Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Weighing obesity stigma: the relative strength of different forms of bias

International Journal of Obesity volume 32, pages 1145–1152 (2008)Cite this article

Abstract

Objective:

To compare the strength of weight bias to other common biases, and to develop a psychometrically sound measure to assess and compare bias against different targets.

Subjects:

A total of 368 university students (75.4% women, 47.6% white, mean age: 21.53 years, mean body mass index (BMI): 23.01 kg/m2).

Measurements:

A measure was developed to assess bias against different targets. Three versions of the universal measure of bias (UMB) were developed and validated, each focusing on either ‘fat,’ ‘gay’ or ‘Muslim’ individuals. These were administered to participants, along with two established scales of bias against each target and a measure of socially desirable response style.

Results:

The UMB demonstrated good internal consistency, appropriate item-total and inter-item correlations, and a clear factor structure suggesting components of Negative Judgment, Distance, Attraction and Equal Rights. Construct validity was indicated by strong correlations between established measures of bias and each corresponding version of the new scale. In contrast to previously established measures of weight bias, the new measure was independent of socially desirable response style. Although homosexual orientation was associated with lower gay bias (P<0.05), greater BMI was not associated with any decrease in weight bias. When comparing the relative strength of bias against different targets, weight bias was significantly greater than bias against both gays and Muslims (P<0.001).

Conclusion:

