Western University Scholarship@Western
Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository
6-16-2021 10:00 AM
The Effect of Feminist Identity on Women's Conceptualizations of Beauty and Body-Based Stigma: A Conceptual Replication and Extension
Courtney C. Hillier, The University of Western Ontario
Supervisor: Calogero, Rachel M., The University of Western Ontario A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the Master of Science degree in Psychology © Courtney C. Hillier 2021
Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd
Part of the Social Psychology Commons
Recommended Citation Hillier, Courtney C., "The Effect of Feminist Identity on Women's Conceptualizations of Beauty and Body- Based Stigma: A Conceptual Replication and Extension" (2021). Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository. 7854. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/7854
This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Western. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Western. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA
Abstract
Research in the area of feminist identity and body image has produced mixed results. Some evidence suggests that feminist identity may be protective against negative body image in women. The current study was an independent partial conceptual replication and extension of Roy et al. (2007) and examines the experimental effect of feminist self-identification on forms of internalized body stigma. After completion of baseline measures, undergraduate women (N = 149) were assigned to one of three experimental conditions and read about either a positive portrayal of feminists, negative portrayal of feminists, or non-feminist- related topic. Participants then completed measures of feminist self-identification, endorsement of feminist ideology, body shame, anti-fat attitudes, and broad conceptualization of beauty. Overall, the hypotheses were not supported – levels of feminist self-identification and scores on the internalized body stigma variables did not significantly vary across conditions. Discussion centers on the study’s limitations and future directions for feminist self-identification research.
Keywords: feminist identity, social identity, body image, weight stigma, stereotypes, conceptual replication
ii
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA
Summary for Lay Audience
This study is an independent partial replication and extension of Roy, Weibust, and Miller’s (2007) study, “Effects of stereotypes about feminists on feminist self-identification.” Feminist self-identification refers to an individual’s willingness to label themselves a feminist, whether privately or publicly (Cowan et al., 1992). This is an important distinction from endorsement of feminist attitudes. Past research has demonstrated that the majority of women endorsed feminist attitudes and ideology but were reluctant to actually self-identify as a feminist (Alexander & Ryan, 1997; Burn et al., 2000; Williams & Wittig, 1997).
As holding a feminist identity may provide protection against negative body image and responses to experiences of sexism, it is important to examine why women are unwilling to self-identify as feminists (Liss & Erchull, 2010; Moradi & Subich, 2002; Murnen & Smolak, 2009). One reason that women are reluctant to self-identify as feminists is because of the stigma surrounding the label “feminist.” Even if women do not view feminism as a bad thing, women often assume that others may have negative views of feminists (Roy et al., 2007). The original authors aimed to determine whether exposure to negative stereotypes about feminists inhibited feminist self-identification in women and found evidence that exposure to stereotypes about feminists had an effect on individuals’ feminist self-identification. Additionally, women exposed to negative stereotypes about feminists were less likely to self- identify as feminists than those in the positive feminist portrayal or control conditions; individuals exposed to positive stereotypes about feminists were conversely more likely to self-identify as feminists. We were also interested in examining the relationships between feminist stereotypes and internalized weight stigma, body shame, and anti-fat attitudes, as well as the relationships between feminist self-identification and internalized weight stigma, body shame, and anti-fat attitudes.
We conducted this study as a conceptual replication of Roy et al.’s experimental manipulation and have expanded this work by examining the effect of the manipulation and feminist self-identification on a collection of body image measures that have not been previously tested in relation to feminist social identity. Finally, we examine the role of several personality and social support variables in women’s feminist self-identification and body image.
