“Fat People Exercise Too!”: Perceptions and Realities of Shopping for Women’s Plus-Size Exercise Apparel

Abstract

Women, regardless of size, should have access to functional, fashionable, and affordable exercise apparel. Grounded in Lamb and Kallal’s Functional, Expressive, and Aesthetic Consumer Needs Model, we explored (a) women’s perceptions of plus-size exercise apparel and shopping experiences and (b) plus-size exercise apparel at online retailers. In Study 1, women reported their shopping behaviors, satisfaction, affect, and feedback for designer and retailers. In Study 2, availability, cost, and color variety of plus-size exercise T-shirts were documented at online retailers. Images of product models and sizing chart variations were examined. Women were generally dissatisfied with apparel-related functionality, fashionability, and cost. Plus-size exercise T-shirts at online retailers were limited in color variety and size availability and cost more than straight-size apparel. Unrealistic models and wide sizing variations appear problematic. Advocacy and action are needed to provide women with larger bodies’ equitable access to functional, expressive, aesthetic, and affordable exercise apparel.

Keywords

weight bias obesity exercise

“Depressing” shopping experiences and the frustratingly limited options available for women’s plus-size apparel shoppers have been described in numerous popular press articles (Anthony, 2019; Chan, 2017; Crockett, 2016). Indeed, women who shop for plus-size apparel experience stress when shopping, perceive a lack of availability, have difficulty finding preferred styles and colors, and face weight-related stigma (Christel, O’Donnell, & Bradley, 2016; Otieno, Harrow, & Lea-Greenwood, 2005). For women with larger bodies, shopping for exercise apparel may be particularly problematic, given the pervasive stigmatization of fatness within health and fitness milieus (Lewis et al., 2011; Schvey et al., 2017). For example, some exercise and activewear retailers, such as Lululemon, purposefully restrict the range of sizes available and use the strategy as part of their corporate branding (Thomas & Peters, 2015).

Lack of access to plus-size apparel is not too surprising, as the dominant cultural and health narrative around obesity is framed as a “war”—with large female bodies as the main enemy (O’Hara & Taylor, 2018; Welsh, 2011). However, women with larger bodies are active, and many of their needs seem to go unmet. For example, Christel, O’Donnell, and Bradley (2016), in a qualitative study, found that women reported wearing men’s clothing (e.g., T-shirts, shorts) for exercising because of a perceived lack of choice and availability of suitable women’s exercise apparel. Moreover, individuals with larger bodies reported feeling stigmatized by the lack of plus-size exercise clothing and believed that the lack of availability was a direct reflection of the social unacceptability of having a fat body (Lewis et al., 2011).

Because of limited research in this area, we took an exploratory approach to assess how women experience and perceive shopping for plus-size exercise apparel. To do so, we conducted the following two studies: Study 1 was an online survey of women who shop for plus-size exercise apparel and Study 2 was an assessment of the online marketplace for women who shop for plus-size exercise apparel. There has been debate over what sizes should be included in the plus-size category, and Size 14 is commonly used as the lower boundary for plus sizing (Christel & Dunn, 2016). For the two studies presented in this article, plus size was defined as U.S. Size 14 or larger. Our overarching goal was to explore women’s perceptions of shopping for plus-size exercise apparel and to explore one segment of the online plus-size exercise apparel marketplace. The value of exploring these topics is grounded in a desire to move toward a more socially just environment in which people of all shapes and sizes have access to apparel that supports engagement in—and facilitates accrual of the physical, social, and emotional benefits of—physical activity.

Study 1

We were interested in women’s (a) perceptions of plus-size exercise apparel, (b) affective experiences while shopping for exercise apparel, and (c) feedback to retailers and designers of exercise apparel. Lamb and Kallal’s (1992) Functional, Expressive, and Aesthetic (FEA) Consumer Needs Model guided our interest in women’s perceptions of plus-size exercise apparel function and fashion. Although developed to assess and understand the needs of consumers with disabilities, the FEA model outlines three key areas (functional needs, expressive needs, and aesthetic needs) that are relevant to the experiences and needs of women who wear plus-size apparel.

Functionality, or the aspects of apparel that impact comfort, range of motion, and fit (Lamb & Kallal, 1992), is an essential quality needed for exercise apparel, given the myriad ways in which the body moves and responds during activity (Dikareva & Andersen, 2016). Larger bodies are likely to have specific needs related to the functionality of apparel. For example, women report the need for a longer inseam on pants and shorts to accommodate for larger thighs (Christel et al., 2016). Exercise apparel fit is an issue identified by overweight youth (Reddy-Best & Harmon, 2015) as well as adults who wear plus-size clothing (Christel & O’Donnell, 2016).

Few studies on plus-size exercise apparel have been grounded in the FEA model. However, Christel and O’Donnell (2016) used the FEA model in a study of swimwear and found women were most dissatisfied with the functional attributes of plus-size swimwear, followed by the aesthetic and expressive attributes. That is, women felt that swimwear was poorly designed, uncomfortable, and did not fit well. Specifically, women indicated that swimsuits tended to move while swimming, fit in one area but not another, had poor quality material, were difficult to put on and take off, and lacked sufficient bust support. It seems reasonable that dissatisfaction with the functional aspects of exercise apparel is not limited to swimwear; however, we are not aware of other empirical, published research documenting such experiences. Thus, in this study, we were interested in exploring women’s perceptions of the functionality of plus-size exercise apparel in general.

