THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DIRECT AND INDIRECT CONTACT AND
WEIGHT BIAS
Afton M. Koball, M.A.
A Dissertation
Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green
State University in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY:
August 2013
Committee:
Robert Carels, Ph.D., Advisor
Vipaporn Phuntumart, Ph.D.
Graduate Faculty Representative
Dara Musher-Eizenman, Ph.D.
William O'Brien, Ph.D.
© 2013
Afton M. Koball, M.A.
All Rights Reserved
!
ABSTRACT
Robert A. Carels, Ph.D., Advisor
Despite a current obesity epidemic in the U.S. (Ogden, Carroll, McDowell, &
Flegal, 2007), negative attitudes toward overweight and obese individuals have been
increasing (Brownell, Schwartz, Puhl, and Rudd, 2005). Interventions aimed at reducing
anti-fat attitudes have produced mixed results. One approach that has successfully
reduced prejudiced attitudes toward discriminated individuals is intergroup contact,
which include direct contact, (i.e., actual contact between outgroup members), imagined
contact (i.e., imagined contact between outgroup members), and vicarious contact (i.e.,
viewing of contact between members of different groups). Despite its success with other
forms of bias reduction, intergroup contact has not been examined with regard to weight
stigma. The current study examined whether and how various forms of intergroup
contact can reduce explicit weight bias among normal weight participants (BMI > 18.5
and < 25). Results indicated that, in the direct contact condition, participants evidenced
reduced explicit weight bias and increased behavioral intentions to engage with obese
persons. In terms of mechanisms by which bias was reduced, intergroup anxiety and
perception of ingroup norms (i.e., how one feels others in their ingroup view outgroup
members) was found to differentially mediate the relationship between the direct contact
condition and explicit weight, and behavioral intentions. This study highlights the
potential importance of positive, meaningful contact between people of different body
sizes in reducing negative attitudes and stereotypes about overweight.
iii iv This dissertation is dedicated to my wonderfully supportive husband who has loved and
encouraged me throughout my graduate training.
v ACKNOWLEGMENTS
I would like to acknowledge several important people who have assisted in the
fruition of my dissertation. First, thank you to my advisor, Rob Carels; I greatly
appreciate your time, advice, support, and lightning speed with my drafts. Your guidance
over the past 4 years has been wonderful, and I’m grateful to have had such amazing
mentorship. Thank you also to my committee members, most of whom have been with
me since my masters thesis proposal. Thank you for all of your feedback and stimulating
discussion over the years; you have helped make me a better researcher. Also thank you
to my research assistants, Rachel Snyder and David Denison, who helped with data
collection and coding. This project also could not have been completed without the work
of Katy Schlegal, my confederate in this study. Her bubbly an outgoing personality, as
well as her top notch acting skills, helped challenge commonly held weight biases of
many participants in this study. For that, and for your wonderful professionalism Katy, I
thank you. Finally, thank you to my family (most importantly Mom, Dad, Ryan and Bill)
and friends for your caring support during this process; love you all!
vi TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………..
Weight
Stigma………………………………………………………………
1
1
Etiology of Weight Stigma…………………………………………………. 2
Weight Bias Reduction Strategies………………………………………….. 5
Intergroup Contact Theory………………………………………………….. 8
Indirect Contact……………………………………………………………..
11
Imagined Contact……………………………………………………
11
Extended Contact……………………………………………………
14
Vicarious Contact……………………………………………………
15
Mediators Between Contact and Bias……………………………………….
16
Intergroup Anxiety…………………………………………………..
16
Ingroup and Outgroup Norms……………………………………….
17
Goals and Hypotheses………………………………………………………. 18
Hypothesis A- Direct Contact………………………………………. 19
Hypothesis B- Indirect Contact……………………………………… 20
Hypothesis C- Exploratory Analyses……………………………….. 21
Hypothesis D- Extended Contact……………………………………. 21
Hypothesis E- Mediation of Weight Bias……………………………
21
METHODS…………………………………………………………………………...
23
Participants……………………………………………………………………
23
Procedure……………………………………………………………………… 23
vii
Direct Contact Condition……………………………………………… 24
Imagined Contact Condition………………………………………….. 25
Vicarious Contact Condition………………………………………….. 26
Control Condition……………………………………………………... 28
Preliminary Measures………………………………………………………… 28
Demographic Information……………………………………………. 28
Manipulation Check Measures……………………………………….. 28
Extended Contact……………………………………………………..
28
Outcome Measures…………………………………………………………… 29
Explicit Bias………………………………………………………….. 29
Behavioral Intentions to Interact with Outgroup Members…………..
30
Mediation Measures………………………………………………………….. 30
Intergroup Anxiety…………………………………………………… 30
Perceived Ingroup and Outgroup Norms…………………………….. 31
Data Analyses…………………………………………………………………
32
RESULTS…………………………………………………………………………….. 36
Preliminary Analyses…………………………………………………………
36
Manipulation Checks…………………………………………………………. 36
Condition Effects for Explicit Weight Bias and Behavioral Intentions……… 39
Hypothesis A: Direct Contact……………………………………………….. 40
Hypothesis B: Indirect Contact……………………………………………… 41
Hypothesis C: Exploratory Analyses………………………………………... 42
Post hoc Manipulation Check Analyses………………………………………
42
viii
Hypothesis D: Extended Contact…………………………………………..
44
Hypothesis E: Mediation of Weight Bias…………………………………..
45
Relationships Between IV and Mediators………………………….
45
Relationships Between Mediators and Dependent Variables………
46
Mediation Analyses Using Bootstrapping………………………….
47
IAS………………………………………………………………….
48
Perception of Ingroup Norms……………………………………….
49
Perception of Outgroup Norms……………………………………..
50
DISCUSSION……………………………………………………………………….
51
Limitations………………………………………………………………….
65
Clinical Implications………………………………………………………..
66
REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………..
68
APPENDIX A Eligibility Survey ………………………………………………….
97
APPENDIX B Extended Contact Questionnaire……………….…………………..
98
APPENDIX C Obese Person Trait Survey…....……………………………………
99
APPENDIX D Ant Fat Attitudes Questionnaire…………..………………………..
100
APPENDIX E Behavioral Intentions to Interact with Outgroup Members…...……
101
APPENDIX F Intergroup Anxiety Scale.………………………..…………………
102
APPENDIX G Perceived Ingroup Norms………..………………...………………
104
APPENDIX H Perceived Outgroup Norms……………………………………...…
105
APPENDIX I Closeness Induction Task……………………………………………
106
APPENDIX J Confederate Responses to Closeness Induction Task………………
107
APPENDIX K HSRB Modification Request……………………………………….
110
APPENDIX L HSRB Final Approval……………………………………………….
112
ix LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1
Demographic Characteristics……………………………………………
78
2
Correlations between Mediators and Outcome Variables……………….
80
3
Manipulation Check Ratings…………………………………………….
81
4
Explicit Weight Bias, Behavioral Intentions, and Mediators By
Condition………………………………………………………………….
82
5
Regression Statistics for Mediators Predicting Outcome Variables………..
84
6
IAS Mediating the Relationship between Condition and Outcome
Variables…………………………………………………………………..
7
Perception of Ingroup Norms Mediating the Relationship between
Condition and Outcome Variables………………………………………….
8
86
89
Perception of Outgroup Norms Mediating the Relationship between
Condition and Outcome Variables…………………………………………
92
x LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1
Page
Realistic Moderating the Relationship between Condition and
OPTS Negative……………………………………………………….
2
Positive Moderating the Relationship between Condition and
AFA Willpower……………………………………………………….
3
95
Realistic Moderating the Relationship between Condition and
Behavioral Intentions………………………………………………….
4
95
96
Friendliness Moderating the Relationship between Condition and
Behavioral Intentions…………………………………………………..
96
Contact and Weight Bias 1
INTRODUCTION
Over half of the population in the United States is considered overweight or
obese (66%; Ogden, Carroll, McDowell, & Flegal, 2007). Despite the prevalence of
obesity, these individuals frequently face bias and discrimination because of their size.
In fact, the frequency with which weight stigma is experienced has been on the rise over
the past decade (Brownell, Schwartz, Puhl, and Rudd, 2005). The ubiquity of weightbased discrimination, as well as its apparent acceptance by society, has prompted experts
to call weight stigma the last socially acceptable form of prejudice (Puhl and Brownell,
2001).
Obese individuals who are stigmatized experience a variety of negative physical
(e.g., poor health outcomes) and psychological (e.g., depression) consequences
(Friedman, et al., 2005; Guyll, Matthews, & Bromberger, 2001; Myers and Rosen,
1999). Effective interventions designed to reduce the incidence of bias and
discrimination against the obese are greatly needed. One promising approach to reducing
weight stigma and negative attitudes toward obese persons may be to employ the use of
intergroup contact. The current study will examine the use of direct and indirect
intergroup contact as a potential strategy for reducing weight bias.
Weight Stigma
Stigma is defined as bias and discrimination that stems from negative beliefs
about, and attitudes toward a group that is perceived as being lesser than society as a
whole (Crocker & Major, 1989). As with other stigmatized groups, those who
experience weight stigma face inequalities in a variety of settings (e.g., employment,
education, health-care facilities; Puhl & Brownell, 2006; Puhl & Heuer, 2009; Roehling,
Contact and Weight Bias 2
1999). In employment settings, overweight individuals experience a variety of
stigmatizing occurrences including, being the target of derogatory jokes, being denied
promotions, or being fired because of one’s weight (Puhl & Heuer, 2009). Additionally,
overweight individuals are less likely to be hired, more likely to receive a lower salary,
and more likely to experience negative job performance evaluations than normal weight
counterparts (Puhl & Heuer, 2009). Weight bias in educational settings is also common
with overweight individuals experiencing weight-based discrimination from both
classmates and educators (Puhl & Heuer, 2009). In health care settings, overweight
individuals are often the target of negative attitudes from hospital and medical staff.
Research suggests that health care utilization by overweight and obese persons may be
adversely affected by weight stigma (Puhl & Heuer, 2009). Weight bias is also quite
evident in popular media outlets, such as television and print. For example, overweight
television characters have fewer interactions with friends or romantic partners, are more
likely to be seen eating and be humiliated while doing so, and are less likely to help with
tasks, demonstrate physical affection, date romantically, or have sexual intercourse
(Greenberg, et al., 2003).
Etiology of Weight Stigma
Anti-fat attitudes are fueled by pervasive and widespread stereotypes about obese
individuals. Recently, a qualitative study by Puhl, Moss-Racusin, Schwartz, and
Brownell examined the most commonly held stereotypes about obese persons (2008).
The belief that overweight and obese individuals are lazy was the most highly identified
stereotype. In addition, beliefs that overweight and obese persons overeat or binge eat,
are unintelligent, have poor self-discipline, have poor hygiene, are worthless, and are
Contact and Weight Bias 3
unattractive were also commonly identified (Puhl, Moss-Racusin, Schwartz, &
Brownell, 2008).
The widespread derogation of obese individuals is likely to be exacerbated by
America’s strong preference for thinness; often called the “thin ideal”. In fact, pressures
to be thin are so great that 46% of individuals in one study said they would give up a
year of their life to be thin (Schwartz, Vartanian, Nosek, Brownell, 2006). Individuals
also reported that they would rather be unable to have children, be an alcoholic, be
clinically depressed, lose a limb, or be legally blind than overweight (Schwartz,
Vartanian, Nosek, Brownell, 2006).
Other influential factors in the development and persistence of weight stigma are
likely a result of the visibility and perceived controllability of obesity (i.e., the
individual’s weight; Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998). Previous research has shown that
stigmatized characteristics that are readily observable such as gender, skin color, or body
shape, are more likely to elicit social rejection. Similarly, characteristics that are viewed
as more controllable and changeable also lead to more social denigration. A person’s
body size is highly visible, and often is viewed by others as being controllable.
Another process that serves to generate and exacerbate weight bias and
discrimination is a propensity by individuals to attribute the cause of an individual’s
obesity to various characteristics within the person. According to Attribution Theory, a
common belief that weight gain and loss are completely under an individual’s personal
control can lead to attributions that character flaws are the primary cause of the obesity.
These attributions result in the view that the person has brought the condition down
upon themselves by poor decisions, bad choices, a lack of self-control, etc. (Crandall,
Contact and Weight Bias 4
1994). These negative attitudes towards obese persons appear to be exacerbated by
ideological world views consistent with self-determination, the Protestant work ethic
(i.e. the belief that overweight people got and remain obese, primarily from overeating
and having a lack of self-control; Crandall, 2003), and the Belief in a Just World (i.e. the
idea that people get what they deserve in life; Crandall, 1994). People who hold these
ideological beliefs often infer that obese persons either deserve their negative plight or
have not worked hard enough to reverse their highly controllable negative condition.
Lastly, Social Identity Theory has been used as a means of conceptualizing the
development of weight stigma (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). According to Social Identity
Theory, individuals’ social identity and self-esteem are tied to group membership. As
such, individuals generally categorize themselves (in-group) and others (out-group) into
specific groups (e.g. thin versus fat). Social identity is established and enhanced by
making favorable comparisons with the in-group relative to the out-group (Tajfel &
Turner, 1986). Consistent with Social Identity Theory, normal weight individuals
typically make downward comparisons to obese individuals. Interestingly however,
obese individuals appear to lack this preference for the in-group (i.e. other obese
persons) and instead hold negative attitudes toward the obese as well (Rudman,
Feinberg, & Fairchild, 2002). While not entirely clear, the reasons for a lack of in-group
preference may reflect issues of weight identity or the perceived controllability of
weight. Overweight individuals may not see themselves as overweight or may feel that
they can leave the overweight category at any time.
As indicated above, in response to the alarming levels of weight bias in the
United States, research has examined the etiological and ideological correlates of weight
Contact and Weight Bias 5
stigma, and their ability to predict discriminatory behavior. Similarly, researchers have
begun to develop and test methods for improving negative attitudes and beliefs toward
the obese. Unfortunately, few studies have documented effective weight bias-reduction
techniques.
Weight Bias Reduction Strategies
A recent review of the literature on weight bias found limited experimental
research on weight bias reduction as well as equivocal findings. A common intervention
strategy for reducing weight stigma has been to target attributions that individuals have
about obese persons (Puhl and Heuer, 2009). Several studies have indicated that
reducing the perceived control overweight persons are judged to have over their weight
may decrease explicit anti-fat bias (e.g., DeJong, 1980, 1993). For example, a study that
targeted attributions about obese individuals sought to challenge commonly held beliefs
about the controllability of obesity. The participants were provided information on
uncontrollable causes of obesity (i.e. genetic, biological), which was intended to reduce
attributional biases. Participants provided with information that obesity is uncontrollable
evidenced fewer negative beliefs about obese individuals (Puhl, Schwartz, and
Brownell, 2005; Crandall, 2003). However, it is important to note that some studies
have failed to decrease weight bias by providing information on uncontrollable causes of
obesity (Teachman, Gapinski, Brownell, Rawlins, Jeyaram, 2003).
Other studies have attempted to reduce bias by evoking empathy for obese
individuals. In one study, empathy-evoking stories of obese individuals who had
experienced weight stigma were successful at reducing implicit weight bias in
overweight participants. However, the manipulation failed to reduce weight bias among
Contact and Weight Bias 6
normal weight participants (Teachman, Gapinski, Brownell, Rawlins, Jeyaram, 2003).
Another study that used television show clips to evoke empathy was similarly
ineffective at reducing explicit and implicit negative beliefs about obese individuals
(Gapinski, Schwartz, and Brownell, 2006). These findings are perplexing considering
the effectiveness of similar empathy evoking strategies for reducing bias in other
stigmatized groups (e.g., Batson, et al., 1997).
In their review, Puhl and Heuer emphasize that it is possible that these findings
indicate the resistant nature of certain forms of bias, particularly those seen in weight
bias, and that given their resistance to weight-stigma reduction interventions, a
comprehensive educational intervention may be most effective (2009). For example, as
part of a kinesiology course lecture on fitness and sports, didactic instruction, group
discussion, and hands-on learning activities related to weight bias resulted in reduced
levels of undergraduates weight bias (Rukavina, Li, and Rowell, 2008). While this
intervention was successful at reducing anti-fat attitudes related to individual’s
responsibility for their weight, the intervention was unsuccessful at reducing other more
prevalent stereotypes, such as the perception that obese people are lazy (Rukavina, Li,
and Rowell, 2008). A similar study that utilized in-class bias reduction strategies such as
empathy induction and role-play exercises was successful at reducing antifat attitudes
(Wiese, Wilson, Jones, and Neises, 1992). However, both studies had methodological
limitations that hinder the ability to accurately interpret the findings (e.g., lack of a
control group).
In addition to the effectiveness of some comprehensive approaches to weight
bias reduction, less intensive interventions, such those that are internet based, have also
Contact and Weight Bias 7
shown promise in reducing weight bias. One study administered an online educational
course to teachers in the hopes of assisting them in learning more about weight biases
that children and adolescents hold and reducing their biases against overweight and
obese students. By providing information about the biological and genetic contributions
to obesity, social pressures to be thin, and consequences of weight stigma, participating
teachers’ anti-fat attitudes were greatly reduced (Hague & White, 2005).
Finally, based on the proposition that negative beliefs and stereotypes directed at
obese individuals are a result of one’s perception of other’s stereotypical beliefs,
experimental research has attempted to reduce anti-fat attitudes by manipulating social
consensus information. Results from three experiments utilizing this approach revealed
that manipulating social consensus information was effective at reducing weight bias
(Puhl, Schwartz, & Brownell, 2005). In contrast however, a recent study by Ciao and
Latner (2011) found that there were no differences between a control group and a group
provided with social consensus information. In their study, 64 college undergraduates
were randomized into three groups, a cognitive dissonance group, who were told that
their scores on an explicit measure of weight bias was discrepant from their self-reported
values (i.e., kindness and equality), a social consensus group, who were told that their
scores on the same measure of weight bias were discrepant from their peers, and a
control group, who were told that their weight bias scores were the same as their peers
and were consistent with their own values. While the social consensus group failed to
reduce biases in this investigation, the cognitive dissonance manipulation resulted in
reductions in the negative attitudes about the appearance and attractiveness of obese
individuals (Ciao & Latner, 2011). While the findings presented above indicate tentative
Contact and Weight Bias 8
success of some stigma reduction interventions, these findings are not definitive. Further
experimental research is greatly needed to determine what types of bias reduction
strategies are most effective.
One possible strategy for reducing prejudice that has been tested with a variety
of stigmatized groups, but largely neglected in weight bias research, is direct (Allport,
1954) or indirect (Pettigrew, 1997) contact. Direct contact research suggests that having
face-to-face contact with a stigmatized person may result in reduced biases toward
stigmatized individuals and their group. Indirect contact research suggests that having
imagined positive interaction with an outgroup member (i.e., imagined intergroup
contact), having friends who have outgroup members as their friends (i.e., extended
intergroup contact), or viewing positive interactions between ingroup and outgroup
members (i.e., vicarious intergroup contact) may result in stigma reduction as well.
