Dataset Information

The role of social exposure in predicting weight bias and weight bias internalisation: an international study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Whilst the consequences of weight bias and weight bias internalisation (WBI) have been explored, less is known about the factors contributing to their development. Some research has explored the role of social exposure in weight bias and WBI but has been limited in its definition of exposure and focused solely on western countries. The present study therefore aimed to assess the role of social exposure defined in terms of both population and personal exposure in predicting weight bias and WBI, in an international sample.

Methods

Participants (N = 1041) from 33 countries, aged 18-85 years completed online measures of demographics, weight bias, WBI, and population and personal social exposure. Population exposure was defined using national obesity prevalence data from the World Health Organisation to classify countries as low (obesity rates ≤19.9%; n = 162), medium (20.0-29.9%; n = 672) or high prevalence (≥30%; n = 192). Personal exposure was defined in terms of personal contact and health and attractiveness normalisation.

Results

Using regression analysis, greater weight bias was significantly predicted by being younger, male, less educated, and personal exposure in terms of normalisation beliefs that thinner body types are healthier and more attractive, greater daily exposure and overall exposure to thinner friends. The strongest predictors of weight bias (adj R² = 13%) were gender (β = -0.24, p < .001), and personal exposure in terms of normalisation beliefs that thinner body types are more attractive (β = -0.13, p = .001). The strongest predictors of WBI (adj R² = 6%) were attractiveness normalisation (β = -0.23, p < 0.001) and participants' perceived body shape (β = -0.27, p < 0.001). Population exposure did not predict either weight bias or WBI.

Conclusions

Personal exposure is more important than population exposure in predicting both weight bias and WBI. Findings hold implications for improving the wellbeing and lived experiences of those living with overweight and obesity.

SUBMITTER: Stewart SF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8159729 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Responsibility is a moral quality of caring that is central to child health policies. In contemporary United Kingdom these policies are based on behavioural psychology and underpinned by individualism, an ideology central to neoliberal governance. Amid the complexities of "obesity" and inequalities, there is a multi-layered stigmatisation of parents as moral associates. Few studies consider the lived realities of food policy processes from the standpoint of class. This critical qualitative research draws on theorists who explain processes of power and class: Foucault, Gramsci, Bourdieu, and Marx. Its objectives are: (a) to understand the lived experience of parents as they interact with food policy; (b) to explore how parents resist stigmatisation; and (c) to reflect on implications for policy and practice. Methods:Using purposive sampling, 31 ethnographically informed interviews were carried out in a London borough, with policy actors: policymakers, implementers, and parents as policy recipients, including 12 working-class mothers. Results:A core theme of "responsibilities" emerged with four interconnecting sub-processes that provide insight into how stigmatisation and resistance evolve through policy. Discussion:As have others, this study reveals the idea of responsibility as fundamental to the processes of soft power. Child health is a priority for participants and a "ruling idea." The diffusion of responsibility throughout policy leads to confusion about where it lies. New subjectivities are formed in line with ideas of governmentality. Parents engage with policy at multiple sites that elicit symbolic violence, and stigma sows social divisions. Against this background, working-class parents are left in a state of cognitive dissonance between being made responsible (responsibilisation), and feeling responsible (self-blaming) for their children's weight while lacking the material resources to provide an optimal nutritious diet. Resistance is interwoven and is essentially found in parents' policy alternatives that diverge from United Kingdom government policy. Conclusion:Critical qualitative research using multiple theorists is valuable in understanding how parents interact with policy in a complex social world. With United Kingdom policy failing, useful insights are provided into how involving parents in policymaking might determine a meaningful collective responsibility, with a political ethic of care and unity between parents that would advance health equity.

Project description:BackgroundCultural pressures to be thin and tall are postulated to cause people to misreport their body weight and height towards more socially normative (i.e., desirable) values, but a paucity of direct evidence supports this idea. We developed a novel non-linear approach to examining weight, height, and BMI misreporting biases and used this approach to examine the association between socially non-normative weight and misreporting biases in adults.MethodsThe Survey of Lifestyles, Attitudes, and Nutrition 2007 (SLÁN 2007), a nationally representative survey of the Republic of Ireland (N = 1942 analyzed) was used. Self-reported weight (height) was classified as under-reported by ? 2.0 kg (2.0 cm), over-reported by ? 2.0 kg (2.0 cm), or accurately reported within 2.0 kg (2.0 cm) to account for technical errors of measurement and short-term fluctuations in measured weight (height). A simulation strategy was used to define self-report-based BMI as under-estimated by more than 1.40 kg/m2, over-estimated by more than 1.40 kg/m2, or accurately estimated within 1.40 kg/m2. Patterns of biases in self-reported weight, height, and BMI were explored. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with mis-estimated BMI and to calculate adjusted odds ratios (AOR) and 99% confidence intervals (99%CI).ResultsThe patterns of bias contributing the most to BMI mis-estimation were consistently, in decreasing order of influence, (1) under-reported weight combined with over-reported height, (2) under-reported weight with accurately reported height, and (3) accurately reported weight with over-reported height. Average bias in self-report-based BMI was -1.34 kg/m2 overall and -0.49, -1.33, and -2.66 kg/m2 in normal, overweight, and obese categories, respectively. Despite the increasing degree of bias with progressively higher BMI categories, persons describing themselves as too heavy were, within any given BMI category, less likely to have under-estimated BMI (AOR 0.5, 99%CI: 0.3-0.8, P < 0.001), to be misclassified in a lower BMI category (AOR 0.3, 99%CI: 0.2-0.5, P < 0.001), to under-report weight (AOR 0.5, 99%CI: 0.3-0.7, P < 0.001), and to over-report height (OR 0.7, 99%CI: 0.6-1.0, P = 0.007).ConclusionsA novel non-linear approach to examining weight, height, and BMI misreporting biases was developed. Perceiving oneself as too heavy appears to reduce rather than exacerbate weight, height, and BMI misreporting biases.