The expressive dimension of the FEA model includes the ways in which apparel communicates wearers’ roles, values, status, and self-esteem; the aesthetic dimension refers to the fashionable nature of apparel, including the artistic nature of apparel (Lamb & Kallal, 1992). Taken together, the expressive and aesthetic aspects of apparel encompass important aspects of wearers’ experiences (Peters, 2014; Romeo & Lee, 2015). Female teens and their family members interviewed by Romeo and Lee (2015), for example, voiced frustration with the time-consuming nature of searching for fashionable clothing, and disappointment in the lack of current styles, color or print options, and popular brands. Christel and O’Donnell (2016), in their study of swimwear, also found that women were dissatisfied with the cut, style, color, and print of swimsuits available in plus sizes. Moreover, the researchers postulate that the expressive and aesthetic aspects of plus-size swimwear may influence women’s self-image and identity. For example, “real” swimmers wear a certain style of technical suit that may be unavailable or more costly in larger sizes; thus, in wearing less desirable suits, a woman’s self-perception, as well as the perceptions of others, may be impacted.

A similar case can be made for a link between exercise apparel and identity. Researchers studying exercise identity (i.e., degree to which a person holds “exerciser” as central to their self-concept; Anderson & Cychosz, 1994) and impression management, for instance, find that purposefully wearing exercise apparel is a strategy used to influence one’s presentation of self to others (Hausenblas, Brewer, & Van Raalte, 2004). Moreover, constructing an exercise identity may be associated with more positive evaluations by others (Ginis & Leary, 2006) and engagement in health-promoting behaviors such as physical activity (Hausenblas et al., 2004). Thus, not being able to express oneself as an active person via wearing exercise apparel may have negative social consequences for women with larger bodies. Limited plus-size exercise apparel constrains the extent to which women with larger bodies may be afforded the social capital that comes along with being identified as an exerciser.

In Study 1, we sought to add to previous research on plus-size apparel grounded in the FEA model (Christel & O’Donnell, 2016; Christel et al., 2016). Further, we were curious about women’s perceptions of exercise apparel cost. In a recent study on activewear, physically active women indicated that prices are too high compared to the quality, functionality, and style of the products (note: no information about participant body size or clothing size was provided; Zhou et al., 2018). Further, instances of higher prices for plus-size apparel have been highlighted in popular press news articles (Posnanski, 2014). As we were unable to find empirical data on cost differences between plus-size (Sizes 14 and larger) and straight-size (Sizes 0–12) exercise apparel, we thought it important to ask women their perceptions of the cost of plus-size exercise apparel.

As another extension of previous work, we wanted to document women’s affective experiences while shopping for exercise apparel. Based in part on anecdotal reports and previous consumer research (Laros & Steenkamp, 2005; Richins, 1997), positive (e.g., excited, satisfied, confident) and negative (e.g., frustrated, embarrassed, discouraged) emotional experiences were of interest to us. Our thinking was that women’s perceptions of plus-size exercise apparel attributes, such as function and cost, would be associated with affective shopping experiences. We felt that exploring these possible associations would lay a foundation for future researchers to look more directly at the ways in which perceptions of apparel attributes and affective shopping experiences might relate to mental health as well as physical activity engagement and experiences.

The final purpose of Study 1 was to document women’s feedback to retailers and designers of exercise apparel. We wanted to highlight the lived experiences of physically active women who wear plus-size exercise apparel by reporting, in their own words, information about what they want retailers and designers to know. Giving voice to those who live in larger bodies and navigate social, economic, and physical environments that commonly stigmatize fat bodies provides powerful insights that can be used to move toward more socially just practices in fashion and fitness domains.

Thus, the purposes of Study 1 were to explore (a) perceptions of plus-size exercise apparel, (b) affective experiences while shopping for exercise apparel, and (c) feedback to retailers and designers of exercise apparel among physically active women who wear plus-size exercise apparel, defined as U.S. Size 14 or larger.

Study 1

Method

Participants

Women aged 18 and older who reported wearing a U.S. Size 14 or larger (American Society for Testing and Materials, 2016) and engaging in physical activity two or more times per week were eligible to participate. A total of 182 women completed an online survey between March 17 and May 1, 2016. As part of a larger online study of exercise apparel and physical activity, participants completed a number of measurement items and instruments.

Procedure

Participants were recruited via multiple social media venues (e.g., Facebook, listservs). Information in social media announcements included inclusion criteria and the link and password to access the online survey. Once online, participants read an informed consent document (institutional review board approval #16.274) and, if they desired to volunteer, continued to the survey. There were no incentives for participation. The survey took approximately 15–16 min to complete.

Measurement

Demographics

Participants reported their age and race/ethnicity. Self-reported weight was initially included; however, after receiving feedback from a number of participants/potential participants indicating objection to being asked about their weight, we removed the weight-related item.

Shopping behaviors

Four descriptive items were developed by the authors to assess shopping frequency, apparel sizes purchased, whether shopping was done in stores or online, and what types of exercise apparel items were purchased.

Perceptions

Responding to 10 author-developed items, participants reported their perceptions of overall plus-size exercise apparel fashionability (1 item), functionality (1 item), and sizing accuracy (2 items), along with perceptions of in-store and online variety (2 items), cost (2 items), and size availability (2 items). To determine perceptions of how fashionable, or in-style, plus-size exercise apparel is, participants rated their perceptions from 1 (extremely unfashionable) to 5 (extremely fashionable). General exercise apparel function was defined as the extent to which clothes allow the body to move and engage in activity without restriction and was rated from 1 (extremely unfunctional) to 5 (extremely functional). General size accuracy was rated for tops (e.g., T-shirts, tank tops) and bottoms (e.g., shorts, capris), separately, from 1 (not at all accurate) to 5 (completely accurate). For variety, participants rated their perceptions on a scale from 1 (no variety) to 5 (a lot of variety) separately for shopping in-store and online. Women reported their perception of plus-size exercise apparel cost (1 = much too inexpensive, 5 = much too expensive) separately when shopping in-store and online. Plus-size exercise apparel sizing availability was rated separately for shopping in-store and online from 1 (extremely difficult to find) to 5 (extremely easy to find).

