The Stigma of Obesity and Discrimination in Performance Appraisal - A Theoretical Model.

This article was downloaded by: [New York University]
On: 26 April 2015, At: 05:11

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 International Journal of Human

Resource Management
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijh20
The stigma of obesity and

discrimination in performance
appraisal: a theoretical model
a b
Regina Ferreira Bento , Lourdes Ferreira White & Susan Rawson
a
Zacur
a
Management Department , Merrick School of Business, University
of Baltimore , Baltimore , USA
b
Accounting Department , University of Baltimore , Baltimore ,
USA
Published online: 07 Dec 2011.
To cite this article: Regina Ferreira Bento , Lourdes Ferreira White & Susan Rawson Zacur
(2012) The stigma of obesity and discrimination in performance appraisal: a theoretical
model, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23:15, 3196-3224, DOI:
10.1080/09585192.2011.637073
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.637073
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
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. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:11 26 April 2015
The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 23, No. 15, September 2012, 3196–3224
The stigma of obesity and discrimination in performance appraisal:

a theoretical model
Regina Ferreira Bentoa*, Lourdes Ferreira Whiteb and Susan Rawson Zacura
a
Management Department, Merrick School of Business, University of Baltimore, Baltimore, USA;
b
Accounting Department, University of Baltimore, Baltimore, USA
We propose a theoretical model to study the effect of obesity stigma on performance
appraisal. The model draws from the appraisal, obesity, stigmatization, and prejudice
literatures to examine three sets of factors: individual factors in the appraiser(s) and the
obese appraisee; factors in performance appraisal; and contextual factors. According to
the model, these factors make it easier or harder for obesity stigma to affect the
performance appraisal of obese employees, potentially biasing the process and

resulting in discrimination. While examining the interplay of forces that facilitate or
inhibit the expression of obesity stigma in the affective, cognitive, and behavioral
responses of appraisers, we introduce the concept of ‘aversive weightism’. This
concept enhances understanding of the tensions between the ethos of objectivity in
performance appraisal and the deeply rooted, often unconscious influences of societal
prejudice and stigma against obesity. We conclude with implications for research and
practice.
Keywords: aversive weightism; discrimination; obesity; performance appraisal;
prejudice; stigma
Introduction
Performance appraisal is one of the most widely used practices in managing human
resources in organizations around the world (Rynes, Gerhart and Parks 2005; Gomez-
Mejia, Balkin and Cardy 2010). It plays a significant role in the allocation of
organizational rewards such as incentive pay and career advancement, thus having a
profound impact on employee morale and performance. It also affects the quality of
employees that organizations are able to attract and retain (Lawler 1971, 1990; Rynes et al.
2005). This is particularly relevant because appraisal and reward processes represent areas
where line managers are expected to perform HR roles and enact HR practices (Poole and
Jenkins 1997; Gilbert, De Winne and Sels 2011), even when they lack specific training or
expertise in those roles and practices (Lee 1985). Performance appraisal processes are vital
to organizational competitiveness and survival and depend on a foundation of rationality,
objectivity and impartiality in decision making in order to foster motivation and
perceptions of fairness.
A variety of mechanisms are used to enforce this ethos (Shields 2007). There is
evidence, however, that in spite of the espoused theories (Argyris 1976) touting
the rationality and objectivity of appraisal and reward processes, they are plagued by the
possibility of error (Gerhart and Rynes 2003) particularly when the target of
the performance appraisal is a member of a stigmatized minority or outgroup (Crandall,
*Corresponding author. Email: rbento@mit.edu
ISSN 0958-5192 print/ISSN 1466-4399 online

q 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.637073
http://www.tandfonline.com
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 3197
Nierman and Hebl 2009; Puhl and Heuer 2009). This may then result in intended or
unintended, subtle or blatant discrimination and bring negative consequences not only for
the individuals and organizations directly involved, but also for the broader society. Here,
we examine how one specially ingrained, widespread and intense stigma – the stigma
against obesity – may creep into the performance appraisal process and lead to
discrimination.
Research on the effects of stigma in the workplace has been neglected, in comparison
with other life contexts, but there is increasing evidence that stigmatization in work
settings can be harmful to individuals and organizations (Dipboye and Colella 2005;
Paetzold, Dipboye and Esbach 2008; Judge and Cable 2011). Here, we propose a
theoretical model that examines how three sets of factors – individual factors in the
appraiser(s) and the obese appraisee, factors in the performance appraisal process, and
contextual factors – may make it easier or harder for obesity stigma to affect the
performance appraisal of obese employees (OEs), resulting in bias and discrimination.
While examining the interplay of forces that facilitate or inhibit the expression of obesity
stigma in the affective, cognitive and behavioral responses of appraisers, we introduce the
concept of ‘aversive weightism’. This concept enhances understanding of the stress
between the intention of objectivity in performance appraisal and the deeply rooted, often
unconscious influences of societal prejudice and stigma against obesity. This is
particularly relevant because once the appraisal process attaches a negative performance
label to an obese individual, no matter how incorrect or subjective that appraisal may be, it
becomes the unchallenged ‘factual’ basis for numerous interrelated decisions in areas such
as training and development, assessment of potential and career planning, compensation,
and promotions (Bento 1997).
It has been established that weight-based discrimination occurs in the workplace.
Empirical studies have consistently provided evidence of weight-based bias in evaluative
workplace outcomes including performance appraisal and rewards (Gortmaker, Must,
Perin, Sobol and Dietz 1993; Sargent and Blanchflower 1994; Pagan and Davlia 1997;
Haskins and Ransford 1999; Crandall et al. 2009; Rudolph, Wells, Weller and Baltes
2009).
A landmark interdisciplinary literature review of empirical studies of weight-based
discrimination in employment (Roehling 1999), encompassing both laboratory and field
studies, found ‘consistent evidence of weight discrimination at virtually every stage of the
employment cycle, including career counseling, selection, placement, compensation,
promotion, discipline, training and discharge’ (Roehling 1999; Crandall 2000; Crandall,
Eshleman and O’Brien 2002; Crandall and Eshleman 2003; Roehling, Roehling and
Odland 2008; LaVan and Katz 2009).
There is evidence that this weight-based discrimination in employment continues
unabated as we enter the twenty-first century. Puhl and Heuer (2009) examined the
scientific evidence on weight bias toward adults through a review of studies published
between 2000 and 2008 in the USA and internationally. They found an increase in survey
research, large population studies, and experimental work looking at weight
discrimination in employment over a previous review (Puhl and Brownell 2001).
Findings consistently showed weight bias in performance evaluations and employment
outcomes, including a wage penalty for obesity that was higher for women than men in
both the USA and the European Union (Puhl and Heuer 2009, p. 942). The authors call for
research in the area of employment specifically assessing discriminatory practices in the
performance appraisal and rewards of OEs. This article provides a theoretical model to
help frame such inquiry.
3198 R.F. Bento et al.
Obesity affects a large percentage of the adult population in developing as well as

developed countries, and is becoming an international concern. The US Center for Disease
Control and Prevention estimates that approximately 72.5 million adults in the USA are
clinically obese – 26.7% of the adult population in 2009, compared to 25.6% in 2007
(CDC 2010).
Hill, Peters and Wyatt (2007) address obesity as a global epidemic that began in the
last two decades of the twentieth century, as a consequence of powerful biological and
economic forces that create an ‘obesigenic’ environment, promoting increased energy
intake, decreased physical activity, and weight gains in most populations. According to the
International Association for the Study of Obesity, which represents 56 countries, there are
around 1.5 billion adults worldwide who are above ‘normal’ weight, of whom 525 million
are obese, and almost double that number are overweight; by 2015, the predicted number
of obese adults is expected to reach 700 million (IASO 2010). A world map with adult
obesity rates per country can be found at http://www.iaso.org/. According to the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), countries with

the highest obesity rates are the USA, Mexico, New Zealand, Australia, UK, Canada, and
Ireland, while the lowest are Japan and Korea (OECD Report 2010). Seven in 10 adults in
Mexico are overweight or obese, and almost 5 in 10 in Brazil, Russia, and South Africa
(OECD Report 2010).
In this article, we will use the term ‘obesity’ as it is defined by the World Health
Organization to indicate that an individual’s body mass index (BMI), based on height and
weight, is above 30. The extra weight may come from muscle, bone, fat, and/or body
water, but in clinical terms the word obesity is reserved for people with a BMI threshold of
about 30 lb overweight and indicates a high amount of body fat.
We will use the term ‘stigma’ as in Goffman’s (1963) classic definition, to mean
the discrepancy between one’s actual social identity and virtual social identity (the
expectation of what persons in that situation should be like), which can trigger
‘the inference of a wide variety of negative attitudes, beliefs or emotions’ (Paetzold et al.
2008). When a group or its members (in our case, obese people) trigger unfair, negative
attitudes in a perceiver, this is called ‘prejudice’, that is ‘a negative evaluation of a social
group or a negative evaluation of an individual that is significantly based on the
individual’s group membership’ (Crandall and Eshleman 2003, p. 414). The traits that
the perceiver believes to be characteristic of such a group and its members are called
‘stereotypes’, and are usually inaccurate, negative and over-generalized (Allport 1954;
Stangor 2009). Prejudice and stereotypes can lead to discrimination, which Dovidio and
Hebl (2005, p. 11) define as ‘unjustified negative actions that deny ‘individuals or groups
of people equality of treatment’ (Allport 1954, p. 51)’.
It should be noted, at this point, that weight-based stigma, stereotypes, prejudice and
discrimination can occur along the entire weight spectrum and affect those who are either
under, or over, societal norms for body weight. Here, however, we will focus exclusively
on one end of the spectrum – those individuals whose weight is significantly over societal
norms. Therefore, when we refer to ‘weightism’, we will be addressing only the anti-fat
prejudice (Crandall 1994; Crandall et al. 2009) associated with obesity stigma.
In the following sections, we present an overview of the model and examine three
categories of factors – related to the individuals involved in the appraisal process, the
appraisal process itself, and the context in which it takes place – that may influence
the expression of weightism in cognitive, affective and behavioral responses that affect the
performance appraisal of an OE, resulting in biases and discrimination. We conclude by
discussing the implications of this theoretical model for research and practice.
Overview of the model

Based on the literatures on performance appraisal, stigma and prejudice, we propose
the model in Figure 1 to examine how societal stigma about obesity may influence the
performance appraisal of an OE, and thus result in biases and discrimination. The model
proposes that societal stigma against obesity may lead to ‘weightism’ among decision-
makers (DMs) in performance appraisal processes in organizations (indicated as ‘DM’ in
our model).
Those DMs are typically in a supervisory position in regard to the OE (‘OE’ in the
model), but may also include the OEs themselves, and their peers, subordinates,
customers, or clients, and other relevant stakeholders, as in the case of 360-degree
appraisal processes. The appraisal may be exclusively or primarily focused on the OE’s
individual performance (still the most common form of appraisal), or may include the
The Stigma of Obesity
Individual Factors (OE) Individual Factors (DM)

Nature of Obesity Nature of Obesity
Experience with Obesity Experience with Obesity
Gender, race, age Gender, race, age
Physical attractiveness Physical attractiveness
Personality and ideology Personality and ideology
Status, power, reputation Status, power, reputation
Interpersonal & job skills Interpersonal & job skills
Appraisal Factors Contextual Factors

Nature of job
Task uncertainty, visibility of Technology
outcomes Policies & practices
DM Perceptions Culture
Performance measures
Weightism Legislation
Focus (traits, behaviors,
outcomes; inputs, outputs); Societal attitudes
judgments (relative, absolute); OW
levels (individual, group, Suppression / Justification
organization)
Participants and social context
Single / multi-source, social
Expressed Weightism
context; contrast effects and
(Cognitive, Affective, and
performance levels; rater
Behavioral Responses)
accountability, training
Performance management
Formal, informal; yearly,
ongoing Biases and
Discrimination in
Performance Appraisal
Biases:perception, storage,
recall, interpretation, attribution
evaluation, reward
Discrimination: blatant, subtle,
covert
Figure 1. Model of factors affecting performance appraisal of OEs and DM(s).

