You are on page 1of 13

This article was downloaded by: [University of Westminster - ISLS]

On: 21 April 2013, At: 17:47


Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK

The Journal of General


Psychology
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vgen20

Weight Bias Against Women in a


University Acceptance Scenario
a

Viren Swami & Rachael Monk

University of Westminster, HELP University College

University of Westminster

To cite this article: Viren Swami & Rachael Monk (2013): Weight Bias Against Women
in a University Acceptance Scenario, The Journal of General Psychology, 140:1, 45-56
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2012.726288

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE


Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any
representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to
date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be
independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable
for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection
with or arising out of the use of this material.

The Journal of General Psychology, 2013, 140(1), 4556


C 2013 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Copyright 

Downloaded by [University of Westminster - ISLS] at 17:47 21 April 2013

Weight Bias Against Women in a


University Acceptance Scenario
VIREN SWAMI
University of Westminster
HELP University College
RACHAEL MONK
University of Westminster

ABSTRACT. This study examined weight bias against women in a hypothetical university acceptance scenario. One-hundred-and-ninety-eight volunteers from the community in
Britain completed a weight bias measure in which they were asked to select the woman they
were most and least likely to select for a place at university from an array of figures varying
in body size. Participants also completed the Anti-Fat Attitudes Survey, the Short-Form of
the Fat Phobia Scale, the Attitudes Toward Obese Persons Scale, and the Beliefs About
Obese Persons Scale. Results showed that participants were biased against both obese
(> 30 kg/m2) and emaciated (<15 kg/m2) women. Further analyses showed that weight
bias was only significantly predicted by greater antipathy toward fat persons and more
negative attitudes toward obese persons. These results provide evidence that the general
public hold biased beliefs about access to higher educational opportunities as a function of
the body size of applicants.
Keywords: anti-fat attitudes, individual differences, obesity stigma, underweight stigma,
weight bias

THERE IS NOW ACCUMULATING EVIDENCE THAT WEIGHT BIAS IS


WIDESPREAD among both children and adults (Puhl & Brownell, 2001, 2003;
Puhl & Heuer, 2009; Puhl & Latner, 2007), so much so that some scholars believe it to be one of the last acceptable forms of discrimination in the Western
world (Andreyeva, Puhl, & Brownell, 2008). Indeed, in their reviews of the literature, Puhl and colleagues (Puhl & Brownell, 2001, 2003; Puhl & Heuer, 2009)
have discussed evidence of weight bias in almost all aspects of life, including
employment decisions, medical and health care settings, education, and interpersonal relationships. This is an important public health concern given reported
Address correspondence to Dr. Viren Swami, Department of Psychology, University
of Westminster, 309 Regent Street, London W1B 2UW, UK; v.swami@westminster.ac.uk
(e-mail).
45

Downloaded by [University of Westminster - ISLS] at 17:47 21 April 2013

46

The Journal of General Psychology

associations between weight bias and psychological distress, negative body image, and disordered eating (e.g., Ashmore, Friedman, Reichman, & Musante,
2008).
The extant literature provides a useful insight into the nature and antecedents
of weight bias, but to date most studies have focused on occupational settings (for a
review, see Puhl & Heuer, 2009) and have neglected the full spectrum of body sizes.
In terms of the latter, for example, one recent study presented participants with
images of women varying in body size and ask them to select the women they were
most and least likely to hire, promote, or terminate in hypothetical occupational
scenarios (Swami, Pietschnig, Stieger, Tovee, & Voracek, 2010). The results of
this study presented clear evidence of bias against both obese women (>30 kg/2),
with underweight (1518.5 kg/m2) and normal weight (18.524.9 kg/m2) typically
being favored.
However, the same study also indicated bias against emaciated women
(<15 kg/m2), which is consistent with previous work utilizing a hypothetical
hiring scenario (Swami, Chan, Wong, Furnham, & Tovee, 2008). It has been suggested that weight bias may extend to any woman who deviates from the norm
at either extreme; that is, to the extent that a womans body size does not conform to societal ideals of physical attractiveness, she will likely experience greater
weight bias and discrimination (Swami et al., 2008; Swami & Furnham, 2008).
To date, however, very few studies have examined weight bias against both obese
and emaciated women, particularly in non-occupational settings.
Indeed, the impact of weight bias in higher educational settings remains relatively under-studied, although it remains an important concern for practitioners
(Solovay, 2000). In one early study, Canning and Mayer (1966) examined the
school records and college applications of over 2,000 high school students and
reported that obese students were significantly less likely to be accepted into
college despite equivalent application rates and academic performance to nonobese students. In a more recent survey of over 3,000 students, Crandall (1995)
reported that overweight women and men were under-represented at college level.
One reason for this may be that obese students receive significantly less family financial support than their non-obese peers (Crandall, 1991, 1995). Parental
conservatism, particularly beliefs about self-discipline and the tendency to perceive people as being responsible for their own fates, has been associated with a
lower likelihood of college financial support for overweight children (Crandall,
1995).
Even following acceptance into higher education, obese students still face negative stereotypes that they are lazy and self-indulgent (Tiggemann & Rothblum,
1988) and, among female targets, sexually unskilled (Regan, 1996). Related work
has shown that high school teachers believe obese individuals to be untidy, more
emotional, more likely to have familial problems, and less likely to succeed occupationally (Neumark-Sztainer, Story, & Harris, 1999), and it has been suggested