Affect

Two sets of affective response items (developed by the authors) were presented to participants to assess feeling states while shopping for exercise apparel. Affective responses while shopping for exercise apparel in-store and online were reported separately on a scale from 1 (never) to 5 (all of the time) for five positive (excited, satisfied, happy, confident, and hopeful) and five negative (embarrassed, discouraged, frustrated, mad, and embarrassed) emotional states. Composite positive and negative affect scores were calculated by averaging participants’ responses to the positive and negative affect items, respectively. Higher scores reflect more frequent affective experience and lower scores reflect less frequent affective experience. Cronbach’s αs were acceptable in this sample (α = .79 positive in-store, .76 negative in-store, .90 positive online, .83 negative online).

Feedback

Participants completed three open-ended items pertaining to feedback they would like to give to brick-and-mortar retailers, online retailers, and designers/manufacturers to better meet the needs of larger individuals shopping for exercise clothing. The prompt for each item was “What would you like [brick and mortar stores/online retailers/clothing designers and manufacturers] to know about how to better meet the needs of larger individuals shopping for exercise clothing?”

Analyses

Descriptive statistics were calculated to reflect participants’ perceptions of apparel function, fashion, and cost, as well as affective states. Pearson correlations between composite affective experiences (e.g., positive and negative) and perceptions of apparel attributes were calculated.

ATLAS.ti (version 8) was used to manage the data and data analysis process for responses to open-ended questions. We used a conventional content analysis (Lindlof & Taylor, 2011) and developed a codebook reflecting concepts that emerged during analyses. A grounded theory approach guided the open coding (i.e., identifying like concepts and ideas) and axial coding (i.e., organizing ideas identified during open coding; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Specifically, a three-person coding team (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005) analyzed responses to open-ended questions. Each coder independently reviewed the responses and grouped like responses together. Subsequently, two coders compared groupings, discussed disparities until consensus was reached, and developed themes describing the content of the grouped responses. The third member of the coding team reviewed the themes and confirmed alignment with her independent coding (Lindlof & Taylor, 2011; White & Marsh, 2006). For reporting purposes, responses for retailers (brick-and-mortar, online) are grouped together.

Results

The average age of participants was 40.10 years (SD = 10.54). The majority of women self-identified as Caucasian (87.9%), with multiracial as the second largest group (5.5%).

The majority of women shopped 1–3 times each month (55.9%) and were more likely to shop online than in-store (60.1%). Most women (>75%) shopped for clothing in Sizes 1X (14–16) to 3X (22–24).

Quantitative Results—Perceptions

Women were mostly unhappy with their experiences shopping for plus-size exercise apparel. Women indicated that, in general, plus-size exercise apparel was unfashionable (M = 2.72, SD = 1.11) and did not necessarily contribute to freedom of bodily movement (M = 3.13, SD = 1.17). Women felt that sizing for plus-size exercise apparel tops (M = 1.79, SD = 0..49) and bottoms (M = 1.70, SD = 0..54) was inaccurate and that it was too expensive, both in-store (M = 2.26, SD = 0..93) and online (M = 2.29, SD = 0..96). In terms of variety and size availability of plus-size exercise apparel, women felt both were limited in-store (M _variety = 2.19, SD = 0.88; M _{size availability} = 1.99, SD = 0..96) and online (M _variety = 3.17, SD = 1.16; M _{size availability} = 2.80, SD = 1.18).

Quantitative Results—Affect

Women generally did not often experience positive affect while shopping for exercise apparel in-store (M = 2.41, SD = 0..69) or online (M = 2.89, SD = 0..78). Negative affect was low online (M = 2.39, SD = 0..73) but somewhat more frequent when shopping in-store (M = 3.14, SD = 0..74). Perceptions of apparel variety, cost, size availability, fashionability, functionality, and size accuracy were correlated with women’s affective experiences while shopping (see Table 1). In general, women who had negative perceptions of shopping for exercise apparel indicated having more frequent negative affective experiences while shopping and less frequent positive affective experiences. For example, women who believed that plus-size exercise apparel size availability was insufficient also reported experiencing negative affect while shopping.

Table 1.

Correlations Between Perceptions of Apparel and Affective Experiences.

	Positive Affect		Negative Affect
Perceptions of Apparel	In-Store	Online	In-Store	Online
Variety	.37**	.25**	−.24**	−.34**
Cost	.24**	.25**	−.32**	−.29**
Size availability	.47**	.40**	−.48**	−.29**
Fashion	.36**	.43**	−.42**	−.42**
Function	.31**	.41**	−.42**	−.40**
Size accuracy
Tops	.09	.16	−.10	.01
Bottoms	.18*	.20*	−.18*	−.10

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

Qualitative Results—Feedback

When asked what they would like retailers and designers to know about better meeting the needs of larger women shopping for exercise apparel, participants’ comments centered on a common idea: “Fat people exercise too.” In our initial readings of the open-ended responses, we were struck by comments such as, “Fat people actually DO do a lot of different physical activity,” “People over Size 14 exercise,” “We love to move our bodies too,” and “We work out, we want appropriate clothes to work out in.” One woman wrote that she wanted retailers to know, “I am not ashamed of my body, I don’t want to discipline it, I just want to move it,” and she needed exercise apparel to do so. Our content analysis identified the following four emergent themes: (a) function and fashion, (b) cost, (c) size labeling and models/images, and (d) stigma.

Women wanted retailers and designers to know that they want more fashionable and functional attire, which were attributes often tied together. Women stated that they want “Something that fits correctly and is comfortable and stylish” and “We want cute clothes, but we need functional clothes.” Specific feedback regarding functionality included comments such as “Fat bodies have different needs,” “I need performance gear, not lounge outfits masquerading as fitness clothing,” and “We need technical gear too. I want sweat wicking material, tight fitting running leggings, practical swimming costumes.” Sizing was a particular issue of concern related to functionality of clothing purchased online. For example, women stated, “Make sure that your sizing is correct and is standard” and “Make accurate sizing charts.”