iii FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA
Acknowledgments
I would like to extend my sincerest and deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Rachel Calogero – you have stuck by me, supported me, and pushed me to be the best version of myself, despite the many hurdles I have encountered during this degree. Thank you to my lab, especially Jaclyn Siegel, Katarina Huelleman, Dr. Angela Meadows, Carolina Patryluk, and Connor Elbe, for constantly encouraging me, acting as a sounding board for my many ideas/issues, and reminding me to be kind to myself. To my undergraduate research assistants, Carly Goodman, Marley Waltman, and Silvia (Min Ji) Chong, and my thesis committee, Dr. Paul Tremblay and Dr. Vicki Esses: I would never have been able to accomplish this without you. I appreciate the vast amount of help you have all given me to allow me to get to this point. And finally, I would like to thank my loving friends and family. Heather, thank you for being my best friend and a constant source of love and support. You are my ray of sunshine. Brittany, you are the best older sister I could ever ask for. I can never express how much you mean to me and how much you have helped (and continue to help) me. Thank you for teaching me how to be confident in and love myself, fat included. To my dearest mother, Pauline: your strength and goofy optimism inspires me constantly.
iv FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA
Table of Contents
Abstract ...... ii
Summary for Lay Audience ...... iii
Acknowledgments...... iv
Table of Contents ...... v
List of Tables ...... vii
List of Figures ...... viii
List of Appendices ...... ix
Chapter 1 ...... 1
1 Introduction ...... 1
1.1 Social Identity and Body Image ...... 1
1.2 Feminist Social Identity and Body Image ...... 2
1.2.1 What is Feminist Identity? ...... 2
1.3 Independent Validation of the Experimental Procedure ...... 4
1.4 Linking Feminist Identity and Body Image ...... 4
1.5 Forms of Internalized Body Stigma ...... 7
1.6 The Current Study ...... 12
1.6.1 Aims and Hypotheses ...... 13
Chapter 2 ...... 15
2 Method ...... 15
2.1 Participants ...... 15
2.2 Materials ...... 15
2.2.1 Pre-Test Measures ...... 15
2.2.2 Experimental Manipulation ...... 20
2.2.3 Dependent Variable Measures ...... 21
v FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA
2.2.4 Integrity Checks ...... 23
2.3 Procedure ...... 24
2.4 Analytic Strategy ...... 26
Chapter 3 ...... 28
3 Results ...... 28
3.1 Preliminary Analyses ...... 28
3.2 Hypotheses 1a and 1b ...... 30
3.3 Hypothesis 2...... 33
3.4 Hypothesis 3...... 34
3.5 Exploratory Analyses ...... 34
Chapter 4 ...... 36
4 Discussion ...... 36
4.1 Activating Feminist Self-Identification ...... 36
4.2 Internalized Appearance Pressures and Stigma ...... 39
4.3 Exploratory Findings ...... 41
4.4 Limitations and Future Directions ...... 43
4.5 Conclusions ...... 44
References ...... 45
Appendices ...... 57
Curriculum Vitae ...... 111
vi FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA
List of Tables
Table 1: Demographic Characteristics of the Study Sample ...... 16
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics of Feminist Identity and Body Image Variables by Condition ...... 31
Table 3: Descriptive Statistics of Personality, Social Loneliness, and Teasing Variables by Condition...... 32
Table G 1: Correlations Between Feminist Identity and Body Image Variables ...... 82
Table G 2: Correlations Between Feminist Identity and Personality Variables ...... 83
Table G 3: Correlations Between Feminist Identity, Social Loneliness, and Teasing Variables ...... 84
Table H 1: Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Body Shame ...... 85
Table H 2: Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Internalized Weight Stigma – Distress Subscale ...... 90
Table H 3: Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Internalized Weight Stigma – Self-Devaluation Subscale ...... 95
Table H 4: Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Anti-Fat Attitudes ...... 100
Table H 5: Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Broad Conceptualizations of Beauty ...... 105
vii FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA
List of Figures
Figure 1. Hypothesized mediation model of the effects of feminist portrayal condition on each of the main dependent variables through feminist self-identification...... 14
viii FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Letter of Information and Consent ...... 57
Appendix B: Pre-Test Measures ...... 61
Appendix C: Researcher Scripts ...... 68
Appendix D: In-Lab Study Package (Paper and Pen Format) ...... 70
Appendix E: In-Lab Qualtrics Survey Items ...... 75
Appendix F: Debriefing Document ...... 80
Appendix G: Zero-Order Correlations ...... 82
Appendix H: Exploratory Analyses ...... 85
ix FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 1
Chapter 1 1 Introduction 1.1 Social Identity and Body Image
In the forty years since its proposal, social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) has generated a substantial research base and explored a wide range of the potential implications of group membership. In the context of social identity theory, groups are defined as “…a collection of individuals who perceive themselves to be members of the same social category, share some emotional involvement in this common definition of themselves, and achieve some degree of social consensus about the evaluation of their group and of their membership of it” (p. 40). These social identities act as ‘cognitive tools’ that allow individuals to make sense of their social environment and themselves by demarcating an individual’s place in the social world. In the present thesis, the role that social identity plays in the context of body image will be examined.
