Weight Prejudice

Abstract

Weight prejudice is a type of prejudice: negative attitudes, stereotypes, and discrimination directed at people because of their body weight, most often against people in larger bodies. Cognitive psychology's central contribution is to explain why this prejudice is expressed so openly when others have gone underground, and the answer lies in attribution. Because weight is widely believed to be controllable, higher weight is read as a personal failing of willpower, and that attribution of blame licenses contempt that people would suppress toward a group seen as blameless. This article sets out the attribution-value and ideology account of anti-fat attitudes, traces how controllability beliefs and implicit bias operate in employment and healthcare, and examines the cyclic link between stigma, stress, and health. A worked example and three interactive demonstrations make the mechanism concrete.

Keywords: weight prejudice, weight stigma, anti-fat attitudes, weight bias internalization, controllability attribution

What Weight Prejudice Is

Weight prejudice is prejudice or discrimination based on body weight, together with the beliefs and stereotypes that cast higher-weight people as lazy, undisciplined, unintelligent, or lacking in willpower. The MeSH descriptor frames it as negative attitudes towards and beliefs about others because of their weight, manifested through stereotypes and prejudice toward people whose weight is over or under a cultural norm, though in practice research and discrimination overwhelmingly target higher weight. As a form of prejudice, it shares the general structure of a group-directed attitude — a cognitive component of beliefs and stereotypes, an affective component of distaste, and a behavioral component of discrimination.

What distinguishes weight prejudice from most other prejudices is how openly it is expressed. Over the decades in which overt racial and gender prejudice became socially unacceptable and went underground, anti-fat attitudes remained something people would voice without embarrassment — in surveys, in workplaces, in clinics, and in the remarks of friends and family. Weight bias has been called the last acceptable prejudice, and the description, if an overstatement, points at something real: the ordinary inhibitions that suppress the expression of other biases operate only weakly here.

The reason is cognitive, and it is the key to the whole phenomenon. Body weight is perceived as a matter of personal choice — a product of what one eats and how much one exercises, and therefore of character and self-control. On that premise, a higher-weight person is not an innocent bearer of a trait but the author of a failing, and blaming someone for their own misfortune feels not like prejudice but like a fair judgment. The sections that follow show how this single attribution of controllability does most of the work.

Anti-Fat Attitudes: Ideology and Attribution

Christian Crandall's foundational studies established that anti-fat prejudice is organized by ideology and by attributions of blame rather than by simple dislike (Crandall, 1994). Using the Anti-Fat Attitudes questionnaire he developed, Crandall found that negative attitudes toward fat people were predicted by the belief that people get what they deserve — belief in a just world — and by endorsement of self-reliance and the Protestant work ethic. People who held fat individuals responsible for their weight expressed the most prejudice, and the attitude patterned like a symbolic, value-based ideology comparable to the structure underlying racial prejudice, not like a response to any tangible threat.

This is the attribution-value model of prejudice: a group is stigmatized when its defining characteristic is seen as both negatively valued and controllable by its members. The model builds on Bernard Weiner's attributional analysis of reactions to stigmas, which showed that a stigma judged controllable elicits anger and withholding of help, while one judged uncontrollable elicits pity and a readiness to help — the affective and behavioral fork that controllability produces (Weiner et al., 1988). Controllability is what converts a mere negative stereotype into licensed contempt, because it recasts the characteristic as a moral choice the person could have avoided. Weight is the paradigm case — more clearly controllable in lay belief than skin color, sex, age, or disability — which is precisely why anti-fat attitudes are expressed with so little of the restraint that now accompanies other biases.

The prejudice operates at two levels at once. Explicit anti-fat attitudes are, unusually, reported openly; but weight bias is also strongly implicit, embedded in automatic associations that people cannot fully control or report. Bethany Teachman and Kelly Brownell demonstrated how deep this runs by administering an Implicit Association Test to health professionals who specialize in the treatment of obesity — the group one would expect to be most sympathetic. These specialists showed a strong implicit anti-fat bias, associating fat people with the attributes bad, lazy, and stupid even as their explicit attitudes were less extreme (Teachman & Brownell, 2001). If the experts are not immune, the bias is not a matter of ignorance that information alone can fix.

The ImplicitExplicitGap demonstration below contrasts explicitly reported and implicitly measured anti-fat bias, showing how the gap between what people say and what they automatically associate varies across groups.