Also related to function and fashion, women noted that both the availability and variety of plus-size exercise apparel are lacking. Women consistently voiced frustration with what they perceive as lack of choices or options in exercise clothing. For example, women commented, “It would be nice if they offered sufficient clothing in large enough sizes. Brick-and-mortar stores basically offer nothing in my size,” “I’m lucky to find what I’m looking for, have to buy whatever I can find that will (sort of) fit,” and “I wish there was more variety. I do believe that more options would encourage more women to be active.”

Cost was a common issue identified by women; expressions of dissatisfaction with the cost of plus-size exercise apparel, as well as what some women called a “fat tax” (referring to paying to return clothing that does not fit), were common. For example, one woman wrote, “Stop charging us more and making us order online!” and others commented, “Offer free shipping and returns since you don’t often offer the clothes in the store. It’s unfair to make us pay just to try things on” and “I also HATE having to pay for the privilege of trying on your clothes (versus walking into a physical store).” Cost-related concerns were associated with the lack of availability in brick-and-mortar stores and feeling forced to shop online where sizing and fit were uncertain.

Some women provided feedback related to size labeling and models/images. For instance, women indicated dissatisfaction with the use of the term “plus size,” felt angry about the practice of keeping larger sizes separate (both in-store and online) from straight sizes, and were annoyed by the use of models and images showing apparel on smaller bodies. Several women wrote comments such as “Don’t segregate us” and “Do not separate plus-sizes. Don’t call it plus-size.” With regard to models and images, women wrote: “I would like online retailers to use photos of women that represent the sizes they are trying to sell so I know better what it will look like on my body,” “Your extremely small-bodied models with no fat rolls do not represent my body well and make it hard for me to visualize myself in your clothing,” and “Show your clothes on people who actually wear the sizes you’re selling.” Several women also commented on feeling stigmatized by retailers and pushed back with comments such as, “I AM FAT. GET THE F*** USED TO IT. I don’t consider my fat a temporary disease or condition” and “Make us mainstream…don’t treat us like second class citizens.”

Discussion

Previous researchers support the summation that there are limited clothing options for individuals who wear clothing categorized as plus size (Christel et al., 2016). Our project extends the FEA conceptual model, which theorizes that functional, expressive, and aesthetic aspects of clothing are important needs to be considered (Lamb & Kallal, 1992), by also exploring women’s perceptions of cost, as well as affective experiences while shopping online and in brick-and-mortar stores. Moreover, we built upon existing research by exploring women’s recommendations for retailers, designers, and manufacturers. Across both the quantitative and qualitative parts of Study 1, women indicated they are unhappy and frustrated with shopping for, and the characteristics of, plus-size exercise apparel. Further, women feel stigmatized and ostracized by retailers, so much so that they feel like “second class citizens” and often experience negative affective states while shopping. These results are consistent with previous, but limited, research (Christel & O’Donnell, 2016; Christel et al., 2016) in finding that women feel restricted in their freedom to shop for and wear plus-size exercise apparel.

Fashion and merchandising experts should consider not only how the needs framed within the FEA model, including functionality, expressiveness, and aesthetics, can be better met, but also other ways in which constraints on personal control over apparel (Christel et al., 2016) create broader social justice (Lee & Cubbin, 2009) and identity issues (Meadows & Bombak, 2019). As Bishop, Gruys, and Evans (2018) contend, “Unequal access to clothes that fit appears to have implications for social inequality (p. 185).” The psychological, social, and physical benefits afforded to women who are able to manage their impressions and identities as physically active individuals are not distributed equally, and access to exercise apparel for women with larger bodies may play a role.

Study 1 revealed a number of factors constraining women’s agency. One constraining factor that emerged clearly was that the majority of women did their shopping online. Although many individuals may find online shopping convenient and efficient, it seems that women who are trying to buy plus-size apparel share a different experience. This leads one to question whether shopping online is simply a personal choice or whether women feel forced to shop online in order to obtain the type of clothing desired. Inaccurate and inconsistent sizing, showing apparel on smaller models, and having to pay a “fat tax” for returning ill-fitting clothing contribute to feelings that women with larger bodies are not deserving of the privilege of being able to shop in a physical store.

Cost of plus-size clothing also constrained women shopping for exercise apparel. Beyond the social and psychological consequences of weight bias, women also experience economic ramifications. In their review, Fikkan and Rothblum (2012) document that women with large bodies experience education- and employment-related discrimination, which can impact socioeconomic status. As such, some women with larger bodies may be particularly impacted by what they perceive to be higher costs in the marketplace. Because of strong social consensus that the body is malleable and controllable, individuals with larger bodies are often assumed to be weak-willed and lazy (Puhl & Heuer, 2009), therefore deserving of any consequences that come along with having a large body (Crandall, 1994). The pertinent consequences for women who wear plus-size apparel seem to be lack of affordable, fashionable, and functional exercise apparel.

In addition to feeling dissatisfied with plus-size exercise apparel, women feel burdened by the term plus size, as it leads to physical segregation (i.e., plus-size apparel is housed separately from straight sizes in-store) and inaccurate portrayal of plus-size women online. While labeling something as plus size can create an immediate stereotype of someone with a body that deviates from society’s standard of beauty, participants also voiced that retailers and designers were not willing to provide an accurate representation of what a plus-size woman actually looks like. Several women felt that retailers advertised plus-size apparel on smaller bodies, which made it difficult for the purchaser to visualize how items might fit on her shape. This leads one to question how retailers envision appealing to the audience of women who are trying to buy plus-size apparel.

Taken together, the results from Study 1 provide a grim picture of women’s perceptions of the plus-size exercise apparel marketplace that is consistent with the pervasive social endorsement and the assumed deserved consequences of weight-related stigma. Additional research is needed to compare women’s perceptions with the plus-size apparel marketplace offerings; as such, we conducted a follow-up study to explore the online marketplace for women’s plus-size exercise apparel.

