2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
OVERWEIGHT STIGMA
AND INCENTIVE PAY
Regina F. Bento, Ph.D.
Professor of Management
University of Baltimore
rbento@ubalt.edu
(410) 837 5073
Lourdes F. White, Ph.D.
Professor of Accounting and Management Control Systems
University of Baltimore
lwhite@ubalt.edu
(410) 837 5090
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
Overweight Stigma And Incentive Pay
ABSTRACT
We propose a theoretical model to study the effect of overweight stigma on incentive pay. The
model combines the perspectives of overweight individuals and incentive pay decision-makers,
and draws from stigmatization, performance appraisal and reward literatures. We use the model
to examine the dynamic outcomes of vicious or virtuous cycles of long-term attenuation or
exacerbation of the effects of overweight stigma on incentive pay. We conclude with
implications for research and practice.
INTRODUCTION
Hardly a week goes by when the popular media does not carry a news piece about the
obesity epidemic in western countries. The US Center for Disease Control and Prevention
estimates that 26.1% of U.S. adults were obese in 2008, compared to 25.6% in 2007 (CDC,
2009). If overweight individuals who are not clinically obese are also included, the incidence is
even highera. In this paper, we will use “overweight” as a general term, to indicate that an
individual’s body mass index (BMI), based on height and weight, is above 25. These numbers
a
The extra weight of an “overweight” person may come from muscle, bone, fat and/or body
water, but in clinical terms the word “obesity” is reserved for people with a BMI of 30 or higher,
indicating a high amount of body fat. In spite of the differences in medical terminology between
obesity and overweight, sociological and psychological researchers have tended to use the terms
interchangeably. Following DeJong and Kleck's recommendation (1981:66), we use here the
more general, less negatively charged term "overweight."
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
1
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
have profound managerial implications, given the stigma and discrimination against obesity in
the workplace, and the evidence that it negatively affects all stages of the employment cycle
(Roehling,1999; Crandall, 2000; Crandall, Eshleman, and O’Brien, 2002; Crandall and
Eshleman, 2003). In this paper we examine how overweight stigma may affect incentive pay,
using a model that combines the literature on stigmatization and associated phenomena with the
literature on performance appraisal and incentive pay.
The model proposed here takes into consideration the special nature of overweight
stigma, combines the perspective of the target (the overweight individual) and the perceiver (the
supervisor who makes the performance appraisal and reward decisions), focuses on their
interactions in a work situation that is both highly common and relevant (the incentive pay
decision making process) and examines the dynamic effects of those interactions over time (the
feedback loops that set in motion vicious or virtuous cycles of long term attenuation or
exacerbation of the effects of overweight stigma on incentive pay).
Our choice of incentive pay as the particular area for studying the effects of overweight
stigma reflects Crocker's (1999) admonition about the importance of situational context. Several
reasons inspired this choice. First, incentive pay is pervasive in organizations, whether public or
private, small or large, and the use of incentive pay in the form of merit-based salary increases or
monetary rewards contingent on performance (e.g., cash bonuses or commissions) is widespread.
Second, while some evidence exists of wage discrimination for overweight individuals (see
review in Bell & McLaughlin, 2004), little is known about the influence of overweight stigma on
the portion of the total compensation package that is dependent on observable performance.
Third, characteristics of the incentive pay decision-making process itself make it an ideal context
for studying stigma. Unlike one-shot contexts such as a job interview or a date, incentive pay is a
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
2
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
recurring process that requires frequent interaction between the stigmatized individual and the
incentive pay decision-maker (offering opportunities for revised expectancies and renewed
responses). The entire process relies on assumptions about performance being observable and
objectively measurable, but in the presence of stigma such assumptions may be violated with real
consequences for motivation, performance, workplace morale and turnover. If not managed
properly, the effects of overweight stigma on incentive pay may bring enduring losses not only
for the overweight individuals but also for their employing organizations.
In the following sections, we start by discussing overweight stigma and move on to
present an overview of a theoretical model of the effects of overweight stigma on incentive pay.
After a more detailed discussion of the various elements of the model, we conclude by discussing
its implications for research and practice.
OVERWEIGHT STIGMA
Societal preferences for thinness are particularly strong for women, and are relatively
recent in historical terms. Polivy, Garner & Garfinkel (1981) attribute this change to sociocultural pressures resulting from thinness being equated with higher social status, health, youth,
self-control or ascetic ideal, and the changing roles of women. A classic expression of this
preference is the Duchess of Windsor's observation that "no woman can be too slim or too rich."
Although overweight stigma affects both sexes, women are held to more stringent standards for
thinness and seem to experience more intense negative consequences from stigma, even at levels
of overweight that are below the objective medical criteria for obesity (Quinn & Crocker, 1998).
Women are also particularly vulnerable to eating disorders such as bulimia and anorexia (Quinn
& Crocker, 1998), and are often willing to resort to almost anything to avoid the stigmatizing
effects of overweight (Miller, Rothblum, Felicio & Brand, 2000). Even death may be seen as
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
3
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
preferable to overweight: the New York Times attributed Marilyn Monroe's enduring appeal as a
cultural symbol to the fact that dying young kept her from ever getting fat (Miller et al, 2000).
Rothblum eloquently expresses the notion that even the most ardent feminists are not immune
from societal expectations for thinness: "I'll die for the revolution but don't ask me not to
diet"(1994 p.53).
The pressure for thinness is so intense that people often construe social reality with
weight as an organizing concept (DeJong & Kleck, 1981). Overweight people are willing to
spend inordinate amounts of money and time in the pursuit of thinness, even to the point of
resorting to risky stomach bypass surgery (Berscheid, 1981; DeJong & Kleck, 1981).
Negative stereotypes associated with overweight people include being self-indulgent,
hedonistic, friendless, sedentary (Polivy et al., 1981), less intelligent, rejected, lonely, shy,
dependent, greedy for affection, lazy and unhappy (DeJong & Kleck, 1981).
