Weight Stigma And Eating Behaviour Flashcards

1
Q

What is weight stigma?

A

The negative attitudes held towards people who are overweight or obese and any subsequent prejudice and discrimination

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Obesity in the UK in 2015

A

2/3 UK adults OW or OB
1 in 5 children in reception are OW or OB
1 in 3 children in year 6 are OW or OB

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Puhl & Heuer (2009)

A

Strong negative attitudes towards people who are OW/OB
They are lazy, unintelligent, lack willpower and motivation
Prevalent in relationships, education, workplace, health services and media

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Puhl, Andreyeva & Brownell (2008)

A

Weight stigma is second most common form of discrimination reported in women

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Harrison et al (2016) weight stigma in children friends

A

Children in year 1
Read one of three books about Alfie and Thomas - Alfie is either OW/disabled or normal weight
Asked who they would rather be friends with
And give them attributes such as who has the most friends

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Harrison et al (2016) weight stigma in children friends -results

A

When Alfie was normal weight, ratings between Alfie and Thomas did not differ and were equally chosen to be friends with
When Alfie was OW, he was rated as being less likely to win a race and as having fewer friends than Thomas and 42/43 chose to be friends with Thomas over Alfie

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Cramer & Steinweight (1998) when do children start to discriminate?

A

Children of 3, 4 and 5 read a story
Jenny and Susan were building a sandcastle, Jenny said she likes Susan’s castle, Susan replies that she thinks Jenny’s castle is ugly
Asked which character was the mean one out of thin/OW/average, and asked to pair positive and negative attributes to the characters

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Cramer & Steinweight (1998) when do children start to discriminate? - Results

A

OW character selected more than average and thin character as the mean person
As age increased from 3 - 4, there were more negative attributes and fewer positive attributes paired with the OW character
3 is the youngest that this weight stigma has been detected

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Impact of weight stigma on children - teasing and bullying (Puhl, Peterson & Luedicke, 2013)

A

71% boys enrolled in weight loss programme reported being bullied

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Impact of weight stigma on children - psychological health

A

Weight related teasing predicted lower self-esteem, lower body image and higher depressive symptoms, independent of BMI (Eisenberg et al, 2006)

Those weight-teased were 2 x more likely to think about a suicide attempt compared to those who were not (Eaton et al, 2005)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Impact of weight stigma on children - academic performance

A

Avoid school more (Puhl et al 2011)

Teachers rated heavier children’s academic performance to be worse than their results showed (Zavodny, 2013)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Giel et al (2010) - People who are OW or OB are…

A

Less likely to be offered jobs
Less likely to have managerial or professional roles
Less well paid (when controlling for education)
Are less likely to be promoted
Women are more affected than men

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Nickson et al (2016) - workplace bias

A

Asked to assume they are a recruiter and need to hire someone for a customer or non-customer facing role
Told that all candidates hold the same skills and experience
Morphed faces to have non-OW or OW faces

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Nickson et al (2016) - workplace bias - results

A

Non-customer facing roles, no differences in the hire ability of OW/non-OW

Customer-facing roles - ppts more likely to choose the non-OW person
Effect greater for females

Small changes in BMI affect hireability in customer facing roles

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Phelan et al (2015) - health care environment

A

Blood pressure cuffs might be too small
Weighing scales and waiting room chairs may be too small
Can lead to unintended humiliation of ppts

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Davis-Coelho et al (2000) - bias in psychologists

A

Psychologists rated OW patients as less likely to be compliant, expected to have more severe psychological problems and predicted a worse prognosis

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Sabin, Marini & Nosek (2012) - health care bias

A

Strong implicit and explicit anti-fat bias in health care professionals even in HCPs who themselves are obese

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Schwartz et al (2003) - explicit or implicit attitudes in health care

A

389 professionals who worked in obesity research or worked with OB people
Explicit attitudes and beliefs measured
Implicit association task used to measure implicit attitudes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Schwartz et al (2003) - explicit or implicit attitudes in health care - results

A

Explicit attitudes - OB rated as more lazy, stupid and worthless

Implicit attitudes - Significant implicit anti-fat bias
More likely to pair OW with negative attributes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Impact of weight stigma on health

A

Increased cortisol and BP (Puhl & Suh, 2015)

Avoid and delay using health care services (Mitchell et al, 2008)
Was due to negative weight-related experiences (Amy et al (2006)

Less likely to recall advice and follow instructions (Gudzune et al, 2013)

OW/OB patients are less likely to see weight loss support if they perceive judgement (Gudzune et al (2014)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

People tend to believe that if they fat shame people….