Study 2

Given the perceptions and experiences of women reported in Study 1, we conducted an analysis of five mainstream online retailers that sell women’s plus- and straight-size exercise apparel. We were curious to explore the ways in which women’s perceptions were consistent or inconsistent with evidence from the online marketplace. We chose online retailers because the majority of women in Study 1 reported that as their most common method of shopping. Specifically, we examined differences between plus- and straight-size equivalent apparel on cost, number of sizes available, and number of color options available—three things with which women in Study 1 were dissatisfied. In addition, women, in their responses to the open-ended items regarding feedback to retailers and designers, mentioned two interesting issues: not showing “real” plus-size models wearing the apparel and inconsistent sizing charts. We wanted to follow up on those issues by evaluating size charts and apparel images used by online retailers.

Method

Coding for five online retailers (Target, Old Navy, Walmart, Kohl’s, and Dick’s Sporting Goods) took place from February 27 to March 3, 2017. As confirmed in Study 1, most participants reported shopping online; therefore, only online retail sites were examined in Study 2. The criteria for inclusion in Study 2 were (a) the retail website having an option of searching for “plus-size” women’s activewear or exercise apparel and (b) the retailer selling both plus-size and straight-size clothing. In Study 1, as part of a shopping behaviors history (but not reported in this article), we asked participants in which stores they shopped. Based upon those results, we eliminated the retailers that only sold plus-size apparel (e.g., Lane Bryant, Charlotte Russe, Torrid). We also eliminated retailers that had websites structured in a way that did not allow us to do a search consistent with our procedure (e.g., JC Penney, Macy’s, Nordstrom). In addition, we added Dick’s Sporting Goods because we wanted to include a sporting goods retailer and their website enabled us to use the planned search strategy. Thus, five online retailers were selected for this exploratory study. Short-sleeved T-shirts were examined as the exercise apparel item for analysis, as this is a common item of clothing to wear while exercising.

Our search strategy included the following steps. First, for each online retailer, the number of straight- and plus-size exercise or activewear tops was recorded. Second, a search for plus-size exercise or activewear tops was conducted. Subsequently, the search was narrowed down to short-sleeved shirts only. Visual inspection of product images was used to exclude any graphic/fashion T-shirts; only short-sleeved T-shirts for exercise were included in this analysis. The number of plus-size short-sleeved shirts was recorded, along with the price of each shirt, the number of color options, and the sizes available. We then searched for the same or an equivalent shirt (defined as having the same brand and product description) in straight size, and we recorded the price, color options, and sizes available. The first author conducted the initial coding pass; a critical friend (Miles & Huberman, 1994) reviewed the codes.

In addition to examining availability, variety, and cost of plus-size short-sleeved T-shirts, we examined the product images and sizing charts. Product images of each plus-size and equivalent straight-size item (n = 62) were evaluated in comparison to the nine-silhouette Figure Rating Scale (FRS; Stunkard, Sørensen, & Schulsinger, 1983). Silhouettes range from very thin (estimated body mass index [BMI] = 18.3 kg/m²) to obese (estimated BMI = 45.4 kg/m²; Bulik et al., 2001). After completing training with nonexercise apparel images, five coders rated black and white images of the product items on the FRS figure most similar to the body shape presented in the product image. The intraclass correlation coefficient was .976. Subsequently, we examined the sizing charts for each retailer and recorded size classifications (e.g., sizes for small, medium) and bust measurements (in inches) for each size.

Analyses

Descriptive statistics were calculated to reflect availability, cost, and color variety of plus-size exercise T-shirts and to compare plus- and straight-size exercise T-shirts. Additionally, descriptive statistics were used to summarize the figure sizes of product images used to advertise plus- and straight-size equivalent exercise T-shirts as well as measurement variation across store and product sizing charts.

Results

Across the five online retailers, 45 plus-size and 513 straight-size short-sleeved exercise T-shirts were found. Plus-size shirts made up 8.77% of the total number of shirts available. The average cost of plus-size short-sleeved T-shirts was 10.7% higher than equivalent straight-size shirts (average cost of plus-size = $25.59, SD = 13.49; average cost of straight-size = $22.99, SD = 13.61). Plus-size shirts came in an average of 3.67 colors (SD = 1.50), compared to 7.33 colors (SD = 2.74) in straight-size, and an average of 2.88 size options (SD = 0..60), compared to 5.05 size options (SD = 0..68) in straight-size.

Evaluation of the apparel item photos revealed that product images of plus-size short-sleeved T-shirts were rated, on average, as 5.32 (SD =1.33) on the FRS and ranged between 2 (BMI = 19.3) and 7 (34.3), whereas straight-size shirts were rated on average 2.62 (SD = 0..93) and ranged between 1.4 (approximate BMI = 18.8) and 5.4 (approximate BMI = 28.0; note: BMI estimates are from Bulik et al., 2001).

In terms of the sizing charts, three of the retailers used one general sizing chart, one used item-/brand-specific size charts (for five different brands), and one did not provide size charts; this resulted in a total of eight size charts being analyzed. Across stores and brands, the average variation in sizes included in the straight sizes for bust measurements was 3.92 in.; the average variation in bust measurements for plus-size shirts was 7.37 in. (see Table 2). For example, across stores, sizing for bust measurement for a medium-size exercise or activewear top ranged from 35.5 in. to 38 in. (range = 2.5 in.), whereas bust measurements for a 2X top ranged from 45.5 in. to 52 in. (range = 7.5 in.).

Table 2.

Variation in Sizing Charts for Women’s Shirts.

