miller

C. T.

(2014). The ironic effects of weight stigma. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 51, 74–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.11.009

30.

Major

Tomiyama

A. J.

Hunger

J. M.

(2018). The negative and bi-directional effects of weight stigma on health. In Major

Dovidio

Link

(Eds.), Oxford handbook of stigma, discrimination and health (pp. 499–520). Oxford University Press.

31.

Mann

Tomiyama

Westling

Lew

Samuels

Chatman

(2007). Medicare’s search for effective obesity treatments: Diets are not the answer. American Psychologist, 62(3), 220–233. http://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.3.220

32.

Myers

Rosen

J. C.

(1999). Obesity stigmatization and coping: Relation to mental health symptoms, body image, and self-esteem. International Journal of Obesity, 23(3), 221–230. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijo.0800765

33.

Nagata

J. M.

Garber

A. K.

Tabler

Murray

S. B.

Vittinghoff

Bibbins-Domingo

(2018). Disordered eating behaviors and cardiometabolic risk among young adults with overweight or obesity. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 518(8), 931–941. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.22927

34.

Nakamura

Yasunaga

Shimada

Horiguchi

Matsuda

Fushimi

(2013). Body mass index and in-hospital mortality in anorexia nervosa: Data from the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination Database. Eating and Weight Disorders, 18(4), 437–439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40519-013-0051-x

35.

Neumark-Sztainer

Falkner

Story

Perry

Hannan

P. J.

Mulert

(2002). Weight-teasing among adolescents: Correlations with weight status and disordered eating behaviors. International Journal of Obesity, 26(1), 123–131. http://doi.org/10.1038=sj=ijo=0801853

36.

Ogden

C. L.

Carroll

M. D.

Kit

B. K.

Flegal

K. M.

(2014). Prevalence of childhood and adult obesity in the United States, 2011-2012. Journal of the American Medical Association, 311(8), 806–814. http://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.732

37.

Povey

Conner

Sparks

James

Shepherd

(2000). Application of the theory of planned behaviour to two dietary behaviors: Roles of perceived control and self-efficacy. British Journal of Health Psychology, 5(2), 121–139. https://doi.org/10.1348/135910700168810

38.

Puhl

R. M.

Brownell

K. D.

(2006). Confronting and coping with weight stigma: An investigation of overweight and obese adults. Obesity Journal, 14(10), 1802–1815. http://doi.org/10.1038/oby.2006.208

39.

Puhl

R. M.

Heuer

C. A.

(2009). The stigma of obesity: A review and update. Obesity Journal, 17(5), 941–964. http://doi.org/10.1038/oby.2008.636

40.

Puhl

R. M.

Heuer

C. A.

(2010). Obesity stigma: Important considerations for public health. Framing Health Matters, 100(6), 1019–1028. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.159491

41.

Puhl

R. M.

Suh

(2015). Health consequences of weight stigma: Implications for obesity prevention and treatment. Current Obesity Reports, 4(2), 182–190. http://doi.org/10.1007/s13679-015-0153-z

42.

Quick

Wall

Larson

Haines

Neumark-Sztainer

(2013). Personal, behavioral and socio-environmental predictors of overweight incidence in young adults: 10-yr longitudinal findings. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 10(1), Article 37. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-10-37

43.

Rosseel

(2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36.

44.

Salvy

S. J.

Bowker

J. C.

Nitecki

L. A.

Kluczynski

M. A.

Germeroth

L. J.

Roemmich

J. N.

(2011). Impact of simulated ostracism on overweight and normal-weight youths’ motivation to eat and food intake. Appetite, 56, 39–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2010.11.140

45.

Sasaki

S. J.

Vorauer

J. D.

(2010). Contagious resource depletion and anxiety? Spreading effects of evaluative concern and impression formation in dyadic social interaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(6), 1011–1016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.07.003

46.

Schoemann

A. M.

Boulton

A. J.

Short

S. D.

(2017). Determining power and sample size for simple and complex mediation models. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 8(4), 379–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617715068

47.

Schvey

N. A.

Puhl

R. M.

Brownell

K. D.

(2011). The impact of weight stigma on caloric consumption. Obesity, 19(10), 1957–1962. https://doi.org/10.1038/oby.2011.204

48.

Schvey

N. A.

Puhl

R. M.

Brownell

K. D.

(2014). The stress of stigma: Exploring the effect of weight stigma on cortisol reactivity. Psychosomatic Medicine, 76(2), 156–162. https://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0000000000000031

49.

Shapiro

J. R.

(2011). Different groups, different threats: A multi-threat approach to the experience of stereotype threats. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 464–480.

50.

Sutin

A. R.

Stephan

Terracciano

(2015). Weight discrimination and risk of mortality. Psychological Science, 26(11), 1803–1811. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615601103

51.

Sutin

A. R.

Terracciano

(2013). Perceived weight discrimination and obesity. PLOS ONE, 8(7), Article e70048. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0070048

52.

Tajfel

Turner

J. C.

(1985). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Worschel

Austin

W. G.

(Eds.). The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Nelson-Hall.

53.

Tomiyama

A. J.

(2014). Weight stigma is stressful: A review of evidence for the Cyclic Obesity/Weight-Based Stigma model. Appetite, 82, 8–15.

54.

Tomiyama

A. J.

Ahlstrom

Mann

(2013). Long-term effects of dieting: Is weight loss related to health? Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(12), 861–877. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12076

55.

Tomiyama

A. J.

Epel

E. S.

McClatchey

T. M.

Poelke

Kemeny

M. E.

McCoy

S. K.

Daubenmier

(2014). Associations of weight stigma with cortisol and oxidative stress independent of adiposity. Health Psychology, 33(8), 862–867. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/hea0000107

56.

Vartanian

L. R.

Novak

S. A.

(2011). Internalized societal attitudes moderate the impact of weight stigma on avoidance of exercise. Obesity, 19(4), 757–762. http://doi.org/10.1038/oby.2010.234

57.

Vartanian

L. R.

Pinkus

R. T.

Smyth

J. M.

(2018). Experiences of weight stigma in everyday life: Implications for health motivation. Stigma and Health, 3(2), 85–92. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/sah0000077

58.

Vartanian

L. R.

Shaprow

J. G.

(2008). Effects of weight stigma on exercise motivation and behavior: A preliminary investigation among college-aged females. Journal of Health Psychology, 13(1), 131–138. http://doi.org/10.1177/1359105307084318

59.

Vartanian

L. R.

Smyth

J. M.

(2013). Primum non nocere: Obesity stigma and public health. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 10(1), 49–57. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-012-9412-9

60.

Wade

T. D.

Wilksch

S. M.

Lee

(2012). A longitudinal investigation of the impact of disordered eating on young women’s quality of life. Health Psychology, 31, 352–359.

61.

Williams

D. R.

Jackson

J. S.

Anderson

N. B.

(1997). Racial differences in physical and mental health: Socio-economic status, stress and discrimination. Journal of Health Psychology, 2(3), 335–351.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.25 MB

0.18 MB