Interestingly, to our knowledge, only one published study of direct contact, and no
published studies of extended, or vicarious contact have been examined in relation to
weight bias. With regard to imagined contact and weight bias, one unpublished study
conducted by the author, resulted in equivocal findings (Koball, 2011). However,
methodological difficulties with the stimuli used, as well as with masking the true intent
of the study are likely to have compromised the findings. Nevertheless, given the
pervasive nature of antifat attitudes, and the success of direct and indirect contact in
diminishing prejudice among other stigmatized groups, a closer examination of the
effect of direct and indirect contact on weight bias is warranted.
Intergroup Contact Theory
Contact and Weight Bias 9
First hypothesized by Gordon Allport in 1954, Contact theory was based on the
notion that bias and discrimination between groups, as well as intergroup hostility, could
be reduced by positive contact between groups. The theory was developed based on
observations from field research on racial segregation in colleges (Sims & Patrick, 1936)
and with the desegregation of the Merchant Marine (Brophy, 1946), where direct contact
with outgroup members resulted in more positive racial attitudes. Allport specified four
key conditions that he believed were necessary in creating positive contact. These
conditions included equal group status within the situation, common goals, intergroup
cooperation, and the support of authorities, law, or custom. However, a recent metaanalysis by Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) suggests that positive contact between groups
could still occur when some of these conditions were not met. Instead, they proposed
that Allport’s optimal conditions are not essential, but instead facilitate contact’s
reduction of intergroup prejudice (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006).
In the years following its creation, Contact theory became one of the most
heavily researched topics in psychology (Oskamp and Jones, 2001) and its benefits in
reducing between group prejudices have overwhelmingly been demonstrated (Pettigrew
& Troop, 2008). Beyond race and ethnicity intergroup contact situations include
homosexuals and victims of AIDS (Eskilson, 1995; Werth & Lord, 1992), as well as the
elderly (Caspi, 1984), physically disabled (Anderson, 1995), and mentally ill
(Desforges, et al., 1991). However, to date, Contact theory has only been employed in
one published study to examine weight biases.
In 1985, Blumberg and Mellis examined the attitudes of medical students toward
normal weight, overweight, obese, and morbidly obese patients. Not surprisingly, they
Contact and Weight Bias 10
found that as patient weight increased, so did level of negative feelings from the medical
students. Most pertinent to this study, negative attitudes from students toward morbidly
obese patients remained strong even after direct contact throughout an 8-week rotation.
One potential explanation for this lack of bias reduction has been suggested by Puhl and
Brownell (2003), who indicated that the power differential between medical students
and their patients might have contributed to the inability of contact to change bias.
Because Allport’s recommendation of equal group status as a facilitating condition
(1954) was not met, the reduction of prejudice through contact was greatly diminished.
Puhl and Brownell (2003) further suggested that Contact theory may not be
relevant in North America today because of the increasing amount of contact between
people of many different weight ranges. However, this conclusion should be viewed
with caution for several reasons. First, it is plausible that contact between people of
different weight ranges may actually diminish weight bias, but its effects are
overshadowed by other factors promoting bias. Alternatively, there actually may not be
increased contact between obese people and non-obese people. Research on intergroup
contact has indicated that highly prejudiced individuals may actually avoid contact with
outgroups (Pettigrew, 1998). So while the majority of individuals in our society are
overweight or obese, it may be that prejudiced normal weight individuals are avoiding
contact with others of larger size. Moreover, it could be argued that despite numerous
superficial contacts, the context of these interactions may lack meaningful interactions
sufficient to reduce weight bias. Therefore, it is likely that very few of Allport’s key
conditions for creating positive contact are being met. While some people may come
into contact quite frequently with individuals from a variety of weight classes, they may
Contact and Weight Bias 11
not interact with obese individuals in a manner that alters negative attitudes toward
weight.
Numerous questions remain about how intergroup contact could be applied to
reduce weight bias. Given that the only study conducted on direct contact and antifat
attitudes was published over two decades ago, we believe that examining direct contact
between normal weight and overweight/obese individuals remains worthwhile. In
addition, we also believe that it may be relevant to examine other forms of contact
between groups, such as indirect contact, to determine which can most effectively
reduce weight biases.
Indirect Contact
While researchers generally have suggested that direct contact is preferred over
indirect contact in reducing prejudice between groups (Dovido, Eller, & Hewstone,
2011), in some instances the use of direct contact may be limited logistically (e.g.,
availability of outgroup) and pragmatically (e.g., efficiency). However, despite logistical
and pragmatic benefits, indirect contact is less well established. In a review of the
literature on indirect contact, Dovido Eller, and Hewstone (2011) discovered only 30
published studies on the topic. Nevertheless, forms of indirect contact, such as imagined,
extended, and vicarious contact have been proposed as successful alternatives to direct
contact.
Imagined Contact. A first type of indirect contact is imagined contact. Imagined
contact has its roots in the literature on mental imagery in psychology. Building on this
psychological precedent, Pettigrew (1997; 1998; 2008) proposed that mental imagery
would have an effect on intergroup attitudes in the same manner as direct contact (Crisp
Contact and Weight Bias 12
and Turner, 2009). Regarding bias reduction, as with direct contact, research has shown
that imagined intergroup contact has been successful in reducing prejudice between
many types of groups; primarily by changing attitudes about outgroup members. In three
initial studies of imagined contact, Turner, Crisp, and Lambert (2007) found that
individuals who were asked to have an imagined interaction that was positive and
relaxed with an elderly person or a homosexual man, experienced reduced explicit
outgroup bias. In more recent studies, Stathi and Crisp (2008) tested several new
populations, including Mestizos and indigenous groups in Mexico and International
Students in the United Kingdom, and found that imagined contact leads to improved
outgroup attitudes for these groups as well.
According to Turner, Crisp and Lambert (2007), imagining intergroup contact
activates concepts such as feeling more comfortable and less apprehension about the
prospect of future contact with imagined members of the outgroup. Additionally, they
propose that the generation of automatic processes that parallel those that are involved in
actual intergroup contact, such as thinking about what they would learn from the
encounter and how that encounter would make them feel, facilitates stigma reduction.
Together the generation of these processes lead to more positive outgroup attitudes.
In a 2011 unpublished manuscript by the author, the effect of imagined contact
on weight bias was examined to determine whether imagined positive, meaningful
intergroup contact designed to reduce common, specific, anti-fat attitudes would result
in reduced explicit and implicit weight bias among normal weight participants (Koball,
2011). Specifically, this study used two different imagined contact conditions, one
focusing on reducing the most prevalent stereotype about obese individuals, that they are
Contact and Weight Bias 13
lazy, and another condition focusing on the second most prevalent stereotype, that obese
individuals overeat or binge eat. Participants in these imagined contact conditions were
asked to imagine for one minute a vignette asking them to think about interacting with a
hard working obese person, or an obese person who practices portion control.
Unexpectedly, weight bias went down pre to post in both the imagined contact
conditions, as well as in a control condition where participants were asked to simply
imagine an obese person. As noted earlier, methodological difficulties with masking the
true intent of the study likely contributed to the null findings. However, it is important
to note that the imagined contact conditions did not result in a reduction of implicit
biases pre to post. These findings not only highlight the difficulty of changing weight
biases, but also suggest that it is important to mask the true nature of the study so that
participants in the control group do not respond in a socially desirable manner.
Moreover, utilizing a more neutral control condition could eliminate a potential
confound (i.e., such as those that do not instruct individuals to imagine obese people) by
preventing the emergence of spontaneous negative (or positive) emotions about obese
individuals.
Beyond imagined contact, other forms of indirect contact may have a significant
effect on weight bias through a different mechanism than direct or imagined contact.
For example, direct and imagined contact are believed to reduce bias via direct attitude
change (e.g., beliefs and stereotypes about outgroup members may change; Pettigrew,
2008). However, other forms of indirect contact, such as extended or vicarious contact,
are hypothesized to reduce biases via modification of perceptions of group norms (e.g,.
that the group is accepting of outgroup members; Wright, Aron, McLaughlin-Volpe, and
Contact and Weight Bias 14
Ropp, 1997). In fact, some research suggests that attitudes toward an ougroup only
modestly predict discriminatory behavior (Dovido, Bringham, Johnson & Gaertner,
1996; Taleska, Fiske, & Chaiken, 2008). Changing the perception of group norms can
sometimes have a profound effect on how groups feel and behave around each other.
This is especially true for those groups in which negative intergroup attitudes are
“strongly crystallized and habitually activated” (Dovido, Kawakami, & Beach, 2001;
Greenwald, Poehlman, Uhlmann, & Banaji, 2009). In these groups, it may be more
effective to alter group norm perceptions than attitudes (Dovido, Eller, & Hewstone,
2011). That is, while other forms of contact, such as direct and imagined, may result in
changes in attitudes, it is possible that they may not translate further into changes in
behavior unless a group norm for behavioral change is modified (i.e., people may still
behave in discriminatory ways, either explicitly or implicitly, despite changing attitudes
about the outgroup). In the case of weight bias, which is often strongly and
unconsciously held by many, examining the impact of indirect contact though group
perceptions may be important in understanding not only how we can reduce biases, but
also how we can modify behavioral intentions.
Extended Contact. A second type of indirect contact is extended contact. First
proposed by Wright, Aron, McLaughlin-Volpe, and Ropp (1997), the extended contact
hypothesis theorized that intergroup prejudice could be reduced simply by knowing that
an ingroup member has a close, positive relationship with an outgroup member. In their
review, Dovido, Eller, and Hewstone (2011) present six recent articles that
overwhelmingly show that extended contact reduces bias above that of direct contact.
Research has indicated that the processes by which extended contact serves to reduce
Contact and Weight Bias 15
bias overlaps with direct contact; for example, both seem to involve reducing anxiety,
threat, and negative expectations (Mallet & Wilson, 2010). These studies also show
however, that extended contact reduces prejudice in unique ways as well, such as by
changing views of the ingroup. Knowing that a friend who is part of your ingroup, has a
friend who is in an outgroup, may change perceptions of ingroup-outgroup norms
(Dovido, Eller, & Hewstone, 2011), and thus result in reduced bias. Extended contact,
which emphasizes the social nature of intergroup attitudes, may lead people to believe
that their group is inclusive and accepting of others. This in turn could lead to reductions
in bias, and changes in behavior toward outgroup members. These findings appear to be
consistent with research on social consensus (a potentially effective way of reducing
weight bias), which also utilizes the beliefs and behavior of others in an ingroup to
influence the individual.
Vicarious Contact. A third type of indirect contact is vicarious contact, which
builds on findings from research on extended contact, and utilizes principles of social
learning theory (Bandura, 1986). Vicarious contact works on intergroup attitudes by
changing individuals’ views of outgroup members after observing the actions of others
with whom they strongly identify. As with extended contact, vicarious contact is thought
to impact views of ingroup norms. Seeing others interacting, such as through the media,
can change existing inclinations, or modify knowledge and understanding of outgroup
members (Dovido, Eller, & Hewstone, 2011). In fact, many of our current views about
various groups have been shaped through vicarious contact via what we see and hear on
the television, internet, and radio, often without our conscious awareness. In their three
studies on the media’s influence on attitudes about gay men and male transvestites,
Contact and Weight Bias 16
Schiappa, Gregg, and Hewes, (2005) found that seeing television shows (i.e., drama,
“Six Feet Under;” reality TV, “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy;” and comedy, “Eddie
Lizzard’s, Dressed to Kill”) portraying these men talking about and interacting
positively with outgroup members (i.e., straight men) resulted in reduced reports of
prejudice and specific changes in beliefs of participants. On the contrary, research has
indicated that negative portrayals of intergroup relations on television can result in
increased biases (Weibuch, Pauker, & Ambady, 2009). The effect of vicarious contact
on children has also been demonstrated. For example, Cameron and Rutland (2006)
found that children who read stories featuring friendships between disabled and nondisabled children had increased positive attitudes and intentions to engage with outgroup
members. Again, these findings seem to align with research on social consensus,
because of their influence on socially held beliefs about between group interactions.
While previous research suggests that direct and indirect forms of contact can
reduce biases, as in other forms of bias reduction, it was important to examine potential
mechanisms (i.e., mediators) of weight bias reduction.
Mediators between contact and bias
Intergroup Anxiety. Previous research of direct and indirect contact has indicated
that one potential mediator of the relationship between contact and bias is intergroup
anxiety. Stephen and Stephen (1985) were first to posit that intergroup anxiety results
from the expectation that negative events will occur upon contact. Previous research has
found that direct and indirect contact can reduce intergroup anxiety, thus resulting in
lowered prejudice toward outgroups (Islam & Hewstone, 1993; Wilder & Simon, 2001).
Having anxiety about outgroup members can result in a narrowing of focus, and a
Contact and Weight Bias 17
tendency to attend only to situations and experiences which confirm the anxiety and
bias. In their 2009 meta-analysis, Pettigrew and Troop found that 29% of the effect of
contact on reduction of bias was mediated by reduction in anxiety.
For some groups, intergroup anxiety may take different forms. For example, in
our country, the media frequently perpetuates stereotypes about African Americans,
especially that they are violent. Thus, for biased individuals, it may be expected that
they will experience anxiety surrounding fears of harm. However, for other groups (e.g.,
the elderly and perhaps overweight and obese individuals), the anxiety that biased
individuals experience is likely not related to violence, but rather about ingroup
judgment. People may fear that their ingroup will not approve of contact with an
outgroup member (e.g., obese individuals), and as a result, that they will be
discriminated against or outcast as well (DeTezanos-Pinto, Bratt, & Brown, 2010). Thus,
normal weight persons may fear being harshly evaluated or stigmatized by other normal
weight individuals for interacting with an obese person. Beyond anxiety, there may be
other important mechanisms for bias reduction resulting from contact.
Ingroup and Outgroup Norms. As noted earlier, previous research has also
suggested that perceptions of ingroup and outgroup norms mediates the relationship
between contact and prejudice (Turner, Crisp, & Lambert, 2007; Turner, Hewstone,
Voci, & Vonofakou, 2008; Wright, Aron, McLaughlin, Volpe, & Ropp, 1997). That is,
beliefs about how ingroup members feel about outgroup members, and perceptions of
attitudes outgroup members have toward ingroup members, are likely to greatly
influence the effectiveness of certain techniques to reduce bias. Changes in perception of
group norms not only modify attitude changes, but also can modify behavioral intentions
Contact and Weight Bias 18
(Turner, Hewstone, Voci, and Vonofakou, 2008). In addition to modifying how an
ingroup member feels about an outgroup member, research also suggests that
perceptions of group norms may be important in reduction of prejudice because it
involves both the acquisition of behavioral knowledge (i.e., new perceptions of group
behavior can provide models or ideas of new cross-group actions that were not formerly
known or utilized), and the increasing of self-efficacy expectancies (i.e., when one
changes their views of how their group members behave, they may feel more confident
that they too can behave in that manner effectively with outgroup members; Mazziotta,
Mummendy, & Wright, 2011). Of course, it is important to note that previous research
has shown that direct contact does not affect perception of ingroup norms (Turner,
Crisp, & Lambert, 2007; Turner, Hewstone, Voci, and Vonofakou, 2008) and thus likely
reduces prejudice from an alternative mechanism, such as attitude change via anxiety
reduction.
These studies suggest that the mechanism for bias reduction is likely different for
direct and imagined contact compared to extended and vicarious contact. For direct and
imagined contact, anxiety is likely to be reduced, while perception of group norms
remains unaffected. However, for other forms of contact, such as extended and vicarious
contact, a change in perception of group norms as well as a reduction in anxiety is likely
(Paolini, Hewstone, Cairns, Voci, 2004)
Goals and Hypotheses
The present study examined whether direct and indirect (i.e., imagined and
vicarious) contact among normal weight college-aged participants is more related to
lower explicit weight bias than for a control group. Given that direct and imagined
Contact and Weight Bias 19
contact appears to target attitude changes about stigmatized groups, while vicarious
contact may work by affecting perception of group norms, it was the goal of this study
to 1) examine the degree to which each of these forms of contact can reduce explicit
weight bias and increase behavioral intentions to interact with outgroup members (i.e.,
overweight and obese persons) and 2) examine potential mediators of contact and
explicit weight bias and/or behavioral intentions. A between subjects experimental
manipulation to test the effects of direct, imagined, and vicarious contact was used. The
current study also examined self-report data on amount of extended contact that
participants have had with obese individuals to examine the relationship between
extended contact and levels of weight bias levels.
Hypothesis A- Direct Contact: While one study indicated that direct contact
failed to reduce biases between medical students and obese patients (Blumberg &
Mellis, 1985), this study suffered from a large status differential between the doctors and
the patients. In the end, this finding is contradictory to the overwhelming evidence of
experimental and self-report studies on the benefits of direct contact in reducing biases.
As noted earlier, it could be argued that despite numerous superficial contacts with
obese individuals, the context of these interactions may lack positivity or
meaningfulness sufficient to reduce weight bias. As such, it was hypothesized that, in an
experimental manipulation of direct contact, individual’s explicit weight bias would be
lower than those in a neutral control condition. It was also hypothesized that, consistent
with previous research, individuals who receive an experimental manipulation of direct
contact would have higher scores on a measure of behavioral intensions to engage with
obese persons in the future.
Contact and Weight Bias 20
Hypothesis B- Indirect Contact: Concerning imagined contact, we hypothesized
that for normal weight participants, imagining positive, meaningful contact with an
obese person would result in lower biases compared to a control group. Based on prior
research, particularly with groups that already have a considerable amount of contact
(e.g., younger versus elderly individuals), we believed that imagining a positive
interaction with an outgroup member would reduce explicit bias. While this hypothesis
was contrary to results of an unpublished manuscript by this author, we felt that the
utilization of a between-subjects design that reduces the likelihood of hypothesis
guessing and responding in a socially desirable manner would strengthen the ability of
this study to detect effects of contact on weight bias. Additionally, considering that
previous research has suggested imagined contact as a first step toward direct contact,
we also hypothesized that individuals in the imagined contact group would have greater
self-reports of behavioral intentions to interact with obese individuals compared to the
control group.
In terms of vicarious contact, consistent with previous research, we hypothesized
that watching a positive interaction between a normal weight and obese person would
result in lower levels of explicit weight bias compared to a control condition.
Researchers have suggested that watching an ingroup member interact with an outgroup
member could be a “vicarious learning event” which helps individuals learn that and
how interacting with outgroup members is possible (Bandura, 1965; Mazziotta,
Mummendy, & Wright, 2011). As such, an experimental manipulation that includes
vicarious contact may be an important way to reduce weight bias. Moreover, we
believed that individuals in the vicarious contact condition would have greater self-
Contact and Weight Bias 21
reports of behavioral intentions to engage in contact with obese individuals compared to
the control group.