A

It will motivate them to lose weight

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Weight stigma can negatively impact

A

Food intake
Physical activity
Engagement in weight loss attempts

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Schvey et al (2011) - stigmatising video

A

OW/ non-OW participants
Watched stigmatising or neutral video
Then provided with snacks and food intake was measured

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Schvey et al (2011) - stigmatising video - results

A

Intake was 3x greater in the OW women in stigma condition compared to neutral

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Gudzine et al (2014) - weight stigma on weight loss attempts

A

Online survey with 600 participants
Rated extent to which they believed their GP negatively judged their weight
Asked them how many times they have engaged in a weight loss attempt in the past year

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Gudzine et al (2014) - weight stigma on weight loss attempts - results

A

Less weight loss attempts in ppts who perceived GP to negatively judge them
No differences in the actual weight loss observed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Causes of obesity

A
Social influences 
Individual psychology 
Food production 
Food consumption 
Biology 
Individual activity 
Activity environment 

Complex interaction of a multitude of factors

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Puhl & Brownwell, 2009 - attribution of blame to individual

A

Weight stigma occurs because blame is attributed to the individual
People who are OW or OB are perceived to be lazy and undisciplined
Belief persists despite the fact that the majority of the UK are OW or OB

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

DeJong (1993) - shifting of attributions

A

Watched video of woman who was overweight or normal weight
Half told she was overweight due to glandular disorder, others told nothing
Rated the woman on attributes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

DeJong (1993) - shifting of attributions - results

A

Internal attribution - OW woman rated as more self-indulgent and less disciplined

External attribution - ratings did not differ between OW and normal weight woman

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Pont, Puhl, Cook & Slusser (2017) - education and training

A

Educate health care professionals about causes of obesity
Make people aware of biases (IAT)
Used patient-centred, empathetic behaviour change approaches
Create safe and non-stigmatising environments in education and health care settings

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Kushner et al (2014) - medical students

A

First year medical students
Explicit attitudes assessed before training
Training involved role playing with overweight patients and feedback
Practiced 4-6 times
Assessed explicit attitudes again

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Kushner et al (2014) - medical students -results

A

Negative stereotypes significantly reduced from baseline to post-training

At 1 year follow up these had diminished

Regular training required

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Crossman et al (2018) - dog study

A

Ppts viewed photo of overweight person with a dog, plant or nothing
Rated attitudes towards people who were overweight

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Why use a dog in the study?

A

Dogs seen as positive so may lead to halo effect

Counter perceptions that OW people are lazy as they need to take the dog for a walk

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Crossman et al (2018) - dog study results

A

No effect of dog on attitudes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Kyle & Puhl, 2014 - people first language

A

Avoids discrimination to people who are OW and OB
People with obesity rather than obese people
Avoids labelling people by their disease which can reinforce stigma
Google Scholar search - majority of studies use disease first language not people first (opposite to other health conditions)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Social facilitation of eating

A

When people eat in groups, they tend to eat more than when they eat alone

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

de Castro & de Castro (1989) - social facilitation

A

Asked participants to record a food diary of what types of food, how much and who they’re with
As the number of people increased, food intake increased
Meals eaten with others were 44% greater than when eating alone

40
Q

Social correlation

A

As the number of people increased, food intake increased

41
Q

Limitations with de Castro and de Castro (1989)

A

Self-report, may not be true
Alcohol intake could be causing the extra eating
Tend to eat with friends and family

42
Q

Clendenen, Herman & Polivy (1994) - social facilitation experimental evidence

A

Students allocated to either solo eating, eating in pairs or eating in groups of 4
Also had some groups with people they knew and some with people they didn’t know
Provided with savoury and sweet snacks

43
Q

Clendenen, Herman & Polivy (1994) - social facilitation experimental evidence results

A

When eating in pairs or a group compared to solo eating, significantly greater food intake
No difference between pairs or 4s
Doesn’t support social correlation
Intake does increase in the friend group from pairs to 4s
Effect was greater with friends than with strangers