Downloaded by [University of Westminster - ISLS] at 17:47 21 April 2013

Swami & Monk

47

that such beliefs may be relatively widespread among educators (National Education Association, 1994; Solovay, 2000). Of particular concern following admission
into higher education are reports that overweight students receive poorer academic
evaluations and are also likely to face dismissal from college due to their weight
(Solovay, 2000; Weiler & Helms, 1993).
Given the relative dearth of studies on weight bias in higher educational settings, the present study sought to the general publics perceptions of student access
to educational opportunities as a function of body size. That is, we investigated
the impact of a targets body size on hypothetical decisions by the general public
about acceptance into university. Although a focus on the general public is less
optimal than sampling educators, who would be more familiar with university
decision-making, the present study nevertheless allows for an examination of attitudes and perceptions of an important stakeholder in British higher education.
In this sense, the present study provides an exploration of weight bias among the
general public in a previously neglected, albeit hypothetical, setting.
Specifically, following procedures established by Swami and colleagues
(Swami, Chan, et al., 2008; Swami et al., 2010), we presented participants with a
series of photographic images of women varying in body size and asked them to
select the women they most and least likely to recommend for a place at university
in a hypothetical selection scenario. Because this stimulus set consists of standardized, grayscale images of women in front view and with their faces obscured, we
were able to rule out possible confounding variables associated with the targets,
such as age and ethnicity (Swami, Furnham et al., 2008; Swami, Stieger et al.,
2012), although it also meant that we had to limit our study to female targets.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that weight bias in higher educational settings
appears to be more pronounced for women than men (Canning & Mayer, 1966;
Crandall, 1991, 1995).
In addition to examining the impact of a targets body size, we also investigated associations between weight bias and observer individual psychological
differences. Although individual difference traits have been postulated as important antecedents of weight bias (Crandall & Horstman Reser, 2005), studies that
have examined associations to date have returned mixed results. On the one hand,
some studies have reported significant associations between weight bias and just
world beliefs (cf. Ebneter, Latner, & OBrien, 2011), the Protestant Work Ethic
(Crandall, 1994), weight controllability, attitudes toward obese individuals, and
a tendency to judge individuals based on their appearance (Carels & MusherEizenman, 2010). On the other hand, OBrien and colleagues (2008) reported
no significant associations between weight bias and explicit and implicit anti-fat
measures, whereas Swami and colleagues (2010) reported that concern about becoming fat, but not antipathy toward obese persons, fat phobia, and stereotypes of
obese persons, was associated with weight bias. Given these equivocal findings,
we sought to examine whether individual difference traits would be associated
with weight bias in the afore-mentioned higher education scenario.