Weight bias is significantly stronger than other major targets of bias. This is the first study to develop a universal measure to assess bias against different targets. The excellent psychometric properties of this measure will permit further investigation into the relative severity of different types of prejudice over time and across samples. The present findings suggest that the pervasive discrimination against obese individuals may be more socially acceptable than discrimination against other groups.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Puhl RM, Brownell KD . Bias, discrimination, and obesity. Obes Res 2001; 9: 788–805.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Brownell KD, Puhl RM, Schwartz MB, Rudd L (eds) Weight Bias: Nature, Consequences, and Remedies. Guilford: New York, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Puhl RM, Latner JD . Stigma, obesity, and the health of the nation's children. Psychol Bul 2007; 133: 557–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Latner JD, Stunkard AJ . Getting worse: the stigmatization of obese children. Obes Res 2003; 11: 452–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. McConahay JB . Modern racism, ambivalence, and the modern racism scale.In: Dovidio JF, Gaertner SL (eds). Prejudice, Discrimination, and Racism. Academic Press: Orlando, FL, 1986,pp 91–125.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Crandall CS . Prejudice against fat people: ideology and self-interest. J Pers Soc Psychol 1994; 66: 882–894.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Puhl RM, Schwartz MB, Brownell KD . Impact of perceived consensus on stereotypes about obese people: new avenues for bias reduction. Health Psychol 2005; 24: 517–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. DeJong W . Obesity as a characterological stigma: the issue of responsibility and judgments of task performance. Psychol Rep 1993; 73: 963–970.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Sigelman CK . The effect of causal information on peer perceptions of children with physical problems. J Appl Dev Psychol 1991; 12: 237–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Richardson SA, Goodman N, Hastorf AH, Dornbusch SM . Cultural uniformity in reaction to physical disabilities. Am Sociol Rev 1961; 26: 241–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Goodman N, Dornbusch SM, Richardson SA, Hastorf AH . Variant reactions of physical disabilities. Am Sociol Rev 1963; 28: 429–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Maddox GL, Back KW, Liederman VR . Overweight as social deviance and disability. J Health Soc Behav 1968; 9: 287–298.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Latner JD, Simmonds MB, Rosewall J, Stunkard AJ . Assessment of obesity stigmatization in children and adolescents: modernizing a standard measure. Obes 2007; 15: 3078–3085.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lewis RJ, Cash TF, Jacobi L, Bubb-Lewis C . Prejudice toward fat people: the development and validation of the antifat attitudes test. Obes Res 1997; 5: 297–307.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Herek GM . Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: correlates and gender differences. J Sex Res 1988; 25: 451–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Reynolds WM . Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe–Crowne Social Desirability scale. J Clin Psychol 1982; 38: 119–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Allison DB, Basile VC, Yuker HE . The measurement of attitudes toward and beliefs about obese persons. Int J Eat Disord 1991; 10: 599–607.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Wright LW, Adams HE, Bernat J . Development and validation of the Homophobia Scale. J Psychopathol Behav Assess 1999; 21: 337–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Worthington RL, Dillon FR, Becker-Schutte AM . Development, reliability, and validity of the Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Knowledge and Attitudes Scale for Heterosexuals (LGB-KASH). J Couns Psychol 2005; 52: 104–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Altareb BY . Attitudes Towards Muslims: Initial Scale Development. Doctoral Dissertation, Ball State University: Muncie, IL, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Pettigrew TF, Meertens RW . Subtle and blatant prejudice in Western Europe. Eur J Soc Psychol 1995; 25: 57–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Coryn CL, Beale JM, Myers KM . Response to September 11: anxiety, patriotism, and prejudice in the aftermath of terror. Curr Res Soc Psychol 2004; 9: 165–184.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Crowne DP, Marlowe D . A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. J Consult Psychol 1960; 4: 349–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Clark LA, Watson D . Constructing validity: basic issues in objective scale development. Psychol Assess 1995; 7: 309–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Haynes SN, Richard DCS, Kubany ES . Content validity in psychological assessment: a functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychol Assess 1995; 7: 238–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kingree JB, Daves WF . Preliminary validation of the attitudes toward homelessness inventory. J Comm Psychol 1997; 25: 265–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Lester HE, Pattison HM . Development and validation of the Attitudes Towards the Homeless questionnaire. Med Ed 2000; 34: 266–268.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Crandall CS . Do heavy-weight students have more difficulty paying for college? Pers Soc Psychol Bull 1991; 17: 606–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Crosnoe R . Gender, obesity, and education. Sociol Ed 2007; 80: 241–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Canning H, Mayer J . Obesity—its possible effect on college acceptance. N Engl J Med 1966; 275: 1172–1174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Gortmaker SL, Must A, Perrin JM, Sobol AM, Dietz WH . Social and economic consequences of overweight in adolescence and young adulthood. N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 1008–1012.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Sargent JD, Blanchflower DG . Obesity and stature in adolescence and earnings in young adulthood. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1994; 148: 681–687.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Smith GT, McCarthy DM . Methodological considerations in the refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychol Assess 1995; 7: 300–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Latner JD, Stunkard AJ, Wilson GT . Stigmatized students: age, sex, and ethnicity effects in the stigmatization of obesity. Obes Res 2005; 13: 1226–1231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Firebaugh G, Davis KE . Trends in antiblack prejudice, 1972–1984: region and cohort effects. Am J Sociol 1988; 94: 251–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Herek H . The psychology of sexual prejudice. Cur Dir Psychol Sci 2000; 9: 19–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hebl MR, Foster JB, Mannix LM, Dovidio JF . Formal and interpersonal discrimination: a field study of bias toward homosexual applicants. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2002; 28: 815–825.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Wang SS, Brownell KD, Wadden TA . The influence of the stigma of obesity on overweight individuals. Int J Obes 2004; 28: 1333–1337.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Sarlio-Lähteenkorva S, Silventoinen K, Lahelma E . Relative weight and income at different levels of socioeconomic status. Am J Public Health 2004; 94: 468–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. French SA, Jeffery RW, Folsom AR, McGovern P, Williamson DF . Weight loss maintenance in young adulthood: prevalence and correlations with health behavior and disease in a population based sample of women aged 55–69 years. Int J Obes 1996; 20: 303–310.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Durso LE, Latner JD . Understanding self-directed stigma: development of the Weight Bias Internalization scale. Obesity,(in press).

  42. Bessenoff GR, Sherman JW . Automatic and controlled components of prejudice toward fat people: evaluation versus stereotype activation. Soc Cognition 2000; 18: 329–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. O’Brien KS, Latner JD, Halberstadt J, Hunter JA, Anderson J, Caputi P . Do anti-fat attitudes predict anti-fat behaviours? Obesity, (in press).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI, USA

    J D Latner & L E Durso

  2. School of Health Sciences, University of Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia

    K S O'Brien

  3. Department of Occupational Therapy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    L A Brinkman

  4. Department of Psychology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA

    T MacDonald

Authors
  1. J D Latner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. K S O'Brien
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. L E Durso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. L A Brinkman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. T MacDonald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J D Latner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Latner, J., O'Brien, K., Durso, L. et al. Weighing obesity stigma: the relative strength of different forms of bias. Int J Obes 32, 1145–1152 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1038/ijo.2008.53

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ijo.2008.53

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links