The overt manifestation of overweight stigma is still socially acceptable, just as stigma
based on race or gender used to be (Miller & Major, 2000; Quinn & Crocker, 1998). There is
strong empirical evidence of stigmatization, bias and discrimination against overweight and
obese individuals in several relevant contexts: workplace (Polivy et al., 1981; Puhl & Brownell,
2001; Roehling, 1999); healthcare (Schwartz, Chambliss, Brownell, Blair & Billington, 2003);
and education (Latner & Stunkard, 2003), among others. Executives have been found to forego
$1,000 per pound of overweight per year in earning power (DeJong & Kleck, 1981).
Peers, teachers, doctors and even parents stigmatize overweight individuals (DeJong &
Kleck, 1981). Their non-stigmatized friends risk being perceived negatively themselves, due to
proximity effect and courtesy stigmas (Biernat & Dovidio, 2000; Hebl & Mannix, 2003).
Interestingly, research has shown that overweight stigmatization is present even among members
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
4
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
of the category. Overweight persons often see their own condition as a temporary membership
in an undesirable club (Hebl & Kleck, 2000; Quinn & Crocker, 1998). Even when direct
experience tells them otherwise, overweight individuals may hold controllability beliefs as strong
as any "normal" observer (Crocker & Quinn, 2000). Their "cure" (and liberation from category
membership) is just around the corner, in the next miracle diet or exercise method. This enables
them to protect their self-esteem ("obese people are disgusting, but I'm OK because I'm not one
of them") while holding negative stereotypes about overweight people as a group. This leads to
negative affective and behavioral responses towards other overweight individuals, such as
avoiding their contact and proximity, which deprives the overweight from the kind of support
that might come from sharing similar challenges (Quinn & Crocker, 1998).
Overweight stigma differs from other forms of stigma in several ways. It affects a large
percentage of the population, in contrast to the rate of incidence of some stigmas such as
disabilities. It is highly visible (different, for example, from mental illness) and it is aggravated
by a common misperception that the cause of obesity is controllable (whereas nobody would
blame a stigmatized individual for her race or gender). In spite of extensive scientific evidence
for the multiple and complex causality of weight gain, overweight people are usually seen as
responsible for inducing and perpetuating their own stigmatizing condition through selfindulgence, gluttony and laziness (DeJong & Kleck, 1981; Miller et al., 2000; Rush, 1998). 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
overweight stigma to be perceived as a character flaw (succumbing to the temptations of food),
and places it simultaneously in two of Goffman's (1963) categories: "abominations of the body"
and "blemishes of the character." (Biernat & Dovidio, 2000). It also contributes to social
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
5
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
acceptance of overweight stigmatization and overt expressions of prejudice (Miller & Major,
2000; Quinn & Crocker, 1998).
OVERVIEW OF THE MODEL
The model in Figure 1 shows a variety of factors that may explain the impact of
overweight stigma on incentive pay. According to the model, overweight stigmatization involves
cognitive, affective and behavioral responses in the overweight individual (OWI) and the
decision-maker (DM), which are influenced by attributes of the individuals involved (OWI,
DM). These individual responses affect the likelihood of bias in the incentive decision-making
process, which is also influenced by characteristics of the decision situation (nature of the job
and incentive pay system) and contextual factors (organizational and environmental
characteristics). Biases in the decision-making process may then lead to different levels and
types of incentive pay discrimination. The multiple possible combinations and interactions of
situational, individual and contextual factors should help us explain variations in the degree to
which overweight stigma may compromise fairness in incentive decision-making.
We also propose that discriminatory incentive pay outcomes give rise to feedback loops
(indicated by the dotted lines) that affect the OWI and the DM and prompt new cognitive,
affective and behavioral responses, which will affect future incentive decision-making. Virtuous
or vicious cycles may thus ensue, attenuating or exacerbating the long-term effects of overweight
stigma on incentive pay. The following sections explore the factors included in the model and
their relationships.
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
6
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
Overweight Stigma And Individual Responses
The stigma of overweight is associated with a mix of cognitive, affective and behavioral
responses. As is the case in other forms of stigmatization, these responses may occur in any
order and may be interrelated (Dovidio, Major & Crocker, 2000).
Affective responses tend to play a particularly prominent role in stigmas that Goffman
(1963) called "abominations of the body," and have an immediate, primitive nature (Jones,
Farina, Hastorf, Markus, Miller & Scott, 1984). Affective responses may involve disgust,
revulsion and anger ("what a slob," "gross," "how can someone let go of herself so badly"), or
sympathy and compassion ("poor Mary, it must be hard to be so big")(Dovidio et al., 2000, p.13;
Hebl, Tickle & Heatherton, 2000). These two sets of affective responses may be experienced at
the same time, leading to ambivalence and psychological discomfort (Crocker, Voelkl, Testa &
Major, 2000; Hebl et al., 2000).
Cognitive responses involve stereotypes about overweight people and causal attributions
about the onset, progress and reversibility of the stigmatizing condition. In spite of considerable
evidence about the multiple causes of weight gain (not just overeating, but also genetic,
metabolic, etc.) and the extreme difficulty typically involved in losing weight, overweight stigma
is often associated with strong and unfounded controllability beliefs. If overweight people are
responsible for causing their own stigma and doing nothing to remove it, this is perceived as a
"blemish" in their character (Goffman, 1963). On the other hand, overweight stigma may also be
attributed to causes that are uncontrollable or hard to control (e.g., genetics, metabolic diseases,
and firmly entrenched behaviors).
Cognitive and affective responses are intimately related to behavioral responses. For
example, those who are disgusted by the sight of overweight people, attribute the stigma to
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
7
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
controllable causes, and hold negative stereotypes about the bearers of stigma will be more likely
to avoid interactions with overweight 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.
Our model deals with OWIs as targets of stigmatization rather than perceivers, but this
does not mean that they are seen as static, passive participants. We believe that their affective,
cognitive and behavioral responses play a critical role in increasing or decreasing the likelihood
of biases in the incentive pay decision-making process. We will discuss those responses in more
detail later on, when we examine the feedback loops in the model.
We predict that negative affective, cognitive and behavioral responses increase the
likelihood that overweight stigma will bias the incentive pay decision-making process and result
in discriminatory decisions. We further predict that these responses will be influenced by
attributes of the individuals involved.
Individual Attributes
Several attributes may influence the OWI's and DM's responses: nature of the overweight
condition itself; experience with overweight; gender, race, age; physical attractiveness;
personality and ideology; status, power and reputation; interpersonal and job skills.