In a systematic review of the effects of social identity on body image conducted by Tiggemann (2015), significant differences in positive body image were found based on identities involving race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, and even dance. For example, Tiggemann found that in a sample of Australian women, older women showcased greater levels of body appreciation than younger women (Tiggemann & McCourt, 2013). It appears as if older women are able to accept and appreciate their bodies more easily than younger women (Tylka, 2011). The author also found that in general, individuals who identify with African or Hispanic culture experience greater positive body image (Williams et al., 2004; Wood-Barcalow et al., 2010). This is likely due to these women having a wider view of what may be considered physically beautiful, or a broader conceptualization of beauty, than what is presented in mainstream Euro-American culture (Swami et al., 2009). Finally, in Langdon and Petracca’s (2010) study of modern dancers and Tiggemann and colleagues’ (2014) study of belly dancers, it was found that dancers (of both disciplines) experienced higher body appreciation and lower self-objectification than those who were not dancers. Collectively, these findings suggest that social identity
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 2 may be an influential factor for how people view their bodies and the beliefs that they endorse about their bodies.
1.2 Feminist Social Identity and Body Image 1.2.1 What is Feminist Identity? Feminism is one such social identity that has been given limited attention but may be particularly relevant in the context of body image. Merriam-Webster defines feminism as “the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes” (Merriam- Webster, 2017). Across the various waves and streams of feminism, some common aims include striving for gender equality, gender equity, and lifting the social barriers to women’s productivity and mobility that subordinate women (Zucker, 2004). Feminists challenge and reject a variety of traditional gender roles and stereotypes that affect women’s lived experiences, including the narrow feminine beauty ideals and appearance pressures that affect women’s body image (Tylka & Wood-Barcalow, 2015). Feminism provides a lens for women to critique and reject rigid gendered beauty norms that would have them believe that any body that does not meet these arbitrary feminine beauty standards is in some way defective (Valenti, 2007).
One common method for assessing the degree to which one identifies as a feminist is feminist self-identification, which refers to people’s willingness to label themselves as a feminist (Zucker, 2004). Research has shown that people’s willingness to label their selves as feminist is partly shaped by endorsement of negative stereotypes about feminists (Buschman & Lenart, 1996; Moi, 2006). Historically, ‘feminist’ and ‘feminism’ has been somewhat of a dirty word – a stigmatized identity that was often derided and devalued (Conlin & Heesacker, 2016; Buschman & Lenart, 1996). Feminists continue to be associated with terms such as ‘bra-burner’, ‘assertive’, ‘politically liberal’, ‘hysterical’, and ‘unpleasant’ (Gundersen & Kunst, 2019; Leaper & Arias, 2011; Robnett et al., 2012; Twenge & Zucker, 1999; Dahl Crossley, 2015). However, evidence for the ways in which these stereotypes operate has been mixed. For example, Twenge and Zucker (1999) found that in a sample of undergraduate students, most evaluations of hypothetical feminists were largely neutral to slightly positive but still regarded less
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 3 positively than the ‘typical’ woman. However, most students still did not identify as feminists; Twenge and Zucker (1999) posited that this is perhaps due to participants’ misperception that others endorsed more negative stereotypes about feminists than they actually do. Thus, many women may endorse the gender egalitarian views of feminism, but do not actually accept the feminist label. This is commonly referred to as the “I’m not a feminist, but…” phenomenon (Dahl Crossley, 2015; Zucker, 2004). For example, in Zucker’s 2004 study with 272 college women, it was found that women who endorse egalitarian views associated with feminism but who do not actually identify as feminist, demonstrate lower levels of feminist consciousness than feminists and are less likely to engage in collective action. This reluctance to self-identify as a feminist also has implications for the possible benefits that feminist identity may provide women (Murnen & Smolak, 2009).