OE’s individual contribution to the group, or may encompass broader levels of analysis,
such as the performance of the group or even the entire organization. The appraisal process
may be as simple as a formal yearly evaluation of performance, or as complex as an
ongoing, daily mix of formal and informal interactions between appraisers and appraisees.
For the sake of simplicity, our model depicts a DM in a supervisory position, conducting a
yearly appraisal of the individual performance of an OE, which will serve as the basis for
administrative decisions regarding the kind of individual rewards, if any, the OE will
receive (such as incentive pay, in the form of merit pay or an individual bonus,
promotions, special assignments, training and other career opportunities, or simply
retention).
The model proposes that a variety of factors may make it easier or harder for
weightism to be expressed through cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses that lead
to bias and discrimination in the performance appraisal of OEs. They include factors
related to the individuals involved in the appraisal process (DMs, OEs), the appraisal
process itself, and the context in which it takes place. The multiple possible combinations
and interactions of these factors may help explain the variations in the degree to which
obesity stigma may compromise fairness in appraisal decision making.
The model further proposes that the perceived presence or absence of the expression of
weightism in biases and discrimination in the OE’s performance appraisal may, in turn,
trigger feedback loops (indicated by dotted lines in Figure 1) that will affect these various
factors and prompt new cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses, thereby influencing
future appraisal decisions. Vicious or virtuous cycles may thus ensue, exacerbating or
attenuating the long-term discriminatory effects of obesity stigma on performance
appraisal and related administrative decisions in the allocation of organizational rewards.
The following sections explore the various elements included in the model and their
relationships: obesity bias and weightism, the biases and discrimination that the
expression of weightism may introduce in performance appraisal, and the individual,
appraisal and contextual factors that may affect the expression of weightism.
Obesity stigma and weightism

Weightism is the new racism: Crandall (1994) points out that ‘anti-fat attitudes appear to
be currently at the stage that racism was some 50 years ago: overt, expressible, and widely
held’ (p. 891). There is strong empirical evidence of stigmatization, bias, and
discrimination against the obese in multiple contexts of daily life, including the
workplace (Roehling 1999; Puhl and Brownell 2001; Brownell, Puhl, Schwartz and Rudd
2005; King, Shapiro, Hebl, Singletary and Turner 2006; Crandall et al. 2009).
Obesity is highly visible (different, e.g. from mental illness) and the stigmatization
associated with it is aggravated by a common misperception that the cause of obesity is
controllable (whereas nobody would blame a stigmatized individual for their race or
gender), in spite of scientific evidence that attributes half of the causation of obesity to
genetics and half to other factors such as individual choices and environment (Cawley
2004). The environmental component is increasingly being viewed as a key element that
may need to be addressed by public policy (Hill et al. 2007). In spite of this, heavyweight
people are often seen as responsible for inducing and perpetuating their own stigmatizing
condition through self-indulgence, gluttony, and laziness (DeJong and Kleck 1981; Rush
1998; Miller, Rothblum, Felicio and Brand 2000; King et al. 2006; Crandall et al. 2009).
Negative stereotypes associated with overweight people include being self-indulgent,
hedonistic, friendless, sedentary (Polivy, Garner and Garfinkel 1981), less intelligent,
rejected, lonely, shy, dependent, greedy for affection, lazy, and unhappy (DeJong and
Kleck 1981). These stereotypes are still prevalent and powerful, in spite of the
considerable empirical evidence that refutes their validity (Roehling et al. 2008).
The media reinforces these erroneous beliefs with sensationalist stories about people
who achieved significant weight loss, at least in the short term. This perception of
controllability causes obesity stigma to be perceived as a character flaw (succumbing to
the temptations of food), and places it simultaneously in two of Goffman’s (1963) stigma
categories: ‘abominations of the body’ and ‘blemishes of the character’ (Biernat and
Dovidio 2000). It also contributes to social acceptance of overweight stigmatization
and overt expressions of prejudice (Quinn and Crocker 1998; Miller and Major 2000).
These societal views may carry over in the perceptions of those who make evaluative
decisions about the performance of OEs.
Crandall and Eshleman’s (2003) justification-suppression model (JSM) of the
expression and experience of prejudice has been shown to be particularly well-suited to
the study of weight-based prejudice stemming from the stigma of obesity (King et al.
2006; Crandall et al. 2009). The model in Figure 1 uses the JSM framework to indicate that
DMs involved in the performance appraisal and incentive pay of OEs tend to harbor
weightism (Blaine and McElroy 2002; Calogero, Herbozo and Thompson 2009; Stockton
2010) – a raw, underlying prejudice that stems from the ‘pervasive and unyielding’
societal stigma toward obesity (King et al. 2006) – a ‘genuine prejudice [that] is primary,
primal, underlying, powerful, early-learned, automatic, cognitively simple and relatively
effortless’ (Crandall and Eshleman 2003, p. 415). This underlying weightism is a deeply
negative attitude toward the obese that is usually developed early in life, long-lasting and
difficult to change.
The urge to express this prejudice is, however, counteracted by ‘suppression’ forces
(Crandall and Eshleman 2003, p. 417) to keep weightism from being publicly expressed or
even privately, consciously experienced by the DM. Appraisers are socialized to believe
that personnel decisions such as performance appraisal are supposed to be rational,
objective, driven by facts and not emotions.
The strong undercurrents of weightism are still present, however, creating a tension
with the suppression forces. To relieve this tension, an opposing set of forces brings into
play beliefs, ideologies, and attributions that make it possible for justification processes
(Crandall and Eshleman 2003, p. 417) to allow at least some of the underlying weightism
to be privately experienced and/or publicly expressed without guilt, anxiety, or blame.
Justification acts like a valve that relieves the increasingly uncomfortable tensions created
by suppression. To a greater or lesser degree, justification allows unexpressed weightism
to overcome or bypass suppression forces by providing rationalizations that disguise it and
make it acceptable to oneself and others. For example, ideologies that value hard work
and self-determination – such as the Protestant work ethic, a ‘just world’ belief that
‘people get what they deserve’, and authoritarianism (Crandall 1994; Crandall and
Eshleman 2003; King et al. 2006) – contribute to the stigmatization of obesity. In the JSM,
these ideologies provide justification for the expression of weightism by giving rise to
controllability beliefs that the obese are fundamentally responsible for causing and
perpetuating their own condition (Crandall and Eshleman 2003). Studies by King et al.
(2006) offer powerful evidence that such controllability beliefs can act as significant
justification forces, as proposed in the JSM, and contribute to interpersonal discrimination
against the obese in the workplace.
The tension between justification and suppression of weightism represented in
Figure 1 also leads us to propose the new concept of ‘aversive weightism’. In Stockton’s
(2010) study of weight-based discrimination in the USA and the UK, the concept of
‘symbolic weightism’ was used to extend to weight-based prejudice and discrimination the
dynamics that have been observed in ‘symbolic racism’, where prejudice is expressed in
symbolic forms such as ideology (Sears, Henry and Kosterman 2000). Gaertner and
Dovidio’s (1986) concept of ‘aversive racism’ has become very influential in the
understanding of the subtle forms of expression of modern racial prejudice (Gaertner and
Dovidio 1986; Dovidio and Gaertner 2004; Hodson, Dovidio and Gaertner 2004) and has
been extended to other forms of prejudice, such as ‘aversive sexism’ (Ramirez-Melgoza
and Wolfram Cox 2006).
Here, we propose the concept of ‘aversive weightism’ as a modern prejudice that arises
from the interplay of two sets of forces: on the one hand, the obesity stigma that is
historically and deeply rooted in modern culture and Western society; and, on the other
hand, the egalitarian values that lead well-intentioned individuals to want to preserve a
self-image and reputation as being unprejudiced toward the obese. In situations where
there are strict rules against the expression of weightism, suppression forces will be
strengthened enough to tip the scales toward overcompensation, so that the individual’s
affective, cognitive, and behavioral responses may be more favorable toward the obese
than toward those whose physical appearance falls within the ingroup’s normative
parameters. However, in situations where the rules are more ambiguous and allow for a
broader range of responses, there will be a lower need for suppression, and those same
well-intended individuals may express ‘aversive weightism’, not as blatant bias or
discrimination against the obese, but in more subtle ways, such as favoring members of the
normative-size ingroup, and feeling uncomfortable around obese people or avoiding
association with them. The stigma against obesity may be so strong that it may even be
extended to ‘normal’-weight people simply because they befriend obese coworkers, in
what is called stigma-by-association (Hebl and Mannix 2003; Kulik, Bainbridge and
Cregan 2008).
Irrespective of whether we are dealing with the expression of regular weightism or
aversive weightism, the model in Figure 1 further predicts that if justification forces
prevail over suppression forces, at least part of the DM’s underlying weightism will come
through as expressed weightism, a set of affective, cognitive, and behavioral responses
toward the OE (Dovidio, Major and Crocker 2000).
Affective responses tend to play a particularly prominent role in obesity and other
stigmas and have an immediate, primitive nature (Jones et al. 1984). Affective responses
may involve disgust, revulsion and anger, or sympathy and compassion (Dovidio et al.
2000, p. 13; Hebl, Tickle and Heatherton 2000). These two sets of affective responses may
be experienced at the same time, leading to ambivalence and psychological discomfort, as
proposed in the JSM and aversive theories of prejudice (Crocker, Voelkl, Testa and Major
2000; Hebl et al. 2000; Crandall and Eshleman 2003).
Cognitive responses involve stereotypes about overweight people and causal
attributions about the onset, progress, and reversibility of the stigmatizing condition.
Cognitive and affective responses are closely related to behavioral responses. For example,
those who are disgusted by the sight of obese people, attribute the stigma to controllable
causes, and hold negative stereotypes about the bearers of stigma will be more likely to
avoid interactions with obese individuals and be less likely to engage in helping or
cooperative behavior. External attributions or internal attributions to uncontrollable causes
would be more likely to be accompanied by affective responses of sympathy and pity,
which would facilitate helping and cooperative behaviors.
The cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses associated with obesity stigma
and the expression of weightism may introduce several biases in the appraisal process and
result in discrimination outcomes in the performance appraisal of the obese.
Weight-based biases and discrimination in performance appraisal

The literature on appraisal emphasizes values of rationality, impartiality, and objectivity
(Rynes et al. 2005) but, even with best intentions and close attention to the design of
appraisal systems, the process may still be so vulnerable to bias that it has been called ‘one
of the most troubling areas of human resource management’ (Bernardin and Russell 1993)
and ‘one of the thorniest tasks a manager faces, particularly when the assessments are used
to dispense rewards’ (Gomez-Mejia et al. 2010, p. 342). Shields (2007) lists the most
widely acknowledged unintentional errors, such as halo and horn (appraiser bases review
primarily on one positive or negative behavioral incident), first impression (appraiser
develops a lasting negative or positive impression of the appraise based on an initial

encounter), recency (last impression counts the most), similarity (appraiser gives more
favorable review to individuals who are like himself/herself in appearance, interests,
behavior, background, or perceived personality), and attribution (appraiser makes
unreliable judgments about the causes of observed high or low work performance).
If the person being evaluated bears a stigmatizing condition such as obesity, the
possibility of bias may increase. Here, we will examine three categories of possible biases
in performance appraisal (perception, storage, and recall biases; interpretation and
attribution biases; and evaluation and reward biases) and three types of discrimination that
may characterize its outcomes (blatant, subtle, and covert).
Biases in performance appraisal

Perception, storage, and recall biases
Perceptual processes involve extensive filtering and summarizing of information. Based
on research in intergroup relations we predict that the DM is likely to perceive, store, and
recall less information about the performance of the OE (member of a stigmatized
outgroup) than about the performance of other nonstigmatized coworkers (members of the
ingroup of ‘normal’ people). The information about OE’s performance that survives this
filtering process is more likely to be negative and to confirm salient stereotypes associated
with the stigmatized outgroup (Dovidio and Gaertner 1993).
Issues of visibility of performance may compound this effect. For example, OEs may
be assigned to low visibility, peripheral positions, and tasks in the organization. Even
when this does not happen, visibility of performance may still be reduced, because of the
affective, cognitive, or behavioral responses associated with the obesity stigma. The OE
may shy from social interaction, or the stigma of obesity might lead others to ignore the
OE’s presence and contributions in meetings and other work situations.
Interpretation and attribution biases

The information about the OE’s performance that passes the DM’s perception, storage,
and recall filters then meets a second hurdle. It still needs to be interpreted by the DM,
which opens a wide door for obesity stigma to further bias the process. According to
intergroup research, the same behavior or outcome may be interpreted quite differently,
depending on whether the actor is a member of the ingroup or outgroup (Dovidio,
Gaertner, Anastasio and Sanitioso 1992). We predict that the DM will interpret the OE’s
performance information in ways that confirm the DM’s obesity stereotypes and do not
raise dissonance with the DM’s attitudes. Positive behaviors and outcomes will tend to be
discounted and explained away by being attributed to external factors, such as help from
someone else, simplicity of the task, good luck (Weiner 1995). The blame for negative
behaviors and outcomes, however, is likely to be attributed to internal causes (such as lack
of ability, skills, or effort).
Evaluation and reward biases

The information about the OE’s performance that passes the hurdles of perception,
storage, recall, and interpretation biases has to face yet another major challenge –
evaluation and reward biases. Based on our literature review, we predict that the DM will
devalue the performance of the OE, and will appraise and reward it less favorably than
similar performance by nonstigmatized coworkers. This underrating and undervaluing of

the performance of OEs may be more likely to occur when: (a) the rewards associated with
more positive performance appraisals are scarce or highly competitive; (b) external events
accentuate negative symbolic beliefs about obese people (e.g. loud public outcries about
‘the obesity crisis that is plaguing this nation’); (c) the appraisal situation is ambiguous or
subject to weak or conflicting norms, thus decreasing suppression and/or increasing
justification, and thereby decreasing the cost and increasing the availability of
opportunities for the expression of weightism in performance appraisal.
Discrimination
In spite of the possibilities for bias in performance appraisal, most organizations use the
results of the appraisal process for important administrative purposes, including decisions
about the allocation of rewards such as pay, promotions, and other organizational rewards,
as well as decisions about retention and termination. The rationale for tying appraisal to
rewards relies on assumptions about correct measurement of relevant dimensions of
performance, and about fairness and objectivity in judgments about that performance, but
in the presence of obesity stigma these assumptions may be violated, with very real
consequences for motivation, performance, workplace morale, and turnover.
Even when the appraisal process is severely compromised by the biases discussed
above, the widely and deeply held organizational assumptions about its fairness,
rationality, and objectivity still allow the labels that it attaches to the OE’s performance to
acquire the status of ‘facts’, which will then inform decisions about the individual rewards
the OE will (or will not) receive as a result of his or her performance, such as incentive pay
(base-building merit pay, or one-shot bonuses and awards), promotions, opportunities for
other career advancement, and so on. If the possible impacts of obesity stigma and
expressed weightism in the appraisal process are ignored, they may result in
discrimination when these flawed appraisal results are applied to decisions in any or all
of these areas, with serious consequences for the individuals involved and their
organizations. This may happen whether or not there is any intention to discriminate
against the OE, or even any awareness that such discrimination is happening, because
the ‘rationality cloak’ covers the cognitive, affective, and behavioral ‘messiness’ of the
appraisal process. In other words: the OE is receiving lower incentive pay or being
bypassed for promotion not because of discrimination, but because the OE’s performance
appraisal results are poorer than those of his or her thinner peers. This rationale, by the
way, may be believed not only by the DM, but also by the OE, resulting in feedback loops
of future behaviors and perceptions that might eventually result in self-fulfilling
prophecies.
When weightism is expressed in cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses that
introduce bias in the appraisal process, this may result in discrimination affecting one or
more of the administrative uses of the appraisal process (pay, promotion, etc.). The model
highlights three such types of discrimination: blatant, subtle, and covert (Benokraitis
1997). Blatant discrimination is highly visible, overtly unfair, and often intentional. It can
be clearly attributable to prejudice and is often accompanied by an environment of
harassment, offensive language, jokes, and other forms of overt unequal treatment of
obese people in the workplace.
Subtle discrimination is not as visible, usually involves a moderate differential in the
treatment of the OE and somewhat plausible rationalizations, and may be intentional or
unintentional. It is often surrounded by attributional ambiguity, mixed messages about
performance, condescension (e.g. failing to provide accurate performance feedback for

fear of offending the OE), ‘friendly’ harassment (weight-related jokes or comments that
appear innocuous but cause discomfort, embarrassment or humiliation), and subtle
exclusion (physical, social, or professional isolation).
Covert discrimination is characterized by low visibility (biases are carefully hidden
behind false explanations for ratings and reward allocations) and is by definition
intentional. It may be associated with manipulation (e.g. assignment of undesirable tasks
under the pretense of equal treatment) and even sabotage (withholding of information,
resources, training opportunities, and other conditions for good performance).
No matter how visible or intentional, biases and discrimination in the appraisal process
may hurt the OE in ways that go far beyond the simple underrating of performance. Our
model proposes that the likelihood and severity of biases and discrimination will be
affected by various factors that influence the interplay of the justification or suppression
forces, and thus the possibility that obesity stigma and weightism will be expressed in
more or less prejudiced cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses. These factors are
discussed in the sections that follow and include individual factors (in the DM and the
OE), factors in the performance appraisal process, and contextual factors.
Individual factors
Several individual factors in the DM and the OE may influence their cognitive, affective,
and behavioral responses to obesity stigma and weightism: nature of the obesity condition
itself; experience with obesity; gender, race and age; physical attractiveness; personality
and ideology; status, power, and reputation; interpersonal and job skills.
Nature of the obesity condition

Obesity conditions may differ in intensity and pattern, and we believe that these
differences in the nature of obesity may be associated with different responses. For
example, if the intensity of the obesity is very high, it can make the stigma that much more
visible (Dovidio et al. 2000), and also aggravate several other stigma dimensions (Jones
et al. 1984). Those dimensions include: concealability (whether or not a bulky physique
might be disguised through the special use of colors, patterns, or types of clothing);
disruptiveness (difficulty in walking or fitting into chairs or airplane seats, which might
disrupt social interactions and business travel); aesthetics (violation of standards of
beauty, especially if accompanied by less attractive facial features); peril to others (fear of
discomfort for people sharing tight spaces with the OE; fears that the OE presence may
jeopardize safety to others in places like elevators; fears that the OE will increase
insurance costs or reduce sales and productivity). Intensity of overweight also tends to be
correlated with level of fitness, overall health conditions, and ability to cope with the
physical demands of the job. Based on research on stigma and physical appearance
(DeJong and Kleck 1981; Schwartz and Brownell 2004), we predict that the higher the
intensity of the obesity, the higher the likelihood that stigma will be associated with
negative affective, cognitive, and behavioral responses.
Another aspect of the nature of obesity is the pattern of weight variation. Patterns of
stable overweight, continuous weight gain, or small or large variations up or down may
have implications for OE and DM controllability beliefs and thus influence the affective,
cognitive, and behavioral responses associated with the stigma. Interestingly enough,
research suggests that weight loss may actually increase the negativity of responses,
possibly because it reinforces controllability beliefs (Cash 1990; Smart and Wegner 2000;
Blaine, DiBiasi and Connor 2002). Both the nature of obesity and one’s experience with
obesity (examined next) may affect social self-view (Fiske and Ruscher 1993; Swann,
Polzer, Seyle and Ko 2004).
Experience with obesity

OEs may have different levels of experience with obesity, depending on the age of onset of
the stigmatizing condition. Research on the developmental effects of stigma documents
that children with stigmatizing conditions such as obesity may suffer discrimination not
only from their peers, but also from their teachers and parents (Dion 1981; Puhl and
Brownell 2001). Exposure to these traumatic experiences might influence an OE’s
responses to stigmatization in the workplace (Quinn and Crocker 1998).
DMs may also vary in their experience with obesity (e.g. their own obesity or body
image, exposure to an obese spouse, parent, or child). We believe that physical attributes
of DMs, including their own BMI and how they feel about their own bodies may impact
their cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses toward OEs. Contact theory (Hebl et al.
2000; Bell and McLaughlin 2004) leads us to predict that experience with obese
people would reduce the negativity of the responses associated with obesity stigma.
Experience would bring a habituation to the visual stimulus of obesity, a lower tendency to
engage in category-based impression formation processes (Fiske and Neuberg 1990), and
less anxiety when interacting with OEs. On the other hand, research has shown that even
health care providers who specialize in the treatment of obesity may hold very negative
stereotypes about extremely overweight people (Schwartz, Chambliss, Brownell, Blair
and Billington 2003). More research is needed to predict the direction of the influence of
experience with obesity.
Gender
Drawing on the classical work by Collins (1998) about the intersection of gender-based
prejudice with various types of stigmatization and on the emerging literature on gender
and obesity (Crandall et al. 2009; Judge and Cable 2011), we predict that responses
associated with obesity stigma will be more negative when the OE is a woman, because of
societal expectations about female beauty and gender roles (Polivy et al. 1981; Quinn and
Crocker 1998). There is also research evidence that women DMs are harsher in their
attitudes toward obese people (DeJong and Kleck 1981; King et al. 2006). We predict less
negative responses when the OE and the DM are male (Roehling 1999; Schwartz et al.
2003; Crandall et al. 2009).
Race
We predict that responses associated with obesity stigma will be more negative for whites
(Crandall et al. 2009). Obesity research suggests that obesity may be more prevalent,
culturally acceptable, and less stigmatizing for African-Americans and Hispanics,
particularly women (Hebl and Heatherton 1998; Quinn and Crocker 1998;
Jussim, Palumbo, Chatman, Madon and Smith 2000; Schwartz and Brownell 2004;
Crandall et al. 2009).
Age
Although there is little research on the relationship between age and obesity stigma in
adulthood, we believe that obesity in middle age and later is associated with less negative
responses than overweight in young adults in their twenties and thirties, because of
societal expectations (DeJong and Kleck 1981; Crandall et al. 2009). In developed
countries, obesity rates peak for adults up to 50 –60 years old (The International Obesity
Task Force 2002). This age effect might be particularly true for women, because aging
tends to bring both weight gain and some degree of liberation from strict standards of
thinness (Bell and McLaughlin 2004).
Physical attractiveness
It has been said that the literature on physical attractiveness has difficulty in ‘bridging the
neck’, because most studies refer either to the face or the body, but seldom to both
(Herman, Zanna and Higgins 1981). Deeply ingrained attitudes that equate beauty with
goodness and being likeable are established early on in the developmental process and
perpetuated in fairy tales, movies, TV programs, and commercials (Chaiken 1981;
Dion 1981; Langlois 1981). Dipboye (2005) has conducted an extensive literature review
to document the link between physical attractiveness and occupational success, in areas
such as selection, performance appraisal, promotions, and pay. We propose that OEs who
have beautiful faces and are more physically attractive will elicit more positive responses
and be less negatively affected by obesity stigma. The same amount of obesity, however,
will be associated with more negative responses for less attractive OEs, or for people who
suffer from other stigmas that decrease their physical attractiveness (Hammermesh and
Biddle 1994; Averett and Korenman 1996). For the same reasons discussed under section
‘Nature of the obesity condition’, we believe that the DM’s own physical attractiveness
and their attitudes toward their own physical appearance may affect their responses to
different levels of OE attractiveness.
Personality
Certain personality traits have been found to affect responses associated with
stigmatization. For example, self-monitoring, field dependence, and susceptibility to
external feedback may influence the impact of stigma on self-esteem (Chaiken 1981;
Miller and Myers 1998; Crocker and Quinn 2000). Assertiveness may also lead to more
positive responses in the interactions between obese and non-obese people (Miller and
Myers 1998; Miller et al. 2000).
Ideology
As mentioned before, protestant work ethic and achievement ideologies tend to be
associated with controllability beliefs in regard to stigmas, and we expect them to also
be linked with negative responses to obesity (Quinn and Crocker 1999; Crandall 2000;
Jambekar, Quinn and Crocker 2001; King et al. 2006; Crandall et al. 2009).
Status, power, and reputation

We predict that when OEs and DMs have low status, power, and reputation, obesity stigma
will be associated with more negative responses. In contrast, bulkier physiques in OEs
with higher status, power, and reputation might be perceived as symbols of power and
strength, rather than lack of self-control (Siller 1981; Roehling 1999; Jussim et al. 2000).
Interpersonal and job skills

OEs with higher interpersonal skills will be better equipped to correctly identify the
stereotype threat of different situations, read the cues from DMs and others in
the organization, and adopt the appropriate interaction strategies (King et al. 2006). This
should affect the quality of their personal relationships with DMs and others, and bring
positive consequences for actual job performance (by eliciting more cooperation,
information sharing, and helping behaviors) as well as for the perceptions of such
performance. In addition, OEs with highly valued or hard-to-find job skills will be better
equipped to handle job requirements than their less competent counterparts, thus
disconfirming negative, stereotypical expectations.
The same may be true for DMs. DMs with high interpersonal skills may diffuse the
awkwardness so often involved in interactions between stigmatized and nonstigmatized
individuals. By the same token, DMs who are also highly skilled in performance appraisal
processes will be better able to handle the special requirements of evaluation and feedback
situations, particularly when they involve face-to-face meetings.
Performance appraisal factors

Our theoretical model addresses performance appraisals conducted for administrative
purposes such as the allocation of organizational rewards (e.g. incentive pay), rather than
those that are conducted for developmental purposes (Rynes et al. 2005, p. 573). It
assumes that the basic design choices discussed in the literature review of appraisal – such
as performance measurement (relevant performance dimensions, absolute vs. relative
judgments, focus on subjective or objective factors, format of the appraisal instruments),
sources of the appraisal, and level of measurement – have been made in accordance with
the nature of the job (e.g. levels of uncertainty, interdependence and complexity), and the
goals of strategy of the organization (Keeley 1978; Gerhart and Rynes 2003; Rynes et al.
2005).
Even when those requirements are met, the model predicts that the appraisal factors
listed in Figure 1 and discussed below may increase the subjectivity and ambiguity of the
process, thereby increasing justification and decreasing suppression forces, and thus
escalating the likelihood that weightism will be expressed in biases in the appraisal
process.
Nature of the job

We predict that appraisal will be more vulnerable to the expression of weightism when it
relates to jobs that are higher in task uncertainty and lower in visibility of outcomes.
Task uncertainty
Keeley’s (1978) classic contingency model of evaluation highlighted the importance of
task uncertainty in determining the appropriateness of other appraisal factors examined
here. He recommended the use of mechanistic, behavior-based evaluation procedures
(e.g. behaviorally anchored rating scales) when tasks are low in uncertainty and employees
have low need for autonomy; moderately organic, objective-based procedures that
concentrate on the attainment of preestablished objectives (as in management-by-
objectives processes) for tasks of moderate uncertainty, where employees have moderate
need for autonomy; and highly organic, judgment-based evaluations, preferably relying on
multisource raters (as in 360-degree appraisal processes) for tasks with high uncertainty
and employees with high desire for autonomy. Keeley acknowledged that the subjectivity
inherent in the latter appraisal procedures, while necessary to address the high task
uncertainty, increases the likelihood of biases and errors, even when multiple raters are
involved. He also observed that even when judgment-based procedures strive for
‘objective measurement’ – that is, objectivity in ‘the ordering of performances on some
(interpersonal dimension of similarity)’ – there still remains the issue of ‘subjective
valuing – the human attachment of significance to that particular dimension used to order
performances’ (Keeley 1978, p. 432).
In our model, task uncertainty may adversely impact the appraisal of OEs through a
variety of mechanisms: increasing the difficulty in measuring short- and long-term
outcomes; increasing the difficulty in extricating the measurement of the OE’s individual
performance or contribution to group performance from its interdependence with others;
providing more room for ambiguity in the causal attribution of outcomes (e.g. uncertainty
about whether individual or group results were obtained due to the OE’s individual
performance or contribution to group performance, vs. the performance of others, the ease
of the task, or external factors such as luck). Task uncertainty increases the need for the
DM and the OE to interpret outcomes, in order to sort out controllable and uncontrollable
causes of performance. Uncertainty requires the OE and the DM to determine whether a
performance goal was not met because of a forecast error (the target itself turned out to be
unrealistic) or a performance error (the OE failed) (Merchant and Van der Stede 2003).
Visibility of outcomes
We predict that a low level of visibility of outcomes may increase subjectivity and
ambiguity in the appraisal process. When job outcomes are less visible and harder to
measure, the OE will experience more pressure to somehow document those outcomes,
and the DM will have more difficulty in interpreting reported outcomes, which will make
the evaluation process more prone to biases and discrimination. The DM may end up
focusing on visible outcomes that are actually irrelevant to evaluating the performance of
the OE, just because they are visible. This type of bias is known as an ‘outcome effect’ in
management control literature (Mitchell and Kalb 1981; Ghosh and Lusch 2000).
Performance measures
The model proposes that the focus of measurement in the appraisal process
(traits/behaviors/outputs, inputs/outputs) and the types of judgment that are required
from the appraiser(s) when conducting those measurements (relative/absolute) will
influence the likelihood of expressed weightism in appraisals that measure performance at
the individual level of aggregation (as opposed to group or organization levels).
Focus of measure
Trait and behavior-based scales are more subjective, ambiguous, and conducive to
appraiser biases than results-oriented approaches, where outcomes are specifically

measured (Lawler 1971). We therefore expect that trait- and behavior-based scales (e.g.
behaviorally anchored rating scales) may be more vulnerable to the expression of
weightism than outcome-based measures (e.g. management-by-objectives). The manage-
ment control literature suggests that a focus on measuring inputs (such as observable
effort, time on task, technical and interpersonal skills), rather than outputs (e.g.
achievement of financial results and nonfinancial targets) might benefit the OE because
individuals usually have more causal control over inputs than outputs, and a focus on
inputs may increase their goal commitment and motivation (Merchant and Van der Stede
2003) and may lead them to pursue the development of valuable knowledge and skills
through training and other mechanisms (Atkinson, Kaplan and Young 2003). Output-
based measures commonly used for complex, more sophisticated jobs, may be
contaminated by more ‘noise’ from uncontrollable factors (such as resource constraints,
interdependence with the work of others, and changes in the external environment) and
therefore expose the OE to be unfairly penalized by factors beyond his or her control.
On the other hand, the controllability advantage that a focus on input factors would
bring to the OE may be more than offset if the measurement of those inputs leaves room
for more subjectivity and ambiguity than the measurement of output factors. The net effect
of those opposing forces, controllability vs. ease of measurement, may in the end
determine whether a focus on input or output measures will benefit the OE. We propose
that a focus on outputs (measurable results) will decrease the likelihood of bias and
discrimination in the OE’s performance appraisal, as long as the organization has
incorporated appropriate mechanisms in its appraisal process to compensate for
uncontrollable factors.
Type of judgment
We propose that the use of relative measures (comparing the OE with peers by rank-
ordering their performance or slotting them into tiers), rather than absolute measures
(rating the OE’s performance along the various dimensions of absolute, predetermined
standards) may increase the likelihood of appraisal bias and discrimination, particularly
when the comparison involves peers who are not overweight and opens the opportunity for
subjective judgments and ambiguous attributions for the perceived differences in
performance. In organizations that practice relative performance measurement, the
performance of each individual is ranked relative to the performance of other individuals
in a peer group, or compared against the average performance of a peer group. This
practice is often intended to remove or at least reduce the degree of uncertainty in
performance outcomes that depend on uncontrollable factors (Merchant 1989). By
comparing the performance of an OE against the performance of peers who presumably
faced similar uncontrollable factors, the DM should be better equipped to discount the
effect of uncontrollable circumstances encountered during the evaluation period.
However, relative performance measurement may only be favorable to the OE if the
performance measures used for ranking are objective in nature and not conducive to
contrast effects. If the performance measures are subjective, relative performance
measurement may just exacerbate overweight bias. On the other hand, the use of absolute
standards may not help the OE either, if they are compromised by subjectivity and
ambiguity (e.g. in situations where the standards involve metrics that are difficult to apply
or when meeting the standards may be discounted by attributions to external causes).
Level of aggregation
The most common level of measurement is individual performance, but the assessment of
performance at a collective level (group, organization) may be preferred, for example,
in situations where the focus is on results but it is difficult to attribute results to the
performance of specific individuals, or in situations where management wants to promote
cooperation and collaboration, and where striving toward the achievement of individual
objectives might lead to conflicting priorities and sub-optimization of overall goals (Rynes
et al. 2005). The model predicts that appraisals that measure individual performance, or
the individual’s contribution to group performance, are more vulnerable to the expression
of weightism, because strictly collective-level measures, at the group or organizational
level, would obscure the effect of prejudice toward a particular individual.
Participants and social context of appraisal

Performance evaluations are most commonly conducted by the appraisee’s direct
supervisor, but they can also include self-reviews, peer reviews, and subordinate reviews,
and sometimes even take into account the feedback from external stakeholders, such as
clients and customers (Gomez-Mejia et al. 2010). Appraisals take place within a social
environment that ‘plays a major role in the effectiveness of the appraisal process and how
participants react to that process’ (Levy and Williams 2004). The model proposes that the
likelihood of expression of weightism will be influenced by the participants and social
context of the appraisal process.
Single vs. multisource appraisals and the social context of appraisal

The most common source of appraisal is an employee’s direct supervisor. In response to
calls for research to investigate the cognitive processes underlying decisions of appraisers
(Feldman 1981; Dipboye 1985), which have been shown to be influenced by memory,
attitudes, values, personality traits, and information acquisition patterns (Bretz, Milkovich
and Read 1992), Judge and Ferris (1993) proposed a model where a supervisor’s attitude
toward the subordinate is a central element of how the social context may influence
performance ratings. Cardy and Dobbins (1994) observed that the substantial correlations
found in field studies between liking and performance ratings may be appropriate or
biased. If the correlation exists because supervisors tend to like good performers, then it is
appropriate. If, however, supervisors like certain subordinates for reasons that are not
related to their performance, and somehow that liking inflates their performance appraisal
of those liked subordinates, then it is not appropriate. To the extent that appraiser affect
harbors an aversion to obesity, this may result in weight-based bias or discrimination
(Roehling 1999).
We propose that single-rater appraisals where the DM is the OE’s direct supervisor
may increase the likelihood of the expression of weightism, because they will rely on the
cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses of just one appraiser, which will not be
counterbalanced by the perspectives of others. This will have particularly negative effects
in social contexts of appraisal characterized by low ‘affective regard’, where the
supervisor’s dislike for physically unattractive subordinates leads to lower, less accurate
ratings (Lefkowitz 2000), or whenever the supervisor displays negative ‘rater affect’
(Levy and Williams 2004). Examples of such social contexts are situations where the DM
might dislike or feel uncomfortable in relating to the OE, and where the DM might not be
well informed about the OE’s performance because of low frequency or low quality of
contact with the OE.
We expect the appraisal process to be more favorable to the OE when OEs play an
active role in setting goals for their own performance (e.g. negotiation of budget goals,
choice of other nonfinancial objectives that more closely represent job effort). Research on
participative goal-setting has shown that high levels of participation are also associated
with increased goal commitment and motivation, which may lead to improved
performance (Brownell 1982; Shields and Shields 1998).
Multisource evaluation processes, such as 360-degree appraisals, may enrich the
quality of the process and reduce bias not only by bringing a variety of different
perspectives, but also by increasing rater accountability. On the other hand, increasing the
number of sources does not necessarily guarantee a diversity of perspectives, nor does it
necessarily remove the possibility of bias. Indeed, if the various sources share similar
prejudices toward the OE, including them in the OE appraisal might backfire and lead to
further sources of error, such as consensus biases and polarization (Martell and Borg
1993).
Contrast effects and levels of performance

Even though outcome-based measures are usually regarded as less subjective than trait- or
behavior-based scales, outcome measures may not be as objective as they might seem,
due, for example, to possible ambiguity in causal attributions for the outcomes, shifting
standards related to stereotypes (Biernat 2009), and contrast effects of performance
variation (Gaugler and Rudolph 1992; Palmer and Feldman 2005), both within appraisees
(i.e. with the OE’s own prior performances, assessed as lower or higher than the current
one), and among appraisees (i.e. contrast with the lower or higher results achieved by
thinner peers with whom the OE is being compared). For example, we would expect
obesity to accentuate unfavorable primacy effects, that is, an OE’s performance at a
certain point in time, when evaluated in the context of previously assessed performances
by the same OE, would be even more underrated than what prior studies of ‘normal’
weight people would predict (Spychalski 1997).
In one-shot appraisals, where the DM does not have information about prior OE’s
performance, we expect weightism to play a particular role at levels of performance that
are ambiguous enough to allow justification processes to override suppression (e.g. levels
that are not so extremely high or low that the ratings become self-evident and beyond
question). An interesting research question is whether empirical findings about aversive

racism can also apply to the concept we proposed earlier, of ‘aversive weightism’.
Numerous experiments have documented that the likelihood of underestimating the
performance of outgroup members may vary with the level of performance being assessed
(Gaertner and Dovidio 1986; Dovidio et al. 1992; Dovidio and Gaertner 2004; Hodson
et al. 2004; Ramirez-Melgoza and Wolfram Cox 2006). Most DMs attempt to be fair and
to ignore the negative component of their ambivalent attitudes toward outgroup members.
To protect this self-image of fairness, DMs may increase suppression when they are
comparing ingroup and outgroup members with equally clear performance levels, which
would explain why so many experiments have not found evidence of discrimination at the
low end of performance ranges. However, when it comes to comparing performance
in situations that are more ambiguous in terms of results achieved or their causal
attributions, justification does not pose such a threat to one’s self-image of fairness, which
allows DMs to be much more stringent in their evaluations of outgroup members. DMs
may actually feel virtuous about being demanding and uncompromising about placing
people at the top of the evaluation scale. In those high-performance situations, DMs would
not see themselves as harming OEs, but as simply abstaining from giving them any
undeserved special breaks.
Rater accountability and training

The effect of rater accountability in improving the accuracy of appraisal, improving recall,
and reducing contrast errors in appraisal in poor performance context conditions (i.e. when
current performance is being assessed in a context of prior poor performances) has been
well documented (Gaugler and Rudolph 1992; Palmer and Feldman 2005). There is also a
growing literature on the effect of training in reducing rater errors and biases (for a review,
see Arthur and Doverspike 2005). We propose that the expression of weightism will be
more likely when the appraisal process is characterized by the lack of audits and
accountability (e.g. anonymous appraisals, or evaluations where appraisers know that their
ratings will not be compared with others’ and will not have to be justified), or by the lack
of rater training (e.g. appraisers who just use their ‘common sense’, without the benefit of
interventions to improve accuracy such as frame-of-reference training).
Performance management
The performance appraisal process involves not only the measurement, but also the
management of performance. The model in Figure 1 proposes that if there are problems in
performance management involving, for example, the communication and relationships
between the DM and the OE, either in their formal interaction during an appraisal
interview or in their informal, daily interactions, this may affect the justification/suppres-
sion processes and contribute to the expression of weightism through cognitive, affective,
and behavioral responses that will increase the likelihood of biases and discrimination in
the appraisal of OEs.
Contextual factors
In addition to the social context of appraisal discussed previously (including issues of rater
affect and attitudes toward the OE), the likelihood of expression of weightism may also be
influenced by a variety of broader contextual factors: technology, organizational policies
and practices, organizational culture, legislation, and societal attitudes toward obese
people. For example, although DMs may not personally hold negative stereotypical views,
they may perceive pressure from others in the organization to discriminate against OEs
(LaVan and Katz 2009). Some contextual factors may be harder to change than other
factors in the model in Figure 1, but they may offer some possibilities for long-term
interventions.
Technology
The salience and relevance of obesity stigma may be affected by technology in different
ways. Technology can change how jobs are performed and thus may influence the DM’s
perception of the OE’s suitability for particular tasks (as argued by Stone and Colella
1996, regarding the disabled). Technology may also be used to increase job flexibility
(e.g. through telecommuting) and to reduce the OE’s visibility while increasing the
visibility of objective performance outcomes, which might improve actual job
performance (e.g. online sales). We predict that the likelihood of expression of weightism
will be lower when technology is used to allow more flexibility and to increase the
visibility of performance, while reducing the visibility of the performer.
Organizational policies and practices

Hiring and selection policies based on actual rather than ideal job requirements are likely
to reduce discrimination against people with disabilities (Stone and Colella 1996), and
presumably against OEs. Organizational practices that promote informal, but intensive
social interaction requiring high levels of physical fitness (e.g. intra-company sports
events of high visibility) may reinforce biases against OEs and place them in a
disadvantaged position that might spill over to actual and perceived job performance.
Organizational culture
The design and implementation of appraisal and reward processes are influenced by
cultural assumptions of system designers and key DMs. For instance, Bento and Ferreira
(1992) have found that certain cultural values (equality, certainty, uncontrollability,
collectivism, and personalistic foregrounding) foster appraisal and reward processes that
encourage cooperation, use absolute performance measures, promote personal security,
and protect appraisees from uncontrollable factors.
Some organizations may be less explicit than others in terms of valuing objectivity in
performance appraisal and translating this into the norms and policies surrounding
appraisal. We would predict that in such organizations the effect of obesity stigma on
appraisal would be more pronounced, particularly if those organizations are embedded in
national cultures where social norms make it more acceptable for the interpersonal affect
between appraisers and appraisees to influence performance ratings (Amba-Rao, Petrick,
Gupta and Embse 2000; Gerhart and Fang 2005; Varma, Pichler and Srinivas 2005).
Legislation
A legal system that would extend to the obese the same protections afforded to other
outgroups might contribute substantially to reinforce suppression forces and decrease the
likelihood of expression of weightism in appraisal processes, thus reducing the prevalence
of discrimination in hiring, promotion, pay, and other organizational processes where
perceptions about the past or future performance of OEs might play a role in decision
making. At present, however, obese individuals have no clear and unequivocal legal
protection against workplace discrimination, unlike other groups who have been victims
of discrimination based on sex, race, disability, or religion (Kristen 2002). For example, in
the USA, indirect protection has been attempted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
(1991) against disparate treatment and disparate impact discrimination, but this legislation
does not shield obese individuals from direct employment discrimination due to their
weight (Roehling 2002). This lack of legal recourse makes it easier for DMs to
discriminate against OEs when evaluating performance and assigning performance-based
rewards. Employers may still discriminate legally against obese job applicants when the
position requires certain physical appearance standards, or simply on grounds of customer
preference or employer image (Bell and McLaughlin 2004).
Attorneys who specialize in workplace discrimination cases are becoming concerned
that public campaigns intended to fight the ‘obesity crisis’ may contribute to more bias and
discrimination against the obese (Goll 2002). For example, if employers push for
participation in company-sponsored weight-reduction programs, OEs may feel that their

appraisal and incentives (if not their continuing employment) might be at risk unless they
join those programs and lose weight.
There is growing legal precedent in the USA for some overweight individuals,
especially under the legal definition of morbid obesity, to use the Rehabilitation Act of
1974 or the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 to fight discrimination on the basis of
a disability or perceived disability that substantially limits at least one major life activity
(Roehling 1999). However, inconsistent rulings and the reluctance of most courts to regard
obesity as a disability have limited the efficacy of this legal protection (Puhl and Brownell
2001; Puhl and Heuer 2009).
The most successful legal strategy for obese individuals who have suffered workplace
discrimination is still to argue their case on the basis of other attributes that do enjoy anti-
discrimination protection under the law, such as gender or race (Kristen 2002).
Recognizing these legal limitations, some state and local governments have passed
legislation specifically drafted to extend protection to overweight individuals. In the case
of the USA, Michigan is the only state that prohibits employment discriminations on the
basis of weight (Puhl and Heuer 2009), while New York, New Jersey, Washington DC,
and some cities in California have some protections (Bell and McLaughlin 2004).
Societal attitudes
In the USA and Western Europe, children around age 3 years have already assimilated two
notions about body types: being thin is good, and being fat is bad (Jarvie, Lahey, Graziano
and Framer 1983). In a recent large-scale study of the content of the 10 most popular
fictional television shows, researchers have found that overweight people are significantly
underrepresented. When they did appear as television characters, they were frequently
portrayed with negative traits. Overweight characters were also more likely to be the target
of demeaning humor and to be shown eating (Greenberg, Eastin, Hofschire, Lachlan and
Brownell 2003).
Just as racial-based discrimination used to be socially acceptable, weight-based
discrimination still seems to be both legal and popular in Western society (Rothblum 1994;
Rothblum and Solovay 2009; Farrell 2011), which increases the likelihood of obesity bias
in performance appraisals. As a British reporter summarized, ‘Fat is the new black’
(Reeves 2003, p. 16). The prevailing weight stigma allows politicians to turn obesity into a
political issue, and to propose all sorts of ‘interventions’ to wage the so-called obesity war.
Strategies ranging from holding the fast-food industry responsible, to differential taxes for
fatty foods, and even higher taxes for overweight individuals have been proposed or tried
by different governments, with varying degrees of success (Reeves 2003; Crandall et al.
2009).
Discussion and implications

The prevalence and deeply ingrained nature of obesity stigma make it an important area of
study, particularly when we consider the potential magnitude of its impact on performance
appraisal. The consequences of an appraisal process that is tainted by the expression of
weightism go far beyond the immediate evaluation results: they have implications for a
wide spectrum of organizational rewards that are tied to performance (incentive pay,
promotion, etc.), and their effects on the interpersonal relations, cognitions, feelings, and
behaviors of appraisers and appraisees can reverberate throughout multiple subsequent
cycles of performance and reward, with long-term impacts on motivation and

performance.
We hope that the model proposed here will contribute to research in an under-explored
but very promising area of research, the overlap between the literature on appraisal and the
literature on stigmatization and prejudice. Such studies of appraisal impact already exist
for prejudices other than obesity, including classics such as Halpert, Wilson and
Hickman’s (1993) lab studies of the effects of pregnancy bias in appraisals and Mobley’s
(1982) field study of race and sex effects on appraisal.
Appraisal processes are omnipresent in the workplace and have high valence for both
individuals and organizations. Their characteristics share enough commonality across
organizations to facilitate aggregation of results, and enough diversity in design and
context to allow the exploration of multiple contingencies and situational variables, as
recommended by stigmatization scholars (Crocker and Quinn 2000; Dovidio et al. 2000).
Because obesity stigma is still more socially acceptable and legally defensible than
other stigmas, weightism suppression forces are weaker and justification forces are
stronger than those related to other prejudices (based on race, gender, etc.), making the
expressions of weightism easier to observe and resulting in a broader range of
discriminatory behaviors, from the most subtle to the most blatant. Future empirical
research should investigate how ‘aversive weightism’ might manifest itself at different
levels of OE’s performance, and examine the relationship between the OE’s level of
performance and the likelihood that obesity stigma might lead to bias and discrimination
in the OE’s performance appraisal. Empirical research on the concept of aversive
weightism is relevant not only for its own sake, but also because it might generate further
insights on the dynamics of aversive racism and other forms of subtle expressions of
prejudice.
Multiple questions need to be addressed in future empirical studies. For example, how
much of the burden for breaking the spell of stigmatization falls on the shoulders of the
obese individual, or the DM? What enables those people to react and behave in ways that
lessen or counteract the impact of obesity stigma on incentive pay? What role does trust
play in the appraisal process, and how is it earned or squandered? Under what conditions
does increased contact result in habituation and lessening of the stigma in the workplace?
Why can power, status, and reputation work as an ‘invisibility cloak’ to make the obesity
stigma less salient? What factors hamper an obese individual’s ability to function
in situations of attributional ambiguity? What is the effect of experience with obesity for
both the OEs (e.g. age of onset) and the DMs (e.g. being obese themselves, or having
different levels of contact with obese people at home, in the family, etc.)? What is the
cumulative effect of multiple stigmas in the combination of weight, gender, race, and so on
(double, triple, quadruple ‘whammies’)?
Appraisal processes are uniquely suited for heeding Northcraft and Hastorf’s (1981)
call for research that explores the gap between macro outcomes (e.g. statistics on results of
discrimination, which are like the final score of a game) and molecular analysis (e.g. the
study of a single interaction, which is like watching a single play), in order to fully
appreciate the intricate dynamics of stigmatization (the entire game). Research on the
impact of obesity stigma has concentrated mostly on documenting its macro aspects and is
only starting to explore the dynamics of single appraisals, but is virtually nonexistent in
terms of the dynamics of the long-term effects of discrimination on subsequent motivation,
performance, appraisals, and rewards.
As pointed out by Crocker and Quinn (2000, p. 177), one-shot, laboratory experiments
using confederates are not appropriate for studying the ripple effects suggested by the
feedback loops in our model, such as the formation, interdependence, strengthening or

weakening of meanings, expectations, attributions, goals, feelings, fears, perceived
threats, coping strategies, and other cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses by OEs
and DMs. These feedback loops could be examined, for example, in larger-scale
longitudinal studies of organizations with adequate sample sizes, and multiyear employee
appraisal and weight data on employees over a time period (which might be available,
e.g. through an internal wellness program).
The dynamics of the model proposed here may be further examined in a variety of
in-depth, longitudinal studies of the phenomenology of being stigmatized, as well as the
phenomenology of stigmatizing others. For example, in-depth, longitudinal explorations
of the ‘phenomenology of being stigmatized’ (Crocker et al. 2000) could address OE-
related questions such as: How do obese individuals construe, anticipate, and react to
appraisal decisions and their outcomes over repeated cycles of performance, appraisal, and
rewards? It would be important, for example, to find out what happens to the same
individual across different contexts: How do one’s experiences of stigmatization in the
workplace relate to stigma experiences in the family, or other social circles? How do those
experiences evolve through different stages in the life cycle? We need to learn much more
about the perspective of the targets of stigmatization (Dovidio et al. 2000; Miller et al.
2000), and there might be great wisdom in letting their voices do the telling. As the African
Proverb says, ‘the lion’s story will never be told as long as the hunter is telling the story’
(Swim and Stangor 1998).
By the same token, in-depth, longitudinal studies of the phenomenology of
stigmatizing would address DM-related questions: how are appraisers affected by the
commission or suppression of discriminatory behaviors and outcomes? Stigmatization
challenges the humanity of both the target and the perceiver (Dovidio et al. 2000), and we
need to learn more about how the experience of discriminating, whether intentional or
unintentional, conscious or unconscious, affects the DM. Although most studies take the
perspective of the perceiver, they fail to explore the long-term effects of the experience of
stigmatizing others. We need to find out more about the benefits and costs experienced by
the DMs as a result of trying to suppress prejudice-driven cognitions, affects and behaviors
(Biernat and Dovidio 2000; Crandall 2000) and the effects on the DM of ongoing exposure
to ambiguous situations that allow the expression of weightism.
The model proposed here and the research questions suggested by it can also have
significant implications for practice. While it is still too early to offer categorical
recommendations, we would like to highlight a few issues.
Most diversity training and efforts are targeted at attributes like gender and race, and
virtually ignore body shape and size (Bell, McLaughlin and Sequeira 2002). There is only
limited evidence about the effectiveness of change efforts to reduce bias against obese
individuals, mostly consisting of lab experiments that prime different attributions for
origin and controllability of obesity. Diversity training programs that address the issue of
weight and that include the discussion of obesity stigma and its consequences should at
least serve to raise awareness about the problem, and possibly contribute to increase
suppression and decrease justification of weightism, thereby reducing its expression in the
workplace (Puhl and Brownell 2003).
Another promising avenue might be to intervene in some of the appraisal factors
discussed in our model, in order to decrease the opportunities and increase the costs of the
expression of weightism. Examples of such interventions include: mechanisms to increase
rater accountability, such as non-anonymous reviews, multisource evaluations, and written
evaluations (which review the level of attainment of preset performance goals and justify
the links between performance and rewards); mechanisms for facilitating communication
about discrepancies in perceptions and interpretations, and for achieving agreement;
mechanisms for taking into account controllability considerations and for increasing
critical thinking about causal attributions of performance; appraiser training to improve
absolute and relative judgments about performance (e.g. frame-of-reference training);
appraisee training on how to prepare self-reports and provide thorough documentation of
performance; appraiser and appraisee training in participative goal-setting, communi-
cation and feedback; and other interventions to reduce uncertainty and ambiguity in
appraisal.
These kinds of interventions would make the appraisal process more resilient not only
against the effects of obesity stigma and weightism, but also against other forms of stigma
and prejudice. A better understanding of the effects of obesity stigma should help
individuals and organizations reap the motivation and performance benefits of appraisal
and reduce some of its human and organizational costs. Research and interventions
targeting the factors that introduce bias and discrimination in the appraisal process would
improve conditions for employees of all body types and sizes and ultimately result in
improved organizational performance.
References
Allport, G.W. (1954), The Nature of Prejudice, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Amba-Rao, S., Petrick, J.A., Gupta, J.D., and Embse, T. (2000), ‘Comparative Performance
Appraisal Practices and Management Values Among Foreign and Domestic Firms in India,’
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11, 1, 60 – 89.
Argyris, C. (1976), ‘Single-Loop and Double-Loop Models in Research on Decision Making,’
Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 3, 363– 375.
Arthur, W., and Doverspike, D. (2005), ‘Achieving Diversity and Reducing Discrimination in the
Workplace Through HRM Practices: Implications of Research and Theory for Staffing,
Training, and Rewarding Performance,’ in Discrimination at Work: The Psychological and
Organizational Bases, eds. R.L. Dipboye and A. Colella, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum,
pp. 305– 327.
Atkinson, A., Kaplan, R., and Young, S.M. (2003), Management Accounting (4th ed.), Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Averett, S., and Korenman, S. (1996), ‘The Economic Reality of the Beauty Myth,’ The Journal of
Human Resources, 31, 2, 304– 330.
Bell, M.P., and McLaughlin, M.E. (2004), ‘Obesity, Appearance, and Organizational Outcomes,’ in
Handbook of Organizational Diversity, eds. A.M. Konrad, P. Prasad and J.K. Pringle, Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bell, M., McLaughlin, M., and Sequeira, J. (2002), ‘Age, Disability and Obesity: Diversity within
Diversity. Gender and Diversity in Organizations Conference Paper Abstracts,’ in Proceedings
of the Academy of Management, Denver, CO, p1, 20 pp.
Benokraitis, N. (1997), Subtle Sexism: Current Practice and Prospect for Change, Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Bento, R.F. (1997), ‘Unintentional Subtle Discrimination Against Latinas in the Work Place: When
Good Intentions Are Not Enough,’ in Subtle Sexism: Current Practice and Prospect for Change,
ed. N. Benokraitis, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 95 – 114.
Bento, R.F., and Ferreira, L. (1992), ‘Incentive Pay and Organizational Culture,’ in Performance
Measurement, Evaluation and Incentives, ed. W. Bruns, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Press, pp. 157– 182.
Bernardin, H.J., and Russell, J.E.A. (1993), Human Resource Management: An Experiential
Approach, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Biernat, M. (2009), ‘Stereotypes and Shifting Standards,’ in Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping
and Discrimination, ed. T. Nelson, New York: Psychology Press, pp. 137–152.
Biernat, M., and Dovidio, J.F. (2000), ‘Stigma and Stereotypes,’ in The Social Psychology of Stigma,
eds. T.F. Heatherton, R.E. Kleck, M.R. Hebl and J.G. Hull, New York: Guilford Press,
pp. 88 – 125.
Blaine, E.B., DiBiasi, M.D., and Connor, M.J. (2002), ‘The Effect of Weight Loss on Perceptions of
Weight Controllability: Implications for Prejudice Against Overweight People,’ Journal of
Applied Biobehavioral Research, 7, 1, 44 – 56.
Blaine, B., and McElroy, J. (2002), ‘Selling Stereotypes: Weight Loss Infomercials, Sexism, and
Weightism,’ Sex Roles, 46, 9/10, 351– 357.
Bretz, R.D., Milkovich, G.T., and Read, W. (1992), ‘The Current State of Performance Appraisal
Research and Practice: Concerns, Directions, and Implications,’ Journal of Management, 18, 2,
321– 352.
Brownell, P. (1982), ‘Participation in the Budgeting Process: When it Works and When it Doesn’t,’
Journal of Accounting Literature, 1, 125– 153.
Brownell, K.D., Puhl, R.M., Schwartz, M.B., and Rudd, L. (2005), Weight Bias: Nature,
Consequences, and Remedies, New York: Guilford Press.
Calogero, R.M., Herbozo, S., and Thompson, J. (2009), ‘Complimentary Weightism: The Potential
Costs of Appearance-Related Commentary for Women’s Self-objectification,’ Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 33, 1, 120– 132.
Cardy, R.L., and Dobbins, G.H. (1994), Performance Appraisal: Alternative Perspectives,
Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.
Cash, T.F. (1990), ‘The Psychology of Physical Appearance: Aesthetics, Attributes, and Images,’
in Body Images: Development, Deviance, and Change, eds. T.F. Cash and T. Pruzinsky,
New York: Guilford Press.
Cawley, J. (2004), ‘The Impact of Obesity on Wages,’ The Journal of Human Resources, 39, 2,
451– 474.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2010), ‘Vital Signs: State Specific Obesity Prevalence
Among Adults – United States, 2009,’ Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, August 3.
Chaiken, S. (1981), ‘Physical Appearance and Social Influence,’ in Physical Appearance, Stigma,
and Social Behavior: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 3), eds. C.P. Herman, M.P. Zanna and
E.T. Higgins, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 143– 177.
Collins, P.H. (1998), ‘It’s All in the Family: Intersections of Gender, Race, and Nation,’ Hypatia, 13,
62 – 82.
Crandall, C.S. (1994), ‘Prejudice Against Fat People: Ideology and Self-Interest,’ Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 5, 882– 894.
Crandall, C.S. (2000), ‘Ideology and Lay Theories of Stigma: The Justification of Stigmatization,’
in The Social Psychology of Stigma, eds. T.F. Heatherton, R.E. Kleck, M.R. Hebl and J.G. Hull,
New York: Guilford Press, pp. 126 –150.
Crandall, C.S., and Eshleman, A. (2003), ‘A Justification-Suppression Model of the Expression and
Experience of Prejudice,’ Psychological Bulletin, 129, 3, 414– 446.
Crandall, C.S., Eshleman, A., and O’Brien, L. (2002), ‘Social Norms and the Expression and
Suppression of Prejudice: The Struggle for Internalization,’ Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 82, 3, 359–378.
Crandall, C.S., Nierman, A., and Hebl, M. (2009), ‘Anti-Fat Prejudice,’ in Handbook of Prejudice,
Stereotyping and Discrimination, ed. T.D. Nelson, New York: Psychology Press, pp. 469–487.
Crocker, J., and Quinn, D.M. (2000), ‘Social Stigma and the Self: Meanings, Situations, and Self-
esteem,’ in The Social Psychology of Stigma, eds. T.F. Heatherton, R.E. Kleck, M.R. Hebl and
J.G. Hull, New York: Guilford Press, pp. 153– 183.
Crocker, J., Voelkl, K., Testa, M., and Major, B. (2000), ‘Social Stigma: The Affective
Consequences of Attributional Ambiguity,’ in Stereotypes and Prejudice: Essential Readings,
ed. C. Stangor, Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press, pp. 353– 368.
DeJong, W., and Kleck, R.E. (1981), ‘The Social Psychological Effects of Overweight,’ in Physical
Appearance, Stigma, and Social Behavior: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 3), eds. C.P. Herman,
M.P. Zanna and E.T. Higgins, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 65 – 87.
Dion, K.K. (1981), ‘Stereotyping Based on Physical Attractiveness: Issues and Conceptual
Perspectives,’ in Physical Appearance, Stigma, and Social Behavior: The Ontario Symposium
(Vol. 3), eds. C.P. Herman, M.P. Zanna and E.T. Higgins, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum,
pp. 7 – 21.
Dipboye, R.L. (1985), ‘Some Neglected Variables in Research on Discrimination in Appraisals,’
Academy of Management Review, 10, 116– 127.

Dipboye, R.L. (2005), ‘Looking the Part: Bias Against the Physically Unattractive as a
Discrimination Issue,’ in Discrimination at Work: The Psychological and Organizational Bases,
eds. R.L. Dipboye and A. Colella, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 281– 301.
Dipboye, R.L., and Colella, A. (2005), Discrimination at Work: The Psychological and
Organizational Bases, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dovidio, J.F., and Gaertner, S.L. (1993), ‘Stereotypes and Evaluative Intergroup Bias,’ in Affect,
Cognition, and Stereotyping: Interactive Processes in Group Perception, eds. D.M. Mackie and
D.L. Hamilton, San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 167– 193.
Dovidio, J.F., and Gaertner, S.L. (2004), ‘Aversive Racism,’ in Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, ed. M.P. Zanna, San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 1 – 52.
Dovidio, J.F., Gaertner, S.L., Anastasio, P.A., and Sanitioso, R. (1992), ‘Cognitive and Motivational
Bases of Bias: Implications of Aversive Racism for Attitudes Towards Hispanics,’ in Hispanics
in the Workplace, eds. S.B. Knouse, P. Rosenfeld and A.L. Culbertson, Newbury Park, CA:
Sage, pp. 75 – 106.
Dovidio, J.F., and Hebl, M. (2005), ‘Discrimination at the Level of the Individual: Cognitive and
Affective Factors,’ in Discrimination at Work: The Psychological and Organizational Bases,
eds. R.L. Dipboye and A. Colella, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 11 – 35.
Dovidio, J.F., Major, B., and Crocker, J. (2000), ‘Stigma: Introduction and Overview,’ in The Social
Psychology of Stigma, eds. T.F. Heatherton, R.E. Kleck, M.R. Hebl and J.G. Hull, New York:
Guilford Press, pp. 1– 28.
Farrell, A.E. (2011), Fat Shame: Stigma and the Fat Body in American Culture, New York:
New York University Press.
Feldman, J. (1981), ‘Beyond Attribution Theory: Cognitive Processes in Performance Appraisal,’
Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 127– 148.
Fiske, S.T., and Neuberg, S.L. (1990), ‘A Continuum of Impression Formation, From Category-
Based to Individuating Processes: Influences of Information and Motivation on Attention and
Interpretation,’ in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 23), ed. M. Zanna,
Orlando, FL: Academic Press, pp. 1– 74.
Fiske, S.T., and Ruscher, J.B. (1993), ‘Negative Interdependence and Prejudice: Whence the
Affect?’ in Affect, Cognition, and Stereotyping: Interactive Processes in Group Perception, eds.
D.M. Mackie and D.L. Hamilton, San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 239– 268.
Gaertner, S.L., and Dovidio, J.F. (1986), ‘The Aversive Form of Racism,’ in Prejudice,
Discrimination, and Racism, eds. J.F. Dovidio and S.L. Gaertner, New York: Academic Press,
pp. 61 – 89.
Gaugler, B.B., and Rudolph, A.S. (1992), ‘The Influence of Assessee Performance Variation on
Assessors’ Judgments,’ Personnel Psychology, 45, 77 – 98.
Gerhart, B., and Fang, M. (2005), ‘National Culture and Human Resource Management:
Assumptions and Evidence,’ International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16, 6,
971– 986.
Gerhart, B., and Rynes, S.L. (2003), Compensation Theory, Evidence, and Strategic Implications,
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ghosh, D., and Lusch, R. (2000), ‘Outcome Effect, Controllability and Performance Evaluation of
Managers: Some Field Evidence from Multi-outlet Businesses,’ Accounting, Organizations and
Society, 25, 411– 425.
Gilbert, C., De Winne, S., and Sels, L. (2011), ‘The Influence of Line Managers and HR Department
on Employee Affective Commitment,’ International Journal of Human Resource Management,
22, 8, 1618– 1637.
Goffman, E. (1963), Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity, New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Goll, D. (2002), ‘Workplace Fairness Can Be Weighty Issue,’ East Bay Business Times, February 18,
1 – 2.
Gomez-Mejia, L.R., Balkin, D.B., and Cardy, R.L. (2010), Managing Human Resources,
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Gortmaker, S.L., Must, A., Perrin, J.M., Sobol, A.M., and Dietz, W.H. (1993), ‘Social and Economic
Consequences of Overweight in Adolescence and Young Adulthood,’ New England Journal of
Medicine, 329, 14, 1008– 1012.
Greenberg, S.B., Eastin, M., Hofschire, L., Lachlan, K., and Brownell, K. (2003), ‘Portrayals of
Overweigh and Obese Individuals on Commercial Television,’ American Journal of Public

Health, 93, 8, 1342– 1348.
Halpert, J.A., Wilson, M.L., and Hickman, J.L. (1993), ‘Pregnancy as a Source of Bias in
Performance Appraisals,’ Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 7, 649– 663.
Hammermesh, D.S., and Biddle, J.E. (1994), ‘Beauty and the Labor Market,’ American Economic
Review, 84, 5, 1174– 1194.
Haskins, K.M., and Ransford, E. (1999), ‘The Relationship between Weight and Career Payoffs
Among Women,’ Sociological Forum, 14, 2, 295– 318.
Hebl, M., and Heatherton, F.T. (1998), ‘The Stigma of Obesity in Women: The Difference is Black
and White,’ Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 4, 417– 426.
Hebl, M., and Mannix, L. (2003), ‘The Weight of Obesity in Evaluating Others: A Mere Proximity
Effect,’ Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1, 28 – 38.
Hebl, M., Tickle, J., and Heatherton, T.F. (2000), ‘Awkward Moments in Interactions Between
Nonstigmatized and Stigmatized Individuals,’ in The Social Psychology of Stigma, eds. T.F.
Heatherton, R.E. Kleck, M.R. Hebl and J.G. Hull, New York: Guilford Press, pp. 273– 306.
Herman, C.P., Zanna, M.P., and Higgins, E.T. (1981), ‘Preface,’ in Physical Appearance, Stigma,
and Social Behavior: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 3), eds. C. Peter Herman, M.P. Zanna and
E. Tory Higgins, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 9 – 14.
Hill, J.O., Peters, J.C., and Wyatt, H.R. (2007), ‘The Role of Public Policy in Treating the Epidemic
of Obesity,’ Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 81, 772–775.
Hodson, G., Dovidio, J.F., and Gaertner, S.L. (2004), ‘The Aversive Form of Racism,’
in The Psychology of Prejudice and Discrimination, ed. J.L. Lau, Westport, CT: Praeger Press,
pp. 119– 135.
International Obesity Task Force (2002), The Global Challenge of Obesity, www.iuns.org/features/
obesity/obesity.htm
IASO – International Association for the Study of Obesity (2010), IASO Report 2009– 2010, http://
www.iaso.org/site_media/uploads/IASO_Summary_Report_2009.pdf
Jambekar, S., Quinn, D.M., and Crocker, J. (2001), ‘The Effects of Weight and Achievement
Messages on the Self-esteem of Women,’ Psychology of Women Quarterly, 25, 1, 48 – 56.
Jarvie, G., Lahey, B., Graziano, W., and Framer, E. (1983), ‘Childhood Obesity and Social Stigma:
What We Know and What We Don’t Know,’ Developmental Review, 3, 237– 273.
Jones, E.E., Farina, A., Hastorf, A., Markus, H., Miller, D., and Scott, R. (1984), Social Stigma: The
Psychology of Marked Relationships, New York: Freeman.
Judge, T.A., and Cable, D.M. (2011), ‘When It Comes to Pay, Do the Thin Win? The Effect of
Weight on Pay for Men and Women,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 1, 95 – 112.
Judge, T.A., and Ferris, G.R. (1993), ‘Social Context of Performance Evaluation Decisions,’
Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1, 80 – 105.
Jussim, L., Palumbo, P., Chatman, C., Madon, S., and Smith, A. (2000), ‘Stigma and Self-fulfilling
Prophecies,’ in The Social Psychology of Stigma, eds. T.F. Heatherton, R.E. Kleck, M.R. Hebl
and J.G. Hull, New York: Guilford Press, pp. 374– 418.
Keeley, M. (1978), ‘A Contingency Framework for Performance Evaluation,’ Academy of
Management Review, July, 428– 438.
King, E.B., Shapiro, J.R., Hebl, M.R., Singletary, S.L., and Turner, S. (2006), ‘The Stigma of
Obesity in Customer Service: A Mechanism for Remediation and Bottom-Line Consequences of
Interpersonal Discrimination,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 3, 579– 593.
Kristen, E. (2002), ‘Addressing the Problem of Weight Discrimination in Employment,’
California Law Review, 90, 1, 57 – 109.
Kulik, C.T., Bainbridge, H., and Cregan, C. (2008), ‘Known by the Company We Keep: Stigma-by-
Association Effects in the Workplace,’ Academy of Management Review, 33, 1, 216 –230.
Langlois, J.H. (1981), ‘From the Eye of the Beholder to Behavioral Reality: Development of Social
Relations as a Function of Physical Attractiveness,’ in Physical Appearance, Stigma, and Social
Behavior: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 3), eds. C.P. Herman, M.P. Zanna and E.T. Higgins,
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 23 – 51.
LaVan, H., and Katz, M. (2009), ‘Managing Obesity: Human Resource Managers’ Perspectives,’
Compensation and Benefits Review, 41, 2, 54 – 61.
Lawler, E.E. (1971), Pay and Organizational Effectiveness: A Psychological View, New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Lawler, E.E. (1990), Strategic Pay: Aligning Organizational Strategies and Pay Systems, San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lee, C. (1985), ‘Increasing Performance Appraisal Effectiveness: Matching Task Types, Appraisal
Process and Rater Training,’ Academy of Management Review, 10, 2, 322–331.
Lefkowitz, J. (2000), ‘The Role of Interpersonal Affective Regard in Supervisory Performance
Ratings: A Literature Review and Proposed Causal Model,’ Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 73, 67 – 85.
Levy, P.E., and Williams, J.R. (2004), ‘The Social Context of Performance Appraisal: A Review and
Framework for the Future,’ Journal of Management, 30, 6, 881– 905.
Martell, R.F., and Borg, M.R. (1993), ‘A Comparison of the Behavioral Rating Accuracy of Groups
and Individuals,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 1, 43 – 50.
Merchant, K. (1989), Rewarding Results: Motivating Profit Center Managers, Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Merchant, K., and Van der Stede, W. (2003), Management Control Systems, Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Miller, C.T., and Major, B. (2000), ‘Coping with Stigma and Prejudice,’ in The Social Psychology of
Stigma, eds. T.F. Heatherton, R.E. Kleck, M.R. Hebl and J.G. Hull, New York: Guilford Press,
pp. 243– 272.
Miller, C.T., and Myers, A.M. (1998), ‘Compensating for Prejudice: How Heavyweight People
(and Others) Control Outcomes Despite Prejudice,’ in Prejudice: the Target’s Perspective, eds.
J.K. Swim and C. Stangor, San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 191– 218.
Miller, C.T., Rothblum, E.D., Felicio, D., and Brand, P. (2000), ‘Compensating for Stigma: Obese
and Non-obese Women’s Reactions to Being Visible,’ in Stereotypes and Prejudice: Essential
Readings, ed. C. Stangor, Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press, pp. 235– 249.
Mitchell, T., and Kalb, L. (1981), ‘Effects of Outcome Knowledge and Outcome Valence on
Supervisors’ Evaluations,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 604– 612.
Mobley, W.A. (1982), ‘Supervisor and Employee Race and Sex Effects on Performance Appraisals:
A Field Study of Adverse Impact and Generalizability,’ Academy of Management Journal, 25, 3,
598– 606.
Northcraft, G., and Hastorft, A. (1981), ‘Maturation and Social Behavior: A Framework for the
Analysis of Deviance,’ in Physical Appearance, Stigma, and Social Behavior: The Ontario
Symposium (Vol. 3), eds. C.P. Herman, M.P. Zanna and E.T. Higgins, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum, pp. 221– 243.
OECD – Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2010), OECD 2010 Report,
http://www.oecd.org/document/31/0,3746,en_21571361_44315115_45999775_1_1_1_1,00.
html
Paetzold, R.L., Dipboye, R.L., and Elsbach, K.D. (2008), ‘A New Look at Stigmatization in and of
Organizations,’ Academy of Management Review, 33, 1, 186– 193.
Pagan, J.A., and Davlia, A. (1997), ‘Obesity, Occupational Attainment, and Earnings,’
Social Science Quarterly, 8, 3, 756– 770.
Palmer, J.K., and Feldman, J.M. (2005), ‘Accountability and Need for Cognition Effects on Contrast,
Halo and Accuracy in Performance Ratings,’ The Journal of Psychology, 136, 2, 119– 137.
Polivy, J., Garner, D.M., and Garfinkel, P.E. (1981), ‘Causes and Consequences of the Current
Preferences for Thin Female Physiques,’ in Physical Appearance, Stigma, and Social Behavior:
The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 3), eds. C.P. Herman, M.P. Zanna and E.T. Higgins, Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 89 – 112.
Poole, M., and Jenkins, G. (1997), ‘Responsibilities for Human Resource Management Practices in
the Modern Enterprise: Evidence from Britain,’ Personnel Review, 26, 5, 333– 356.
Puhl, R., and Brownell, K.D. (2001), ‘Bias, Discrimination, and Obesity,’ Obesity Research, 9,
788– 805.
Puhl, R., and Brownell, K.D. (2003), ‘Psychological Origins of Obesity Stigma: Toward Changing a
Powerful and Pervasive Bias,’ Obesity Reviews, 4, 213– 227.
Puhl, R.M., and Heuer, C.A. (2009), ‘The Stigma of Obesity: A Review and Update,’ Obesity, 17, 5,
941– 964.
Quinn, D.M., and Crocker, J. (1998), ‘Vulnerability to the Affective Consequences of the Stigma of
Overweight,’ in Prejudice: The Target’s Perspective, eds. J.K. Swim and C. Stangor, San Diego,
CA: Academic Press, pp. 125– 143.
Quinn, D.M., and Crocker, J. (1999), ‘When Ideology Hurts: Effects of Belief in the Protestant Ethic
and Feeling Overweight on the Psychological Well-Being of Women,’ Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 77, 402–414.
Ramirez-Melgoza, A., and Wolfram Cox, J. (2006), ‘Aversive Sexism and Emotion Regulation in a
Masculine Organization,’ Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, GDO,
C1– C6.
Reeves, R. (2003), ‘How Fat Become a Political Issue,’ New Statesman, 132, 4651, 16 – 18.
Roehling, M.V. (1999), ‘Weight-Based Discrimination in Employment: Psychological and Legal
Aspects,’ Personnel Psychology, 52, 969– 1014.
Roehling, M.V. (2002), ‘Weight Discrimination in the American Workplace: Ethical Issues and
Analysis,’ Journal of Business Ethics, 40, 2, 177– 189.
Roehling, M.V., Roehling, P.V., and Odland, L.M. (2008), ‘Investigating the Validity of Stereotypes
about Overweight Employees: The Relationship Between Body Weight and Normal Personality
Traits,’ Group and Organization Management, 33, 392– 424.
Rothblum, E.D. (1994), ‘I’ll Die for the Revolution But Don’t Ask Me Not to Diet: Feminism and the
Continuing Stigmatization of Obesity,’ in Feminist Perspectives on Eating Disorders, eds.
P. Fallon, M.A. Katzman and S.C. Wooley, New York: Guilford Press, pp. 53 – 76.
Rothblum, E., and Solovay, S. (2009), The Fat Studies Reader, New York: New York University
Press.
Rudolph, C.W., Wells, C.L., Weller, M., and Baltes, B.B. (2009), ‘A Meta-analysis of Empirical
Studies of Weight-Based Bias in the Workplace,’ Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 1, 1 – 10.
Rush, L.L. (1998), ‘Affective Reactions to Multiple Social Stigmas,’ Journal of Social Psychology,
138, 4, 421– 431.
Rynes, S.L., Gerhart, B., and Parks, L. (2005), ‘Personnel Psychology: Performance Evaluation and
Pay for Performance,’ Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 571– 600.
Sargent, J.D., and Blanchflower, D.G. (1994), ‘Obesity and Stature in Adolescence and Earnings in
Young Adulthood: Analysis of a British Birth Cohort,’ Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent
Medicine, 148, 7, 681–687.
Schwartz, M.B., and Brownell, K.D. (2004), ‘Obesity and Body Image,’ Body Image, 1, 43 – 56.
Schwartz, M.B., Chambliss, H.O., Brownell, K.D., Blair, S.N., and Billington, C. (2003), ‘Weight
Bias Among Health Professionals Specializing in Obesity,’ Obesity Research, 11, 9,
1033– 1039.
Sears, D.O., Henry, P.J., and Kosterman, R. (2000), ‘Egalitarian Values and Contemporary Racial
Politics,’ in Racialized Politics: The Debate About Racism in America, eds. D.O. Sears,
J. Sidanius and L. Bobo, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 75 – 117.
Shields, J. (2007), Managing Employee Performance and Rewards, Port Melbourne, Australia:
Cambridge University Press.
Shields, J.F., and Shields, M.D. (1998), ‘Antecedents of Participative Budgeting,’
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 23, 49 – 76.
Siller, J. (1981), ‘The Measurement of Attributes Toward Physically Disabled Persons,’ in Physical
Appearance, Stigma, and Social Behavior: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 3), eds. C.P. Herman,
M.P. Zanna and E.T. Higgins, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 245– 288.
Smart, L., and Wegner, D.M. (2000), ‘The Hidden Costs of Hidden Stigma,’ in The Social
Psychology of Stigma, eds. T.F. Heatherton, R.E. Kleck, M.R. Hebl and J.G. Hull, New York:
Guilford Press, pp. 220–242.
Spychalski, A. (1997), ‘Effects of Processing Method, Performance Pattern, and Time Pressure On
Performance Rating,’ Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and
Engineering, 58, 3-B, http://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/19216/9727611.PDF?
sequence¼1
Stangor, C. (2009), ‘The Study of Stereotyping, Prejudice and Discrimination Within Social
Psychology,’ in Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping and Discrimination, ed. T. Nelson,
New York: Psychology Press, pp. 1 – 22.
Stockton, M.B. (2010), ‘Introducing “Symbolic Weightism”: Discourses of Agency and Morality in
Obesity Stigma,’ International Journal of Exercise Science, 6, 1, Article 41, http://
digitalcommons.wku.edu/ijesab/vol6/iss1/41
Stone, D.L., and Colella, A. (1996), ‘A Model of Factors Affecting the Treatment of Disabled
Individuals in Organizations,’ Academy of Management Review, 21, 352– 402.
Swann, W.B., Polzer, J.T., Seyle, D.C., and Ko, S.J. (2004), ‘Finding Value in Diversity:
Verification of Personal and Social Self-views in Diverse Groups,’ Academy of Management
Review, 29, 9 –27.

Swim, J.K., and Stangor, C. (1998), ‘Introduction,’ in Prejudice: the Target’s Perspective, eds.
J.K. Swim and C. Stangor, San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 1 – 8.
Varma, A., Pichler, S., and Srinivas, E. (2005), ‘The Role of Interpersonal Affect in Performance
Appraisal: Evidence from Two Samples – the US and India,’ International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 16, 11, 2029– 2044.
Weiner, B. (1995), Judgments of Responsibility: A Foundation for a Theory of Social Conduct,
New York: Guilford Press.
World Health Organization (2011), http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en

The Stigma of Obesity and Discrimination in Performance Appraisal - A Theoretical Model.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Stigma of Obesity and Discrimination in Performance Appraisal - A Theoretical Model.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [New York University]

On: 26 April 2015, At: 05:11

The International Journal of Human

The stigma of obesity and

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.637073

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

The stigma of obesity and discrimination in performance appraisal:

performance appraisal of obese employees, potentially biasing the process and

*Corresponding author. Email: rbento@mit.edu

ISSN 0958-5192 print/ISSN 1466-4399 online

Obesity affects a large percentage of the adult population in developing as well as

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), countries with

Overview of the model

The Stigma of Obesity

Individual Factors (OE) Individual Factors (DM)

Appraisal Factors Contextual Factors

Figure 1. Model of factors affecting performance appraisal of OEs and DM(s).

Obesity stigma and weightism

Weight-based biases and discrimination in performance appraisal

develops a lasting negative or positive impression of the appraise based on an initial

Biases in performance appraisal

Interpretation and attribution biases

Evaluation and reward biases

similar performance by nonstigmatized coworkers. This underrating and undervaluing of

performance, condescension (e.g. failing to provide accurate performance feedback for

Nature of the obesity condition

Experience with obesity

Status, power, and reputation

Interpersonal and job skills

Performance appraisal factors

Nature of the job

appraiser biases than results-oriented approaches, where outcomes are specifically

Participants and social context of appraisal

Single vs. multisource appraisals and the social context of appraisal

Contrast effects and levels of performance

question). An interesting research question is whether empirical findings about aversive

Rater accountability and training

Organizational policies and practices

participation in company-sponsored weight-reduction programs, OEs may feel that their

Discussion and implications

cycles of performance and reward, with long-term impacts on motivation and

feedback loops in our model, such as the formation, interdependence, strengthening or

Academy of Management Review, 10, 116– 127.

Overweigh and Obese Individuals on Commercial Television,’ American Journal of Public

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

and Feeling Overweight on the Psychological Well-Being of Women,’ Journal of Personality

Review, 29, 9 –27.

You might also like