44
Q

Time extension theory - de Castro (1995)

A

Meals take longer in groups
More food cue exposure
Greater intake

45
Q

Arousal theory - Zajonc (1965)

A

Groups leads to physiological arousal
Activate hunger?
Unlikely as arousal can also suppress appetite

46
Q

Distraction theory - Bellisle (2001)

A

Not monitoring intake due to being distracted

Reduced awareness of being full

47
Q

Modelling social others

A

The amount that social others are eating impacts the amount of food that we eat

48
Q

Nisbett & Storms (1974)

A

When confederate eats large amounts, participants eat more

49
Q

Conger et al (1980)

A

When a confederate eats small amounts, participants eat less

50
Q

Attractive confederate affect intake - Pliner & Chaiken (1990)

A

Participants ate crackers with a male or female confederate
Women increased their intake when with unattractive male compared to attractive
Male there is no significant difference
Males and females ate less food when with opposite sex

51
Q

Self-presentation/impression formation

A

Want to behave in a way that goes with our identity (small amounts of food to look feminine)

52
Q

Descriptive social norms

A

Perceptions about what other people tend to do

53
Q

Injunctive social norm

A

Perception of what others approve of

54
Q

Perceived social norms

A

Refer to what we believe most other people do or approve of

55
Q

Robinson, Fleming & Higgs (2014) - descriptive norms and vegetable intake

A

77 UG students
Allocated to descriptive norm or health message
Looked at vegetable intake at lunch

56
Q

Robinson, Fleming & Higgs (2014) - descriptive norms and vegetable intake resulting

A

Descriptive norms increased vegetable intake for low vegetable consumers
Did not affect already high vegetable consumers

57
Q

Thomas et al (2017) - restaurant study

A

Placed descriptive norm in 3 restaurants for 2 weeks
‘Most people here choose to eat vegetables with their lunch’
Outcomes = meals with vs without vegetables, pre-, during and post- intervention

58
Q

Thomas et al (2017) - restaurant study - results

A

Significant increase in purchase of vegetables pre- and post- intervention

59
Q

Thomas et al (2017) - restaurant study limitations

A

Not intake based but sales based
Wastage was not recorded
Don’t know what their vegetable intake was before

60
Q

Stok et al (2014) - injunctive norms and eating behaviour

A

Highschoolers were allocated to descriptive, injunctive or control message
Self-report of fruit intake over 2 days

61
Q

Stok et al (2014) - injunctive norms and eating behaviour results

A

Injunctive norm had no effect on fruit intake compared to control

62
Q

Dynamic social norms

A

Information about how other people’s behaviour is changing over time

63
Q

Sparkman & Walton (2017) - dynamic social norms

A

Online survey
Static norm
Dynamic norm ‘in recent years…’
Asked how interested they are in decreasing their most intake

64
Q

Sparkman & Walton (2017) - dynamic social norms - results

A

Greater interest to reduce meat intake in the dynamic vs static condition
Remained significant when controlling for gender
Does interest translate into behaviour?

65
Q

Explanation of why social norms work

A

Inform people about appropriate portion size (Robinson et al, 2015)

66
Q

Limitations of social norms

A

Durability

Largely lab based - sets up uncertain situation, demand characteristics

67
Q

Vartanian et al (2015) - limitation of social norms

A

Samples mostly young females

Males may be less influenced

68
Q

High need for social acceptance (Robinson et al, 2011)

A

Low self-esteem and high empathy associated with modelling

69
Q

Body weight on social norm

A

Greater modelling if the social other is the same weight as the participant

70
Q

In vs out group

A

Undesirable outgroup norm = eating in unhealthy way = greater healthy eating in in group (Cruwys et al, 2015)

71
Q

Obesity and SES

A

UK adults and children from lower-SES are 2x more likely to become obese than those from higher-SES groups

72
Q

Darmon & Drewnowski (2008) - vegetables

A

Low-SES is associated with lower fruit and vegetable intake

73
Q

Greater intake of high fat foods in ____ SES

A

Low

74
Q

Greater screen time watching in ___ SES

A

Low

75
Q

Wardle & Griffith (2001) - SES and weight loss attempts

A

Compared to high SES groups, low SES groups…
Reported lower weight loss attempts
Engage in less body monitoring
Engage in few restrictive dietary habits
Have greater body weight misperceptions - less likely to describe themselves as overweight