	Bust Measurement in Inches
Perceptions of Apparel	Smallest	Largest	Range	Variety of Size Equivalents
XS	29.5	34.5	5	Sizes 0 and 2 (eight charts)
S	32.5	35.5	3	Sizes 4 and 6 (eight charts)
M	35.5	38	2.5	Sizes 8 and 10 (eight charts)
L	38	41	3	Sizes 12 and 14 (seven charts) Sizes 10 and 12 (one chart)
XL	40	44.5	4.5	Sizes 16 and 18 (seven charts) Size 14 (one chart)
XXL	43	48.5	5.5	Size 20 (three charts) Sizes 20 and 22 (two charts) Size 16 (one chart) Sizes 18 and 20 (one chart)
1X	42	49	7	Sizes 16 and 18 (three charts) Size 16 (two charts) Sizes 14 and 16 (two charts)
2X	44.5	52	7.5	Sizes 20 and 22 (four charts) Sizes 18 and 20 (three charts)
3X	48.5	55.5	7	Sizes 24 and 26 (four charts) Sizes 22 and 24 (three charts)
4X	52.5	60.5	8	Sizes 28 and 30 (two charts) Sizes 26 and 28 (one chart)

Discussion

In light of our findings from Study 1, the purpose of Study 2 was to gain insight into cost, size discrepancies, and availability of exercise apparel that might be a basis for widespread frustration among women attempting to purchase plus-size exercise apparel. The exploratory market analysis in Study 2 provides evidence to support women’s reports in Study 1. Limited choices and higher costs of plus-size exercise apparel, in comparison to straight size apparel, contribute to a socially unjust and discriminatory retail environment. Cost disparities for plus-size apparel are often rationalized by the argument that extra fabric and more complex design and manufacturing are needed, yet not everyone agrees that these rationalizations actually justify the price differences between plus-size and straight-size apparel (Yeginsu, 2018).

Previous researchers have documented that fashion design and merchandising students (Christel, 2014; Rudd, Harmon, Heiss, & Buckworth, 2015) hold antifat attitudes and negative stereotypes similar to those in the general population (Puhl & Heuer, 2009). Moreover, like other future professionals (e.g., preservice teachers, premed students; Glock, Beverborg, & Müller, 2016; Phelan et al., 2015), fashion and merchandising students’ beliefs toward individuals with large bodies (Christel, 2014; Rudd et al., 2015) are quite negative, which may contribute to the segregation and misrepresentation of plus-size apparel. Christel (2016) suspects that weight bias is an underlying mechanism for decision-making in the fashion industry as many designers and merchandisers harbor negative stereotypes toward obese individuals, finding them unattractive and inferior to thinner bodies. Thus, it appears that needs are not being met in this population because, as Gunn (2016) suggested, designers and retailers do not want curvy women wearing their clothing because they might not conform to traditional standards of beauty.

It may also be the case that designers and retailers, like society in general, believe that all women with larger bodies are trying to lose weight, and as such, there is no real need for functional, fashionable, and affordable plus-size exercise apparel. However, as one participant pointed out, fat is not necessarily considered a “temporary disease or condition” by all individuals who wear plus-size apparel. The idea that people with larger bodies exercise for reasons other than weight loss is not a belief that aligns with dominant social ideology (Robertson & Vohora, 2008). Future research is needed to further explore perceptions of physical activity motives among individuals with larger bodies and potential impacts on health behaviors, such as physical activity.

Moreover, the images of models shown wearing plus-size exercise apparel may also act as a constraint on women’s online shopping experiences. Women with larger bodies may not see representations of themselves and, in some cases, see women with thin bodies advertising plus-size apparel. Gruys (2012) suggests that the constant limitation of merchandise for obese women can lead to feelings of exclusion from the fashion world. Christel (2016) adds that the lack of body diversity in mannequins, inadequate dressing room space, and higher retail prices for plus-size apparel also contribute to feelings of being ostracized.

Variability in sizing also contributes to the challenges women face when shopping for plus-size exercise apparel. The large measurement range in plus-size apparel makes dissatisfaction with sizing and fit, and the need for return, likely. The disconnect between the reality of larger bodies and the images displayed, as well as inconsistent sizing, is not necessarily unique to the plus-size marketplace (Mullet, 2015); however, as larger bodies are consistently stigmatized in society, these issues seem even more problematic. Beyond making online shopping potentially more challenging, these practices strengthen dominant societal stigma associated with bodies deemed to be larger than is socially acceptable. Further, there may be health implications of such practices, particularly if such practices contribute to the internalization of weight-related bias (Pearl, Puhl, & Dovidio, 2015).

Limitations

There are a number of limitations that should be taken into consideration when interpreting the results of Studies 1 and 2. As the survey items for Study 1 were author-developed and limited in scope, additional work is needed to develop measures that accurately and consistently capture shoppers’ perceptions and experiences. In the future, obtaining data regarding participant location and proximity to brick-and-mortar retailers would be useful for more fully investigating access to apparel. While we limited our work to apparel specified as exercise or activewear, we recognize that people engage in physical activity in a wide range of apparel; thus, the conclusions drawn based upon the current studies can only be applied to a narrow range of apparel. In Study 2, we explored a limited number of online retailers and only examined short-sleeved T-shirts. Future researchers should evaluate a larger number of online retailers, as well as brick-and-mortar stores, and include a wider range of apparel items.

Conclusions

Institutionalized antifat bias and stereotyping appears to be reflected and reinforced in the plus-size exercise apparel marketplace. Women’s frustration and anger regarding perceived discrimination and bias are not unfounded, as we have provided initial evidence of disparate availability, cost, and variety of apparel. Clothing, in its functional, aesthetic, and expressive purposes (Lamb & Kallal, 1992), provides women an opportunity to “wear” their identity. The plus-size exercise apparel marketplace constrains the freedom of identity expression and the behaviors of women with larger bodies. As such, additional research is warranted to further document how the plus-size exercise apparel marketplace shapes women’s mental and physical health.