How Weight Prejudice Operates

Because controllability is the engine of the prejudice, anything that raises or lowers the perceived controllability of a person's weight shifts the blame and the bias with it. Experimental manipulations that attribute a target's weight to a medical cause — a thyroid condition, a genetic predisposition — reliably reduce the prejudice, while attributions to overeating and inactivity amplify it. The Worked Example below makes this controllability mechanism quantitative.

The behavioral reach of weight bias extends into the settings that most shape life outcomes. Rebecca Puhl and Kelly Brownell's early reviews documented weight discrimination across employment, healthcare, education, and interpersonal relationships, including hiring and wage penalties and the everyday treatment of higher-weight people by peers and family (Puhl & Brownell, 2001). The bias can spread even to those merely associated with a heavier person: Michelle Hebl and Laura Mannix showed a stigma-by-proximity effect, in which a man was evaluated more negatively simply for sitting next to a heavier woman, before any interaction occurred and regardless of whether he was presumed to be connected to her (Hebl & Mannix, 2003).

Healthcare is a particularly consequential arena, because the providers delivering care hold the bias too. Marlene Schwartz and colleagues found significant implicit and explicit weight bias among clinicians and researchers who specialize in obesity (Schwartz et al., 2003). Sean Phelan and colleagues traced the downstream consequences: provider weight bias is associated with poorer communication, less patient-centered care, and the tendency to attribute every presenting complaint to weight, which in turn leads higher-weight patients to delay or avoid care (Phelan et al., 2015). The prejudice thus becomes self-defeating even on its own terms, worsening the health of the people it judges.

The AntiFatAttributionModel demonstration below varies the perceived controllability of a target's weight and the strength of an observer's anti-fat ideology, showing how the two combine to produce blame and negative evaluation.

Weight Stigma, Stress, and Health

The folk theory that justifies weight prejudice also makes a prediction: if stigma shames people about their weight, it should motivate them to lose it. The evidence shows the opposite. Angelina Sutin and Antonio Terracciano followed a large sample over several years and found that people who reported experiencing weight discrimination were substantially more likely to become or remain obese, not less — perceived weight discrimination predicted weight gain even after controlling for baseline weight (Sutin & Terracciano, 2013). Stigma is not a corrective; it is a risk factor.

A. Janet Tomiyama's Cyclic Obesity/Weight-Based Stigma (COBWEBS) model explains why (Tomiyama, 2014). Being stigmatized is a potent chronic stressor, and that stress operates through two biological and behavioral pathways: it raises cortisol, which promotes fat storage and appetite, and it increases eating as a coping response. Both pathways promote weight gain, which exposes the person to still more stigma, closing a self-reinforcing loop. On this account the stress of stigma — not the body weight itself — drives much of the harm, and the cycle runs regardless of the person's intentions or efforts. Tomiyama and colleagues later extended the argument to population health, contending that weight stigma helps drive the very outcomes it is blamed on, and harms health through pathways entirely independent of body fat (Tomiyama et al., 2018).

The harm is compounded when the target turns the prejudice inward. Rebecca Pearl and Rebecca Puhl's systematic review of weight bias internalization — the process by which people who are stigmatized for their weight apply the negative stereotypes to themselves and devalue themselves accordingly — found internalized weight bias consistently associated with depression, anxiety, body-image disturbance, disordered eating, and avoidance of physical activity and medical care (Pearl & Puhl, 2018). Internalization is the mechanism by which an external prejudice becomes an internal burden, and its health correlates are independent of body mass index, underscoring that it is the stigma, not the weight, doing the damage.

The WeightStigmaCycle demonstration below steps through the COBWEBS loop, toggling stigma exposure to show how stress, cortisol, and coping-driven eating feed back into weight and renewed stigma.

Measured Consequences

The scope of weight discrimination has been documented across repeated reviews. Puhl and Heuer's comprehensive update catalogued consistent discrimination in employment — in hiring, wages, promotion, and termination — alongside bias in healthcare, education, and the media's portrayal of higher-weight people, and noted that weight discrimination occurs at rates approaching those of race and age discrimination (Puhl & Heuer, 2009). In a companion analysis they argued that this stigma carries a public-health cost rather than a benefit, and called for it to be treated as a social-justice and health priority (Puhl & Heuer, 2010). The harms begin early: Puhl and Janet Latner reviewed the stigmatization of higher-weight children by peers, teachers, and parents, documenting its toll on well-being from a young age (Puhl & Latner, 2007).