Downloaded by [University of Westminster - ISLS] at 17:47 21 April 2013

48

The Journal of General Psychology

In summary, the present study investigated the impact of womens body size
on hypothetical decisions about entry into university. Based on previous studies
(Swami, Chan et al., 2008; Swami et al., 2010), we expected that participants
would show weight bias toward obese and emaciated women in this hypothetical
decision-making. In addition, we examined whether individual difference measures, operationalized as anti-fat attitudes, fat phobia, and beliefs about obese
persons, would be associated with weight bias in this specific scenario. As a
preliminary hypothesis, we expected that weight bias would show significant associations with each of these individual difference traits.
Method
Participants
Participants of this study were 100 women and 98 men from the community in
London, England. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 72 years (M = 32.58, SD
= 14.18) and in self-reported body mass index (BMI) from 16.42 to 33.67 kg/m2
(M = 24.11, SD = 3.57). The majority of participants were of British White
descent (68.2%), while others were of Asian descent (20.2%), African Caribbean
descent (6.1%), or some other ancestry (5.6%). In terms of educational qualifications, 17.7% had obtained their General Certification of Secondary Education
(compulsory school-leavers examinations), 54.7% had completed their Advanced
Level (A-Level) General Certificate of Education, 16.1% had an undergraduate
degree, 3.1% had a postgraduate degree, and 8.3% had some other qualification.
Measures
Weight Bias
To measure weight bias, we used the 10 grayscale images of women from
the Photographic Figure Rating Scale (PFRS; Swami, Salem, Furnham, & Tovee,
2008), which depicts real women in front-view, with their faces obscured, and
in standardized clothing. The women vary in body size, with two women representing each of the established BMI categories, namely emaciated (<15 kg/m2),
underweight (1518.5 kg/m2), normal weight (18.524.9 kg/m2), overweight
(2529.9 kg/m2), and obese (>30 kg/m2). In the present study and unlike the
parent scale, participants were presented with the PFRS images in a counterbalanced order, followed by the following instructions:
Imagine you sit on the student selection panel of a large university that is currently
looking to make offers to study at the university. Ten women have applied to study
on the universitys undergraduate psychology course for the coming year, but
there is only room on the course for one more student. It is your responsibility to
choose the successful applicant. Each of the women fulfills the general entrance
requirements for the psychology degree program. You may also assume that each

Swami & Monk

49

Downloaded by [University of Westminster - ISLS] at 17:47 21 April 2013

of the applicants is of the same age and ethnic background, and that each of them
can afford the fees to study at university.

Following this, participants were asked to select the woman they were least
and most likely to recommend for the place at university, with one representing
the woman with the lowest BMI and 10 the woman with the highest BMI. To
obtain a measure of weight bias, we computed the unsigned (absolute) differences
score between the most and least likely ratings. Swami et al. (2010) reported that
this difference score provides a measure of weight bias, such that lower scores
represent a more constricted range of favored body sizes.
Anti-Fat Attitudes
To measure anti-fat attitudes, we used Crandalls (1994) 13-item Anti-Fat
Attitudes (AFA) survey, which comprises three subscales measuring an individuals antipathy toward fat individuals (Dislike; 7 items), personal concern about
becoming fat (Fear of Fat; 3 items), and the belief that being overweight is a
matter of personal control (Willpower; 3 items). Items were rated on a 9-point
scale (1 = Very strongly disagree, 9 = Very strongly agree) and subscale scores
were computed as the mean of items associated with each subscale. Cronbachs
s for the three subscales in the present study were: Dislike, .86; Fear of Fat, .88;
Willpower, .80.
Fat Phobia
We used the Short-Form of the Fat Phobia Scale (FPS; Bacon, Scheltema, &
Robinson, 2001), which measure explicitly negative attitudes toward, and stereotypes of, fat people. The scale consists of 14 items, where each item presents
participants with a pair of adjectives that they are told are sometimes used to
describe fat people. For each pair of adjectives, participants indicate on a 5-point
scale the adjective that most closely describes their feelings and beliefs. An overall
score is computed as the mean of all items, with higher scores reflecting greater
fat phobia. In the present study, Cronbachs for the FPS was .88.
Attitudes and Beliefs Toward Obese Individuals
Here, we used the 20-item Attitudes Toward Obese Persons (ATOP) Scale
and the 8-item Beliefs About Obese Persons (BAOP) Scale (Allison, Basile, &
Yuker, 1991). The ATOP assesses stereotypical attitudes toward obese persons,
whereas the BAOP measures beliefs about the controllability of obesity. Items on
both scales were rated on a 6-point Likert-type scale (3 = I strongly disagree, +3
= I strongly agree). An overall ATOP score is computed as 60 added to the sum
of all items (higher scores indicate more positive attitudes toward obese persons),
whereas an overall BAOP score is computed as 24 added to the sum of all items
(higher scores indicate a stronger belief that obesity is not under the obese persons
control). In the present study, internal consistency coefficients were .71 for the
ATOP and .76 for the BAOP.