Nature of the overweight condition
Overweight conditions may differ in intensity and pattern, and we believe that these differences
in the nature of overweight may be associated with different responses. For example, if the
intensity of the overweight 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
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
8
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
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, specially if accompanied by unattractive facial
features); peril to others (fear of discomfort for people sharing tight spaces with the OWI; fears
that the OWI presence may jeopardize safety to others in places like elevators; fears that the
OWI 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 &
Kleck, 1981; Schwartz & Brownell, 2004), we predict that the higher the intensity of the
overweight, the higher the likelihood that stigma will be associated with negative affective,
cognitive and behavioral responses.
Another aspect of the nature of overweight 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 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 (Blaine, DiBiasi & Connor, 2002; Cash, 1990; Smart & Wagner, 2000). We are currently
studying a phenomenon we call "phantom stigma," where people who are no longer overweight
still have to deal with responses associated with overweight stigma, just as one can feel
"phantom pain" in an amputated leg. There is some evidence that overweight stigma may outlast
the actual overweight condition by as much as 20 years (Northcraft & Hastorf, 1981), but
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
9
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
research on this phenomenon is still in its early stages, possibly due to the scarcity of people who
have achieved and maintained long-term weight loss.
Experience with overweight
OWIs may have different levels of experience with overweight, 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 overweight may be discriminated not only by their
peers, but also by their teachers and parents (Dion, 1981; Puhl & Brownell, 2001). Exposure to
these traumatic experiences might influence an OWI's responses to stigmatization in the
workplace (Quinn & Crocker, 1998).
DMs may also vary in their experience with overweight (e.g., exposure to an overweight
spouse, parent or child). Contact theory (Bell & McLaughlin, 2004; Hebl et al., 2000) would lead
us to predict that experience with overweight people would reduce the negativity of the
responses associated with overweight stigma. Experience would bring a habituation to the visual
stimulus of overweight, a lower tendency to engage in category-based impression formation
processes (Fiske & Neuberg, 1990), and less anxiety when interacting with OWIs. On the other
hand, research has shown that even health care providers who specialize in the treatment of
obesity hold very negative stereotypes about overweight people (Schwartz et al., 2003). More
research is needed to predict the direction of the influence of experience with overweight.
Gender. We predict that responses associated with overweight stigma will be more negative
when the OWI is a woman, because of societal expectations about female beauty and gender
roles (Polivy et al., 1981; Quinn & Crocker, 1998). There is research evidence that women are
harsher in their attitudes towards overweight people (DeJong & Kleck, 1981). We predict less
negative responses when the OWI and the DM are men (Roehling, 1999; Schwartz et al., 2003).
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
10
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
Race
We predict that responses associated with overweight stigma will be more negative for whites.
Obesity research suggests that overweight may be more culturally acceptable and less
stigmatizing for African Americans, particularly women (Jussim, Palumbo, Chatner, Madon &
Smith, 2000; Quinn & Crocker, 1998; Hebl & Heatherton, 1998; Schwartz & Brownell, 2004).
Age
Although there is little research on the relationship between age and overweight stigma in
adulthood, we believe that overweight 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 & Kleck, 1981). This age effect might be particularly true for women,
because menopause tends to bring both weight gain and some degree of liberation from strict
standards of thinness (Bell & 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 &
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). We believe that
overweight stigma in people who have beautiful faces and are more physically attractive will be
associated with more positive responses. The same amount of overweight, however, will be
associated with more negative responses for their "uglier" counterparts, or for people who suffer
from other stigmas that decrease their physical attractiveness. The literature on the cumulative
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
11
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
effects of multiple stigmas is still very limited, but promises some interesting avenues for
investigation (Jussim et al., 2000; Rush, 1998).
Personality
Certain personality traits have been found to affect responses associated to stigmatization. For
example, self-monitoring, field dependence and susceptibility to external feedback may influence
the impact of stigma on self-esteem (Chaiken, 1981; Crocker & Quinn, 2000; Miller & Myers,
1998). Assertiveness may also lead to more positive responses in the interactions between
overweight and non-overweight people (Miller & Myers, 1998; Miller et al., 2000).
Ideology
Protestant 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
overweight (Crandall, 2000; Jambekar, Quinn, & Crocker, 2001; Quinn & Crocker, 1999).
Status, power and reputation
We predict that when OWIs have low status, power and reputation, overweight stigma
will be associated with more negative responses. In contrast, bulkier physiques in people with
higher status, power and reputation might be perceived as symbols of power and strength, rather
than lack of self-control (Jussim et al., 2000; Roehling, 1999; Siller, 1981).
Interpersonal and job skills
Overweight individuals 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. 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. By
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
12
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
the same token, OWIs with high 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 decision-makers. 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 and reward processes will be better able to handle the special requirements of
evaluation and feedback situations, particularly when they involve face to face meetings.
Biases In The Incentive Pay Decision-Making Process
The cognitive, affective and behavioral responses associated with overweight stigma may
introduce several biases in the incentive pay process. Most organizations use formal performance
appraisals, but the appraisal process is typically so vulnerable to bias that it has been called "one
of the most troubling areas of human resource management" (Bernardin & Russell, 1993;
Watson Wyatt Worldwide, 2002).
If the person being evaluated bears a stigmatizing condition such as overweight, the
possibility of bias may increase. This is particularly relevant because a negative performance
label, no matter how incorrect or subjective, 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). Here we will
examine three types of possible biases in the incentive-pay decision-making process: perception,
storage and recall biases; interpretation and attribution biases; and evaluation and reward biases
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
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
13
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
less information about the performance of the OWI (member of a stigmatized outgroup) than
about the performance of other non-stigmatized coworkers (members of the ingroup of "normal"
people). The information about the DWI performance that survives this filtering process is more
likely to be negative and to confirm salient stereotypes associated with the stigmatized outgroup
(Dovidio & Gaertner, 1993).
Issues of visibility of performance may compound this effect. For example, OWIs 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 OWI may shy from social
interaction, or the stigma of overweight might lead others to ignore the OWI's presence and
contributions in meetings and other work situations.