The mental-health consequences have now been quantified meta-analytically. Christine Emmer, Michael Bosnjak, and Jutta Mata pooled the literature and found weight stigma reliably associated with poorer mental health across depression, anxiety, body-image dissatisfaction, and low self-esteem, with effects consistent across study designs (Emmer et al., 2019). The accumulation of this evidence prompted an international group of experts to issue a joint consensus statement, endorsed by numerous scientific and medical bodies, acknowledging the harm of weight stigma, rejecting the assumption that it is a justified or motivating force, and committing to its elimination in clinical and public settings (Rubino et al., 2020). Alberga and colleagues issued a parallel call to action for the research and clinical community to confront weight bias directly (Alberga et al., 2016).

Worked Example: Controllability and Blame

The controllability mechanism is easiest to see in arithmetic. Suppose observers judge an identical higher-weight person on two outcomes — how much they blame the person for their weight and how willing they are to help them — and that both judgments are driven by a single variable, the perceived controllability of the weight, scored from 0 (entirely outside the person's control) to 1 (entirely within it). Let the two illustrative rules be:

- Blame = 10 × controllability, on a 0–10 scale. - Help = 8 − 6 × controllability, on a 0–10 scale.

Now present the same person under two framings that differ only in the attributed cause:

- Medical framing (weight attributed to a thyroid condition), controllability = 0.2: - Blame = 10 × 0.2 = 2 - Help = 8 − 6 × 0.2 = 8 − 1.2 = 6.8 - Lifestyle framing (weight attributed to diet and inactivity), controllability = 0.9: - Blame = 10 × 0.9 = 9 - Help = 8 − 6 × 0.9 = 8 − 5.4 = 2.6

Compare the two framings:

- Blame ratio: 9 / 2 = 4.5 — the person is blamed four-and-a-half times as much. - Help ratio: 2.6 / 6.8 ≈ 0.38 — willingness to help falls to about 38% of its medical-framing level.

Nothing about the person has changed between the two scenarios — same body, same behavior, same presenting situation. The entire swing in blame and help is produced by the attributed cause. This is the structural core of weight prejudice: because higher weight is ordinarily read through the lifestyle framing, the prejudice arrives pre-justified, and the same judgment directed at a group seen as blameless would strike the observer as plainly unfair. It also shows why information that shifts the attribution — toward the genetic, metabolic, and environmental determinants of weight — reduces the prejudice, and why framing it as pure willpower inflames it.

Discussion

The cognitive psychology of weight prejudice turns on a single lever: perceived controllability. Crandall's attribution-value account explains the facts a simple-dislike model cannot — why anti-fat attitudes track just-world and work-ethic ideology rather than contact or competition, why the prejudice is expressed so openly when others are suppressed, and why experimentally shifting the attributed cause of a person's weight moves the bias up or down. Controllability is the moral solvent that dissolves the ordinary inhibition against expressing contempt, because it reframes a stigmatized trait as a deserved outcome.

This has a sharp and counterintuitive practical consequence. The lay theory holds that stigma is a useful pressure that will shame people thinner; the evidence shows stigma predicts weight gain, operating through the chronic stress pathways of the COBWEBS cycle and through internalization. A public-health approach that tolerates or deploys weight stigma as motivation is therefore not merely cruel but counterproductive on its own stated goal, which is why an international consensus has moved to reject it outright. The harm, moreover, is partly independent of body weight: the stress and the internalized devaluation damage mental and physical health directly, so reducing stigma is a health intervention in itself.

The account also clarifies why weight bias resists the usual remedies. Because it is anchored in a belief about controllability rather than in ignorance of a group, simple information about the prevalence of higher weight does little, and even obesity specialists hold strong implicit bias. The effective levers act on the attribution and on the structures that enact it — shifting the causal narrative toward the genetic, metabolic, and environmental determinants of weight, and constraining the settings in employment and healthcare where the bias does its measurable damage.