50

The Journal of General Psychology

Demographics
Participants were asked to provide their demographic details consisting of sex,
age, ethnicity, and highest educational qualification. Participants also self-reported
their height and weight, which we used to calculate their BMIs as kg/m.2

Downloaded by [University of Westminster - ISLS] at 17:47 21 April 2013

Procedure
Once ethical approval for this study was obtained from the relevant university
ethics committee, three research assistants opportunistically recruited participants
from various public locations in London, including public libraries, parks, and
train stations. The researcher assistants invited potential participants to take part
in a study on entry into university. Participants were initially provided with an
information sheet, which contained brief information about the survey, the rights
of participants, and contact information of the corresponding author. In total, 300
invitations were made, representing a response rate of 66.0%. Once participation had been agreed, participants provided informed consent and completed an
anonymous, paper-and-pencil version of the questionnaire in a quiet location in
the vicinity of their recruitment. The order of presentation of scales was semirandomized, so the measure of weight bias always appeared first and demographic
items always appeared last. The order of all other scales was counter-balanced
for each participant. All participants took part on a voluntary basis and were not
remunerated for participation. Once the surveys were returned, the researchers
verbally debriefed participants.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
We initially examined which of the figures was the most and least likely to be
selected for a place at university as a function of participant sex. Results showed
that, for the most likely rating, there was a significant difference between the
ratings of women and men, 2(7) = 23.50, p = .001, = .35. As can be seen in
Table 1, both women and men selected a clinically underweight figure as the figure
they were most likely to select, but women were more likely than men to select
heavier figures. Discounting participant sex, emaciated figures were selected by
1.0% participants, underweight figures by 63.6%, normal weight figures by 29.3%,
overweight figures by 5.0%, and obese figures by 1.0%.
The same analysis repeated for the least likely rating showed no significant
difference as a function of participant sex, 2(6) = 10.75, p = .096, = .23.
As can be seen in Table 1, emaciated figures were endorsed the most frequently
as least likely to be selected (54.6%), whereas underweight and normal weight
figures were selected by 1.0% of participants, respectively, overweight figures by
3.0%, and obese figures by 40.4%. Overall, these results provide strong evidence

Swami & Monk

51

TABLE 1. The Figures More and Least Likely to Be Selected for a Place at a
University as a Function of Participant Gender (In Percentages)

Downloaded by [University of Westminster - ISLS] at 17:47 21 April 2013

Most likely to be selected

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10

Least likely to be selected

Women

Men

Total

Women

Men

Total

0.0
2.0
12.2
49.0
22.4
8.2
0.0
4.1
0.0
2.0

0.0
0.0
10.0
56.0
28.0
0.0
6.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
1.0
11.1
52.5
25.3
4.0
3.0
2.0
0.0
1.0

46.9
4.1
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.1
2.0
38.8

52.0
6.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
38.0

49.5
5.1
0.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
3.0
2.0
38.4

Note. Figures 1 and 2 represent emaciated women, Figures 3 and 4 underweight women, Figures
5 and 6 normal weight women, Figures 7 and 8 overweight women, and Figures 9 and 10 obese
women.

of weight bias against both obese and emaciated figures, while underweight figures
appear to be perceived the most favorably.
Weight Bias
We next examined weight bias scores, where these refer to the difference
between most and least likely ratings (i.e., constricted weight range scores). Although the Kolmogov-Smirnov statistic for this variable was significant (KS =
.20, p < .001), neither skewness nor kurtosis values were greater than .80. An
independent-samples t-test revealed that there was no significant difference between women and men on this weight bias score (women M = 4.14, SD = 1.58;
men M = 4.55, SD = 1.61), t(196) = 1.81, p = .072, d = 0.26. In addition, a
univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed no significant differences on
this score as a function of participant education, F(1, 197) = 0.47, p = .705, p 2
< .01. We, therefore, pooled scores for women and men, and (after Swami et al.,
2010) computed partial correlations between weight bias and individual difference
factors (the AFA subscales, FPS, ATOP, and BAOP), controlling for participant
BMI.
As can be seen in Table 2, weight bias was significantly and positively correlated with antipathy toward fat persons, personal concern about becoming fat,
fat phobia, and more negative attitudes toward fat persons. To examine if any of
these variables were significant predictors of weight bias, we computed a multiple

52

The Journal of General Psychology

Downloaded by [University of Westminster - ISLS] at 17:47 21 April 2013

TABLE 2. Partial Correlations (Controlling for Self-Reported Body Mass Index) Between Weight Bias Scores and Individual Difference Factors Included
in the Present Study