Interpretation and attribution biases
The information about the OWI'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 overweight 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,
Sanitioso, 1992). We predict that the DM will interpret the OWI's performance information in
ways that confirm the DM's overweight 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
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
14
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
attributed to internal causes (such as lack of ability, skills or effort), and branded with a "scarlet
B" squarely in the center of the OWI's already stigmatized forehead.
Evaluation and reward biases
The information about the OWI'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 research in intergroup relations (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1993), we predict
that the DM will devalue the performance of the OWI, and will appraise and reward it less
favorably than similar performance by non-stigmatized coworkers. This underrating and
undervaluing of the performance of OWIs may be more likely when: a) incentive pay is scarce or
highly competitive; b) external events accentuate negative symbolic beliefs about overweight
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, decreasing the cost and
increasing the availability of opportunities for discrimination (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1993).
An interesting research question in regard to evaluation and reward biases is whether
empirical findings about aversive racism can also apply to "aversive fatism." Numerous
experiments have documented that the likelihood of underestimating the performance of
minorities may vary with the level of performance being assessed (Dovidio et al., 1992).
According to aversive racism, decision-makers do not automatically place outgroup members at
the bottom of the totem pole, but they do not think that minorities ever deserve to be placed at
the top of the pole either. Most decision-makers attempt to be fair and to ignore the negative
component of their ambivalent attitudes towards minorities. In order to protect this self-image of
fairness, decision-makers refrain from differentiating between ingroup and outgroup members
with equally low performance levels, which would explain why so many experiments have not
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
15
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
found evidence of discrimination at the low end of the scale. When it comes to high
performance, however, there is no such threat to this self-image of fairness, which allows
decision-makers to be much more stringent and stingy when evaluating and rewarding highperforming minorities. Decision-makers may actually feel virtuous about being demanding and
uncompromising about placing people at the top of the evaluation and reward scale. In those
high- performance situations, decision-makers do not see themselves as hurting minority
members, but as simply abstaining from giving them undeserved special breaks. It would be a
fascinating research question to investigate if "aversive fatism" would work the same way, and
whether the likelihood of evaluation and reward biases due to overweight stigma would also vary
with level of performance.
Factors In The Decision-Making Situation
Characteristics of the decision-making situation that may affect the likelihood of bias
include the nature of the job and the nature of the incentive pay system. Because those factors are
largely a matter of choice, they offer the possibility for intervention.
Nature of the job
Based on the literature on management control, we believe that task uncertainty and
visibility of outcomes may make the incentive decision-making process more vulnerable to bias.
Task uncertainty increases the need for interpretation of outcomes, so that the DM can sort out
controllable and uncontrollable causes of performance. Uncertainty requires the OWI and the
DM to ascertain 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 OWI failed) (Merchant & Van der
Stede, 2003). Given the perception, storage, recall, interpretation and attribution biases
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
16
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
discussed before, we propose that task uncertainty leads to more bias and discrimination in
incentive pay of overweight individuals.
Visibility of outcomes may function in a similar way. When outcomes are less visible and
harder to measure, the OWI 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
OWI, just because they are visible. This type of bias is known as an "outcome effect" in
management control literature (Ghosh & Lusch, 2000; Mitchell & Kalb, 1981).
Nature of the incentive pay system
The design of incentive pay systems involves a series of choices about how financial
rewards should be assigned. Based on the incentive pay literature, we predict that certain design
choices may increase the likelihood that OWIs will receive fewer rewards or be deprived of
incentive compensation altogether.
Percentage of pay at risk. Industry practices generally determine a range for the total
level of pay, given the size of the organization, the employee's experience, and the nature of the
job. Within that range, total pay may be comprised of a base salary (guaranteed by the
employment contract) and several performance-contingent rewards (e.g., cash bonuses,
commissions, stock options, or restricted stock which vary from year to year). The incentive pay
portion is intended to provide additional incentives for employees to perform above the
minimum levels required for receiving the base salary. We propose that the likelihood of
overweight bias increases with the percentage of total pay that is contingent on performance.
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
17
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
This is particularly troubling in light of the fact that base salaries already tend to be lower for
overweight employees (Roehling, 1999).
Participation in the goal-setting process. We expect less overweight bias in incentive
pay decisions when employees play an active role in setting goals for their own performance
(e.g., negotiation of budget goals, choice of other non-financial objectives that more closely
represent job effort). Research on participative budgeting and 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 & Shields, 1998).
Formal linkage between incentive pay and hierarchical level. Incentive plan rules
may allocate rewards based on specific amounts (e.g., the bonus pool is determined as a
percentage of the amount by which actual earnings exceed a budget target) or on percentages of
base salary (which reflect hierarchical level). One reason for the popularity of linking incentive
pay with position in the organizational hierarchy is that this preserves vertical compensation
equity. There is empirical evidence, however, that the base salary levels of OWIs are
significantly lower than the base salary levels of "normal" individuals with similar jobs,
expertise, and performance (Puhl & Brownell, 2001). This suggests that plans that tie incentive
pay to the already compromised base salaries of OWIs would result in more severe underrewarding of their performance.
Relative performance measurement. 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).
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
18
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
By comparing the performance of an individual 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. But relative
performance measurement will only be favorable to the OWI if the performance measures used
for ranking are objective in nature (see next). If the performance measures are subjective,
relative performance measurement will just exacerbate overweight bias.
Objective performance measures. Incentive plans differ greatly in the degree to which
incentives are calculated based on objective, mechanistic formulas (e.g., a commission plan
based on a simple percentage of sales) or subjective measures (e.g., a bonus based on excellent
customer service). Objective performance measures (especially if explicitly described in detail,
in writing) should give a high-performing OWI more power in performance appraisal meetings,
particularly if the DM tries to renege on reward promises made at the beginning of the evaluation
period. When subjective measures are used to assign incentive pay, overweight stigma is more
likely to contaminate the performance evaluation process and lead to lower rewards for
overweight individuals. On the other hand, subjective measures may be necessary to protect the
overweight individual from being held accountable for negative performance factors beyond his
or her control. The degree of subjectivity in performance evaluation is not sufficient, in and of
itself, to explain employee satisfaction with the incentive plan. A more powerful intervening
variable is the level of trust between supervisor and subordinate (Baker, Gibbons, & Murphy,
1994). Further empirical research is needed to untangle the effects of subjectivity, trust, and
uncontrollability on the likelihood of overweight bias in incentive pay decision-making.
Control focus. A major choice in the design of incentive pay systems is whether rewards
will be focused primarily on inputs (e.g., effort and other desired behaviors) or outputs (e.g.,
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
19
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
financial results, and achievement of non-financial targets). Control system experts argue that
pay systems based on inputs offer participants a greater degree of control over reported
performance and consequent rewards, and therefore lead to increased goal commitment and
motivation (Merchant & Van der Stede, 2003). Knowledge-based pay plans recognize increased
skills, training and expertise, and rely on the assumption that desirable results, even though not
measured directly, will ensue from such increased knowledge (Atkinson, Kaplan & Young,
2003). This form of input-based reward, which is usually implemented as a merit increase in
base salary, would benefit overweight individuals because it focuses on factors they can control.
But other input-based rewards (e.g. emphasis on time-on-task, observable effort, or the quality of
interpersonal relationships) may lead to lower pay for OWIs, because stigma might bias the
DM's perception of the OWI's time-on-task, effort or interpersonal relationships.
Output-based rewards should improve goal congruence between the OWI and the DM, if
they focus on outcomes that are consistent with the organization’s key success factors. Outputbased pay is more prevalent in higher hierarchical positions, due to the inadequacy of inputbased measures for more complex jobs. Output-based performance measures, however, may be
contaminated by more “noise” from uncontrollable factors.
We propose that a control focus on outputs (measurable results) will decrease the
likelihood of overweight bias in incentive plan decision-making, as long as the organization has
appropriate mechanisms to compensate for uncontrollable factors.
Contextual Factors
The likelihood of overweight bias in the incentive pay decision-making process may also
be influenced by a variety of broader contextual factors: technology, organizational policies and
practices, organizational culture, legislation and societal attitudes towards overweight people.
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
20
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
Although they are typically harder to change than factors in the decision-making situation, these
contextual factors may offer some possibilities for long term interventions.
Technology
The salience and relevance of overweight 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 OWI’s suitability for particular tasks (as argued by Stone & Colella,
1996, regarding the disabled). Technology may also be used to increase job flexibility (e.g.,
through telecommuting) and to reduce the OWI's visibility, which might improve actual job
performance (e.g., Internet sales). We predict that the impact of overweight bias on incentive pay
decision-making will be lower when technology is used to allow more flexibility and to increase
the visibility of the 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 & Colella, 1996), and
presumably against OWIs. 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 OWIs and place them in a disadvantaged position that
might spill over to actual and perceived job performance.
Organizational Culture
The design and implementation of incentive plans are influenced by cultural assumptions
of plan designers and key decision-makers. For instance, Bento and Ferreira (1992) have found
that certain cultural values (equality, certainty, uncontrollability, collectivism, and personalistic
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
21
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
foregrounding) foster incentive plans that encourage cooperation, use absolute performance
measures, promote personal security, and protect plan participants from uncontrollable factors.
Legislation
Overweight individuals have no clear and unequivocal legal protection against job-related
discrimination, unlike other groups who have been victims of discrimination based on sex, race,
disability or religion (Kristen, 2002). This lack of legal recourse makes it easier for DMs to
discriminate against OWIs when evaluating performance and assigning rewards. Employers may
still discriminate legally against overweight job applicants when the position requires certain
physical appearance standards, or simply on grounds of customer preference or employer image
(Bell & 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 overweight (Goll, 2002). For example, if employers push for
participation in company-sponsored weight-reduction programs, overweight employees 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 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 & Brownell, 2001). The most successful legal strategy for
overweight individuals who have suffered workplace discrimination is still to argue their case on
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
22
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
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 (e.g., Michigan, New York, New Jersey, Washington DC, and some cities in
California, as documented in Bell & McLaughlin, 2004).
Societal Attitudes
Around age three, children in the U.S. and Western Europe have already assimilated two
notions about body types: being thin is good, and being fat is bad (Jarvie, Lahey, Graziano &
Framer, 1983). In a recent large-scale study of the content of the ten 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, & 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, which increases the
likelihood of overweight bias in incentive pay. 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 overweight individuals have been proposed or tried by different governments, with
varying degrees of success (Reeves, 2003).
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
23
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
Incentive Pay Outcomes
Drawing from the literature on sex discrimination (Benokraitis, 1997), we identify three
types of discrimination that may result from overweight bias in the incentive pay decisionmaking process: blatant, subtle and covert discrimination.
Blatant discrimination is highly visible, obviously unfair in incentive pay amount and
justification, 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 overweight people in the workplace.
Subtle discrimination is not as visible, usually involves a moderate differential and a
somewhat plausible rationalization, 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 OWI), "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 always 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, discriminatory incentive pay outcomes may hurt the
OWI in ways that go far beyond the immediate monetary consequences.
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
24
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
The potential magnitude of the hidden costs of the impact of overweight stigma on
incentive pay is significant, when we consider the prevalence and intensity of overweight
stigmatization, and the likelihood and significance of the effects that this stigma can introduce in
the incentive pay decision-making process. We hope that our model will encourage further
research in this area.
The model also underscores the enormous opportunity for research. Incentive pay can be
an ideal area for studying overweight stigma:

Incentive pay systems are omnipresent in organizations and highly vulnerable to
bias.

Incentive pay outcomes have high valence.

The process has enough commonality across organizations to facilitate aggregation
of results, and enough diversity in design and context to allow comparative studies
for the exploration of multiple contingencies.

The literature on performance appraisal and incentive pay is rich in information
about the structure and dynamics of the incentive pay decision-making situation,
which should help generate research that explicitly takes into account situational
variables, as strongly recommended by stigmatization scholars (Crocker & Quinn,
2000; Dovidio et al., 2000).

The ongoing nature of the relationship between overweight individuals and
decision-makers presents the opportunity for exploring virtuous and vicious cycles
and their underlying processes (formation, interdependence, strengthening or
weakening of meanings, expectations, attributions, goals, feelings, fears, perceived
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
25
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
threats, coping strategies, and other cognitive, affective and behavioral responses),
which are so often "stripped away" in one-shot, contrived lab experiments using
confederates (Crocker & Quinn, 2000:177).

The incentive pay process is 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).

As indicated by the model, incentive pay situations and their aftermath represent
ideal opportunities for the simultaneous exploration of the perspectives of both
targets and perceivers, and the study of their interactions and reciprocal influences
as equally active participants in the process. This represents a much-needed
departure from the traditional overemphasis on the perceiver's perspective in stigma
literature (Crocker & Quinn, 2000; Dovidio et al., 2000).
We see many directions for future research on overweight stigma and incentive pay:

In-depth longitudinal studies of the "phenomenology of being stigmatized" (Crocker
et al., 2000), in order to gain a deeper understanding of how overweight individuals
construe, anticipate and react to incentive pay 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
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
26
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
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 & Stangor, 1998).

In-depth longitudinal studies of the phenomenology of stigmatizing. Although most
studies take the perspective of the perceiver, they fail to explore the long- term effects
of the experience of stigmatizing: how is the decision-maker 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, changes the decision-maker.
By the same token, we need to find out more about the benefits and costs experienced
by the decision-maker as a result of trying to suppress discriminatory cognitions,
affects and behaviors (Biernat & Dovidio, 2000; Crandall, 2000). Do the
explanations of aversive racism for the relationship between level of performance and
likelihood of discrimination also apply to "aversive fatism," as we predicted in our
discussion of the model?

In-depth studies of situations that violate our expectations: situations where we would
expect overweight stigma to influence incentive pay, but it does not; and situations
where we would not expect stigma to play a role, but it does (e.g., "phantom stigma,"
where a formerly overweight individual still experiences stigmatization long after
having lost the excess weight). The former approach would heed Northcraft &
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
27
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
Hastorf 's call for studies of "deviant cases of deviance," where stigmatization fails to
occur (1981). It can be compared to the Sherlock Holmes' story where the whole
solution of the crime hinges on the fact that a dog that did not bark. The latter
approach would shed some light on the mysterious resilience of overweight stigma. It
would be the equivalent of studying why a dead dog might still be able to bark!

In-depth studies of virtuous and vicious cycles: how much of the burden for breaking
the spell of stigmatization falls on the shoulders of the overweight individual, or the
decision-maker? What enables those people to react and behave in ways that lessen or
counteract the impact of overweight stigma on incentive pay? What role does trust
play in the 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
overweight stigma less salient? What factors accelerate the breaking of an overweight
individual's ability to function in situations of attributional ambiguity?

In-depth studies of how individual attributes of the overweight employee and the
decision-maker affect the affective, cognitive and behavioral responses associated
with stigmatization in the context of incentive pay decisions. For example, what is the
effect of experience with overweight for both the overweight individual (age of onset)
and the decision-maker (level of contact with overweight people at home, in the
family, etc.)? What is the cumulative effect of multiple stigmas (double, triple,
quadruple "whammies")?

In-depth studies of how the nature of the job, the incentive pay system and the
broader context of the decision-making process affect the likelihood of bias in
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
28
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
performance appraisal and reward decisions. For example, how does technology
affect the incentive pay of overweight individuals? Can telecommuting reduce the
possibility of bias by increasing the visibility of the performance, while decreasing
the visibility of the performer?
All of those questions can 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 & Sequeira, 2002). There is only limited
evidence about the effectiveness of change efforts to reduce bias against overweight individuals,
mostly consisting of lab experiments that prime different attributions for origin and
controllability of overweight. We believe, however, that social movements to promote
acceptance of body sizes and diversity training programs that include the discussion of
overweight stigma and its consequences should at least serve to raise awareness about the
problem, if not contribute to its solution.
A more promising avenue might be to intervene in the bottom half of the model,
decreasing the opportunities and increasing the cost of decision-making bias by targeting factors
such as the design of incentive pay systems, the availability, quality and processing of
performance information, and organizational practices, policies and culture.
For example, incentive pay systems that emphasize participative goal-setting, relative
performance measurement combined with objective and output-based indicators might reduce
the likelihood of bias. If possible, incentive pay plans should also avoid forced links to
hierarchical position or forced distributions of performance.
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
29
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
Based on the incentive pay literature, we would also propose the need for developing the
skills of both overweight individuals and decision-makers in performance evaluation, reward
decisions, and performance feedback. Overweight individuals should be educated on how to
prepare written, formal documentation of performance for self-reports to be submitted before the
performance appraisal interview. The decision-making skills of performance evaluators (e.g.,
supervisors or managers) can be improved through training in participative goal-setting before
the performance period begins, and training on organizational policies to recognize and deal with
uncontrollable factors once evaluation time comes along. The process should also include
written evaluation letters (reviewing the level of attainment of preset performance goals and
justification for the amount of incentive pay to be awarded), as well as mechanisms for
facilitating communication about discrepancies in perceptions and interpretations, and for
achieving agreement.
Given the many avenues for bias to enter the incentive pay of overweight employees, one
might be tempted to ask whether it would not be better to give up on pay for performance, and
just pay everyone a straight salary. While the answer to this question should be pursued through
empirical investigation, we must consider that one of the interesting aspects of incentive pay is
its flexibility. Unfair bonuses in one year are easier to reverse in the following year than
unfairness in base salary or promotion decisions.
A better understanding of the effects of overweight stigma should help individuals and
organizations reap the benefits of incentive pay and reduce some of its costs. Research and
interventions targeting the factors that introduce bias and discrimination in the incentive pay
process would improve conditions for employees of all body types and sizes and ultimately result
in improved organizational performance.
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
30
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
REFERENCES
Atkinson, A., Kaplan, R. & Young, S.M. (2003). Management Accounting (4th. Ed.). Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Baker, G., Gibbons, R. & Murphy, K. (1994). Subjective performance measures in optimal
incentive contracts. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 109, 1125-1156.
Bell, M.P. & McLaughlin, M.E. (2004). Obesity, appearance, and organizational outcomes. In
A. M. Konrad, P. Prasad & J.K. Pringle (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Diversity.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bell, M., McLaughlin, M. & Sequeira, J. (2002). Age, disability and obesity: Diversity within
diversity. Gender and Diversity in Organizations Conference Paper Abstracts. Proceedings
of the Academy of Management, Denver, CO. p1, 20p.
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 N. Benokraitis (Ed.), Subtle sexism: Current
practice and prospect for change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 95-114
Bento, R.F. & Ferreira, L. (1992). Incentive pay and organizational culture. In W. Bruns (Ed).
Performance measurement, evaluation and incentives. Boston: Harvard Business School
Press, 157-182.
Bernardin, H. J. & Russell, J.E.A. (1993). Human resource management: An experiential
approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
31
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
Berscheid, E. (1981). The question of the importance of physical attractiveness. In C. P. Herman,
M. P. Zanna, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Physical appearance, stigma, and social behavior:
The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 3). Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum, 291-298.
Biernat, M. & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Stigma and stereotypes. In T. F. Heatherton, R. E. Kleck,
M. R. Hebl, & J. G. Hull (Eds.), The social psychology of stigma. New York: Guilford
Press, 88-125.
Blaine, E. B., DiBiasi, M.D. & 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.
Blascovich, J., Mendes, W.B., Hunter, S.B. & Lickel, B. (2000). Stigma, threat and social
Interaction. In T. F. Heatherton, R. E. Kleck, M. R. Hebl, & J. G. Hull (Eds.), The social
psychology of stigma. New York: Guilford Press, 307-333.
Brownell, P. (1982). Participation in the budgeting process: When it works and when it doesn’t.
Journal of Accounting Literature, 1, 125-153.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2009). U.S. Obesity Trends, accessed December 1st,
2009, [available at http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/] .
Chaiken, S. (1981). Physical appearance and social influence. In C. P. Herman, M. P. Zanna, &
E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Physical appearance, stigma, and social behavior: The Ontario
Symposium Vol.3. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates, 143-177.
Crandall, C. S. (2000). Ideology and lay theories of stigma: The justification of stigmatization. In
T. F. Heatherton, R. E. Kleck, M. R. Hebl, & J. G. Hull (Eds.), The social psychology of
stigma. New York: Guilford Press, 126-150.
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
32
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
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).
Crandall, C.S. and Eshleman, A. (2003). A Justification-Suppression Model of the Expression
and Experience of Prejudice, Psychological Bulletin, 129 (3).
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 (2), 402-14.
Crocker, J. & Quinn, D. M. (2000). Social stigma and the self: Meanings, situations, and selfesteem. In T. F. Heatherton, R. E. Kleck, M. R. Hebl, & J. G. Hull (Eds.), The social
psychology of stigma. New York: Guilford Press, 153-183.
Crocker, J., Voelkl., Testa & Major. (2000). Social stigma: The affective consequences of
attributional ambiguity. In C. Stangor. (Ed), Stereotypes and prejudice: Essential readings.
Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press, 353-368.
DeJong, W. & Kleck, R. E. (1981). The social psychological effects of overweight. In C. P.
Herman, M. P. Zanna, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Physical appearance, stigma, and social
behavior: The Ontario Symposium. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates, vol. 3, 65-87.
Dion, K. K. (1981). Stereotyping based on physical attractiveness: Issues and conceptual
perspectives. In C. P. Herman, M. P. Zanna, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.) Physical appearance,
stigma, and social behavior: The Ontario Symposium. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum
Associates, vol. 3, 7-21.
Dovidio, J.F., Gaertner, S.L., Anastasio, P.A. & Sanitioso, R. (1992). Cognitive and
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
33
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
motivational bases of bias: Implications of aversive racism for attitudes towards Hispanics.
In S. B. Knouse, P. Rosenfeld, & A.L. Culbertson (Eds.), Hispanics in the workplace.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 75-106.
Dovidio, J. F. & Gaertner, S. L. (1993). Stereotypes and evaluative intergroup bias. In Mackie,
D. M. & Hamilton, D. L. (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and stereotyping: interactive processes
in group perception. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 167-193.
Dovidio, J. F., Major, B., & Crocker, J. (2000). Stigma: Introduction and overview. In T. F.
Heatherton, R. E. Kleck, M. R. Hebl, & J. G. Hull (Eds.), The social psychology of stigma.
New York: Guilford Press, 1-28.
Fiske, S. T. & 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 M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, vol. 23, 1-74.
Fiske, S. T. & Ruscher, J. B. (1993). Negative interdependence and prejudice: Whence the
affect? In Mackie, D. M. & Hamilton, D. L. (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and stereotyping:
interactive processes in group perception. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 239-268.
Ghosh, D. & 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.
Goll, D. (2002). Workplace fairness can be weighty issue. East Bay Business Times,
February 18,1-2.
Greenberg, S. B., Eastin, M., Hofschire, L., Lachlan, K. & Brownell, K. (2003).
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
34
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
Portrayals of overweigh and obese individuals on commercial television. American
Journal of Public Health, 8, 1342- 1348.
Hebl, M., & Heatherton, F. T. (1998). The stigma of obesity in women: The difference
is black and white. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 24 (4), 417-426.
Hebl, M. & Kleck, R. E. (2000). The social consequences of physical disability. In T. F.
Heatherton, R. E. Kleck, M. R. Hebl, & J. G. Hull (Eds.), The social psychology of stigma.
New York: Guilford Press, 419-439.
Hebl, M., Tickle, J. & Heatherton, T. F. (2000). Awkward moments in interactions
between nonstigmatized and stigmatized individuals. In T. F. Heatherton, R. E. Kleck, M.
R. Hebl, & J. G. Hull (Eds.), The social psychology of stigma. New York: Guilford
Press, 273-306.
Hebl, M., & Mannix, L. (2003). The weight of obesity in evaluating others: A mere
proximity effect. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin. 29 (1), 28-38.
Herman, C.P., Zanna, M.P. & Higgins, E. T. (1986). Preface. In C. Peter Herman, Mark
P. Zanna, E. Tory Higgins (Eds.), Physical appearance, stigma, and social behavior:Tthe
Ontario Symposium. Hillsdale, N.J. : L. Erlbaum Associates, , vol. 3, ix-xiv.
Jambekar, S., Quinn, D.M. & 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. & 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. & Scott, R. (1984). Social stigma:
The psychology of marked relationships. New York: Freeman.
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
35
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
Jussim, Palumbo, Chatner, Madon & Smith. (2000). Stigma and self-fulfilling prophecies. In T.