Roy and colleagues (2007) conducted a study that explored whether negative stereotypes about feminists serve as a barrier to self-identifying as a feminist. The authors used a cover story that described the experiment as a pilot study wherein participants would rate the quality of a paragraph written by a peer that would be used in a future study. Participants were assigned to read a paragraph in one of three conditions: a paragraph that contained a positive portrayal of feminists (contained adjectives such as strong, intelligent, confident, etc.), a paragraph that contained a negative portrayal of feminists (used adjectives such as overbearing, angry, anti-male, etc.), or a control paragraph on a topic unrelated to feminists (genetically engineered foods). The results demonstrated that women who were exposed to positive stereotypes about feminists were twice as likely to self-identify as feminists than women in the negative condition or the control condition. Additionally, women who read the paragraph containing positive feminist stereotypes expressed more nontraditional gender-role attitudes when compared with individuals in the control condition. The results of this experimental manipulation suggest that women may be reluctant to self-identify as feminists not because of their own views of feminists, but because they anticipate being negatively stereotyped if they do so. It also suggests that a positive portrayal of feminism may be able to effectively counter these subtle (and not-so-subtle) negative messages about feminism and feminists.
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 4
1.3 Independent Validation of the Experimental Procedure
Within the past few years, there have been two partial replications (to the best of the researcher’s knowledge) that have been independent validations of Roy, Weibust, and Miller’s (2007) experimental procedure. One such study was conducted by Wiley and colleagues (2013), in which the authors explored whether positive portrayals of feminist men could increase men’s feelings of solidarity with feminists. Additionally, they examined whether these feelings of solidarity influenced men’s intentions to take part in collective action in support of women. In a sample of 102 men recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (mostly White, ages 18 – 63 years old), those who were assigned to the positive condition showcased more solidarity with feminists and greater intentions to participate in collective action in support of women. Wiley and colleagues also found that the relationship between positive portrayals of feminist men and intent to engage in collective action was mediated by solidarity with feminists. These results were consistent with the research conducted with women (Wiley et al., 2013). More recently, a second validation of Roy, Weibust, and Miller’s (2007) experimental methodology was conducted by Moore and Stathi (2019), who found that although sexual minority women scored significantly higher on feminist self-identification, feminist attitudes, and collective action intentions than heterosexual women, exposure to positive stereotypes of feminists increased feminist self-identification regardless of sexual identity. Additionally, exposure to negative stereotypes about feminists reduced feminist self-identification, and lower identification mediated the relationship between negative stereotyping and collective action intentions. Taken together, the results of these two studies provide empirical support for the effectiveness of Roy and colleagues’ experimental manipulation (Roy et al., 2007).
1.4 Linking Feminist Identity and Body Image
Research has also examined the effect of feminist self-identification on various aspects of body image. A feminist identity may allow women to view their bodies as something to be celebrated and appreciated no matter its shape, size, or ability, and it is
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 5 likely that a feminist identity may protect against negative body image1. Peterson and colleagues (2006) found that exposing women to a feminist theory intervention increased feminist self-identification and greater appearance satisfaction, and changes in feminist identity were related to positive changes in body image. This study examined if exposure to a feminist perspective through listening to a 15-minute audiotape (describing definitions of feminism and feminist theories, feminist perspectives on body image and eating disturbances, and corresponding research findings) and viewing a visual packet containing complementary images (i.e., pictures of the women’s movement and feminist works of art) may provide alternative interpretations of cultural messages, thereby increasing body image satisfaction. The findings indicate that exposure to feminist theories may serve as an effective intervention strategy. In a meta-analysis conducted by Murnen and Smolak (2009), 26 studies examining the links between feminism and a variety of body image variables were analyzed to determine overall effect sizes. Out of the variables included (e.g., satisfaction with body parts, weight dissatisfaction, body shame, ‘drive for thinness’, and internalization of the thin ideal), body shame and internalization of the thin ideal were found to have the strongest relationship to feminist identity (though these effects were still small).