Hypothesis C- Exploratory Analyses: Additionally, we were interested in the
comparison between forms of contact. That is, we wanted to determine which form of
contact would most be related to lower bias against obese individuals. While the
literature tends to suggest that direct contact is always the most effective at reducing
prejudice, these findings have been based on research with other stigmatized groups.
Given this particular group (and bias), it is unclear, with weight bias specifically, which
forms of contact would be most related to bias and increased behavioral intentions.
Hypothesis D- Extended Contact: Regarding extended contact, utilizing selfreports of how many friends the participant has who have obese friends, we
hypothesized that individuals who report having more extended contact would have
lower self-reported weight biases. It was our belief that while individuals likely have
numerous direct contact experiences with obese people, it may not be as likely that they
have close friends with friends that are obese, and as such, having more extended
contact could result in a reduction of weight bias. As with imagined contact, we believed
that individuals who reported more extended contact would also have higher levels of
behavioral intentions to engage with obese persons.
Hypothesis E- Mediation of Weight Bias: In terms of mediators, research has
suggested that depending on the type of contact, different mechanisms may be at work
in changing biases. Thus, for the following mediators, depending on the type of contact,
we make specific hypotheses.
Contact and Weight Bias 22
As suggested above, intergroup anxiety has proven to be an important
mechanism in the reduction of intergroup prejudice (Islam & Hewstone, 1993; Pettigrew
& Troop, 2009; Stephen & Stephen, 1985; Wilder & Simon, 2001). Moreover, research
has shown that anxiety mediates the relationship between both direct and indirect
contact experiences and bias (Pettigrew & Troop, 2009). Thus, we first hypothesized
that self-reports of intergroup anxiety would mediate the relationship between both
direct and indirect contact and weight bias.
Secondly, perception of ingroup norms about the outgroup and perception of
outgroups attitudes toward the ingroup have been shown to be important variables in the
examination of cross-group biases (Turner, Crisp, & Lambert, 2007; Turner, Hewstone,
Voci, and Vonofakou, 2008; Wright, Aron, McLaughlin, Volpe, & Ropp, 1997).
Specifically, research has indicated that a change in perception of ingroup norms or
perception of how the outgroup views the ingroup can reduce biases (Stathi & Crisp,
2007). Despite these findings, it has been suggested that direct and imagined contact
does not result in a change in these perceptions of and about outgroups. Rather, only
through more indirect forms of contact, such as extended and vicarious contact, has a
change in these perceptions resulted (Turner, Crisp, & Lambert, 2007; Turner,
Hewstone, Voci, and Vonofakou, 2008). As such, it was hypothesized that perception of
ingroup norms about the outgroup, and of outgroup beliefs toward the ingroup would
mediate the relationship between vicarious contact and explicit weight bias, but would
not mediate direct or imagined contact.
Contact and Weight Bias 23
METHODS
Participants
156 self-reported normal weight individuals (Direct condition N = 38; Imagined
condition N = 41; Vicarious condition; N = 38; Control condition N = 39) between the
ages of 18 and 50 were recruited from psychology classes at a Midwestern University.
Participants were recruited through Sona Systems, an online experiment recruitment
system that allows participants to register for research studies and receive course credit.
See Table 1 for demographic characteristics.
The sample size for the present study was determined based on a power analysis
for a between subjects comparison of bias weight bias between groups (3 contact
conditions versus control; see Data Analysis), and was believed to have adequate power
to detect between group differences in level of bias.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of three contact conditions, 1) Direct
contact, 2) Imagined contact, 3) Vicarious contact, and 4) a no contact control group. To
examine extended contact, participants completed self-report measures related to this
construct.
Procedure
Participants who signed up for the study via Sona Systems took an eligibility
survey where they were asked to complete pre-measures of demographic information. In
an attempt to mask the true nature of the study, and to reduce hypothesis guessing for
individuals in the experimental conditions, the posting on Sona Systems read as follows:
The purpose of this study is to examine how your age impacts your
attitudes and beliefs about a variety of individuals who may be the same or
different from you. As such, you will be randomly given a reference group
Contact and Weight Bias 24
to answer various questions about. Examples of groups you may be given
as your reference include; Muslims, Christians, African Americans,
Caucasians, Fat people, thin people, heterosexual, homosexual, etc.
Based on their reported height and weight, body mass index (BMI) was calculated to
determine if a participant was eligible for the study (i.e., if they were normal weight,
BMI < 25). Participants were not informed that weight was the criteria for eligibility;
rather they received a general email stating that their responses to the survey made them
eligible or not. Participants who were eligible for the study were randomly assigned to
one of three experimental groups (direct, imagined, or vicarious contact), or the control
group. All participants who took the eligibility survey received ¼ credit for their
participation. Participants who were eligible, and who completed the lab or online
portions of the study received ¾ credit for their participation.
Direct Contact Condition. Participants who were assigned to the direct contact
condition were instructed to come alone to the lab at their assigned time slot. Upon
arrival, they were given and asked to sign an informed consent describing the nature of
the study as related to college student interactions, but not indicating that they would be
exposed to a confederate to manipulate direct contact. Upon the participant’s arrival to
the lab, they, along with the confederate (BMI = 30) who was posing as another
participant in the study, were told that the researcher was attempting to learn more about
the types of contact that happens between college students. Consistent with the direct
contact manipulation outlined in Ioannou (2009), participants were instructed to engage
in a natural conversation by using three lists of questions. See Appendix I. They were
told to start with the first list and then advance to the second and third. The first list
Contact and Weight Bias 25
included simple questions like “What is your name?” The second and third list had had
more intimate questions such as “What is one thing happening in your life that makes
you stressed out?” (second list) and “What is one of your biggest fears?” (third list). Per
Ioannou’s (2009) study, participants were given 1 minute for the first set of questions, 3
minutes for the second set, and 5 minutes for the last set. The confederate’s answers
remained relatively consistent during each interaction with all participants, although in
order to facilitate positivity and closeness of the interaction, she often would give
positive, reflective remarks such as “I feel that way too” when participants gave their
answers to the questions. See Appendix J for participant responses. The experimenter
left the room while the participants went through as many of the questions as they could
in the allotted time, and returned once they finished. It was the goal of this interaction to
be positive, meaningful, and to induce closeness between the two. After the participant
and confederate concluded their interaction, the participant was instructed to take online
questionnaires in the lab measuring: explicit weight bias, behavioral intentions to engage
with obese people, intergroup anxiety, perceptions of ingroup norms, perception of
outgroup norms, and amount of extended contact they have. After completion of the
questionnaires, direct contact participants had their height and weight measured to
determine how well it mapped on to their self-reported weight.
Imagined Contact Condition: For participants randomized to the imagined
contact condition, based on instructions presented in numerous studies of imagined
contact, they were asked to imagine the following for one minute (Turner, Crisp, &
Lambert, 2007):
Contact and Weight Bias 26
“I would like you to take a minute to imagine yourself meeting this obese
stranger for the first time (picture of confederate shown). During the
conversation imagine you find out some interesting and unexpected
things about the stranger.”
Following the minute long imagined period, participants were instructed to
briefly write what they imagined as a manipulation check. Next, they proceeded
to take measures mentioned previously. All imagined contact manipulation and
taking of measures was done online.
Vicarious Contact Condition. Participants randomized into the vicarious contact
group were instructed to watch a video of interpersonal interactions. They were told that
the researcher was attempting to learn more about the types of contact that happens
between college students. Participants were also be told that they were randomly being
shown the video, which could include interactions between a variety of individuals
including Muslims, Christians, African Americans, Caucasians, fat people, thin people,
heterosexual, and/or homosexual individuals. In actuality all participants saw a video of
a normal weight and obese person (the confederate) interacting positively. The following
script was used on the recorded video:
Actor 1: (Plus-sized) Jessica
Actor 2: (Healthy weight) Anna
Scene starts with Actor 1 sitting at Grounds for Thought with books open.
Actor 2 comes into picture with her bag full of books.
Actor 1: Hey Anna! (stands up to hug friend)
Actor 2: Hi! So good to see you! (gives hug)
(Both sit down.)
Actor 2: I see you’re studying for that bio exam- I think it’s gonna be a
tough one!
Actor 1: Yea, I agree… it’s looking pretty difficult so far. I’m thinking
that as long as I hit the books hard this weekend, I’ll be ok.
Contact and Weight Bias 27
Actor 2: That’s a great idea- can I join you? Have a little study session?
Actor 1: Totally, 2-heads are better than 1 when it comes to this stuff.
Actor 2: So what’s new with you? I didn’t get a chance to talk to you after
your presentation in psychology class.
Actor 1: Not too much is going on with me… mostly getting ready for
finals. I had my sister’s birthday this weekend. Went home and had her
party with my family.
Actor 2: Aw, cute! I can’t believe she’s 10 already! It seems like yesterday
that we were dressing her up as our baby and playing house! (laughs)
Actor 1: (laughing) Oh my gosh- I totally forgot about that! Poor girl- we
probably traumatized her with some of those outfits huh?
Actor 2: Oh for sure. But they’ll make really good blackmail pictures for
when she’s older, right?! (laughing)
Actor 1: Yep- good call! (also laughing). Aw man, we had so many fun
times when we were younger.
Actor 2: We really did. Remember when we chased Lee Myers on the
playground?
Actor 1: (laughing) Well he totally deserved it! He was always trying to
boss us girls around... jerk!
Actor 2: Total jerk. And remember Mrs. Raymond’s crazy hair? You
would have thought she was a statue the way that hair never moved an
inch.
Actor 1: Pretty sure she had stock in hairspray. That hair was too much.
Actor 1 (gets a phone call.) Ooops hang on one second.
Actor 1: (answering phone) Hello? Hey Sam. (listening) Oh that sucks!
(listening) well I’m at Grounds for Thought (listening) No, it’s no
problem, I’ll head back now. (hangs up)
Actor 2: Whats up?
Actor 1: My roommate locked herself out of our dorm.
Actor 2 oooh, hate when that happens.
Actor 1: Yea, I told her I’d head back and let her in. You wanna come
over? We can do a little more studying and talking there.
Actor 2: Sure! That sounds great. (gets up to leave)
Both actors leave and chat quietly about biology on their way out.
Instructions and watching of the video took place online. Following viewing of the
video, participants were instructed to begin filling out the questionnaires. For all
experimental groups, a brief debriefing explaining the true intent of the study was
presented at completion of the study. Pilot testing of the vicarious condition stimuli was
conducted by asking 10 initial participants how positive and meaningful the video scene
Contact and Weight Bias 28
appeared. Informal examination of participant responses indicated that that they believed
the video to adequately portray positive cross-group friendships.
Control Condition. Participants randomized into the control group completed all
measures online, and were not required to come into the lab.
Preliminary Measures
Demographic Information. Participants completed a questionnaire assessing
height, weight, age, gender, race/ethnicity, relationship status, and year in school. See
Appendix A.
Manipulation Check Measures. To ensure that participants were attending to the
experimental manipulations, they were asked to indicate their responses (open-ended) to
the direct, imagined, or vicarious contact experience they had. These items were then
coded as negative, neutral, or positive. Additionally, participants were asked to indicate
how positive, meaningful, awkward, realistic, and friendly they believed the interaction
they imagined, watched, or had was on a likert scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very).
Lastly, in the imagined contact conditions, participants were asked to report if they had
imagined any stereotypes about the person they imagined interacting with, and if so, to
describe what these stereotype(s) were (also open-ended).
Extended Contact: To assess extended contact, participants were given four
questions taken from Turner, Hewstone, Voci, and Vonofakou’s (2008) study, that
included 1) “How many normal weight people do you know who have friends who are
fat?” 2) “How many of your normal weight neighbors do you think have friends who are
fat?” 3) “How many of your normal weight friends have friends who are fat?” and 4)
“How many of your very best normal weight friends have friends who are fat?”
Responses to the first question were on a likert scale with choices from “None” to
Contact and Weight Bias 29
“Most”. Responses to the following three questions were also on a likert scale ranging
from “None” to “Over 10”. Higher scores reflect more experiences of extended contact.
These questions have been found to be reliable (α= .86; Turner, Hewstone, Voci, &
Vonofakou, 2008). Alpha for these questions in the current study indicated that they
were similarly reliable (α = .86). See Appendix B.
Outcome Measures
Explicit Bias. The Obese Person Trait Survey (OPTS) is a 20-item scale that
measures stereotypical traits about obese persons (Puhl, Schwartz, & Brownell, 2005).
Ten negative traits (i.e., lazy, undisciplined, gluttonous, self-indulgent, unclean, lack of
willpower, unattractive, unhealthy, insecure, sluggish) and 10 positive traits (i.e., honest,
generous, sociable, productive, organized, friendly, outgoing, intelligent, warm,
humorous) were included. Participants were instructed to estimate the percentage
(between 0 and 100) of obese people who they think possesses the particular trait. The
OPTS has been found to be internally reliable for both the positive trait subscale (α =
.83), as well as for the negative trait subscale (α = .73; Puhl, et al., 2005). Other studies
utilizing the OPTS have found similar levels of internal reliability (Carels, et al., 2008).
Cronbach’s alpha for this study was good (OPTS Positive α = .87, OPTS Negative α
=.89). See Appendix C.
Additionally, to examine explicit weight bias, this study utilized Quinn and
Crocker’s modification of Crandall’s Antifat Attitudes Questionnaire (AFA; Quinn &
Crocker, 1999; Crandall, 1994). This measure specifically examines dislike toward
overweight and obese people and belief in the controllability of weight, through a
Dislike scale, which consists of 10 items measuring participants’ level of dislike for
Contact and Weight Bias 30
overweight individuals (e.g., “Fat people make me feel somewhat uncomfortable”), and
a Willpower scale which is comprised of 8 items that assess the belief that obese
individuals are in control of and are responsible for their weight (e.g., “Fat people can
lose weight if they really want to”). Participants answered on a seven-point likert scale
ranging from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree.” Higher scores indicated a greater
belief in the controllability of weight and greater dislike of overweight individuals,
respectively. Cronbach’s alpha for the Dislike scale in the current investigation was .92,
and .86 for the Willpower scale. See Appendix D.
Behavioral Intentions to Interact with Outgroup Members. To assess intentions
to have contact with outgroup members in the future, participants were given four
questions from Ratcliff, et al. (1999) including; 1) “How much do you intend to interact
with fat people in the future?” (1 = “Not at All”; 9 = “Very Much”), 2) “How much time
do you think you might spend learning about fat people in the future?” (1 = “None at
All”; 9 = “A Lot of Time”), 3) “How important do you think interacting with fat people
is? (1 = “Not at All Important”; 9 = “Highly Important”), and 4) “How willing would
you be to attend an education session to learn more about the struggles of being fat?” (1
= “Not at All Willing”; 9 = “Very Willing”). The mean was calculated and used as a
composite index of intentions to engage in contact. In their study on the enhancement of
imagined contact, Husnu & Crisp (2009) utilized this measure and found good internal
consistency (α= .82). Alpha in this study was .79. See Appendix E.
Mediation Measures
Intergroup Anxiety. Using questions from Stephen and Stephen (1985), which
have been frequently included in studies of intergroup contact and anxiety, intergroup
Contact and Weight Bias 31
anxiety was examined. This measure involved presenting the following statement;
“Please think of how you would feel mixing socially with complete strangers who are
fat. Indicate the extent to which you would feel…” Participants responded to a 4-point
likert scale ranging from “Not at All” to “Very”, with regard to happy (reverse scored),
awkward, self-conscious, confident (reverse scored), defensive, and relaxed (reverse
scored). Higher scores reflected higher levels of intergroup anxiety. This scale has
shown adequate reliability (α= .86; Turner, Hewstone, Voci, & Vonofakou, 2008).
Cronbach’s alpha for this study was .74. See Appendix F.
Perceived Ingroup and Outgroup Norms. To examine perceptions of ingroup
norms, this study utilized three questions from DeTezanos-Pinto, Bratt, and Brown
(2010). Participants rated their level of agreement (“Completely Disagree” to
“Completely Agree”) with the following questions; 1) “I believe that friends in my
weight group (normal weight) prefer that I am not together with people from other
weight groups (e.g., fat people),” 2) “I believe that friends in my weight group (normal
weight) think it is a bit uncool if I hang around others from another weight group (e.g.,
fat people),” 3) “I believe that friends in my weight group (normal weight) think it is
cool if I have a close friend from another weight group (fat people).” Question three was
reverse coded. Alpha for this scale has shown that it is reliable (α= .68; DeTezanosPinto, Bratt, & Brown, 2010). Additionally, to measure ingroup norms, this study will
use three questions adapted from Turner, Hewstone, Voci, and Vonofakou (2008)
including; 1) “How friendly do you think your normal weight friends are to fat people?”
(1=Not at all Friendly; 7=Very Friendly), 2) “Do you think your normal weight friends
would be happy to go out with/date someone who is fat?” (1=Not at all Happy; 7=Very
Contact and Weight Bias 32
happy), and 3) “In general, how much do you think normal weight people like fat
people?” (1=Not a lot; 7=A lot). A higher score indicates more positive ingroup norms
toward the outgroup. Previous ratings of reliability for this scale have shown adequacy
(α= .77; Turner, Hewstone, Voci, & Vonofakou, 2008). Cronbach’s alpha for the
ingroup norms questions utilized in this study was .76. See Appendix G.
Finally, using modified questions from Turner, Hewstone, Voci, and Vonofakou
(2008), we assessed perception of beliefs from the outgroup toward the ingroup, with
questions including; 1) “In general, how much do you think fat people like normal
weight people?” (1= Not at all; 7= A lot) and 2) “In general, how happy do you think fat
people would be to spend time/be friends with someone who is normal weight?” (1= Not
at all happy; 7= Very happy). Reliability for this scale has been found to be good (α=
.70; Turner, Hewstone, Voci, & Vonofakou, 2008). Alpha for outgroup norms questions
in this study was .68. See Appendix H.
Data Analyses
MANOVAs and bivariate correlations were used to examine the association
between demographic characteristics (i.e. age, BMI, gender, race, income, education,)
and explicit weight stigma. Any demonstrated differences were controlled for in
subsequent analyses. Additionally, ANOVA was used to examine differences between
experimental conditions on their perceptions of how positive, meaningful, awkward,
realistic, and friendly the interaction they imagined, watched, or had was. ANOVA was
also used to examine between group differences of positive, negative, and neutral
imagined content.
Contact and Weight Bias 33
To examine hypothesis A (i.e., direct contact hypothesis), a 4-way, between
subjects univariate ANOVA was utilized (direct contact condition vs. imagined, vs.
vicarious, vs. control) to determine if the experimental manipulation of actual contact
with an outgroup member (in this case an obese confederate), imagined contact, and/or
vicarious contact was related to lower weight bias than the control group. Additionally,
we utilized this method to examine if contact resulted in greater behavioral intentions to
engage with obese persons in the direct contact condition than in the control group.