Current Directions

Several active lines are extending the field. One is the consolidation and formalization of weight-bias internalization as a distinct construct with its own health trajectory. Pearl and Puhl's systematic review established internalized weight bias as a predictor of mental- and physical-health outcomes independent of body mass index, and subsequent work has pursued interventions aimed specifically at reducing internalization rather than weight (Pearl & Puhl, 2018). This reframes a share of the harm attributed to higher weight as attributable instead to the stigma that accompanies it.

A second line is the population-health argument that weight stigma is causally implicated in the outcomes it is blamed for. Tomiyama and colleagues marshalled evidence that stigma drives weight gain and harms health through stress and behavioral pathways, inverting the common assumption that stigma is a lamentable but motivating side effect of public-health messaging (Tomiyama et al., 2018). The meta-analytic confirmation that weight stigma is reliably tied to poorer mental health has given this argument a firm quantitative footing (Emmer et al., 2019).

A third effort is translational and institutional. The joint international consensus statement for ending the stigma of obesity, endorsed across scientific and medical organizations, has shifted the question from whether weight stigma is harmful to how clinical practice, media, and policy can be changed to reduce it (Rubino et al., 2020), building on earlier calls to action within the research community (Alberga et al., 2016). Work continues on which attribution-shifting and contact-based interventions actually lower bias, and on whether gains among practitioners translate into measurably better care.

Common Misconceptions

Weight prejudice is just an honest reaction to an unhealthy choice, not a real bias.

This is the controllability premise that licenses the prejudice, and it does not withstand scrutiny. Anti-fat attitudes track just-world and work-ethic ideology rather than any health knowledge, and the bias persists even among obesity specialists who know the determinants of weight are largely genetic, metabolic, and environmental (Crandall, 1994; Teachman & Brownell, 2001).

Stigma motivates people to lose weight.

The evidence runs the other way. Perceived weight discrimination predicts weight gain over time, because the chronic stress of stigma raises cortisol and coping-driven eating in a self-reinforcing cycle (Sutin & Terracciano, 2013; Tomiyama, 2014).

Only prejudiced individuals hold anti-fat bias; professionals are objective.

Health professionals who specialize in obesity show strong implicit anti-fat bias, and provider bias is linked to poorer communication and care that leads patients to avoid treatment (Teachman & Brownell, 2001; Phelan et al., 2015).

If stigma harms people, it only harms their feelings, not their health.

Weight stigma harms physical and mental health through pathways independent of body weight — stress physiology, disordered eating, and internalization that predicts depression, anxiety, and avoidance of care regardless of body mass index (Pearl & Puhl, 2018; Tomiyama et al., 2018).

Glossary

Anti-Fat Attitudes (AFA) scale.

Crandall's questionnaire measuring anti-fat prejudice across dislike, fear of fat, and willpower subscales, used to show that the prejudice is organized by ideology and attributions of blame.

Anti-fat attitudes.

Negative beliefs and feelings toward people in larger bodies, typically comprising dislike, fear of becoming fat, and the belief that weight is a matter of willpower; the explicit face of weight prejudice.

Attribution-value model.

The account on which a group is stigmatized when its defining characteristic is both negatively valued and seen as controllable by its members; controllability converts a negative stereotype into licensed blame.

COBWEBS model.

Tomiyama's Cyclic Obesity/Weight-Based Stigma model, in which the stress of stigma raises cortisol and coping-driven eating, promoting weight gain that invites further stigma in a self-reinforcing loop.

Controllability attribution.

The judgment of how far a person's stigmatized characteristic is within their own control; the central cognitive variable driving weight prejudice, since higher weight is widely read as a controllable choice.

Explicit weight bias.

Consciously held and openly reported negative attitudes toward higher-weight people; unusually, these are expressed with little of the social restraint that now suppresses other explicit prejudices.

Implicit weight bias.

Automatic, hard-to-control negative associations with fatness, measured with instruments such as the Implicit Association Test; found to be strong even among specialists in the treatment of obesity.

Just-world belief.

The disposition to believe that people get what they deserve; a reliable predictor of anti-fat attitudes, because it frames higher weight as a merited consequence of personal failing.

Obesity stigma.

The social devaluation directed specifically at people classified as having obesity; the clinical and public-health framing of weight stigma, central to the consensus statements calling for its elimination.

Protestant work ethic.

The value system prizing self-discipline, hard work, and self-reliance; endorsement of it predicts anti-fat attitudes by casting higher weight as evidence of a failure of effort and restraint.