(1) Weight bias


(2) AFA Dislike
(3) AFA Fear of fat
(4) AFA Willpower
(5) Fat phobia
(6) ATOP
(7) BAOP

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

.23

.11
.30

.02
.29
.28

.11
.36
.27
.38

.12
.64
.33
.33
.41

.01
.30
.31
.61
.31
.31

Note. AFA: Anti-Fat Attitudes; ATOP: Attitudes Toward Obese Persons; BAOP: Beliefs About
Obese Persons. N = 198; p < .05, p < .001.

linear regression (Enter method), weighted for participant BMI and with significance values interpreted at one-tailed. The overall regression was significant, F(6,
197) = 2.44, p = .014, Adj. R2 = .06, although the only significant predictor was
antipathy toward fat persons (B = .31, SE = .09, = .06, t = .77, p < .001) and
attitudes toward obese persons (B = .02, SE = .01, = .15, t = 1.46, p = .038).
Discussion
In the first part of this study, we examined the impact of womens body size
on hypothetical decisions about entry into university made by members of the
community. Our results supported our hypotheses, insofar as there was a clear
pattern of bias against overweight and obese women. Specifically, overweight and
obese figures were only selected by 6.0% of participants as the figure they were
most likely to select, compared with the selection of underweight figures by over
60.0% of participants. In general, this pattern of findings supports previous work
indicative of weight bias in occupational and other settings (e.g., Swami, Chan
et al., 2008; Swami et al., 2010), as well as reviews suggesting that weight bias is
prevalent in contemporary societies (e.g., Puhl & Brownell, 2001, 2003; Puhl &
Heuer, 2009; Puhl & Latner, 2007).
In addition to these results, it should also be noted that weight bias in the
present study extended to emaciated women. Indeed, when examining ratings
of the least likely figure to be selected, it was noticeable that emaciated figures
were selected more often than obese figures (54.6% versus 40.4% of participants).
Broadly speaking, these results are consistent with previous work showing weight
bias against emaciated women in occupational settings (Swami, Chan et al., 2008;
Swami et al., 2010). The fact that both groups (emaciated and obese) on opposite

Downloaded by [University of Westminster - ISLS] at 17:47 21 April 2013

Swami & Monk

53

sides of the weight spectrum seem to be stigmatized equally in a university setting


might lead to the suggestion that there are common underlying factors driving
stigmatization toward both groups. For example, recent work has suggested that
physical appearance evaluation and appearance orientation are associated with
obesity stigma (OBrien, Latner, & Ebneter, in press), and this may also be the
case with emaciated women. In addition, emaciated women may be discriminated
against because they elicit negative personal evaluations, much in the same way
that obese women do (Swami et al., 2010; see also Stewart, Keel, & Schiavo, 2006).
Conversely, it was clear that the figure participants selected as most deserving
of a place at university was an underweight figure. This finding is perhaps unsurprising, given that the same figure is also typically selected as the most physically
attractive and ideal by Western participants (e.g., Swami, Buchanan, Furnham,
& Tovee, 2008; Swami et al., 2012; Swami, Taylor, & Carvalho, 2011). That is,
it is likely that, in our participants perceptions, what was beautiful was good
(Dion, Berscheid, & Walster, 1972); the underweight figure, which may have been
perceived as maximally attractive, was likely judged as having more desirable
qualities than less attractive figures. It is possible, for example, that such biased
judgments included perceptions about the likelihood of academic success, which
in turn may have affected judgments in the present study.
The present results also showed that stronger weight bias was significantly
associated with greater antipathy toward fat persons, higher personal concern
about becoming fat, stronger fat phobia, and more negative attitudes toward fat
persons. However, the strength of these correlations were weak to moderate (rs
= .1123) and, when these factors were entered into a regression model, only
antipathy toward fat persons and negative attitudes toward obese persons emerged
as significant predictors. Moreover, the regression model only accounted for 6.0%
of the variance in weight bias, suggesting that the included variables are, at best,
weak predictors.
What could account for the weak associations between weight bias and the
individual difference factors included in the present work? One possibility, given
similar findings in previous studies (OBrien et al., 2008; Swami et al., 2010), is that
these individual difference factors do not optimally or fully capture the meaning
of anti-fat attitudes in contemporary societies. In a similar vein, it is possible that
the use of explicit anti-fat measures meant that participants responded in a socially
desirable manner, although it should be noted that the validity of implicit antifat measures has also been questioned (OBrien et al., 2008; see also Bessenoff
& Sherman, 2000). Alternatively, it is possible that discrimination against obese
individuals is so widespread and acceptable that individual difference factors do
not distinguish between those who are and are not biased.
In addition to limitations associated with the validity of the anti-fat measures
used in the present work, a number of other limitations should be acknowledged.
First, although we were able to avoid the reliance on university students as participants, we cannot currently conclude that educators will show the same weight