However, research examining feminism as a protective factor against negative body image has produced mixed findings (e.g., Cash et al., 1997; Tiggemann & Stevens, 1999). Rubin and colleague’s (2004) qualitative study of 25 young feminist women may potentially speak to this issue. The authors found that “although feminism provided an alternative way to understand cultural messages and reframe negative thoughts, this understanding did not necessarily affect aesthetic reactions. Participants experienced conflict between their feminist beliefs and their feelings about beauty ideals and their own appearance.” (p. 27). Although, given the aims of feminism, one might expect holding a feminist identity to act as a protective factor against negative body image, we nevertheless live in a world saturated by fat hatred and weight stigma. Feminism may not
1 It is important to note that the beauty standards and feminist ideologies being discussed are largely Western views of beauty and feminism.
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 6 be a robust mitigating factor against negative body image because of these culturally entrenched anti-fat attitudes in combination with undue pressure on women, and the infusion of postfeminist ideology, which praises women for appearance management as an indicator of self-improvement and agency (Tiggemann, 2015; Dahl Crossley, 2015).
Despite the numerous studies examining the link between feminism and various body image variables, surprisingly little work within psychology has been done specifically exploring the link between feminist identity and weight stigma variables (such as stigmatizing attitudes towards higher-weight others or internalized weight stigma). This is especially interesting as feminism has been widely explored in relation to other body image concerns and internalized weight stigma has garnered increasing attention over the years. Additionally, internalized weight stigma is closely tied conceptually to a number of different aspects of negative body image (e.g., body shame, anti-fat attitudes) that have been investigated in relation to feminism2. For example, body shame is a variable whose relationship with feminist identity has been examined numerous times and is closely related to internalized weight stigma as it is believed to result from the internalization of the thin ideal (e.g., Haines et al., 2008; Hurt et al., 2007; Rockwern & Murnen, 2008).
Further work in this area examined the relationship between feminism and various aspects of negative body image and found that there was a significant negative relationship between feminist identity and body shame (Hurt et al., 2007). Additionally, Leggatt’s (2004) study found that body shame mediated the relationship between feminist activism and disordered eating symptomology. In Ojerholm and Rothblum’s (1999) study of body image, feminism, and sexual orientation among a sample of 409 undergraduate women, participants completed a number of questionnaires that assessed their own attitudes on a number of different topics, such as body image, anti-fat attitudes, and feminist self-identification. The results showed that a small-to-moderate negative
2 Internalized weight stigma and body image are related in societies where fat phobia is rampant and women’s bodies are objectified. However, this relationship may not hold true in other cultural contexts.
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 7 relationship between feminist identity and anti-fat attitudes existed. This study provides evidence to suggest that women holding a feminist identity are less likely to stigmatize others based upon their weight.
However, research into the relationship between feminist self-identification or endorsement of feminist ideology, and aspects of body image has produced conflicting findings. For example, Grippo and Hill (2008) found that endorsement of feminist ideology was not significantly related to self-objectification, habitual body monitoring, or body dissatisfaction. Additionally, Cash et al. (1997) did not find support for the hypothesized relationship between feminist identity development or endorsement of egalitarian ideology, and lower levels of internalized appearance-based self-evaluation criteria and more positive body-image evaluations. Instead, the authors found that women who did not endorse beliefs of the “importance of women’s attractiveness to men” reported higher levels of body satisfaction. Thus, while some research has been conducted on the relationship between feminism and aspects of weight-related attitudes, it is limited – especially in terms of experimental work – and findings have been mixed.
1.5 Forms of Internalized Body Stigma
Of particular interest in the present thesis is the association between feminist identity and components of body image that represent internalized body stigma. I focus on three specific components in this thesis: internalized weight stigma, body shame, and stigmatizing others based on their weight.