F. Heatherton, R. E. Kleck, M. R. Hebl, & J. G. Hull (Eds.), The social psychology of
stigma. New York: Guilford Press, 374-418.
Kristen, E. (2002). Addressing the problem of weight discrimination in employment.
California Law Review. 90 (1), 57.
Langlois, J. H. (1981). From the eye of the beholder to behavioral reality: Development of social
relations as a function of physical attractiveness. In C. P. Herman, M. P. Zanna, & E. T.
Higgins (Eds.), Physical appearance, stigma, and social behavior: The Ontario
Symposium, Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates, vol. 3, 23-51.
Latner, J. D. & Stunkard, A. J. (2003). Getting worse: The stigmatization of obese
children. Obesity research. 11 (3), 452-456.
Major, B. & Crocker, J. (1993). Social stigma : The consequences of attributional ambiguity. In
Mackie, D. M. & Hamilton, D. L. (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and stereotyping: Interactive
processes in group perception. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 345-370.
Merchant, K. (1989). Rewarding results: Motivating profit center managers. Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
Merchant,K. & Van der Stede, W.( 2003). Management control systems. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Miller, C. T. & Myers, A. M. (1998). Compensating for prejudice: How heavyweight people
(and others) control outcomes despite prejudice. In J. K. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds.),
Prejudice: the target's perspective. San Diego, Calif.: Academic Press, 191-218..
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
36
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
Miller, C. T. & Major, B. (2000). Coping with stigma and prejudice. In T. F. Heatherton, R. E.
Kleck, M. R. Hebl, & J. G. Hull (Eds.), The social psychology of stigma. New York:
Guilford Press, 243-272..
Miller, C. T., Rothblum, E.D., Felicio, D. & Brand, P. (2000). Compensating for stigma: Obese
and nonobese women's reactions to being visible. In C. Stangor. (Ed), Stereotypes and
prejudice: Essential readings. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press, 235-249.
Mitchell, T. & Kalb, L. (1981). Effects of outcome knowledge and outcome valence on
supervisors’ evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 604-612.
Northcraft, G. & Hastorft, A. (1981). Maturation and social behavior: A framework for the
analysis of deviance. In C. P. Herman, M. P. Zanna, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Physical
appearance, stigma, and social behavior: The Ontario Symposium. Hillsdale, NJ: L.
Erlbaum Associates, vol. 3, 221-243.
Polivy, J., Garner, D. M. & Garfinkel, P. E. (1981). Causes and consequences of the current
preferences for thin female physiques. In C. P. Herman, M. P. Zanna, & E. T. Higgins
(Eds.), Physical appearance, stigma, and social behavior: The Ontario Symposium.
Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates, vol.3, 89-112.
Puhl, R. & Brownell, K. D.( 2001). Bias, discrimination, and obesity. Obesity Research,
9, 788-805.
Quinn, D. M. & Crocker, J. (1998). Vulnerability to the affective consequences of the stigma of
overweight. In J. K. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds.), Prejudice: the target's perspective. San
Diego, Calif.: Academic Press, 125-143
Quinn, D. M. & Crocker, J. (1999). When ideology hurts: Effects of belief in the
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
37
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
protestant ethic and feeling overweight on the psychological well-being of women.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 402-414.
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.
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 P. Fallon, M. A. Katzman & S.C. Wooley
(Eds.), Feminist Perspectives on Eating Disorders. New York:Guilford Press, : 53-76.
Rush, L. L. (1998). Affective reactions to multiple social stigmas. Journal of Social
Psychology, 138 (4), 421-431.
Schwartz, M. B., & 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. & Billington, C. (2003).
Weight bias among health professionals specializing in obesity. Obesity Research, 11
(9), 1033-1039.
Shields, J.F. & 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 C. P.
Herman, M. P. Zanna, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Physical appearance, stigma, and social
behavior: The Ontario Symposium,Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates, vol. 3, 245-288
Smart, L. & Wegner, D. M. (2000). The hidden costs of hidden stigma. In T. F. Heatherton, R. E.
Kleck, M. R. Hebl, & J. G. Hull (Eds.), The social psychology of stigma. New York:
Guilford Press, 220-242.
Stone, D. L., & Colella, A. (1996). A model of factors affecting the treatment of disabled
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
38
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
individuals in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 21, 352-402.
Swann, W. B., Polzer, J. T., Seyle, D.C. & 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. & Stangor, C. (1998). Introduction. In J. K. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds.),
Prejudice: the target's perspective. San Diego, Calif.: Academic Press, 1-8.
USA Today (2003). Obesity explodes from teens to 20s. October 13, 1A.
Wall Street Journal (1999). Linking pay to performance is becoming a norm in the
workplace. April 6, 1.
Washington Post (2003). Screen for, treat obesity. December 2, F. 01
Watson Wyatt Worldwide (2002). Strategic rewards: Managing through uncertain times.
2001/2002 Survey Report.
Weiner, B. (1995). Judgments of responsibility: A foundation for a theory of social
conduct. New York: Guilford Press.
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
39
2010 Oxford Business & Economics Conference Program
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-1-9
Figure 1
Model of Factors Affecting Incentive Pay of Overweight Individuals
Overweight Stigma
OWI Attributes
Nature of OW
Experience with OW
Gender, race, age
Physical attractiveness
Personality and ideology
Status, power, reputation
Interpersonal & job skills
DM Attributes
Experience with OW
Gender, race, age
Personality, ideology
Interpersonal & job skills
OWI Responses
DM Responses
Cognitive
Affective
Behavioral
Cognitive
Affective
Behavioral
Decision Situation
Contextual Factors
Nature of job
(Uncertainty, visibility of
outcomes)
Technology
Policies & practices
Org. culture
Legislation
Societal attitudes
OW
Nature of incentive pay
system
(% of pay at risk,
participative /
authoritative, linkage
with hierarchy,
relative/absolute,
objective/subjective,
input/output control
focus)
Incentive Pay
Decision-making
Process
Biases:
perception,storage, recall
interpretation, attribution
evaluation, reward
Incentive Pay Outcome
Discrimination
Blatant
Subtle
Covert
June 28-29, 2010
St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
40