Stigma by proximity.

The spread of weight stigma to a person merely seen near or associated with a higher-weight individual, producing more negative evaluations even before any interaction; also called associative stigma.

Weight bias internalization.

The process by which targets of weight stigma apply the negative stereotypes to themselves and devalue themselves accordingly; predicts depression, anxiety, disordered eating, and avoidance of care independent of body mass index.

Weight discrimination.

The behavioral expression of weight prejudice — unequal treatment in hiring, wages, promotion, healthcare, and education — documented at rates approaching those of race and age discrimination.

Weight stigma.

The social devaluation and discrediting of people because of their weight; used broadly to cover the stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination that higher-weight people face and the stress it imposes.

Key Researchers

Kelly D. Brownell

(Duke University). Founding figure in the study of weight bias and food policy, who with colleagues documented discrimination against higher-weight people and the strong implicit anti-fat bias held even by obesity specialists. Wikidata

Christian S. Crandall

(University of Kansas). Originator of the ideology-and-attribution account of anti-fat prejudice and the Anti-Fat Attitudes scale, showing that controllability beliefs and just-world ideology license open weight bias. Wikidata

Michelle R. Hebl

(Rice University). Researcher of interpersonal discrimination and stigma in evaluative and workplace settings, who demonstrated the stigma-by-proximity effect whereby bias against heavier targets spreads to those merely near them. Wikidata - Rice University

Rebecca L. Pearl

(University of Florida). Clinical and health psychologist whose systematic work established weight bias internalization as a distinct predictor of mental and physical health, independent of body weight. University of Florida

Rebecca M. Puhl

(University of Connecticut). Leader of the field's major empirical program on weight stigma — its measurement, its consequences across employment, healthcare, and childhood, and the policy remedies for it. ORCID - Wikidata

A. Janet Tomiyama

(University of California, Los Angeles). Author of the Cyclic Obesity/Weight-Based Stigma (COBWEBS) model, which explains how the chronic stress of stigma drives eating and cortisol responses that harm health independent of body weight. ORCID - Wikidata

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between weight prejudice, weight bias, and weight stigma?

The terms overlap heavily. Weight prejudice and weight bias refer to the negative attitudes, stereotypes, and discrimination directed at people because of their weight. Weight stigma is the broader social devaluation and discrediting that results, and is often the term used when emphasizing the experience of the target and its effects on stress and health. In practice researchers use them largely interchangeably, with stigma foregrounding consequences and bias foregrounding the attitude.

Why is weight prejudice called the last acceptable prejudice?

Because it is expressed openly with little of the social restraint that now suppresses the expression of racial, gender, and other biases. The reason is cognitive: body weight is perceived as controllable, so higher weight is read as a personal failing, and blaming someone for a perceived failing feels like a fair judgment rather than a prejudice. The label is an overstatement, but it points at a real difference in how freely the bias is voiced.

Does weight stigma motivate people to lose weight?

No. Longitudinal evidence shows that people who experience weight discrimination are more likely to gain weight and to become or stay obese, not less. The chronic stress of stigma raises cortisol and increases coping-driven eating, and these pathways promote weight gain in a self-reinforcing cycle. Stigma is a risk factor for the outcome it claims to correct.

What is the attribution explanation of weight prejudice?

On the attribution-value model, a group is stigmatized when its defining characteristic is both negatively valued and seen as controllable. Weight is the clearest case of a controllable characteristic in lay belief, so anti-fat attitudes are licensed by the judgment that higher-weight people could simply choose otherwise. Experimentally attributing a person's weight to a medical cause reduces the prejudice; attributing it to lifestyle amplifies it.

Do doctors and health professionals hold weight bias?

Yes, including the specialists who treat obesity. Implicit Association Tests reveal strong automatic anti-fat associations among clinicians, and provider weight bias is linked to poorer, less patient-centered communication and to patients delaying or avoiding care. The bias is not a matter of ignorance that information alone resolves.

What is weight bias internalization?

It is the process by which people who are stigmatized for their weight accept the negative stereotypes as true of themselves and devalue themselves accordingly. Internalized weight bias is consistently associated with depression, anxiety, body-image disturbance, disordered eating, and avoidance of activity and medical care, and these associations hold independent of a person's actual body mass index.

How is weight prejudice measured?