To examine hypothesis B (i.e., indirect contact hypothesis), 4-way, between
subjects ANOVAs was also utilized (examining imagined contact condition; control &
vicarious contact condition; control) to determine if instructing participants to imagine
positive contact with an obese person, or to watch an interaction between an obese
person and a normal weight person was related to lower weight bias than in the control
group. Additionally, we used this method to examine if imagined contact resulted in
greater behavioral intentions to engage with obese persons in the imagined contact
condition than in the control group.
Hypothesis C was examined through exploratory means. For example, to
determine which form of contact was most “effective,” a 4-way between subjects
ANOVA comparing direct, imagined and extended contact was conducted.
Hypothesis D (i.e., extended contact hypothesis), bivariate correlations were
used to examine relationships between the amount of extended contact with obese
persons, weight bias, and behavioral intentions.
To examine hypothesis E (i.e., mediation of contact and weight bias and
behavioral intentions), mediation analyses using SPSS macros by Preacher and Hayes
Contact and Weight Bias 34
(2005) were utilized. The macros calculate bias-corrected bootstrapped point estimates
for the indirect effects of the independent variable on the dependent variable through a
mediator, with standard errors and a 95% confidence interval. For all mediation analyses
the MEDIATE macros from Preacher and Hayes (2009) were used. This allows for an
examination of multicategorical independent variables effects on a dependent variable
through a mediator. The indicator (or dummy) coding strategy outlined in Preacher and
Hayes’ 2009 article was used, so that the control condition was coded as 0, the imagined
contact group was coded as 1, the vicarious contact group was coded as 2, and the direct
contact group was coded as 3. These four conditions could then be examined in one
categorical IV mediation model to determine if an indirect relationship occurred for any
of the conditions through various mediators and to various dependent variables.
It can be concluded that a mediator’s effect on the relationship between X (the
independent variable; IV) and Y (the dependent variable; DV) is significant if the
confidence interval does not include zero. This method of mediation analysis has been
suggested as superior to the Baron and Kenny method and Sobel testing, which although
popular, makes over-generalized assumptions about distribution and has low power
(Hayes, 2009). This bootstrapping method for testing hypotheses about intervening
variables has the “highest power and best Type 1 error control” (Hayes, 2009).
Results of indirect and direct effects for each mediator to each outcome variable
are presented. Indirect effects are the product of a and b, where a is the relationship
between the IV and mediator, and b is the relationship between the mediator and DV. A
direct effect (c’) is the relationship between the IV and DV not accounting for the
mediator. When the IV is a dichotomous variable, as in this study, the indirect effect
Contact and Weight Bias 35
(i.e., ab) represents the average difference between groups on the DV that results from
the IV’s influence on the mediator, which then affects the DV. For a dichotomous IV,
the direct effect is the average group differences in the DV without taking into account
the IV’s effect on the mediator. It indicates expected mean differences between contact
groups on the DV(s) assuming they are equal on the mediator(s). Detected differences
between contact group means for various outcome variables can be separated into
differences due to an indirect effect or due to a direct effect, which are presented
separately for each mediator and outcome.
Contact and Weight Bias 36
RESULTS
Preliminary Analyses
No significant differences emerged between self-reported (SR) BMI and actual
BMI for the direct contact condition (M SR BMI = 23.00; M actual BMI = 22.99; t =
.01, p = .995). Moreover, SR and actual BMI were highly correlated (r = .58, p < .001).
As such, SR BMI for all groups will be used in subsequent analyses. Bivariate
Correlations were conducted to examine relationships between continuous demographic
(i.e, age, SR BMI), outcome, and mediator variables. SR BMI was significantly
correlated with OPTS Positive such that those with higher SR BMI had higher score on
the OPTS Positive (r = .18, p < .05). No other significant relationships emerged between
continuous demographic, outcome, and mediator variables. To examine differences in
categorical demographic outcome, and mediator variables, a Multivariate Analysis of
Variance (MANOVA) was conducted. No significant differences emerged for any of the
demographic variables between contact groups, on outcome, or mediator variables; thus,
they were not controlled for. See Table 1 for Demographic Characteristics of the sample
in this study.
Bivariate correlations between outcome variables were examined as well. See
Table 2.
Manipulation Checks
Participants were given an opportunity to describe the content that they imagined
(imagined contact condition), watched (vicarious contact), or experienced (direct contact
condition) as a manipulation check. For the imagined contact group, their open-ended
responses were to the question “Please describe what you imagined during this
Contact and Weight Bias 37
interaction.” Two independent raters coded this data as 1) negative, 2) neutral, or 3)
positive. Inter-rater reliability was good (kappa = .82). Discrepancies were rectified by
group consensus. The majority of participants’ imagined content was positive (61%; N =
25), while 19.5% (N = 8) was negative, and 17.1% (N = 7) was neutral. Participants
were also asked to indicate if they imagined any stereotypes about the person they
thought about during the imagined contact period. While 44.9% (N = 35) of the sample
reported that they did not imagine stereotypes, 29.5% (N = 23) reported that they did
(25.6% indicated that they did not know, N = 20). Of the participants who did imagine
stereotypes, responses were suggestive of negative stereotypes, including: “shy,”
“awkward,” “reserved,” “insecure,” “dirty,” “lazy,” “lonely,” “not good at athletic
things,” “smells,” “doesn’t exercise,” and “doesn’t have many friends.” A few of the
participants’ responses indicated positive stereotypes including: “humorous,” “nice,”
“kind,” “smart,” “friendly.”
For the vicarious condition, participants were asked to “briefly describe your
responses to this video” in which they watched a normal weight confederate and obese
confederate positively interacting. As outlined earlier, these responses were coded as
negative, neutral, or positive by two independent raters (kappa = .77). Many of the
participants (50.0%, N = 19) reported that they saw a “normal” or “positive” interaction
between the two actors in the video. Despite pilot testing of the first 10 participants,
which suggested that these participants viewed the video as a positive and relaxed
interaction between two friends, 31.6 % (N = 12) of participants gave a response that
indicated they believed the interaction was unrealistic, staged, awkward, or negative.
Interestingly, despite not being primed to notice a difference in the confederates’
Contact and Weight Bias 38
weights, or being primed that the study was related to weight or weight bias specifically,
29% of participants (N = 9) who gave an open-ended response mentioned weight in their
reports. For example, participants gave responses such as “At the beginning, I did notice
that one actress was plus sized” and “I did not think the skinnier person cared about her
weight.”
In terms of the direct contact condition, participants were asked to indicate their
reactions to the interaction they had with a plus sized confederate. Again, two raters
coded this data as negative, neutral, or positive in valence. Agreement between the raters
was good (kappa = .79). Overwhelmingly, participants felt this interaction was positive
and relaxed (negative: 0% neutral,: N = 0; 7.9%, N = 3; positive: 92.1%, N = 35). For
example, participants gave responses that included things like, “It was really nice getting
to know her and I felt comfortable talking to her,” and “It was fun and easygoing, I
could see myself becoming friend with her if we hung out.”
In addition, using a 5-point Likert scale (0 = Not at All; 5 = Very), participants
were also asked to indicate how positive, meaningful, awkward, and friendly the
interaction they imagined, watched, or had was. The imagined and vicarious conditions
were also asked how realistic the interaction was. Because the Cronbach alpha for these
items combined into one scale was low, (α = .41), they were examined individually.
Results suggested that there were between group differences on the positive [F(2, 113) =
12.12, p < .001], meaningful [F(2, 113) = 5.44 p < .01], awkward [F(2, 113) = 43.87, p
< .001], realistic [F(1, 77) = 7.51, p < .01], and friendly [F(2, 113) = 42.64, p < .001]
items. LSD posthoc multiple comparison tests were conducted to examine these
differences. For the positive item, a significant difference emerged between the
Contact and Weight Bias 39
imagined and the direct contact groups (p < .001), and the vicarious and direct groups (p
< .001), with participants in the direct group more frequently endorsing that the
interaction was positive. For the meaningful item, a significant difference emerged
between the imagined and the direct contact groups (p < .001), with the direct group
more often endorsing that the interaction was meaningful. For the awkward item, a
significant difference emerged between the imagined and direct conditions (p < .001),
the vicarious and direct conditions (p < .001), and the imagined and vicarious conditions
(p < .001), with participants in the vicarious condition most endorsing, and participants
in the direct condition lease endorsing that the interaction was awkward. For the friendly
item, a significant difference emerged between the imagined and direct conditions (p <
.001), the vicarious and direct conditions (p < .001), and the imagined and vicarious
conditions (p < .001), such that participants in the direct condition most endorsed, and
participants in the vicarious condition least endorsed that the interaction was friendly.
Finally, for the realistic item, a significant difference emerged between the imagined and
vicarious conditions (p < .01), with the imagined condition more endorsing that the
interaction was realistic. See Table 3 for means.
Condition Effects for Explicit Weight Bias and Behavioral Intentions
A 4-way between subjects univariate ANOVA was utilized to determine if there
were significant differences between the direct, imagined, vicarious, and control
conditions on measures of explicit weight bias (i.e., OPTS Positive, OPTS Negative,
AFA Dislike, and AFA Willpower) and behavioral intentions to interact with overweight
or obese persons in the future. The overall models indicated that there were significant
differences between groups on negative stereotypes as measured by the OPTS Negative
Contact and Weight Bias 40
scale [F(3, 152) = 4.61, p < .01] and dislike of overweight and obese people as measured
by the AFA dislike scale [F(3, 152) = 6.21, p < .001]. No significant results emerged on
the overall models for differences by condition on positive stereotypes as measured by
the OPTS Positive scale [F(3, 152) = .77, p = .51] and beliefs about controllability of
weight [F(3, 152) = .43, p = .74]. Additionally, the overall model for behavioral
intentions to interact with an overweight or obese person was significant [F(3, 152) =
2.79, p < .05]. Hypothesized post hoc LSD comparisons are examined below.
Hypothesis A: Direct Contact
For Hypothesis A, the following research question was examined: Is the direct
contact group significantly different than the control group on measures of explicit
weight bias and behavioral intentions to interact with obese persons? In terms of explicit
weight bias, results of posthoc LSD multiple comparison tests indicated that there was a
significant difference between the direct contact group versus the control group on the
OPTS Negative scale (p < 001). Additionally, significant differences emerged for the
AFA Dislike scale as well (p < .001). See Table 4 for means. That is, those who
interacted with an obese confederate had significantly lower endorsement of negative
stereotypes and levels of dislike toward obese persons than those in the control condition
who did not have any interaction with an obese person. Given that the overall model was
not significant, no post hoc tests were performed for OPTS Positive scale or the AFA
Willpower scale. With regards to behavioral intentions to engage with overweight and
obese persons in the future, despite the overall model being significant, post hoc
comparisons indicated no meaningful differences between the direct and control
conditions (p = .15). See Table 4 for Means.
Contact and Weight Bias 41
Hypothesis B: Indirect Contact
For Hypothesis B, the following research question was examined: Are the
imagined contact and/or vicarious contact groups (i.e., indirect contact groups)
significantly different than the control group on measures of explicit weight bias and
behavioral intentions to interact with obese persons? Additionally, given previous
research highlighting imagined contact as a first step toward direct contact, it was
hypothesized that individuals in the imagined contact group specifically would have
higher self-reports of behavioral intentions to engage with obese people in the future.
For explicit weight bias, results of posthoc LSD multiple comparison tests
showed no significant differences between the imagined contact group or the vicarious
contact group compared to the control group on the OPTS Negative scale (Imagined p =
.35; Vicarious p = 70), or the AFA Dislike scale (Imagined p = .49; Vicarious p = .94).
See Table 4 for means. That is, contrary to original hypotheses, those who imagined
interacting with an obese person and those who watched an interaction between a
normal weight and obese actress did not have significantly different levels of explicit
bias from the control group. Again, OPTS Positive and AFA Willpower were not
examined posthoc because the overall model was not significant. For behavioral
intentions to engage with overweight and obese persons in the future, post hoc
comparisons revealed no meaningful differences between the imagined or vicarious
conditions compared to control (Imagined p = .94; Vicarious p = .14).
Furthermore, contrary to hypotheses, those in the imagined contact group did not
have higher self-reported intentions to engage with obese persons in the future. See
Table 4 for Means.
Contact and Weight Bias 42
Hypothesis C: Exploratory Analyses
Finally, because the research on differential effectiveness of various forms of
contact to reduce biases is rather mixed, LSD posthoc multiple comparison tests were
conducted to explore these differences with regard to weight bias. As reported above,
the overall models for the OPTS Negative and AFA Dislike scales were significant.
Closer examination at significant mean differences between contact groups indicated
that for both the OPTS Negative and AFA Dislike scales, the direct contact condition
was significantly different (lower OPTS Negative and AFA Dislike scores) than both the
imagined and vicarious conditions, (Imagined OPTS Negative p < .05, Vicarious OPTS
Negative p < .01; Imagined AFA Dislike p < .01, Vicarious AFA Dislike p < .001). See
Table 4 for means. This finding aligns with a body of literature that highlights the
importance and effectiveness of direct contact in reducing biases toward outgroup
members over-and-above that of other forms of contact like imagined and vicarious. As
reported above, the OPTS Positive and AFA Willpower were not examined with regard
to these exploratory posthoc comparisons because the overall model was insignificant.
In terms of behavioral intentions, the direct contact group had significantly
higher intentions to interact with obese people in the future than those in the vicarious
contact group only (p < .05). No other between condition differences emerged for
behavioral intentions. See Table 4 for means.
Post hoc Manipulation Check Analyses. Post hoc analyses were examined to
determine if manipulation check questions (i.e., participant perceptions of how positive,
meaningful, awkward, friendly, and realistic the interactions they experienced were)
were associated with the relationships between condition and outcome variables (i.e.,
Contact and Weight Bias 43
OPTS positive, OPTS negative, AFA dislike, AFA willpower, and behavioral
intentions). One-way univariate ANOVAs were conducted.
In terms of OPTS Positive scale, results indicated that none of the 5 items listed
above impacted the relationship between contact and positive stereotypes of obese
people. For OPTS Negative, results showed that there was a significant interaction effect
for condition by the item “realistic” [F(1, 4) = 2.54, p < .05]. See Figure 1. Post hoc
correlations by group were further conducted to examine this interaction. A significant
relationship was present between “realistic” and OPTS Negative scores such that those
who felt their imagined interaction was not realistic had higher endorsement negative
stereotypes about obese people (r = -.37, p < .05). No other correlations emerged for the
direct or vicarious contact conditions.
On the AFA Willpower scale, results showed that there was a significant
interaction effect for condition by the item “positive” [F(1, 4) = 5.40, p < .001]. See
Figure 2. Post hoc correlations were conducted to examine this interaction, which
revealed a strong relationship between “positive” and AFA Willpower in the imagined
contact condition (r = -.57, p < .01). People in the imagined contact condition only, who
had higher endorsement that the interaction they imagined was positive, had lower
beliefs that weight was controlled through one’s personal willpower or responsibility.
With regard to the AFA Dislike scale, results indicated that none of the 5 items impacted
the relationship between contact and dislike of obese people.
For behavioral intentions, results indicated a significant interaction effect for
condition by the item “positive” [F(1, 4) = 4.15, p < .01] and by the item “friendly”
[F(1, 4) = 3.36, p < .05]. See Figures 3 and 4. Post hoc bivariate correlations were
Contact and Weight Bias 44
conducted to examine these findings further, and showed that, for the people in the
imagined contact group, higher feelings that the interaction was positive (r = .40, p <
.01), and friendly (r = .42, p < .01) were related to intentions to interact with obese
people. For those people who were able to imagine a positive or friendly interaction,
these results showed that behavioral intention increased. In terms of participants in the
direct contact condition, a significant relationship was found between “positive” and
behavioral intentions (r = .42, p < .01). People who felt the interaction they experienced
with an obese confederate was positive had higher intentions to engage with obese
people. No significant correlations were found between perceptions of positivity and
friendliness in the vicarious condition.
Hypothesis D: Extended Contact
For Hypothesis D, bivariate correlations were used to examine the relationship
between extended contact (i.e., how many normal weight friends does one have that are
friends with overweight and/or obese people) and outcome measures. No significant
differences emerged between conditions on level of extended contact [F(3, 155) = 1.47,
p = .22]. As expected, extended contact was positively correlated with positive
stereotypes about obesity as measured by the OPTS Positive scale (r = .19, p < .05).
Moreover, greater levels of extended contact were negatively related to dislike of
overweight and obese people as measured by the AFA dislike scale (r = -.26, p < .01).
No significant relationships emerged between extended contact and OPTS Negative, the
AFA Willpower Scale, and behavioral intentions to engage with obese people. In other
words, people who have friends with overweight or obese friends are more likely to hold
positive stereotypes (e.g., that obese people are humorous or warm), and have less
Contact and Weight Bias 45
dislike of overweight obese people. In terms of the relationships between extended
contact and hypothesized mediator variables (see below), results indicated that extended
contact was significantly correlated with perception of ingroups norms (r = .33, p <
.001), but not with intergroup anxiety (r = -.12, p = .13), or perception of outgroup
norms (r =.02, p = .61).
Hypothesis E: Mediation of Weight Bias
Relationships between IV and Mediators. To understand the relationships
between the 4 contact groups and mediators (intergroup anxiety and perception of in and
out-group norms), 4-way between subjects univariate ANOVA were conducted. With
regard to intergroup anxiety, as measured by the IAS (Stephan & Stephan, 1985), results
indicated that the overall model was significant [F(3, 152) = 3.69, p < .05]. LSD posthoc
multiple comparison tests revealed that the direct contact group had significantly less
intergroup anxiety than the imagined (p < .01), vicarious (p < .01), and control (p < .01)
groups. See Table 4 for means.
Additionally, differences by condition on perception of in and out-group norms
were examined. For perception of in-group norms, where higher scores indicate greater
beliefs that other ingroup members (normal weight people) perceive the outgroup
(overweight people) positively, the overall model was not significant [F(3, 152) = 1.98,
p = .12]; indicating no meaningful differences between groups. For perception of outgroup norms, where higher scores indicate greater beliefs that outgroup members
(overweight people) perceive the ingroup (normal weight people) positively, results
showed that there were significant differences between groups [F(3, 152) = 2.92, p <
.05]. Posthoc comparisons showed that participants in the imagined contact group had
Contact and Weight Bias 46
the lowest levels of perceptions of outgroup-norms, and were significantly different than
the vicarious (p < .01) and direct (p < .05) groups. No significant difference emerged
between the imagined group and control (p = .07), indicating that individuals who were
instructed to imagine positively interacting with an obese person did not have more
positive perceptions of outgroup members than a group that was given no interaction
stimuli. No other significant differences emerged between conditions for perceptions of
outgroup norms. See Table 4 for means.