In looking toward the future, it is worth noting that some retailers seem to be paying attention to the voices of women who wear plus-size exercise apparel and recognize the value in taking alternative approaches to plus-size apparel (Dennis, 2018). For example, Target provides information about the garment size and height of models for some plus-size items, and Meijer began a campaign in 2016 to “integrate” plus- and straight-size garments in their brick-and-mortar stores. In addition, Nike recently added larger mannequins to their London retail store (Dixon, 2019). Such actions on the part of designers and retailers support the calls for action put forward by the participants in this study to reflect more realistic plus-size bodies and integrate plus- and straight-size apparel.

Awareness of weight bias or weight-based discrimination in the fashion industry seems to be growing (Christel, 2016). Plus-size model Emme has developed “Fashion Without Limits” (Emme Style, 2019) in conjunction with Syracuse University to provide design curricula geared toward Size 12 and larger. Additionally, popular press reports questioning cost inequities and advocating for action on cost equity (Kogan, 2018; Yeginsu, 2018) contribute to greater awareness of the need for creating socially just distributions of cost. The impact of such efforts is unknown and the effects should be evaluated; however, taking steps to create retail experiences and spaces that provide equity and respect to shoppers of all shapes and sizes seems to be a logical step to a more socially just and equitable world.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Amy Kauffung and Brett Pozolinski for their contributions to pilot work completed for this project.

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Anderson

D. F.

Cychosz

C. M.

(1994). Development of an exercise identity scale. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78, 747–751. doi:10.1177/003151259407800313

Anthony

(2019, January). Inequality in clothing stores. Utne. Retrieved from https://www.utne.com/politics/inequality-in-clothing-stores-ze0z1901zgsch

American Society for Testing and Materials. (2016). ASTM D6960/D6960M-16: Standard tables for body measurements for plus women’s figure type, size range 14W–20W. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. Retrieved from https://www-astm-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/cgi-bin/resolver.cgi?D6960D6960M-16

Bishop

Gruys

Evans

(2018). Sized out: Women, clothing size, and inequality. Gender & Society, 32, 180–203. doi:10.1177/0891243218756010

Bulik

C. M.

Wade

T. D.

Heath

A. C.

Martin

N. G.

Stunkard

A. J.

Eaves

L. J.

(2001). Relating body mass index to figural stimuli: Population-based normative data for Caucasians. International Journal of Obesity, 25, 1517–1524. doi:10.1038/sj.ijo.0801742

Chan

(2017, March 7). These major U.S. stores are the best places to shop plus-size. Glamour. Retrieved from https://www.glamour.com/story/best-stores-for-plus-size

Christel

D. A.

(2014). It’s your fault you’re fat: Judgements of responsibility and social conduct in the fashion industry. Clothing Cultures, 1, 303–320. doi:10.1386/cc.1.3.303_1

Christel

D. A.

(2016). Obesity education as an intervention to reduce weight bias in fashion students. Journal of Education and Learning, 5, 170–179. doi:10.5539/jel.v5n2p170

Christel

D. A.

Dunn

S. C.

(2016). Average American women’s clothing size: Comparing National Health and Nutritional Examination Surveys (1988–2010) to ASTM International Misses & Women’s Plus Size clothing. International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education, 10, 129–136. doi:10.1080/17543266.2016.1214291

10.

Christel

D. A.

O’Donnell

N. H.

(2016). Assessment of women’s plus-size swimwear for industry applications. Fashion Practice, 8, 257–278. doi:10.1080/17569370.2016.1215113

11.

Christel

D. A.

O’Donnell

N. H.

Bradley

L. A.

(2016). Coping by crossdressing: An exploration of exercise clothing for obese heterosexual women. Fashion and Textiles, 3, 1–19. doi:10.1186/s40691-016-0063-z

12.

Crandall

C. S.

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

13.

Crockett

(2016, September 12). I recently became “plus size.” Vox. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/2016/9/12/12863526/plus-size-womens-clothes-tim-gunn-shopping-miserable

14.

Dennis

(2018, June 26). Is retail finally getting serious about plus-size fashion? Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevendennis/2018/06/26/is-retail-finally-getting-serious-about-plus-size-fashion/#78f1863e7994

15.

Dikareva

Andersen

R. E.

(2016). Physical activity programming for clients with obesity: Considerations for exercise professionals. ACSM’s Health & Fitness Journal, 20, 21–27. doi:10.1249/FIT.0000000000000218

16.

Dixon

(2019, June 6). Nike introduces plus-size mannequins to London store. CNN. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/style/article/london-nike-mannequins-scli-intl/index.html

17.

Emme Style. (2019). Fashion without limits. Retrieved from https://www.emmestyle.com/fashion-without-limits-1

18.

Fikkan

J. L.

Rothblum

E. D.

(2012). Is fat a feminist issue? Exploring the gendered nature of weight bias. Sex Roles, 66, 575–592. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-0022-5

19.

Ginis

K. A. M.

Leary

M. R.

(2006). Single, physically active, female: The effects of information about exercise participation and body weight on perceptions of young women. Social Behavior and Personality, 34, 979–990. doi:10.2224/sbp.2006.34.8.979

20.

Glock

Beverborg

A. O. G.

Müller

B. C.

(2016). Pre-service teachers’ implicit and explicit attitudes toward obesity influence their judgments of students. Social Psychology of Education, 19, 97–115. doi:10.1007/s11218-015-9315-9

21.

Gruys

(2012). Does this make me look fat? Aesthetic labor and fat talk as emotional labor in a woman’s plus-size clothing store. Social Problems, 59, 481–500. doi:10.1525/sp.2012.59.4.481

22.

Gunn

(2016, September 8). Designers refuse to make clothes to fit American women. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/09/08/tim-gunn-designers-refuse-to-make-clothes-to-fit-american-women-its-a-disgrace/?utm_term=.7bfcaf8cb9b9

23.