Explicit attitudes are assessed with self-report instruments such as the Anti-Fat Attitudes scale, which separates dislike, fear of fat, and willpower beliefs. Automatic attitudes are measured with the Implicit Association Test. Internalized stigma is assessed with dedicated weight bias internalization measures. Separating these matters because a person can report moderate explicit attitudes while holding strong implicit bias.

What reduces weight prejudice?

Because the prejudice is anchored in a belief about controllability, the effective levers shift the attributed cause, presenting the genetic, metabolic, and environmental determinants of weight, rather than supplying bare facts about prevalence. Reducing the bias also requires acting on the structures that enact it, in hiring and healthcare, and an international consensus now rejects the use of stigma as a motivational tool and treats its reduction as a health priority.

References

Alberga, A. S., Russell-Mayhew, S., von Ranson, K. M., & McLaren, L. (2016). Weight bias: A call to action. Journal of Eating Disorders, 4(1), 34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40337-016-0112-4

Crandall, C. S. (1994). Prejudice against fat people: Ideology and self-interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(5), 882–894. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.5.882

Emmer, C., Bosnjak, M., & Mata, J. (2019). The association between weight stigma and mental health: A meta-analysis. Obesity Reviews, 21(1), e12935. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12935

Hebl, M. R., & Mannix, L. M. (2003). The weight of obesity in evaluating others: A mere proximity effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(1), 28–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202238369

Pearl, R. L., & Puhl, R. M. (2018). Weight bias internalization and health: A systematic review. Obesity Reviews, 19(8), 1141–1163. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12701

Phelan, S. M., Burgess, D. J., Yeazel, M. W., Hellerstedt, W. L., Griffin, J. M., & van Ryn, M. (2015). Impact of weight bias and stigma on quality of care and outcomes for patients with obesity. Obesity Reviews, 16(4), 319–326. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12266

Puhl, R., & Brownell, K. D. (2001). Bias, discrimination, and obesity. Obesity Research, 9(12), 788–805. https://doi.org/10.1038/oby.2001.108

Puhl, R. M., & Heuer, C. A. (2009). The stigma of obesity: A review and update. Obesity, 17(5), 941–964. https://doi.org/10.1038/oby.2008.636

Puhl, R. M., & Heuer, C. A. (2010). Obesity stigma: Important considerations for public health. American Journal of Public Health, 100(6), 1019–1028. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.159491

Puhl, R. M., & Latner, J. D. (2007). Stigma, obesity, and the health of the nation's children. Psychological Bulletin, 133(4), 557–580. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.4.557

Rubino, F., Puhl, R. M., Cummings, D. E., Eckel, R. H., Ryan, D. H., Mechanick, J. I., Nadglowski, J., Ramos Salas, X., Schauer, P. R., Twenefour, D., Apovian, C. M., Aronne, L. J., Batterham, R. L., Berthoud, H.-R., Boza, C., Busetto, L., Dicker, D., De Groot, M., Eisenberg, D., ... Dixon, J. B. (2020). Joint international consensus statement for ending stigma of obesity. Nature Medicine, 26(4), 485–497. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0803-x

Schwartz, M. B., Chambliss, H. O., Brownell, K. D., Blair, S. N., & Billington, C. (2003). Weight bias among health professionals specializing in obesity. Obesity Research, 11(9), 1033–1039. https://doi.org/10.1038/oby.2003.142

Sutin, A. R., & Terracciano, A. (2013). Perceived weight discrimination and obesity. PLoS ONE, 8(7), e70048. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0070048

Teachman, B. A., & Brownell, K. D. (2001). Implicit anti-fat bias among health professionals: Is anyone immune? International Journal of Obesity, 25(10), 1525–1531. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijo.0801745

Tomiyama, A. J. (2014). Weight stigma is stressful. A review of evidence for the Cyclic Obesity/Weight-Based Stigma model. Appetite, 82, 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.06.108

Tomiyama, A. J., Carr, D., Granberg, E. M., Major, B., Robinson, E., Sutin, A. R., & Brewis, A. (2018). How and why weight stigma drives the obesity "epidemic" and harms health. BMC Medicine, 16(1), 123. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-018-1116-5

Weiner, B., Perry, R. P., & Magnusson, J. (1988). An attributional analysis of reactions to stigmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(5), 738–748. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.5.738