Relationships between Mediators and Dependent Variables. The relationship
between hypothesized mediators (i.e., IAS and perceptions of in and outgroup norms)
and outcome variables were also examined (i.e., OPTS Positive, OPTS Negative, AFA
dislike, and AFA willpower). Results of linear regression analyses indicated that the IAS
positively predicted the OPTS Negative and AFA Dislike. The IAS negatively predicted
the OPTS Positive and behavioral intentions to engage with obese persons in the future.
In other words, individuals who had higher levels of intergroup anxiety toward
overweight and obese persons more strongly endorsed negative obesity stereotypes and
had higher levels of dislike. On the other hand, participants with lower levels of
intergroup anxiety more strongly endorsed positive weight stereotypes and were more
likely to report that they intended to interact with obese people in the future. No
relationship emerged between the IAS and AFA Willpower. See Table 5 for regression
coefficients.
In addition, the measure of in-group norms positively predicted the OPTS
Positive and behavioral intentions, and negatively predicted the OPTS Negative, AFA
Dislike, and AFA Willpower. That is, individuals who had more positive perceptions of
Contact and Weight Bias 47
in-group feelings toward the outgroup more strongly endorsed positive weight
stereotypes and were more likely to report that they intended to interact with obese
people in the future. Participants who had more negative perceptions of ingroup feelings
toward the outgroup more strongly endorsed negative weight stereotypes, had higher
dislike of overweight and obese persons, and had greater beliefs that weight was
controlled solely through one’s personal actions. See Table 5 for regression coefficients.
Finally, the measure of outgroup norms positively predicted the OPTS Positive
and behavioral intentions, and negatively predicted the AFA Dislike. That is, individuals
who had more positive perceptions of out-group feelings toward the ingroup more
strongly endorsed positive weight stereotypes and were more likely to report that they
intended to interact with obese people in the future. Participants who had more negative
perceptions of outgroup feelings toward the ingroup had higher dislike of overweight
and obese persons. No relationships emerged between measures of outgroup norms and
OPTS Negative or AFA Willpower. See Table 5 for regression coefficients.
Mediation Analyses using Bootstrapping. It was hypothesized that intergroup
anxiety and perception of in and outgroup norms would differentially mediate the
relationship between condition and explicit weight bias, and between condition and
behavioral intentions to engage with overweight and obese individuals. To examine this,
mediation analyses using the recommendations of Preacher and Hayes (2004, 2005)
were used. Preacher and Hayes suggest using a bootstrapping method for testing
significance of effects by computing confidence intervals (CI) around the indirect effect,
which is the path from the IV through the mediator to the DV. In this procedure, we
know that mediation is present when the CI falls outside of zero.
Contact and Weight Bias 48
IAS. First we examined if intergroup anxiety, as measured by the IAS, mediated
the relationship between condition (IV) and positive stereotypes of obese persons (i.e.,
OPTS Positive; DV). Results showed that, for the direct contact condition only, the IAS
significantly mediated this relationship (95% CI = 0.04; 3.06). That is, for individuals in
the direct contact condition, their higher scores on the OPTS Positive were accounted for
by lower intergroup anxiety. Contrary to original hypotheses, this finding did not hold
for the other conditions. In terms of negative stereotypes, results showed that for all 3
conditions, IAS scores did not mediate these relationships. There was, however, a direct
relationship between the direct contact group and the OPTS Negative (i.e., people in the
direct condition had significantly lower mean OPTS Negative scores than the other
conditions), suggesting that this lower OPTS Negative score was not accounted for by
reductions in intergroup anxiety.
With regard to antifat attitudes as the outcome measure, results suggested that
the IAS significantly mediated the relationship between condition and AFA Dislike
(95% CI = -2.97; -0.31) such that, for those in the direct contact condition only, lower
intergroup anxiety accounted for lower self-reported dislike of overweight and obese
persons. This mediation did not occur for the other conditions with AFA Dislike. In
terms of the AFA Willpower as an outcome variable, none of the conditions were
significantly mediated by intergroup anxiety.
Finally, when behavioral intentions were used as an outcome, results showed that
the IAS significantly mediated the relationship between condition and intentions for the
direct contact group only (95% CI = 0.05: 0.57). As with the other outcome variables,
Contact and Weight Bias 49
this mediation did not hold true for the other conditions. See table 6 for coefficients,
significance, and 95% CI’s.
Perception of InGroup Norms. We also examined if perception of ingroup norms
(i.e., beliefs that your ingroup feels positively/negatively about overweight or obese
people) mediated the relationship between condition and positive or negative stereotypes
about overweight and obese people (i.e., OPTS Positive and OPTS Negative). Results
indicated that for both outcomes, none of the conditions were mediated by ingroup
norms. That is, changing perceptions about one’s ingroup after having an interaction,
imagining an interaction, or watching an interaction did not account for any
relationships between condition and these variables (i.e., the significant relationship
between condition and OPTS Negative as mentioned above).
In terms of AFA Dislike and AFA Willpower as outcomes however, results
indicated that perception of ingroup norms did mediate these relationships for the direct
contact group only (AFA Dislike 95% CI = -4.03; -0.14, AFA Willpower 95% CI = 1.58; -0.02). Thus, after having a positive interaction with an obese confederate,
participants’ perceptions of how positively their ingroup feels/acts towards overweight
and obese persons changed, and accounted for these relationships.
Finally, when examining behavioral intentions to interact with an obese person
as an outcome variable, results suggested that perceptions of ingroup norms significantly
mediated the relationship between condition and intent (95% CI = 0.01; 0.77). Again,
this did not hold for the other variables, which was contrary to original hypotheses. See
Table 7 for coefficients, significance, and 95% CI’s.
Contact and Weight Bias 50
Perception of OutGroup Norms. Contrary to original hypotheses, an examination
of the relationships between condition and outcome variables of interest as mediated by
perception of ourgroup norms (perceptions that overweight and obese people feel
positively/negatively about normal weight people) yielded no significant results. That is,
none of the relationships between conditions and DVs were accounted for by perception
of outgroup norms. See Table 8 for coefficients, significance, and 95% CI’s.
Contact and Weight Bias 51
DISCUSSION
Results from this study highlight the effectiveness of intergroup contact, most
specifically direct contact, to reduce weight bias and increase behavioral intentions to
engage in interactions with overweight and obese persons. To our knowledge, this study
is the first of its kind to examine how experimentally manipulated intergroup contact
impacts weight bias and behavioral intentions to engage with obese people.
In terms of this investigation’s findings, results indicated that, compared to a
neutral control group, participants who experienced direct, positive contact with an
obese individual had lower negative stereotypes about and dislike toward obese
individuals. These findings are consistent with an array of previous research that
outlines the effectiveness of direct contact to reduce intergroup biases (e.g., race and
ethnicity, ageism, homophobia, etc.; Pettigrew & Troop, 2006). While some have
expressed skepticism that direct contact experiences would be sufficient to reduce
weight bias given the overwhelming amount of contact that normal weight and obese
persons have on a daily basis (Puhl & Brownell, 2006), this study highlights that periods
of positive intergroup contact may lead to lowered levels of weight bias, and higher
intentions to engage with obese persons in the future.
When exploring the nature of this bias reduction further, an examination of the
questions designed to assess the nature and authenticity of the interaction highlight
aspects of the interaction between participants and the obese confederate in this study
that may have contributed to attitude change. Overwhelmingly, participants left the
interaction feeling that it had been positive, meaningful, comfortable, and friendly.
Answers to open-ended questions assessing participants’ reactions to the contact
Contact and Weight Bias 52
experience also highlighted the general enjoyment and positivity that participants
experienced during the interaction. Sample responses to their interaction with the
confederate included: “It was very positive, pleasant, interactive, some good laughs, and
a lot of personal information learned that I normally wouldn't have found out about. I
very much enjoyed our brief interaction,” “The conversation was very open and friendly.
We both had a lot to say to each other in answer to the questions,” “We not only
answered the questions that were asked, but we went in depth with our answers. We had
good conversations,” “I feel like we could have talked for hours. It was really easy to
engage in conversation with her,” “She was a lot easier to talk to then i thought. When i
passed her in the hallways reading a book i thought she was going to be quiet but she
was actually well spoken!” “She was AMAZING! Very friendly, I feel like I could talk
to her for hours about anything!” It seemed that participants had a very special
interaction with the confederate that changed preexisting biases they had about
overweight and obesity. It was quite surprising to see participants’ positive reactions to
this brief interaction, and really highlighted the potential effectiveness of direct contact
to reduce weight biases.
Given previous concerns about the utility of intergroup contact to facilitate bias
reduction and the positive findings from this investigation, these findings raise a number
of interesting thoughts and questions. First, the assumption that normal weight and obese
persons have considerable contact on a daily basis may deserve further examination. In
fact, research suggests that there may not actually be as much intergroup contact
between people of varying body sizes as typically assumed. Previous research has
shown that, for those who hold strong biases, actual avoidance of intergroup contact can
Contact and Weight Bias 53
occur, thus precluding any positive or meaningful interaction from happening
(Pettigrew, 1988). Secondly, frequency of contact aside, it may be that the nature of the
interactions between normal weight and obese individuals on a daily basis is not
sufficiently positive or meaningful to lead to a reduction in bias. That is, by design, the
interaction was made to be affirming, positive, and genuine. It is possible that most
between group interactions between normal weight and obese persons in this
investigation are more superficial. Finally, these results suggest that, perhaps bias
reduction is occurring in many of these daily intergroup interactions (as it did in this
study), but that negative interactions, or interactions that highlight and promote
stereotypes, overshadow any positive results that the interaction may have had.
Furthermore, the promotion of a thin ideal and acceptance of weight-denigrating content
by the media may also be overshadowing positive contact and bias reduction that
individuals are having when interacting with people of other body shapes and sizes.
Unfortunately, this investigation did not assess the longevity of the reduction in biased
attitudes.
Interestingly, and contrary to original hypotheses, compared to the control group,
direct contact had no impact on positive stereotypes of obese individuals or the belief
that weight is controllable. Given the anecdotal remarks that participants gave in openended responses to their perceptions of the interactions, it is surprising that participants
did not increase their level of positive stereotypes about obese persons in general. It was
expected, based on the obese confederates interaction style, that participants would have
indicated that they believed a greater percentage of obese people were warm, sociable,
friendly, outgoing, intelligent, etc. It may have been that participants left the interaction
Contact and Weight Bias 54
believing these stereotypes about the confederate specifically (or about a subset of obese
persons), but not about obese people more generally. One study examining stereotypes
that people have toward police officers supports the difficulty of generalizing positive
stereotypes beyond individuals (or subsets of people) to groups as a whole. Hewstone,
Hopkinds, and Routh (1992) showed that students who interacted with school officers
were not able to generalize positive stereotypes they endorsed towards them to police
officers in general. Results suggested that students engaged in “subtyping” behavior,
categorizing their school officers separately from police officers more broadly.
However, it should be noted that participants in the current study did appear to
generalize lower levels of negative stereotypes beyond the confederate to obese people
in general (as indicated by significantly lower OPTS Negative scores in the direct
condition than the control). This finding is interesting because the obese actress’s weight
was not highlighted in the direct contact interaction; thus, any changes in participants’
endorsement of negative stereotypes about obese people were presumably outside of
their conscious awareness. While, it is not entirely clear why negative stereotypes, more
so than positive, were generalizable to obese people broadly after the interaction, it does
seem that enhancing new positive stereotypes is a categorically different task than
reducing previously existing negative stereotypes.
It was also interesting that participants in the direct contact condition, compared
to a control group, did not have reduced beliefs about the personal controllability of
weight. However, the interaction did not involve challenging commonly held
misperceptions about the etiology of weight by the confederate. Therefore, it is
understandable that these strongly rooted beliefs did not change. In fact, previous
Contact and Weight Bias 55
research conducted by the author highlights the difficulty in changing the perception that
obesity is caused solely through an individual’s personal control. Koball’s (2011) study
showed that participants in a contact condition that asked them to imagine interacting
with an obese person who practiced portion control and healthy eating practices had
difficulty imagining this scenario, and were skeptical about the obese person’s
truthfulness regarding their eating behaviors. Media and societal influences frequently
highlight the controllability of weight through one’s personal control alone. Television
shows, such as The Biggest Loser, highlight extremely obese individuals losing
tremendous amounts of weight over a short period of time. However, the television
show does not highlight the extreme lengths that these participants go to in order to lose
and maintain this weight (e.g., highly restrictive diets, 8 + hours of strenuous exercise
per day); lengths that everyday obese persons may not be able to achieve. This show,
and other media sources, fail to highlight the biological, genetic, and environmental
influences that contributes to obesity, often leading to increased weight bias (Domoff et
al., 2011)
When comparing levels of explicit bias and behavioral intentions to engage with
obese people between direct and indirect (i.e., imagined and vicarious) conditions,
participants who directly interacted with an obese person were less likely to have
negative stereotypes about and dislike of obese people than those in both of the indirect
groups. Additionally, participants who directly interacted with an obese person had
higher levels of behavioral intentions to interact with obese persons than those who
watched an interaction between a normal weight and obese person (i.e., vicarious
group). While these findings are surprising given the extensive literature supporting the
Contact and Weight Bias 56
effectiveness of indirect contact to reduce intergroup biases and increase behavioral
intentions, an examination of the responses to the manipulation check questions yielded
interesting information about how participants may have reacted to these stimuli (i.e.,
being asked to imagine an obese person or being asked to watch an interaction between
an obese person and a normal weight person).
While participants in the direct contact condition overwhelmingly felt that the
interaction was positive, meaningful, comfortable, and friendly, these findings were
much weaker for the imagined contact and vicarious contact conditions. In fact, some
participants in the imagined contact condition endorsed imagining negative stereotypes,
and reported that the imagined interaction was not positive. Moreover, many participants
in the vicarious contact indicated that they did not view the interaction to be positive or
realistic. Post hoc examination of the manipulation check data reveals that participant
perceptions of how realistic, positive, and/or friendly the interaction they imagined, had,
or watched was, impacted their levels of explicit biases and intentions to engage with
obese people. For example, with regard to participants in the imagined contact
condition, those who felt the interaction was less realistic had higher endorsement of
negative stereotypes about obesity. Moreover, those who had stronger beliefs that the
interaction was positive had lower beliefs that weight was controlled through one’s
willpower and higher intentions to engage with obese people. Seeing the imagined
interaction as friendly also led to higher intentions to engage with obese people. While
no post hoc findings were significant for the vicarious condition (it did not appear that
these 5 items impacted explicit bias or behavioral intentions), it is clear that participants
in this group had the lowest levels of views of positivity, and that they doubted the
Contact and Weight Bias 57
realism of the film, which likely impacted outcomes. Finally, for direct contact
participants, those who felt the interaction was positive had higher intentions to engage.
Note: participants in the direct contact condition frequently had a restriction of range for
these analyses; that is, they so highly endorsed that the interaction was positive, friendly,
not awkward, and meaningful, that this restriction likely impacted post hoc correlations
from detecting significant effects of the manipulation check items on outcome variables.
These findings highlight several points. First, that the stimuli in the imagined and
vicarious conditions did not appear positive or (in the case of vicarious contact) realistic
enough to reduce weight bias. This may, in part, explain the significantly lower explicit
bias scores and greater intentions to engage with obese persons in the direct condition
compared to the indirect conditions, in addition to explaining why the indirect
conditions did not differ from the control group. Nevertheless, these findings raise a
number of interesting questions about the imagined contact condition.
As noted above, in her 2011 study, Koball found that many participants
instructed to imagine interacting with an obese person in a manner that challenged the
most common weight-based stereotypes of laziness and binge eating behavior, later
reported in the manipulation check that they imagined obese people who were
unattractive, lazy, and gluttonous. In other words, they failed to or were unable to
comply with the imagined contact’s instructions. These results suggest that, even when
instructed to imagine an obese person in a particular manner, some participants imagine
content in line with prevalent and pervasive negative stereotypes about obesity. For the
current study specifically, many participants in the direct condition indicated that their
opinions of the confederate changed after interacting with her (e.g., “The interaction was
Contact and Weight Bias 58
great. It was nice to talk and learn about somebody else who I wouldn’t usually talk to.
It was a great experience”). It is likely that participants in the Koball (2011) study held
onto these negative opinions throughout the imagined contact manipulation, and were
unable to overcome these initial impressions to imagine positive or meaningful
interactions sufficient to reduce bias. This finding is supported by results from the
current investigation indicating that when participants were able to imagine a positive
interaction, they had less explicit bias and increased intentions to engage with obese
people.
These findings raise the interesting question about whether imagined contact is a
viable approach to reducing weight bias. While it may be that further instructions or
experimental manipulations could be employed to increase positivity of the imagined
contact scenario, previous research has suggested that adding content to these imagined
interaction experiments (i.e., extra instructions or more information about the person to
be imagined) does not increase bias reduction (Crisp, Stathi, Turner, & Husnu, 2009).
As such, it is unclear how one could increase positivity or meaningfulness of imagined
intergroup contact for all individuals. Future research would benefit from examining
what form the ideal stimuli would need to be presented to reduce weight bias utilizing
imagined contact. Because this is the second study to highlight the ineffectiveness of
imagined intergroup contact to reduce these strongly held biases, these findings may
show that imagined contact is not an appropriate intervention for individuals who have
high endorsement of negative stereotypes about and dislike of obese people. In this
investigation, direct intergroup contact was clearly superior to imagining an interaction,
especially when participants had difficulty imagining positive content.
Contact and Weight Bias 59
It is unclear why participants felt the interaction between the normal weight
actress and an obese actress (i.e., in the vicarious condition) was less positive and
realistic. It is possible that the interaction was actually insufficiently positive or
realistic; however, this is contrary to pilot testing, which suggested that initial
participants viewed the interaction as positive, friendly, meaningful, not awkward, and
realistic. These findings also raise the possibility that weight bias was involved in
participants’ perceptions that the interaction they watched was contrived. Because of the
nature of weight bias, many participants may have felt it unlikely that two participants of
different sizes could possibly be close friends, thus leading to perceptions of less
positivity, and lower beliefs that the interaction was realistic. Future research utilizing
differential vicarious manipulation stimuli is warranted.
These differential findings between the direct and indirect conditions may also
be explained by variations in amount of time spent engaging in, imagining, or watching
the interaction experience. Participants spent approximately 9 minutes interacting with
the obese confederate during the direct contact experimental condition. When compared
to participants in the imagined contact condition, who were only instructed to imagine
interacting for 1 minute, or to participants in the vicarious contact condition, who
watched a 3 minute video clip, it is apparent that time of exposure may be a potential
confound in the current investigation. While we considered having participants imagine
interacting for longer than 1 minute (which is the standard used by much of the research
on imagined contact) or watching a longer video interaction, we were concerned with
participant boredom, frustration, or reduced concentration. The difference in the dose of
each condition is a weakness of the current investigation. To our knowledge, no
Contact and Weight Bias 60
research has examined the importance of length of contact in bias reduction, rather much
of the existing literature focuses on the type of or the content of interactions. Future
research would greatly benefit from standardizing level of time of the contact
experiences, as well as studying the differential levels of contact.
Additionally, only the direct contact condition was conducted face-to-face, while
the vicarious, control, and imagined contact conditions were conducted online. While
online or internet based studies have shown a great deal of merit, especially in collecting
larger samples more efficiently, with some research has also indicated that participants
respond more openly and honestly about sensitive subjects, such as in the case of biases
and other socially unacceptable behaviors (e.g., drug dealing and use; Coomber, 1997),
the potential limitations to using an Internet based sample include lack of control (i.e., it
is unknown if participants followed instructions to imagine for one full minute, or if
participants watched the entire video clip). Additionally, participants of lab-based
experiments may be more susceptible to social desirability biases, and as such, it is
conceivable that participants who came into the lab for the direct contact condition were
more invested in the study or responded to demand characteristics. Unfortunately, this
study did not directly assess whether participants guessed the true nature of the study,
however, anecdotally, it appeared that many participants continued to believe that the
study was about college student interactions, as evidenced by some of their open ended
responses. Nevertheless, it would be beneficial to replicate this study with all contact
groups coming into the lab to ensure that priming effects or some other third variable are
not influencing participants’ responses.
Contact and Weight Bias 61
Another goal of this study was to examine potential mechanisms (i.e., mediation)
of reduced weight bias. Given the extensive literature on these mechanisms (Islam &
Hewstone, 1993; Turner, Crisp, & Lambert, 2007; Turner, Hewstone, Voci, &
Vonofakou, 2008; Stephen & Stephen, 1985; Wilder & Simon, 2001; Wright, Aron,
McLaughlin, Volpe, & Ropp, 1997), we hypothesized that intergroup anxiety, and
perceptions of in and outgroup norms would mediate the relationship between contact
and attitude change. Previous research has indicated that intergroup anxiety results from
expectations that negative events will happen upon contact with an outgroup member
(Stephen & Stephen, 1985), and intergroup anxiety appears to mediate the reduction of
intergroup biases after direct and indirect contact (Islam & Hewstone, 1993; Wilder &
Simon, 2001). In addition, outgroup norms have also been found to mediate the
relationship between contact and prejudice. That is, beliefs about how ingroup members
feel about outgroup members, and perceptions of attitudes outgroup members have
toward ingroup members, have been shown to greatly influence the effectiveness of
indirect contact to reduce bias.
In terms of intergroup anxiety, findings from this study indicated that anxiety
about interacting with overweight or obese people mediated the relationship between
direct contact and endorsement of positive stereotypes about, dislike of, and intentions to
interact with obese people. Thus, lower anxiety was associated with more positive
attitudes toward obese individuals. Similarly, after interacting with an obese
confederate, lower anxiety was associated with lower dislike toward obese people in the
direct contact group. Individuals, who were in the direct contact group and had lower
levels of intergroup anxiety, thus had lower levels of dislike. Finally, intergroup anxiety
Contact and Weight Bias 62
mediated the relationship between the direct contact group and intentions to engage with
obese people. In other words, participants in the direct contact condition who had lower
levels of intergroup anxiety had higher reports of intent to engage with obese people.
These findings are in line with previous research suggesting the importance of
intergroup anxiety as a mechanism of bias reduction. While for some groups, intergroup
anxiety takes different forms (e.g., anxiety about interacting with African American
persons because of media fueled stereotypes related to violence, i.e., physical harm), for
overweight and obese people, this anxiety may be related to fears of ingroup judgment
(i.e., social harm). Previous research has shown that people may fear that their ingroup
will not approve of contact with an outgroup member (e.g., obese individuals), and as a
result, that they will be discriminated against or outcast as well (DeTezanos-Pinto, Bratt,
& Brown, 2010). Thus, normal weight individuals may fear being harshly evaluated or
stigmatized by other ingroup members for interacting with an obese person. Results
from this study extend the literature on intergroup anxiety by showing, consistent with
original hypotheses, that the construct is also important in participants’ levels of weight
bias.
It was interesting, and contrary to hypotheses, that intergroup anxiety only
mediated the relationships between the direct contact condition and weight bias. An
array of previous research has found intergroup anxiety to be a mechanism in both direct
and indirect forms of contact; however, the literature on intergroup anxiety related to
indirect contact is much less developed. Turner, Crisp, and Lambert (2007) propose that
intergroup is most likely to arise when people have minimal previous contact with
outgroup members. They further suggest that anxiety can be reduced through positive
Contact and Weight Bias 63
interactions (directly or indirectly) with an outgroup member, which teaches people that
in fact, they have nothing to fear. It may have been that participants’ levels of anxiety in
the direct contact condition were most impacted by the interaction, which subsequently
led to lower levels of weight bias, while for participants in the indirect condition, their
levels of anxiety were not impacted because of their reactions to the imagined or
watched stimuli. That is, one can easily maintain a certain level of anxiety about
interacting with someone when they are not put in a situation that forces them to engage
with this outgroup member, such as in an imagined or vicarious contact scenario.
As indicated above, research has also suggested other mechanisms of bias
reduction for intergroup contact, including perception of ingroup and outgroup norms
(i.e., perceptions of how ingroup members feel about outgroup members, and beliefs of
attitudes outgroup members have toward ingroup members). Results of this study
indicated that participants’ positive perceptions of how normal weight people view
obese people mediated the relationship between direct contact and dislike of overweight
people, and beliefs about controllability of weight. Additionally, perception of ingroup
norms was found to be a mechanism between direct contact and intentions to interact
with obese people, such that those who believed that other normal weight people viewed
obese people positively were more likely to indicate that they intended to interact with
them in the future.
Perception of ingroup norms did not significantly mediate either of the indirect
contact groups. In the direct contact group alone, participant perceptions that their
ingroup (normal weight people) feels positively toward the outgroup (obese people)
accounted for reductions in bias and increases in intent to engage with obese persons.
Contact and Weight Bias 64
Additionally, perception of outgroup norms did not act as a mechanism for any of the
relationships between condition and weight bias and behavioral intentions.
These findings were contrary to original hypotheses, in which it was predicted
that these perceptions would only mediate for the vicarious contact condition. As
discussed in the introduction, previous research indicates that, in addition to modifying
how an ingroup member feels about an outgroup member, perceptions of group norms
are important in the acquisition of behavioral knowledge, and the increasing of selfefficacy expectancies (Mazziotta, Mummendy, & Wright, 2011). This has been
documented as a mechanism in contact interventions that involve social learning, such
as vicarious contact where participants can model interaction styles that they observe an
ingroup member having with an outgroup member. Because of this, past studies have
indicated that only through more indirect forms of contact, such as extended and
vicarious contact, has a change in these perceptions resulted (Turner, Crisp, & Lambert,
2007; Turner, Hewstone, Voci, and Vonofakou, 2008). Results of this study highlight,
however, that direct contact can also be mediated by perceptions of ingroup norms. It
appears that participants’ views that other normal weight people act positively toward
obese people were an important mechanism in bias reduction.
It may be that participants in the direct contact condition observed the
experimenter and the obese confederate (who they thought was another participant)
interacting positively, and as such, their perceptions of how normal weight individuals
interact with an obese person were more positive. In contrast, many participants
appeared to leave the vicarious contact condition not fully noticing or believing that a
positive intergroup interaction had occurred. This could easily have impacted
Contact and Weight Bias 65
participants’ ability to learn about or trust that intergroup interactions such as the one
they watched could occur. Regardless, further study is needed to explore how
perceptions of in and outgroup norms mediates the relationship between contact and
weight bias.
Limitations. The results from this study should be considered in light of several
limitations. First, this sample was comprised of a relatively homogenous group of
primarily female (82.7%) college aged participants. Thus, it is unknown if these results
would generalize to a more heterogeneous sample. Furthermore, given that the
participants were all within a “normal” ranged BMI, it is also unknown how these
findings would be for overweight and obese participants. A great deal of research has
indicated that, more than many other groups, obese people strongly internalize negative
attitudes and beliefs about themselves and their weight group (Puhl, Moss-Racusin,
Schwartz, 2007). Research on contact to reduce biases has only focused on between
group (i.e., comparing in versus outgroup) biases, and has not yet examined how contact
could reduce within group or internalized biases. Additionally, the sample size used in
this investigation was somewhat small, and may have been underpowered to detect some
relationships.
Another important limitation to consider is that participants in this sample gave
self-reports of their levels of explicit bias. Research has suggested that these measures
may be susceptible to social desirability bias (Puhl & Heuer, 2009). Since participants in
the direct contact group came into the lab for the experimental manipulations and
interacted with an experimenter, they may have been more susceptible to this bias than
participants in the other conditions, who did not come to the lab. As mentioned above,
Contact and Weight Bias 66
future research should attempt to further examine the impact of social desirability and
demand characteristics on weight bias for participants coming into the lab or taking
questionnaires online. Additionally, this study only examined explicit weight bias. Other
studies have demonstrated that individuals possess a high degree of implicit weight bias
as well (Schwartz et al., 2007). Furthermore, research on intergroup contact has found
that implicit bias may be reduced after direct or imagined contact (Turner & Crisp,
2010).
It is also important to mention that while behavioral intentions were measured,
self-reports are not a perfect substitute for actual behavior. It would be beneficial to
replicate this study and examine if actual intergroup behaviors toward overweight and
obese individuals is modified. Finally, results from this study are cross sectional in
nature and do not provide longitudinal or follow up information about the participants’
levels of weight bias. That is, it is unclear, based on this study alone, how intergroup
contact manipulations may affect weight bias over the long term. Future research would
do well to examine how interventions designed to reduce weight bias fair over the
course of a week, month, or longer.
Clinical Implications. Despite the limitations listed above, there are several
important implications of this study. Most importantly, findings from the current
investigation provide a novel intervention approach to reduce weight bias. Previous
research on weight bias reduction interventions has been mixed (Puhl & Heuer, 2009).
As such, finding innovative ways to challenge these deeply rooted negative beliefs about
excess weight is imperative. Moreover, these findings extend the literature on contact
theory to show that intergroup contact can be effective, even with groups who have a
Contact and Weight Bias 67
great deal of contact already. Finally, this study highlights how pervasive weight bias is,
as evidenced by participants’ difficulty to positively view imagined and observed
interactions. Future research utilizing intergroup contact, especially direct contact, to
reduce weight bias would be important.
Weight bias is ever increasing and insidious. It has been referred to as the last
acceptable form of prejudice (Puhl and Brownell, 2001). Given the negative
consequences that result from experiences of weight bias, creative interventions to
reduce these negative attitudes are warranted. One novel approach worthy of further
study that has shown promise in the current investigation is intergroup contact.
Contact and Weight Bias 68
REFERENCES
Allport, G.W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Anderson, L.S. (1995). Outdoor adventure recreation and social integration: a social
psychological perspective, PhD thesis. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis,
MN.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical
considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Batson C.V., et al. (2007). Empathy and attitudes: can feelings for a member of a
stigmatized group improve feelings toward the group? Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 75, 105-118.
Blumberg, P., & Mellis, L.P. (1985). Medical students’ attitudes toward the obese and
the morbidly obese. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 4, 169-175.
Brophy, I.N. (1946). The luxury of anti-Negro prejudice. Public Opinion, 9, 456-466.
Brownell, K. D., Schwartz, M. B., Puhl, R. M., & Rudd, L. (Eds.). (2005). Weight bias:
Nature, consequences and remedies. New York, NY: Guilford.
Brown, R., & Hewstone, H. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. In M.
Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 37, p. 255- 343).
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Cameron, L., & Rutland, A. (2006). Extended contact through storybook reading in
school: Reducing children’s prejudice toward the disabled. Journal of Social
Contact and Weight Bias 69
Issues, 2(3), 469-488
Caspi, A. (1984). Contact hypothesis and inter-age attitudes: A field study of cross-age
contact, Social Psychology Quarterly, 47, 74-80.
Carels, R.A., Young, K.M., Wott, C.B., Harper, J., Gumble, A., Oelhof, M., & Clayton,
A. (2008). Weight Bias and Weight Loss Treatment Outcomes in TreatmentSeeking Adults. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 37(3), 350-255.
Ciao, A.C., & Latner, J.D. (2011). Reducing obesity stigma: The effectiveness of
cognitive dissonance and social consensus interventions. Obesity, 19(9), 17681774.
Coomber, R. (1997). Using the internet for survey research. Sociological Research
Online, 2.
Crandall, C.S. (1994). Prejudice against fat people: Ideology and self-interest. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 882-894.
Crandall, C.S. (2003). Ideology and lay theories of stigma: The justification of
stigmatization. In T.F. Heatherton, R.E. Kelck, M.R. Hebel & J.G. Hull (Eds.),
The Social Psychology of Stigma. New York: The Guilford Press.
Crisp, R.J. & Tuner, R.N. (2009). Can imagined interactions produce positive
perceptions? American Psychologist, 64(4), 231-240.
Crocker, J. & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective
properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608-630.
Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. (1998). Social Stigma. In Gilbert, D., Fiske, S. T., &
Lindzey, G. (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th ed. New York:
McGraw Hill. Contact and Weight Bias 70
Desforges, D.M., et al. (1991). Effects of structured cooperative contact on changing
negative attitudes toward stigmatized social groups. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 60, 531-544.
DeJong, W. (1980). The stigma of obesity: The consequences of naive assumptions
concerning the causes of physical deviance. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 21(1), 75-87.
DeJong, W. (1993). Obesity as a characterological stigma: The issue of responsibility
and judgments of task performance. Psychological Reports, 73(3, Pt 1), 963-970.
DeTezanos-Pinto, P., Bratt, C., & Brown, R. (2010). What will others think? In-group
norms as a mediator of the effects of intergroup contact. British Journal of
Social Psychology, 49(3), 507-523.
Domoff, et al. (in press). The effects of reality television on weight bias: An
examination of The Biggest Loser. Obesity.
Dovidio, J. F., Brigham, J. C., Johnson, B. T., & Gaertner, S. L. (1996). Stereotyping,
prejudice, and discrimination: Another look. In C. N. Macrae, C. Stangor, & M.
Hewstone (Eds.), Stereotypes and stereotyping (pp. 276-319). New York:
Guilford.
Dovido, J.F., Eller, A., & Hewstone, M. (2011). Improving intergroup relations through
direct, extended, and other forms of indirect contact. Group Processes and
Intergroup Relations, 14(2), 147-160.
Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., & Beach, K. R. (2001). Implicit and explicit attitudes:
Examination of the relationship between measures of intergroup bias. In R.
Brown & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology (Vol.
Contact and Weight Bias 71
4, Intergroup Relations, pp. 175-197). Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell.
Eskilson, A. (1995). Trends in homophobia and gender attitudes: 1987-1993. Presented
At Annual Meeting for the American Sociology Association, 90th, Washington,
DC.
Friedman, K.E., et. al. (2005). Weight stigmatization and ideological beliefs: Relation to
psychological functioning in obese adults. Obesity Research, 13, 907-916.
Gapinski, K.D, Schwartz, M.B., & Brownell, K.D. (2006), Can television change antifat attitudes and behavior? Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research, 11, 1–28.
Greenberg et al., (2003). The portrayal of overweight and obese persons in commercial
television. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1342-1348.
Greenwald, A.G., Poehlman, T.A., Uhlmann, E.L., & Banaji, M.R. (2009).
Understanding and using the implicit association test: III. Meta-analysis of
predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 17-41.
Guyll, M., Matthews, K. A., & Bromberger, J. T. (2001). Discrimination and unfair
treatment: Relationship to cardiovascular reactivity among African American
and European American women. Health Psychology, 20, 315–325.
Hague, A.L. & White, A.A. (2005). Web-based intervention for changing attitudes of
obesity among current and future teachers, Journal of Nutrition Education
Behaviors, 37, 58–66.
Hayes, A.F. (2009). Beyond baron and kenny: Statistical mediation in the new
millennium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408-420.
Hewstone, M., Hopkins, N., and Routh, D.A. (1992). Cognitive models of stereotypes
change: Generalization and subtyping in young people’s views of the police.
Contact and Weight Bias 72
European Journal of Social Psychology, 2(3), 219-234).
Husnu, S., & Crisp, R. (2009). Imagining intergroup contact fosters future contact
intentions. British Psychological Society, Annual Conference Brighton, United
Kingdom.
Ioannou, M. (2009). Comparing direct and extended contact in Cyprus. Journal of
European Psychology Students, 1(1), 1-10.
Islam, M.R. & Hewstone, M. (1993). Dimensions of contact as predictors of intergroup
anxiety, perceived out-group variability, and out-group attitude: An integrative
model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 700–710.
Koball, A.K. (2011). Can imagining reduce negative stereotypes? Imagined intergroup
contact and weight bias. Unpublished Manuscript.
Mallett, R. K., & Wilson, T. D. (2010). Increasing positive intergroup contact. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 382-387Miracle, A.W. (1981). Factors
affecting interracial cooperation: A case study of a high school football team.
Human Organization, 40, 150.54.
Mazziotta, A., Mummendey, A. & Wright, C. S. (2011). Vicarious intergroup contact
effects: Applying social-cognitive theory to intergroup contact research. Group
Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14, 255-274.
Morrison, E.W. & O’Connor, W.E. (1999). Psychometric properties of a scale
measuring negative attitudes toward overweight individuals. The Journal of
Social Psychology. 139, 436-445.
Myers, A. & Rosen, J.C. (1999). Obesity stigmatization and coping: Relation to mental
health symptoms, body image, and self-esteem. International Journal of Obesity,
Contact and Weight Bias 73
23, 221-230.
Ogden, C.L., Carroll, M.D., Curtin, L.R., McDowell, M.A., Tabak, C.J., Flegal, K.M.
(2006). Prevalence of overweight and obesity in the United States, 1999–2004.
Jounral of American Medical Association, 5(13):1549–55.
Oskamp, S. & Jones, J.M. (2001). Promising practice in reducing prejudice: A report
from the President’s Initiative on Race. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice
and discrimination. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Paolini, S., Hewstone, M., Cairns, E., Voci, A. (2004) Effects of direct and indirect
cross-group friendships on judgments of Catholics and Protestants in Northern
Ireland: The mediating role of anxiety-reduction mechanism. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(6), 770-786.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect
effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, &
Computers, 36, 717-731.
Pettigrew, T.F. (1997). Generalized intergroup contact effects on prejudice. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 173-185.
Pettigrew, T.F. (1998). Intergroup contact: Theory, research, and new perspectives,
Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65-85.
Pettigrew, T.F. (2008). Future directions for intergroup contact theory and research.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32, 187-199.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A met-analytic test of intergroup contact
theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751-783.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice?
Contact and Weight Bias 74
Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology,
38, 922-934.
Puhl, R.M. & Brownell, K.D. (2001). Bias, discrimination, and obesity. Obesity
Research, 9(12), 788-805.
Puhl, R.M. & Brownell, K.D. (2003). Ways of coping with obesity stigma: Review and
conceptual analysis. Eating Behaviors, 4, 53-78.
Puhl, R.M., & Brownell, K.D. (2006). Confronting and coping with weight stigma: An
investigation of overweight and obese adults. Obesity, 14, 1802-1815.
Puhl, R.M., & Heuer, C.A. (2009). The stigma of obesity: A review and update. Obesity,
17(5), 941-964.
Puhl, R.M., Moss-Racusin, C.A., Schwartz, M.B., & Brownell, K.D. (2008). Weight
stigmatization and bias reduction: Perspectives of overweight and obese
individuals. Health Education Research, 23(2), 347-358.
Puhl R.M., Schwartz M.B., & Brownell K.D. (2005). Impact of perceived consensus on
stereotypes about obese people: A new approach for reducing bias. Health
Psychology, 24, 517–525.
Quinn, D.M. & 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.
Ratcliff, C. D., Czuchry, M., Scarberry, N. C., Thomas, J. C., Dansereau, D. F., & Lord,
C. G. (1999). Effects of directed thinking on intentions to engage in beneficial
activities: Actions versus reasons. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29,
994–1009.
Contact and Weight Bias 75
Roehling, M.V. (1999). Weight-based discrimination in employment: Psychological and
legal aspects. Personnel Psychology,52, 969–1017.
Rukavina, P.B., Li, W., & Rowell, M.B. (2008). A service learning based intervention to
change attitudes toward obese individuals in kinesiology pre-professionals,
Social Psychology Education, 11, 95–112
Rudman, L.A., Feinberg, J.M., & Fairchild, K. (2002). Minority members' implicit
attitudes: Ingroup bias as a function of group status. Social Cognition, 20, 294320.
Schiappa, E., Gregg, P.B., & Hewes, D.E. (2005). The parasocial contact hypothesis.
Communication Monographs, 72(1), 92-115.
Schwartz, M. B., Vartanian, L. R., Nosek, B. A., & Brownell, K. D. (2006). The
influence of one's own body weight on implicit and explicit anti-fat bias.
Obesity, 14(3), 440-447.
Sims, V.M., & Patrick, J.R. (1936). Attitude toward the Negro of northern and southern
college students. Journal of Social Psychology, 7, 192-204.
Stathi, S., & Crisp, R. J. (2008). Imagining inter-group contact promotes projection to
outgroups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 943–957.
Stephan, W. G & Stephan, C. (1985). Intergroup anxiety. Journal of Social Issues, 41,
157-176.
Taleska, C.A., Fiske, S.T., & Chaiken, S. (2008). Legitimating racial discrimination:
Emotions, not beliefs, best predict discrimination in a meta-analysis. Social Justice
Research, 21, 263-296.
Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. In
Contact and Weight Bias 76
S. Worchel and L. W. Austin (eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations.
Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Teachman B.A., Gapinski K.D., Brownell K.D., Rawlins M., & Jeyaram S. (2003).
Demonstrations of implicit anti-fat bias: The impact of providing causal
information and evoking empathy. Health Psychology, 22, 68–78.
Turner, R.N., Crisp, R.J., Lambert, E. (2007). Imagining intergroup contact can improve
intergroup attitudes. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10(4), 427-441.
Turner, R. N., Hewstone, M., Voci, A., & Vonofakou, C. (2008). A test of the extended
contact hypothesis: The mediating role of intergroup anxiety, perceived ingroup
and outgroup norms, and inclusion of the outgroup in the self. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 843-860.
Voci, A. & Hewstone, M. (2003). Intergroup contact and prejudice towards immigrants
in Italy: The mediational role of anxiety and the moderational role of group
salience. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6, 37–54.
Weisbuch, M., Pauker, K., & Ambady, N. (2009). The subtle transmission of race bias
via televised nonverbal behavior, Science, 18, 1711, 1714.
Werth, J.L. & Lord, C.G. (1992). Previous conceptions of the typical group member and
the contact hypothesis. Basic Applied Social Psychology, 13, 351-369. Wiese, H.J., Wilson, J.F., Jones, R.A., & Neises, M. (1992). Obesity stigma reduction in
medical students, International Journal of Obesity, 16, 859–868.
Wilder, D., & Simon, A.F. (2001). Affect as a cause of intergroup bias: In R. Brown S.
L. Gaertner (Eds). Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intergroup
processes. Malden, MA. Blackwell.
Contact and Weight Bias 77
Wright, S.C., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., and Ropp, S.A. (1997). The extended
contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of
Social and Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 73-90.
Contact and Weight Bias 78
Table 1
Demographic Characteristics
Variable
N
%
Female
129
82.7
Male
20
13.4
Age, years
M
SD
19.30
1.15
148
Sex
Self Report BMI
22.28
1.89
151
Actual BMI
22.95
1.98
37
Relationship Status
Single
68
43.6
In a relationship
65
41.7
Dating
14
9.0
Freshman
83
53.2
Sophomore
38
24.4
Junior
14
9.0
Senior
8
5.1
5th year
5
3.2
Caucasian/White
121
77.6
African American/Black
15
9.6
Year in School
Race
Variable
M
SD
Contact and Weight Bias 79
N
%
Hispanic/Latino
3
1.9
Asian/Pacific Islander
3
1.9
Other
7
4.5
Note. BMI = Body Mass Index
Contact and Weight Bias 80
Table 2
Correlations between Mediators and Outcome Measures
OPTS Pos
OPTS Neg
AFA Dislike
AFA Will
Beh Intent
IAS
InGrpNorm
OPTS Pos
1.00
OPTS Neg
-.07
1.00
AFA Dislike
-.27**
.30**
1.00
AFA Will
-.22**
.37**
.45**
1.00
Beh Intent
.22*
-.09
-.50**
-.24**
1.00
IAS
-.17*
.18*
.41**
.12
-.32**
1.00
InGrpNorm
.37**
-.19*
-.58**
-.29**
.47**
-.37**
1.00
-.08
-.21*
-.10
.18*
-.19*
.28**
OutGrpNorm .21**
OutGrpNorm
1.00
Note. OPTS Positive = Obese Person Trait Scale, Positive subscale; OPTS Negative = Obese person Trait Scale, Negative subscale;
AFA Dislike = Antifat Attitudes Questionnaire, Dislike subscale; AFA Willpower = Antifat Attitudes Questionnaire, Willpower
subscale; Behavioral Intent = measure of Behavioral Intentions to interact with obese persons; IAS = Intergroup Anxiety Scale;
InGrpNorm = measure of perception of ingroup norms; OutGrpNorm = measure of perception of outgroup norms. * p < .05, ** p <
.01
Contact and Weight Bias 81
Table 3
Manipulation Check Ratings
Direct
Imagined
Vicarious
Positive
Meaningful
Awkward
Friendly
Realistic
3.82 b, c
2.95 b
.42 b, c
3.95 b, c
-
(.46)
(.87)
(.72)
(.22)
-
2.90 a
2.17 a
1.85 a, c
3.13 a, c
2.20 c
(1.03)
(1.08)
(1.12)
(.88)
(1.18)
3.13 a
2.58
2.68 a, b
2.11 a, b
1.42 b
(.94)
(1.3)
(1.28)
(1.18)
(1.33)
Note: a significantly different from Direct, b significantly different from Imagined,
c
significantly different from Vicarious
Contact and Weight Bias 82
Table 4
Explicit Weight Bias, Behavioral Intentions, and Mediators By Condition
Variable
M
(SD)
Overall
Direct
Imagined
Vicarious Control
61.91
63.13
63.35
59.44
61.63
(12.67)
(2.06)
(1.98)
(2.06)
(2.03)
60.51
52.61a
61.34b
63.26b
64.64b
(16.11)
(2.53)
(2.43)
(2.53)
(2.50)
1.03
.60a
1.09b
1.21b
1.20b
(.76)
(.56)
(.80)
(.75)
(.73)
2.13
2.07
2.07
2.16
2.23
(.70)
(.62)
(.85)
(.53)
(.77)
4.67
5.22
4.65
4.13
4.68
(1.68)
(.27)
(.26)
(.27)
(.26)
1.46
1.15a
1.54b
1.58b
1.54b
(.67)
(.69)
(.63)
(.61)
(.69)
3.55
3.89a
3.41b
3.52
3.40b
(1.02)
(1.01)
(.97)
(.97)
(1.08)
3.15
3.25
2.73b
3.45
3.19
(1.14)
(1.16)
(.96)
(.10)
(1.56)
Outcomes:
OPTS Positive
OPTS Negative
AFA Dislike
AFA Willpower
Behavioral Intent
Mediators:
IAS
InGrpNorm
OutGrpNorm
Contact and Weight Bias 83
Note. OPTS Positive = Obese Person Trait Scale, Positive subscale; OPTS Negative =
Obese person Trait Scale, Negative subscale; AFA Dislike = Antifat Attitudes
Questionnaire, Dislike subscale; AFA Willpower = Antifat Attitudes Questionnaire,
Willpower subscale; Behavioral Intent = measure of Behavioral Intentions to interact
with obese persons; IAS = Intergroup Anxiety Scale; InGrpNorm = measure of
perception of ingroup norms; OutGrpNorm = measure of perception of outgroup norms.
a
significantly different from Control, b significantly different from Direct
Contact and Weight Bias 84
Table 5
Regression Statistics for Mediators Predicting Outcome Variables
_______________________________________________________________________
βa
t
p-value
_______________________________________________________________________
IAS:
OPTS Positive
-.17
-2.15
.03
OPTS Negative
.18
2.24
.03
AFA Dislike
.41
5.62
.000
AFA Willpower
.12
1.55
.12
Behavioral Intentions
-.32
-4.19
.000
OPTS Positive
.36
4.73
.000
OPTS Negative
-.19
-2.44
.02
AFA Dislike
-5.89
-9.04
.000
AFA Willpower
-.29
-3.67
.000
Behavioral Intentions
.46
6.51
.000
OPTS Positive
.208
2.64
.01
OPTS Negative
-.08
-.93
.35
AFA Dislike
-.21
-2.60
.01
AFA Willpower
-.10
-1.24
.22
Behavioral Intentions
.18
2.25
.03
In Group Norms:
Out Group Norms:
Contact and Weight Bias 85
_______________________________________________________________________
Note. OPTS Positive = Obese Person Trait Scale, Positive subscale; OPTS Negative =
Obese person Trait Scale, Negative subscale; AFA Dislike = Antifat Attitudes
Questionnaire, Dislike subscale; AFA Willpower = Antifat Attitudes Questionnaire,
Willpower subscale; Behavioral Intentions = measure of Behavioral Intentions to
interact with obese persons; IAS = Intergroup Anxiety Scale; InGrpNorm = measure of
perception of ingroup norms; OutGrpNorm = measure of perception of outgroup norms.
a
Standardized
Contact and Weight Bias 86
Table 6
IAS Mediating the Relationship between Condition and Outcome Variables
Coefficient
s.e.
p
Bootstrapped
95% CI
OPTS Positive
Direct Contact
Direct effect (C’ path)
.28
2.93
.92
-
Indirect effect (via IAS)
1.21
.78
-
(0.04; 3.06) *
Direct effect (C’ path)
1.74
2.81
.54
-
Indirect effect (via IAS)
-.02
.51
-
(-1.08; 1.08) ns
Direct effect (C’ path)
-2.06
2.86
.47
-
Indirect effect (via IAS)
-.13
.52
Direct effect (C’ path)
-10.98
3.62
<.01
-
Indirect effect (via IAS)
-1.05
.89
-
(-3.11; 0.38)ns
-3.32
3.47
.34
-
.02
.49
-
(-0.93; 1.16) ns
-1.50
3.54
.67
-
Imagined Contact
Vicarious Contact
(-1.28; 0.92) ns
OPTS Negative
Direct Contact
Imagined Contact
Direct effect (C’ path)
Indirect effect (via IAS)
Vicarious Contact
Direct effect (C’ path)
Contact and Weight Bias 87
Coefficient
s.e.
p
Bootstrapped
95% CI
.11
.50
-
(-0.74; 1l.31) ns
Direct effect (C’ path)
-4.48
1.57
<.01
-
Indirect effect (via IAS)
-1.54
.67
-
(-2.97; -0.31) *
-1.15
1.51
.45
-
.02
.59
-
(-1.11; 1.22) ns
Direct effect (C’ path)
-.03
1.54
.98
-
Indirect effect (via IAS)
.16
.60
-
(-0.95; 1.44) ns
Direct effect (C’ path)
-.86
1.30
.51
-
Indirect effect (via IAS)
-.38
.36
-
(-1.21; 0.18) ns
-1.17
1.25
.35
-
.01
.18
-
(-0.33; 0.44) ns
Direct effect (C’ path)
-.57
1.27
.65
-
Indirect effect (via IAS)
.04
.19
-
(-0.33 0.36) ns
Indirect effect (via IAS)
AFA Dislike
Direct Contact
Imagined Contact
Direct effect (C’ path)
Indirect effect (via IAS)
Vicarious Contact
AFA Willpower
Direct Contact
Imagined Contact
Direct effect (C’ path)
Indirect effect (via IAS)
Vicarious Contact
Contact and Weight Bias 88
Coefficient
s.e.
p
Bootstrapped
95% CI
Behavioral Intent
Direct Contact
Direct effect (C’ path)
.26
.37
.48
-
Indirect effect (via IAS)
.28
.14
-
(0.05; 0.57) *
Direct effect (C’ path)
-.02
.35
.94
-
Indirect effect (via IAS)
-.004
.11
-
(-0.23; 0.21) ns
Direct effect (C’ path)
-.53
.36
.15
-
Indirect effect (via IAS)
-.03
.11
-
(-0.26; 0.18) ns
Imagined Contact
Vicarious Contact
Note. CI = Confidence Interval; OPTS Positive = Obese Person Trait Scale, Positive
subscale; OPTS Negative = Obese person Trait Scale, Negative subscale; AFA Dislike =
Antifat Attitudes Questionnaire, Dislike subscale; AFA Willpower = Antifat Attitudes
Questionnaire, Willpower subscale; Behavioral Intent = measure of Behavioral
Intentions to interact with obese persons; IAS = Intergroup Anxiety Scale; InGrpNorm =
measure of perception of ingroup norms; OutGrpNorm = measure of perception of
outgroup norms.
*
Significant; ns Not Significant
Contact and Weight Bias 89
Table 7
Perception of Ingroup Norms Mediating the Relationship between Condition and
Outcome Variables
Coefficient
s.e.
p
Bootstrapped
95% CI
OPTS Positive
Direct Contact
Direct effect (C’ path)
-.71
2.75
.80
-
Indirect effect (via IAS)
2.21
1.16
-
(-0.01; 4.64) ns
Direct effect (C’ path)
1.67
2.66
.53
-
Indirect effect (via IAS)
.05
1.06
-
(-2.19; 2.01) ns
-2.71
2.71
.32
-
.52
1.06
Direct effect (C’ path)
-10.91
3.57
<.01
-
Indirect effect (via IAS)
-1.21
.87
-
(-3.10; 0.18)ns
Direct effect (C’ path)
-3.28
3.46
.34
-
Indirect effect (via IAS)
-.03
.40
-
(-1.22; 1.28) ns
Imagined Contact
Vicarious Contact
Direct effect (C’ path)
Indirect effect (via IAS)
(-1.78; 2.43) ns
OPTS Negative
Direct Contact
Imagined Contact
Vicarious Contact
Contact and Weight Bias 90
Coefficient
s.e.
p
Bootstrapped
95% CI
Direct effect (C’ path)
-1.12
3.53
.75
-
Indirect effect (via IAS)
-.27
.66
-
(-1.85; 0.95) ns
Direct effect (C’ path)
-4.04
1.37
<.01
-
Indirect effect (via IAS)
-1.99
1.01
-
(-4.03; -0.14) *
Direct effect (C’ path)
-1.08
1.33
.42
-
Indirect effect (via IAS)
-.04
.92
-
(-1.97; 1.71) ns
Direct effect (C’ path)
.61
1.35
.66
-
Indirect effect (via IAS)
-.47
.96
-
(-2.36; 1.36) ns
Direct effect (C’ path)
-.48
1.25
.70
-
Indirect effect (via IAS)
-.03
.05
-
(-1.58; -0.02) *
Direct effect (C’ path)
-1.15
1.21
.34
-
Indirect effect (via IAS)
-.02
.39
-
(-0.75; 0.81) ns
-.35
1.23
.78
-
AFA Dislike
Direct Contact
Imagined Contact
Vicarious Contact
AFA Willpower
Direct Contact
Imagined Contact
Vicarious Contact
Direct effect (C’ path)
Contact and Weight Bias 91
Coefficient
s.e.
p
Bootstrapped
95% CI
-0.18
.38
-
(-0.75; .0.81) ns
Direct effect (C’ path)
.18
.34
.61
-
Indirect effect (via IAS)
.36
.19
-
(0.01; 0.77) *
Direct effect (C’ path)
-.04
.33
.92
-
Indirect effect (via IAS)
.01
.17
-
(-0.32; .036) ns
Direct effect (C’ path)
-.64
.34
.06
-
Indirect effect (via IAS)
.09
.18
-
(-0.26; 0.45) ns
Indirect effect (via IAS)
Behavioral Intent
Direct Contact
Imagined Contact
Vicarious Contact
Note. CI = Confidence Interval; OPTS Positive = Obese Person Trait Scale, Positive
subscale; OPTS Negative = Obese person Trait Scale, Negative subscale; AFA Dislike =
Antifat Attitudes Questionnaire, Dislike subscale; AFA Willpower = Antifat Attitudes
Questionnaire, Willpower subscale; Behavioral Intent = measure of Behavioral
Intentions to interact with obese persons; IAS = Intergroup Anxiety Scale; InGrpNorm =
measure of perception of ingroup norms; OutGrpNorm = measure of perception of
outgroup norms.