Downloaded by [University of Westminster - ISLS] at 17:47 21 April 2013

54

The Journal of General Psychology

bias as our community sample. Other scholars and bodies, however, have suggested that weight bias may be relatively widespread among educators (National
Education Association, 1994; Solovay, 2000), which warrants replication of our
work among this select population. In addition, it will be important to replicate
the present study using male targets, even if weight bias in educational settings
appears to be more pronounced for women (Canning & Mayer, 1966; Crandall,
1991, 1995).
There may also be questions as to the ecological validity of our design. For
example, in real-world settings, educational selection committees likely receive a
good deal more differentiated information about applicants (e.g., academic qualifications and potential) that affect their decision-making. Moreover, in situations
where acceptance decisions are made by groups, socially desirable responding
may attenuate any impact of weight bias at the individual level. Conversely, the
use of a stimulus set that focuses attention on body size in the present work may
have allowed some participants to discern the study hypotheses and thus alter their
responses to suit. Future work will need to carefully determine to what extent
studies such as these are ecologically valid and how design limitations can be improved upon. Finally, more work needs to be conducted using different measures
of anti-fat attitudes, as well as a wider range of individual difference factors.
Even so, the present results do at least suggest that the general public may
hold biased beliefs about access to higher educational opportunities as a function
of the body size of applicants. In very broad terms, these results may help explain
why overweight and obese women are under-represented at this level (Canning &
Mayer, 1966; Crandall, 1995). Furthermore, if the present results can be corroborated, particularly among university educators, it may highlight a key area for
bias-reduction interventions and procedures. In the meantime, there remains an
urgent need to more carefully and systematically investigate the lived experiences
of emaciated, overweight, and obese individuals in higher education.
AUTHOR NOTES
Viren Swami is a Reader in Psychology at the University of Westminster, where
his main research interests are on the psychology of physical appearance and
body image, particularly from a cross-cultural perspective. He is the author of
The Missing Arms of Venus de Milo and, with Adrian Furnham, The Psychology
of Physical Attraction. Rachael Monk was an undergraduate at the University of
Westminster, where she obtained her BSc (Hons) in Psychology.

REFERENCES
Allison, D. B., Basile, V. C., & Yuker, H. E. (1991). The measurement of attitudes toward
and beliefs about obese persons. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 10, 599607.