Hausenblas

H. A.

Brewer

B. W.

Van Raalte

J. L.

(2004). Self-presentation and exercise. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 16, 3–18. doi:10.1080/10413200490260026

24.

Hsieh

Shannon

(2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1277–1288. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687

25.

Kogan

(2018, August 25). Walmart raises price of plus-size clothing, citing production costs. Newsweek. Retrieved from https://www.newsweek.com/walmart-canada-plus-sized-fat-tax-price-production-1090721

26.

Lamb

J. M.

Kallal

M. J.

(1992). A conceptual framework for apparel design. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 10, 42–47. doi:10.1177/0887302X9201000207

27.

Laros

F. J.

Steenkamp

J. B. E.

(2005). Emotions in consumer behavior: A hierarchical approach. Journal of Business Research, 58, 1437–1445. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.09.013

28.

Lee

R. E.

Cubbin

(2009). Striding toward social justice: The ecological milieu of physical activity. Exercise Sport Science Review, 37, 10–17. doi:10.1097/JES.0b013e318190eb2e

29.

Lewis

Thomas

S. L.

Blood

R. W.

Castle

D. J.

Hyde

Komesaroff

P. A.

(2011). How do obese individuals perceive and respond to the different types of obesity stigma that they encounter in their daily lives? A qualitative study. Social Science & Medicine, 73, 1349–1356. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.08.021

30.

Lindlof

Taylor

(2011). Qualitative communication research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

31.

Meadows

Bombak

A. E.

(2019). Yes, we can (no, you can’t): Weight stigma, exercise self-efficacy, and active fat identity development. Fat Studies, 8, 135–153. doi:10.1080/21604851.2019.1550303

32.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

(1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

33.

Mullet

K. K.

(2015). Concepts of pattern grading: Techniques for manual and computer grading. New York, NY: Bloomsbury.

34.

O’Hara

Taylor

(2018). What’s wrong with the ‘war on obesity?’ A narrative review of the weight-centered health paradigm and development of the 3C framework to build critical competency for a paradigm shift. SAGE Open, 8. doi:10.1177/2158244018772888

35.

Otieno

Harrow

Lea-Greenwood

(2005). The unhappy shopper, a retail experience: Exploring fashion, fit and affordability. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 33, 298–309. doi:10.1108/09590550510593220

36.

Pearl

R. L.

Puhl

R. M.

Dovidio

J. F.

(2015). Differential effects of weight bias experiences and internalization on exercise among women with overweight and obesity. Journal of Health Psychology, 20, 1626–1632. doi:10.1177/1359105313520338

37.

Peters

L. D.

(2014). You are what you wear: How plus-size fashion figures in fat identity formation. Fashion Theory, 18, 45–71. doi:10.2752/175174114X13788163471668

38.

Phelan

S. M.

Burgess

D. J.

Burke

S. E.

Przedworski

J. M.

Dovidio

J. F.

Hardeman

… van Ryn

(2015). Beliefs about the causes of obesity in a national sample of 4th year medical students. Patient Education and Counseling, 98, 1446–1449. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2015.06.017

39.

Posnanski

(2014, May 16). Is there a ‘fat tax’ on plus size clothing? Huffington Post. Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-posnanski/fat-tax-on-plus-size-clothing_b_5332410.html

40.

Puhl

Heuer

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

41.

Reddy-Best

K. L.

Harmon

(2015). Overweight boy’s and girl’s experiences with and perception of athletic clothing and its relationship to physical activity participation. Fashion and Textiles, 2, 23. doi:10.1186/s40691-015-0048-3

42.

Richins

M. L.

(1997). Measuring emotions in the consumption experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 127–146. doi:10.1086/209499

43.

Robertson

Vohora

(2008). Fitness vs. fatness: Implicit bias towards obesity among fitness professionals and regular exercisers. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 9, 547–557. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2007.06.002

44.

Romeo

L. D.

Lee

Y. A.

(2015). Exploring apparel purchase issues with plus-size female teens. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 19, 120–135. doi:10.1108/JFMM-02-2014-0012

45.

Rudd

N. A.

Harmon

Heiss

Buckworth

(2015). Obesity bias and body image: How do fashion and retail students compare to other personal service majors? International Journal of Fashion, Design, and Technology, 8, 30–38. doi:10.1080/17543266.2014.960482

46.

Schvey

N. A.

Sbrocco

Bakalar

J. L.

Ress

Barmine

Gorlick

… Tanofsky-Kraff

. (2017). The experience of weight stigma among gym members with overweight and obesity. Stigma and Health, 2, 292–306. doi:10.1037/sah0000062

47.

Strauss

Corbin

J. M.

(1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

48.

Stunkard

A. J.

Sørensen

Schulsinger

(1983). Use of the Danish Adoption Register for the study of obesity and thinness. Association for Research in Nervous and Mental Disease, 60, 115.

49.

Thomas

J. B.

Peters

(2015). Lululemon Athletica and a series of bad marketing decisions. Journal of Critical Incidents, 8, 102–105.

50.

Welsh

T. L.

(2011). Healthism and the bodies of women: Pleasure and discipline in the war against obesity. Journal of Feminist Scholarship, 1, 33–48. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/jfs/vol1/iss1/13

51.

White

Marsh

(2006). Content analysis: A flexible methodology. Library Trends, 55, 22–45. doi:10.1353/lib.2006.0053

52.

Yeginsu

(2018, May 16). More fabric, more money? New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/16/world/europe/new-look-fat-tax.html

53.

Zhou

Hanlon

Robertson

Spaaij

Westerbeek

Hossack

Funk

D. C.

(2018). Dress for fit: An exploration of female activewear consumption. Sport Management Review, 21, 403–415. doi:10.1016/j.smr.2017.09.001