Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Towards a sociocultural model of weight stigma

  • Brief Report
  • Published:
Eating and Weight Disorders - Studies on Anorexia, Bulimia and Obesity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Weight stigma is pervasive and is associated with numerous physical and psychological health consequences, including decreased body satisfaction. Understanding of contributing factors to weight stigma remains limited, although researchers have consistently documented the connection between weight controllability beliefs and weight stigma. Sociocultural factors, including thin-ideal internalization and related social-cognitive correlates, are in the nascent stages of exploration to further our understanding of weight stigma.

Methods

In this study, we tested an emerging sociocultural model of weight stigma, examining the influence of thin-ideal internalization and appearance-related comparisons on weight stigma, statistically controlling for weight controllability beliefs and accounting for thin-ideal environmental influences. Participants were 137 MTurk workers living in the United States.

Results

We found that increased thin-ideal information was associated with thin-ideal internalization, which in turn was related to both upward and downward appearance-related comparison tendencies. These comparisons were then significantly related to weight stigma, controlling for weight controllability beliefs. There were significant indirect effects of both upward and downward appearance-related comparison tendencies on the relation between thin-ideal internalization and weight stigma.

Conclusion

These results extend limited prior research examining the association between the thin-ideal and appearance-related comparisons with weight stigma, and contribute to a more nuanced understanding of this complex phenomenon.

Level of evidence

Level V, cross-sectional study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Data availability

Data for this study will be made available upon request. Please contact Sarah Nutter at snutter@ucalgary.ca for the data used in this study.

References

  1. Puhl RM, Heuer CA (2009) The stigma of obesity: a review and update. Obesity 17:941–964. https://doi.org/10.1038/oby.2008.636

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Carels RA, Latner J (2016) Weight stigma and eating behaviors: introduction to the special issue. Appetite 102:1–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.03.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Jendrzyca A, Warschburger P (2016) Weight stigma and eating behaviours in elementary school children: a prospective population-based study. Appetite 102:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.02.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Douglas V, Varnado-Sullivan P (2016) Weight stigmatization, internalization, and eating disorder symptoms: the role of emotion dysregulation. Stigma Health 1:166–175. https://doi.org/10.1037/sah0000029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Vartanian LR, Novak SA (2011) Internalized societal attitudes moderate the impact of weight stigma on avoidance of exercise. Obesity 19:757–762. https://doi.org/10.1038/oby.2010.234

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Alberga AS, Russell-Mayhew S, von Ranson KM, McLaren L, Ramos Salas X, Sharma AM (2016) Future research in weight bias: what next? Obesity 24:1207–1209. https://doi.org/10.1002/oby.21480

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wiener B, Perry RP, Magnusson J (1988) An attributional analysis of reactions to stigma. J Pers Soc Psychol 55:738–748. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.5.738

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Puhl RM, Latner JD, O’Brien KS, Luedicke J, Danielsdottir S, Forhan M (2015) A multi-national examination of weight bias: predictors of anti-fat attitudes across four countries. Int J Obes 39:1166–1173. https://doi.org/10.1038/ijo.2015.32

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Thompson JK, Heinberg LJ, Altabe M, Tantleff-Dunn S (1999) Exacting beauty: theory, assessment and treatment of body image disturbance. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC

    Book  Google Scholar 

  10. Grabe S, Ward LM, Hyde JS (2008) The role of the media in body image concerns among women: a meta-analysis of experimental and correlational studies. Psychol Bull 134:460–476. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.460

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Stice E, Gau JM, Rohde P, Shaw H (2017) Risk factors that predict future onset of each DSM-5 eating disorder: predictive specificity in high-risk adolescent females. J Ab Psychol 126:38–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Latner JD, Rosewall JK, Simmonds MB (2007) Childhood obesity stigma: association with television, videogame, and magazine exposure. Body Image 4:147–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2007.03.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Klaczynski PA, Goold KW, Mudry JJ (2004) Culture, obesity stereotypes, self-esteem, and the “thin ideal”: a social identity perspective. J Youth Adolesc 33:307–317. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOYO.0000032639.71472.19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Festinger L (1954) A theory of social comparison processes. Hum Relat 7:117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Fitzsimmons-Craft EE, Bardone-Cone AM, Crosby RD, Engel SG, Wonderlich SA, Bulik CM (2016) Mediators of the relationship between thin-ideal internalization and body dissatisfaction in the natural environment. Body Image 18:113–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2016.06.006

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Saunders JF, Eaton AA (2018) Snaps, selfies, and shares: how social media use contributes to the sociocultural model of disordered eating among young women. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw 21:343–354. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2017.0713

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ramirez JC, Milan S (2016) Perceived size of friends and weight evaluation among low-income adolescents. J Behav Med 39:334–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-015-9682-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. O’Brien KS, Caputi P, Minto R, Peoples G, Hooper C, Kell S, Sawley E (2009) Upward and downward physical appearance comparisons: development of scales and examination of predictive qualities. Body Image 6:201–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2009.03.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Rodgers RF (2016) The role of the “healthy weight” discourse in body image and eating concerns: an extension of sociocultural theory. Eat Behav 22:194–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2016.06.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Buhrmester M, Kwang T, Gosling SD (2016) Amazon’s mechanical Turk: a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data? In: Kazdin AE (ed) Methodological issues and strategies in clinical research. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp 133–139

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Thompson JK, van den Berg P, Roehrig M, Guarda AS, Heinberg LJ (2004) The sociocultural attitudes towards appearance scale-3 (SATAQ-3): development and validation. Int J Eat Dis 35:293–304. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.10257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Schaefer LM, Burke NL, Thompson JK et al (2015) Development and validation of the sociocultural attitudes towards appearance questionnaire-4 (SATAQ-4). Psychol Assess 27:54–67. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037917

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Allison DB, Basile VC, Yuker HE (1991) The measurement of attitudes and beliefs about obese persons. Int J Eat Dis 10:599–607. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-108X(199109)10:5%3c599:AID-EAT2260100512%3e3.0.CO;2-%23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hu L, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model 6:1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Browne MW, Cudeck R (1993) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Soc Methods Res 154:136–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Byrne BM (1998) Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL, PRELIS and SIMPLIS: basic concepts, applications and programming. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah

    Google Scholar 

  27. MacKinnon DP, Lockwood CM, Hoffman JM, West SG, Sheets V (2002) A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychol Methods 7:83–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.83

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Himes SM, Thompson JK (2007) Fat stigmatization in television shows and movies: a content analysis. Obesity 15:712–718. https://doi.org/10.1038/oby.2007.635

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Aruguete MS, Huynh H, Browne BL, Jurs B, Flint E, McCutcheon LE (2019) How serious is the ‘carelessness’ problem on mechanical Turk? Int J Soc Res Methodol 22:441–449. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2018.1563966

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

There is no funding to report for this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Counselling Psychology, Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, EDT 114, 2500 University Dr. NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada

    Sarah Nutter, Shelly Russell-Mayhew & Jessica F. Saunders

Authors
  1. Sarah Nutter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shelly Russell-Mayhew
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jessica F. Saunders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah Nutter.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Ethical approval

Approval for human research was obtained by the University of Calgary’s Conjoint Faculties Research Ethics Board (CFREB).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in this study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nutter, S., Russell-Mayhew, S. & Saunders, J.F. Towards a sociocultural model of weight stigma. Eat Weight Disord 26, 999–1005 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40519-020-00931-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40519-020-00931-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation