Sarah-Jane Stewart

The recent rise in body dissatisfaction and weight bias has led to a call to the media to increase the diversity of their imagery, in efforts to challenge the thin-ideal. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the effects of both body diversity and thin-ideal interventions on health outcomes. Female participants (n = 160) were randomly allocated into an intervention group: body diversity; thin-ideal; control. They completed measures of body satisfaction, body compassion, internalisation of the thin-ideal, weight bias and behavioural intentions at baseline and post-intervention. The results showed significant differences between groups for weight bias and intentions to eat healthily. Specifically, those in the body diversity intervention group reported a greater reduction in weight bias compared to the other conditions. Further, those in the thin-ideal intervention group reported a greater increase in intentions to eat healthily compared to the other conditions. There were no differences between groups for body satisfaction, body compassion, internalisation of the thin-ideal and behavioural intentions to exercise and manage weight. In conclusion, exposure to body diversity images reduced weight bias whereas exposure to the thin-ideal promoted intentions towards healthy eating. These findings therefore offer empirical evidence for the impact of using different types of imagery to change different health outcomes.

This experimental study investigated the role of BMI on the impact of weight bias versus body positivity terminology on behavioural intentions and beliefs about obesity. Participants (n=332) were randomly allocated to two conditions to receive a vignette depicting an image of a person with obesity using either weight bias (n=164) or body positivity (n=168) terminology. Participants were divided into 3 groups based upon their BMI category (normal weight n=173; overweight n=92; obese n=64). They then completed measures of behavioural intentions, obesity illness beliefs and fat phobia. Although there were several differences in beliefs by BMI group, the results showed no differences between weight bias or body positivity terminology on any measures. There were, however, significant BMI group by condition interactions for beliefs about obesity relating to personal control and treatment control. Post hoc tests showed that weight bias resulted in reduced personal control in the obese BMI group compared to other participants. Weight bias also resulted in higher personal control over obesity in normal weight individuals compared to body positivity. People with obesity reported higher treatment control when exposed to weight bias compared to overweight participants, whereas normal weight participants reported greater treatment control when exposed to body positivity compared to both other groups. To conclude, the impact of weight bias and body positivity information is not universal and varies according to the BMI of the audience and the outcome being measured; whereas people of normal weight may benefit from weight bias there is no evidence that obese people benefit from body positivity. Implications for the prevention and treatment of obesity are discussed.

Whilst overeating is often influenced by others in an implicit way, people may also explicitly encourage others to overeat. This has been labelled being “a Feeder” but to date, this more deliberate trait remains neglected. This study aimed to conceptualize being “a Feeder” in terms of motivations and behaviour and to operationalize this construct with a new measurement tool through five stages with three discrete samples. Using the definition of a Feeder as “someone who offers others food even when they are not hungry” a preliminary qualitative study (n = 5) clarified the behaviour of a Feeder and revealed six motivations for such feeder behaviour. These six motivational dimensions and the feeder behaviours were operationalized with individual items and the psychometric properties of the scale were assessed using two independent samples (n = 116; n = 113). The final 27‐item measure consisted of six motivational factors (affection; waste avoidance; status; hunger avoidance; offloading; manners) and one behaviour factor, all with good internal consistency (α  ≥ .7). The two samples were then merged (n = 229) to describe motivations and behaviour and to assess the association between them. The best predictors of feeder behaviour were love, offloading, manners and status. This new Feeder questionnaire has a strong factor structure and good internal consistency and could be used for further research or clinical practice.