76
Q

Relton et al (2014) - weight control strategies and SES

A

Survey in South Yorkshire
Higher SES group more likely to use a slimming club
Lower SES more likely to use medication

77
Q

Buckland et al (2015)

A

Per calorie, nutrient-rich foods are more expensive compared to less nutrient-rich foods
Qualitative data - high-SES didn’t mention cost at all

78
Q

Parementer et al (2000) - nutrition knowledge

A

UK women

SES impacted nutritional knowledge independent of education level

79
Q

Maguire et al (2015) - proximal environment

A

More fast food outlets in deprived areas

Exposure mean people are more likely to eat them as it is what is in their environment

80
Q

Food scarcity theory and energy regulation

A

Life-history theory (adapt to deprived environments)
Low-SES eat food when it is available
Do they eat more in the absence of hunger?

81
Q

Hill et al (2016) - food scarcity and energy regulation

A
Arrived at the lab fasted 
Allocated to sprite or water 
10 minute gap 
Given opportunity to eat as many cookies as they want 
Then assessed on their childhood SES
82
Q

Hill et al (2016) - food scarcity and energy regulation results

A

High-SES = In sprite condition they consumed significantly less calories than in water condition
Low-SES = No difference in cookie intake regardless of whether they had had the sprite or water
Replicated results across 3 separate findings

83
Q

Cardel et al (2016) - SES and stress

A

40 minute game of Monopoly
High social status = banker, start with $2000, $200 when passing go, roll twice per go
Low social status = start with $1000, $100 when passing go, roll once per go
Measured self-reported stress, heart rate via monitor
Outcome = lunch intake

84
Q

Cardel et al (2016) - SES and stress - results

A

In high SES condition - ppts felt more pride and powerfulness
Had lower heart rate
Consumed 130kcal less than low SES condition (approached but not actually significant)
Suggests low-SES experience more stress and consume more food, could be reason low-SES eat more food

85
Q

Social comparison theory

A

Compare and evaluate ourselves to others
Downward comparisons - boost self esteem, compare to those less fortunate
Upward comparisons - can be inspiring, can lead to increased drive to seek resources

86
Q

Perceived relative deprivation

A

Perceptions of SES relative to social others (upward social comparisons)

87
Q

Sim et al (2017) - PRD and portion sizes

A

Manipulated perceived wealth
Your bonus will be $850, colleagues bonus = $1500
Control = everyone gets $850
Measured desire for portion size at next meal

88
Q

Sim et al (2017) - PRD and portion sizes - results

A

Greater selected portions in relatively deprived participants compared to control, even when controlling for negative mood

89
Q

Cheon et al (2017) - PRD and food intake

A

Asked to compare themselves to either people lower than them or higher
Measured kcal consumed after this task

90
Q

Cheon et al (2017) - PRD and food intake - results

A

Those in deprived situation consumed more kcal than those in the high situation and the control

91
Q

Ego depletion theory

A

Self-regulation requires energy
Difficult decisions = energy
Less likely to make self-controlled decisions when resources have been depleted (bad day)
Low-SES have more difficult decisions throughout the day which means their resources are more depleted and therefore they have less self control
Prompts in the environment therefore take over their decisions

92
Q

Crockett et al (2014) - SES and food labels

A

Least deprived vs most deprived ppts
Weight concern - high vs low
Labels low fat vs high fat vs no label
How is popcorn consumption affected?

93
Q

Crockett et al (2014) - SES and food labels results

A

Higher-SES = calorie intake does not differ in any condition

Low-SES = those concerned about their weight, when there is no label they consume more food compared to when there is a high or low fat label

94
Q

Issues researchers have with SES research

A

Participants are hard to recruit

95
Q

Ahern et al (2014) - recruitment issues

A

Invitations sent by GPs in UK to patients with BMI > 28
Asked to take part in a weight loss programme (Weight Watchers)
SES assessed using postcodes
Patients in least deprived areas are more likely to enrol (8.5% vs 4.9%)

96
Q

Chinn et al (2006) - drop outs

A

Low-SES are more likely to drop out of interventions

97
Q

Future of SES research

A

Very early days

Need to use innovative approaches to recruit and retain ppts from low SES backgrounds