*
Significant; ns Not Significant
Contact and Weight Bias 92
Table 8
Perception of Outgroup Norms Mediating the Relationship between Condition and
Outcome Variables
Coefficient
s.e.
p
Bootstrapped
95% CI
Direct effect (C’ path)
1.34
2.82
.63
-
Indirect effect (via IAS)
.16
.11
-
(-0.01; 0.40) ns
Direct effect (C’ path)
2.96
2.80
.29
-
Indirect effect (via IAS)
-1.24
.90
-
(-3.30; 0.15)
Direct effect (C’ path)
-2.87
2.83
-1.01
Indirect effect (via IAS)
0.69
.76
-
(-0.83; 2.30)
Direct effect (C’ path)
-11.97
3.55
.001
-
Indirect effect (via IAS)
-0.04
.09
-
(-0.27; 0.72) ns
-3.81
3.52
.28
-
.50
.64
-
(-0.76; 1.85) ns
-1.11
3.56
.76
-
OPTS Positive
Direct Contact
Imagined Contact
Vicarious Contact
OPTS Negative
Direct Contact
Imagined Contact
Direct effect (C’ path)
Indirect effect (via IAS)
Vicarious Contact
Direct effect (C’ path)
Contact and Weight Bias 93
Coefficient
s.e.
p
Bootstrapped
95% CI
-.28
.56
-
(-1.79; 0.43) ns
Direct effect (C’ path)
-5.94
1.61
<.001
-
Indirect effect (via IAS)
-.08
.44
-
(-1.13; 0.71) ns
-1.78
1.59
.27
-
.65
.46
-
(-.07; 1.67) ns
Direct effect (C’ path)
.49
1.61
.76
-
Indirect effect (via IAS)
-.36
.42
-
(-1.29; .0.42) ns
Direct effect (C’ path)
-1.21
1.27
.34
-
Indirect effect (via IAS)
-.02
.21
-
(-0.44; 0.47) ns
-1.42
1.26
.26
-
.26
.29
-
(-.19; 0.96) ns
Direct effect (C’ path)
-.39
1.28
.76
-
Indirect effect (via IAS)
-.14
.22
-
(-0.67; 0.23) ns
Indirect effect (via IAS)
AFA Dislike
Direct Contact
Imagined Contact
Direct effect (C’ path)
Indirect effect (via IAS)
Vicarious Contact
AFA Willpower
Direct Contact
Imagined Contact
Direct effect (C’ path)
Indirect effect (via IAS)
Vicarious Contact
Contact and Weight Bias 94
Coefficient
s.e.
p
Bootstrapped
95% CI
Behavioral Intent
Direct Contact
Direct effect (C’ path)
.52
.37
.16
-
Indirect effect (via IAS)
.02
.09
-
(-0.17; 0.21) ns
.11
.37
.77
-
-0.14
.10
-
(-0.36; 0.02) ns
Direct effect (C’ path)
-.63
.37
.09
-
Indirect effect (via IAS)
.08
.09
-
(-0.10; 0.26) ns
Imagined Contact
Direct effect (C’ path)
Indirect effect (via IAS)
Vicarious Contact
Note. CI = Confidence Interval; OPTS Positive = Obese Person Trait Scale, Positive
subscale; OPTS Negative = Obese person Trait Scale, Negative subscale; AFA Dislike =
Antifat Attitudes Questionnaire, Dislike subscale; AFA Willpower = Antifat Attitudes
Questionnaire, Willpower subscale; Behavioral Intent = measure of Behavioral
Intentions to interact with obese persons; IAS = Intergroup Anxiety Scale; InGrpNorm =
measure of perception of ingroup norms; OutGrpNorm = measure of perception of
outgroup norms.
*
Significant; ns Not Significant
Contact and Weight Bias 95
Figure 1.
Realistic moderating the relationship between condition and OPTS Negative
How realistic was the interaction?
Figure 2.
Positive moderating the relationship between condition and AFA Willpower
How positive was the interaction?
Contact and Weight Bias 96
Figure 3.
Positivity moderating the relationship between condition and Behavioral Intentions
How positive was the interaction?
Figure 4.
Friendliness moderating the relationship between condition and Behavioral Intentions
How friendly was the interaction?
Contact and Weight Bias 97
Appendix A
Eligibility Survey
1. What is your age?
2. What is your marital status?
o Single
o Married/Living with a partner
o Divorced/Separated
o Widowed
3. What is the highest level of education you have completed?
o Less than high school
o Graduated high school/GED
o Some college
o Graduated college
o Master’s Degree
o Doctorate or other professional degree
4. What is your annual income?
o < 30,000
o 30,000-45,000
o 45,000-60,000
o 60,000-75,000
o >75,000
5. How do you describe yourself?
o Caucasian/White
o African American/Black
o Asian/Pacific Islander
o Hispanic/Latino(a)
o Native American
o Other
6. What is your height?
7. What is your weight?
Contact and Weight Bias 98
Appendix B.
Extended Contact Questionnaire (Questions adapted from Turner, Hewstone, Voci,
& Vonofakou, 2008)
1. How many normal weight people do you know who have friends who are fat?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
None
A few
About half
More than half
Most
2. How many of your normal weight neighbors do you think have friends who are
fat?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
None
One
Two to five
Five to ten
Over ten
3. How many of your normal weight friends have friends who are fat?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
None
One
Two to five
Five to ten
Over ten
4. How many of your very best normal weight friends have friends who are fat?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
None
One
Two to five
Five to ten
Over ten
Contact and Weight Bias 99
Appendix C.
The Obese Person Trait Survey (OPTS; Puhl, et al., 2005)
For each of the following traits, please estimate the percentage (any number between 0
and 100) of Obese People whom you think possess this particular trait. Afterward,
please indicate how confident you are in your estimate by circling a number (1= Not at
all confident… 9= extremely confident). There are no right or wrong answers. Please
give your best estimate.
Humorous
Lazy
Self- Indulgent
Generous
Sociable
Undisciplined
Friendly
Gluttonous
Intelligent
Unhealthy
Honest
Sluggish
Productive
Lack of Willpower
Unclean
Warm
Insecure
Organized
Unattractive
Confidence
Confidence
Confidence
Confidence
Confidence
Confidence
Confidence
Confidence
Confidence
Confidence
Confidence
Confidence
Confidence
Confidence
Confidence
Confidence
Confidence
Confidence
Confidence
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Contact and Weight Bias 100
Appendix D.
Anti Fat Attitudes Questionnaire (AFA, Crandall, 1994; Quinn & Crocker, 1999)
The AFA is scored using a Liker-type response format (0=Very strongly disagree;
9=Very strongly agree). Higher scores indicate anti-fat attitudes.
Dislike of fat people subscale
1. I really don’t like fat people much.
2. I don’t have many friends that are fat
3. I tend to think that people who are overweight are a little untrustworthy
4. Although some fat people are surely smart, in general, I think they tend not to be
quite as bright as normal weight people.
5. I have a hart time taking fat people too seriously.
6. Fat people make me feel somewhat uncomfortable.
7. If I were an employer looking to hire, I might avoid hiring a fat person.
8. I feel repulsed when I see a fat person.
9. Fat people disgust me.
10. I have an immediate negative reaction when I meet a fat person.
Willpower Subscale:
1. People who weight too much could lose at least some part of their weight
through a little exercise
2. Some people are fat because they have no willpower.
3. Fat people tend to be fat pretty much though their own fault.
4. Fat people can lose weight if they really want to.
5. Through a combination of exercise and dieting, anyone can lose weight and keep
it off indefinitely.
6. The medical problems that overweight people have are their own fault.
7. Overweight people are responsible for their own problems.
8. Weight is something which is under a person’s control.
Contact and Weight Bias 101
Appendix E.
Behavioral intentions to interact with outgroup members (Questions adapted from
Ratcliff, Czuchry, Scarberry, Thomas, Dansereau and Lord, 1999)
1. How much do you intend to interact with fat people in the future?
1
2 3
Not at all
4
5
6
7
8
9
Very Much
2. How much time do you think you might spend learning about overweight and
obesity in the future?
1
2 3
None at all
4
5
6
7
8
9
A lot of time
3. How important do you think interacting with fat people is?
1
2 3
Not at all
important
4
5
6
7
8
9
Very Much
important
4. How willing would you be to attend an education session to learn more about the
struggles of being overweight or obese?
1
2 3
Not at all
Willing
4
5
6
7
8
9
Very Willing
Contact and Weight Bias 102
Appendix F.
Intergroup Anxiety Scale (IAS; Stephan & Stephan 1985)
Please think of how you would feel mixing socially with complete strangers who are fat.
Indicate the extent to which you would feel…
(0=Not at all, 1=A little, 2=Some, 3=Quite, 4=Very)
A. Happy (R)
1. Not at all
2. A little
3. Some
4. Quite
5. Very
B. Awkward
1. Not at all
2. A little
3. Some
4. Quite
5. Very
C. Self-Conscious
1. Not at all
2. A little
3. Some
4. Quite
5. Very
D. Confident (R)
1. Not at all
2. A little
3. Some
4. Quite
5. Very
E. Defensive
1. Not at all
2. A little
3. Some
4. Quite
5. Very
F. Relaxed (R)
1. Not at all
Contact and Weight Bias 103
2.
3.
4.
5.
A little
Some
Quite
Very
Contact and Weight Bias 104
Appendix G.
Perceived in-group norms (Questions adapted from DeTezanos-Pinto, Bratt, &
Brown, 2010; Turner, Hewstone, Voci, & Vonofakou, 2008)
Please indicate the extent to which you completely disagree to completely agree.
1. I believe that friends in my weight group (normal weight) prefer that I am not
together with people from other weight groups (e.g., fat people)
1
Completely
disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7
Completely
agree
2. I believe that friends in my weight group (normal weight) think it is a bit uncool
if I hang around others from another weight group (e.g., fat people)
1
Completely
disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7
Completely
agree
3. (R) I believe that friends in my weight group (normal weight) think it is cool if I
have a close friend from another weight group (fat people)
1
Completely
disagree
2
3
4
5
6
7
Completely
agree
4. How friendly do you think your normal weight friends are to overweight or
obese people?
1
Not at all
Friendly
2
3
4
5
6
7
Very
Friendly
5. Do you think your normal weight friends would be happy to go out with/date
someone who is overweight or obese?
1
Not at all
Happy
2
3
4
5
6
7
Very
Happy
6. In general, how much do you think normal weight people like overweight or
obese people?
1
Not a lot
2
3
4
5
6
7
A lot
Contact and Weight Bias 105
Appendix H.
Perceived Outgroup Norms (Questions adapted from Turner, Hewstone, Voci, &
Vonofakou, 2008)
1. In general, how much do you think fat people like normal weight people?
1
Not a lot
2
3
4
5
6
7
A lot
2. In general, how happy do you think fat people would be to spend time/be friends
with someone who is normal weight
1
Not at all
Happy
2
3
4
5
6
7
Very
Happy
Contact and Weight Bias 106
Appendix I
Closeness Induction Task (Ioannou, 2009)
List 1 (1 minute):
1. What is your first name?
2. How old are you?
3. Where in Ohio do you live?
4. What do you study?
5. What year are you at BGSU?
6. What is your favorite class, and why?
List II (3 minutes):
1. What are your hobbies?
2. What would you like to do after graduating from BGSU?
3. What is something you have always wanted to do?
4. If you could travel anywhere in the world, where would you go and why?
5. What is one thing happening in your life that makes you stressed out?
6. What is one habit that you would like to break?
List III (5 minutes):
1. If you could have one wish granted, what would that be?
2. Is it difficult or easy for you to meet people? Why?
3. What is one of your biggest fears?
4. What is your most frightening memory from your childhood?
5. What is your happiest early childhood memory?
6. What is one recent accomplishment that you are proud of?
7. Tell me one thing about yourself that most people who already know you don’t
know.
Contact and Weight Bias 107
Appendix J
Confederate Responses to Closeness Induction Task
List I
1. What is your first name?
Katy
2. How old are you?
21
3. Where in Ohio do you live?
Bowling Green
4. What do you study?
Psychology
5. What year are you at BGSU?
Junior
6. What is your favorite class, and why?
Abnormal Psychology. I really like learning about different ways people behave.
List II
7. What are your hobbies?
I’m into community theater stuff- like, doing plays and musicals here in BG. I
like swimming at the Quarry in Portage, just a little bit outside of BG. It’s so
much fun in the summer to go there and hang out. I like spending time outside.
8. What would you like to do after graduating from BGSU?
I see myself going to grad school in psychology.
9. What is something you have always wanted to do?
I have always wanted to write a novel. Who knows if I’ll ever do it, but I’ve
always had dreams of writing a book. It would be even better if it became a best
seller, but I guess that’s not the most important thing. Just writing it would be
cool.
10. If you could travel anywhere in the world, where would you go and why?
I have always wanted to go to Spain. I know a little bit of Spanish, and after I
took Spanish class in high school, I just fell in love with the country. I think it
would be so much fun to go there.
Contact and Weight Bias 108
11. What is one thing happening in your life that makes you stressed out?
School. Classes. Just making sure I’m getting good grades so that I can get into
grad school.
12. What is one habit that you would like to break?
Being such a neat freak. My roommates get so annoyed with me for always nit
picking about the dishes or clutter in our apartment. I mean I know it’s good to
be organized, but my habit of being so picky about it would be good to break.
List III
7. If you could have one wish granted, what would that be?
I would wish for there to be no more war between countries. Having peace
around the world, and not having innocent people die would be awesome.
8. Is it difficult or easy for you to meet people? Why?
For me, it’s pretty easy. I’m pretty outgoing and friendly. I usually find that I can
talk to most people, so unless they’re total jerks, it’s not usually to hard.
9. What is one of your biggest fears?
My biggest fear is that I won’t figure out what I want to do with my life. I know
right now that I want to go to grad school. But I’m not really sure what I want to
do after that. I don’t know where I really want to live either, so guess I’m just
scared I’ll never figure it out. Ya know?
10. What is your most frightening memory from your childhood?
I remember this one time I was shopping with my mom at a mall. I think we
were in JCPenneys or some store like that. I was pretty little, maybe 5 or 6, and I
remember going to look at a necklace across this aisle from where my mom was
shopping in the women’s clothes. I was only looking away for a little bit, but
when I turned around I couldn’t find her. I know that I probably just should have
stayed there and she would have found me, because she couldn’t have been very
far away. But of course because I was scared, I started walking around the store
looking for her. Then, and this was really dumb of me, I left JCPenneys and
started walking in the mall looking for her. By then, I was crying because I
couldn’t find her. And some teenagers in the mall started making fun of me for
crying. I don’t remember how long this lasted- seems like forever, but probably
was only a few minutes, then an older lady stopped and asked me if I was lost. I
told her I couldn’t find my mom, and long story short, she helped me go to a
security office, and a little while later my mom came there. I guess she had been
looking for me too and they called my name over the loud speaker at JCPenneys.
She was really upset too. But I’ll never forget being so scared when I was a kid.
11. What is your happiest early childhood memory?
Contact and Weight Bias 109
Oh, probably Christmas morning, getting woken up by my mom to tell me that
Santa brought presents. Then I’d go downstairs, and open everything I got. My
dad always made a big Christmas breakfast and we’d all eat as a family before
getting ready and going to church.
12. What is one recent accomplishment that you are proud of?
Umm….I’ve been on the Dean’s list every semester but 1 since I’ve been at
BGSU. I guess I’m proud of that.
13. Tell me one thing about yourself that most people who already know you
don’t know.
Most people don’t know that I’m colorblind. I guess I don’t really try to hide it
or anything, but a lot of times I don’t mention it because people might think it’s
kindof weird.
Contact and Weight Bias 110
Appendix K
DATE:
November 29, 2011
TO:
FROM:
Afton Koball, M.A.
Bowling Green State University Human Subjects Review Board
PROJECT TITLE:
[285178-1] The Relationship between Direct and Indirect Contact
and Weight Bias
REFERENCE #:
SUBMISSION TYPE:
New Project
ACTION:
MODIFICATIONS
REQUIRED DECISION DATE: November 10,
2011
EXPIRATION DATE:
November 9, 2012
REVIEW TYPE:
Expedited Review
Thank you for your submission of New Project materials for this project. Bowling Green
State University Human Subjects Review Board has determined that the following
MODIFICATIONS are REQUIRED in order to secure approval:
In the Consent Document:
- Mention which institution it is that their participation will not impact their relationship to
(BGSU).
- Print the consent form on BGSU letterhead.
- Provide the contact information for the HSRB (419-372-7716 and hsrb@bgsu.edu)
regarding questions about participant rights.
- Indicate that participants must be at least 18 years old to participate in the study.
Contact and Weight Bias 111
Reviewer Comment: 'Principle Investigator Signature' should be 'Principal Investigator
Signature'. Research activities in accordance with this submission may not begin until this committee
has received a
response to these conditions and issued final approval.
This submission has received Expedited Review based on the applicable federal regulations.
If you have any questions, please contact the Office of Research Compliance at 419-3727716 or hsrb@bgsu.edu. Please include your project title and reference number in all
correspondence regarding this project.
This letter has been electronically signed in accordance with all applicable regulations, and a copy is retained within
Bowling Green State University Human Subjects Review Board's records.
Contact and Weight Bias 112
Appendix L
DATE:
January 12, 2012
TO:
FROM:
Afton Koball, M.A.
Bowling Green State University Human Subjects Review Board
PROJECT TITLE:
SUBMISSION TYPE:
[285178-2] The Relationship between Direct and Indirect Contact
and Weight Bias
Revision
ACTION: APPROVAL
DATE: January 11, 2012
EXPIRATION DATE:
REVIEW TYPE:
REVIEW CATEGORY:
November 9, 2012
Expedited Review
Expedited review category # 7
Thank you for your submission of Revision materials for this project. The Bowling Green State
University Human Subjects Review Board has APPROVED your submission. This approval
is based on an appropriate risk/benefit ratio and a project design wherein the risks have been
minimized. All research must be conducted in accordance with this approved submission.
The final approved version of the consent document(s) is available as a published Board
Document in the Review Details page. You must use the approved version of the consent
document when obtaining consent from participants. Informed consent must continue
throughout the project via a dialogue between the researcher and research participant.
Federal regulations require that each participant receives a copy of the consent document.
Please note that you are responsible to conduct the study as approved by the HSRB. If you
seek to make any changes in your project activities or procedures, those modifications must
be approved by this committee prior to initiation. Please use the modification request form
for this procedure.
You have been approved to enroll 200 participants. If you wish to enroll additional participants
you must seek approval from the HSRB.
Contact and Weight Bias 113
All UNANTICIPATED PROBLEMS involving risks to subjects or others and SERIOUS and
UNEXPECTED adverse events must be reported promptly to this office. All NONCOMPLIANCE issues or COMPLAINTS regarding this project must also be reported promptly
to this office.
This approval expires on November 9, 2012. You will receive a continuing review notice before
your project expires. If you wish to continue your work after the expiration date, your
documentation for continuing review must be received with sufficient time for review and
continued approval before the expiration date.
Good luck with your work. If you have any questions, please contact the Office of Research
Compliance at 419-372-7716 or hsrb@bgsu.edu. Please include your project title and
reference number in all correspondence regarding this project.
This letter has been electronically signed in accordance with all applicable regulations, and a copy is retained within
Bowling Green State University Human Subjects Review Board's records.