Downloaded by [University of Westminster - ISLS] at 17:47 21 April 2013

Swami & Monk

55

Andreyeva, T., Puhl, R. M., & Brownell, K. D. (2008). Changes in perceived


weight discrimination among Americans: 19951996 through 20042006. Obesity, 16,
11291134.
Ashmore, J. A., Friedman, K. E., Reichmann, S. K., & Musante, G. J. (2008). Weightbased stigmatization, psychological distress, and binge eating behavior among obese
treatment-seeking adults. Eating Behaviors, 9, 203209.
Bacon, J. G., Scheltema, K. E., & Robinson, B. E. (2001). Fat phobia scale revisited: The
short form. International Journal of Obesity, 25, 252257.
Bessenoff, G.R., & Sherman, J. W. (2000). Automatic and controlled components of prejudice toward fat people: Evaluation versus stereotype activation. Social Cognition, 18,
329353.
Canning, H., & Mayer, J. (1966). Obesity: Its possible effect on college acceptance. New
England Journal of Medicine, 275, 117211744.
Carels, R. A., & Musher-Eizenman, D. R. (2010). Individual differences and weight bias:
Do people with an anti-fat bias have a pro-thin bias? Body Image, 7, 143148.
Crandall, C. S. (1991). Do heavy-weight students have more difficulty paying for college?
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 606611.
Crandall, C. S. (1994). Prejudice against fat people: Ideology and self-interest. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 882894.
Crandall, C. S. (1995). Do parents discriminate against their heavyweight daughters? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 724735.
Crandall, C. S., & Horstman Reser, A. (2005). Attributions and weight-based prejudice. In
K. D. Brownell, R. M. Puhl, & M. B. Schwartz (Eds.), Weight bias: Nature, consequences,
and remedies (pp. 8396). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Dion, K. K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285290.
Ebneter, D. S., Latner, J. D., & OBrien, K. S. (2011). Just world beliefs, causal beliefs, and
acquaintance: Associations with stigma toward eating disorders and obesity. Personality
and Individual Differences, 51, 618622.
National Education Association (1994). Report on discrimination due to physical size,
Number 11. Washington, DC: National Education Association.
Neumark-Sztainer, D., Story, M., & Harris, T. (1999). Beliefs and attitudes about obesity
among teachers and school health care providers working with adolescents. Journal of
Nutrition Education, 31, 39.
OBrien, K. S., Latner, J. D., & Ebneter, D. S. (in press). Obesity discrimination: The role
of physical appearance, personal ideology, and obesity stigma. International Journal of
Obesity.
OBrien, K. S., Latner, J. D., Halberstadt, J., Hunter, J. A., Anderson, J., & Caputi, P.
(2008). Do antifat attitudes predict antifat behaviors? Obesity, 16, S87S92.
Puhl, R. M., & Brownell, K. D. (2001). Bias, discrimination, and obesity. Obesity Research,
9, 788805.
Puhl, R. M., & Brownell, K. D. (2003). Psychosocial origins of obesity stigma: Toward
changing a powerful and pervasive bias. Obesity Reviews, 4, 213227.
Puhl, R. M., & Heuer, C. A. (2009). The stigma of obesity: A review and update. Obesity,
17, 124.
Puhl, R. M., & Latner, J. D. (2007). Stigma, obesity, and the health of the nations children.
Psychological Bulletin, 133, 557580.
Regan, P. C. (1996). Sexual outcasts: The perceived impact of body weight and gender on
sexuality. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 18031815.
Solovay, S. (2000). Tipping the scales of injustice: Fighting weight-based discrimination.
Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

Downloaded by [University of Westminster - ISLS] at 17:47 21 April 2013

56

The Journal of General Psychology

Stewart, M.-C., Keel, P. K., & Schiavo, R. S. (2006). Stigmatization of anorexia nervosa.
International Journal of Eating Disorders, 39, 320325.
Swami, V., Buchanan, T., Furnham, A., & Tovee, M. J. (2008). Five-factor personality
correlates of perceptions of womens body sizes. Personality and Individual Differences,
45, 697699.
Swami, V., Chan, F., Wong, V., Furnham, A., & Tovee, M. J. (2008). Weight-based discrimination in occupational hiring and helping behaviour. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 38, 968981.
Swami, V., & Furnham, A. (2008). The psychology of physical attraction. London, UK:
Routledge.
Swami, V., Furnham, A., Amin, R., Chaudhri, J., Joshi, K., Jundi, S., et al. (2008). Lonelier,
lazier and teased: The stigmatizing effect of body size. The Journal of Social Psychology,
148, 577594.
Swami, V., Pietschnig, J., Stieger, S., Tovee, M. J., & Voracek, M. (2010). An investigation
of weight bias against women and its associations with individual difference factors.
Body Image, 7, 194199.
Swami, V., Salem, N., Furnham, A., & Tovee, M. J. (2008). Initial examination of the
validity and reliability of the female Photographic Figure Rating Scale for body image
assessment. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 17521761.
Swami, V., Stieger, S., Harris, A. M., Nader, I. W., Pietschnig, J., Voracek, M., & Tovee,
M. J. (2012). Further investigation of the validity and reliability of the Photographic
Figure Rating Scale for body image assessment. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94,
404409.
Swami, V., Taylor, R., & Carvalho, C. (2011). Body dissatisfaction assessed by the Photographic Figure Rating Scale is associated with sociocultural, personality, and media
influences. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 52, 5763.
Tiggemann, M., & Rothblum, E. D. (1988). Gender differences in social consequences of
perceived overweight in the United States and Australia. Sex Roles, 18, 7586.
Weiler, K., & Helms, L. B. (1993). Responsibilities of nursing education: The lessons of
Russell v Salve Regina. Journal of Professional Nursing, 9, 131138.

Original manuscript received June 15, 2012


Final version accepted August 28, 2012

You might also like