Internalized forms of body stigma occur within cultural contexts saturated with weight stigma (Calogero et al., 2019). Weight stigma refers to the endorsement of negative attitudes, stereotypes, and beliefs about fat people, as well as the discrimination, marginalization, and devaluation of individuals of higher weight status (Mensinger et al., 2016; Puhl & King, 2013). Weight stigma is woven into every aspect of life, including educational settings, the workplace, the media, public health initiatives, health care settings, exercise and leisure settings, features of the built environment, and all sorts of interpersonal and social interactions (see Puhl & King, 2013, for review). These experiences include weight-related commentary and criticisms, bullying, harassment,
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 8 violence, hostility, ostracism, exclusion, and weight-related microaggressions. Ultimately, these experiences of weight stigma contribute to internalized forms of body stigma. As early as preschool, children demonstrate anti-fat attitudes (Harriger et al., 2010); people in larger bodies are negatively stereotyped and viewed unfavourably (Pont et al., 2017). For example, it was found that 28% of teachers and 24% of nurses endorsed various anti-fat attitudes such as “becoming obese is the worst thing that can happen to a person” and “they are ‘repulsed’ by obese persons” (Bagley et al., 1989; Neumark- Sztainer et al., 1999, Puhl & Brownell, 2001).
Importantly, people across the weight spectrum are influenced by weight stigmatizing attitudes and treatment through the societal idealization of thinness and weight loss, and the under-representation of diverse body types/sizes in mainstream media. Weight stigma has been described as the final ‘acceptable’ form of discrimination, as those who direct fat phobic attitudes/behaviours at individuals who are fat are less likely to be socially spurned for doing so (compared with other types of discrimination such as racism or sexism; Puhl & Brownell, 2001; Calogero et al., 2016). However, it is well known that stigma of any kind is associated with a variety of adverse health outcomes and social implications (Frost, 2011). For instance, chronic experiences of stigma result in a build-up of stress that may be comparable to the stress experienced during a stigma-related event in an individual’s life. These experiences of stigma negatively impact a variety of aspects of mental health (Pascoe & Smart Richman, 2009).
Moreover, Hunger and Major (2015) found that the often-observed negative relationship between BMI and poor self-reported health was reduced to non-significance when perceived discrimination and concerns about future stigma were included as mediators in a serial mediation model. This study demonstrated the importance of weight stigma, rather than body size and weight, per se, in driving some of the negative health consequences associated with being in a larger-sized body. As weight stigma is also a highly gendered phenomenon (Calogero et al., 2016), women are more often the targets of weight stigma and report internalized body stigma, and therefore more likely to report these negative health consequences (Saguy, 2012). Thus, there is evidence to support a
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 9 focus on potential protective factors against internalized forms of body stigma in order to support women’s mental and physical well-being.
Internalized weight stigma. One form of internalized body stigma is internalized weight stigma. Internalized weight stigma is the personal acceptance and endorsement of negative attitudes and beliefs about weight, reinforced by engaging in negative self- evaluations related to weight (Mensinger et al., 2016). Research has demonstrated that individuals high in internalized weight stigma demonstrate negative psychological effects such as anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, body shame, weight dissatisfaction, and increased disordered eating symptomology (Puhl & Heuer, 2010; Burley, 2013). Boswell and White (2015) discovered that internalized weight stigma was related to psychological distress, specifically higher levels of body image disturbance and depression, as well as greater reported disordered eating symptomology in adults described as overweight. Additionally, Durso and colleagues (2012) demonstrated that internalized weight stigma was found to partially mediate the relationship between experiences of discrimination and both emotional and binge eating in a sample of individuals described as overweight or obese.
It is also important to consider the implications that internalized weight stigma may have on an individual’s physical health. Behavioural changes related to experienced and internalized weight stigma have a multitude of physical repercussions that include, but are not limited to, increased disordered eating symptomology and decreased motivation to participate in health-related behaviours (e.g., physical exercise; O’Brien et al., 2016; Vartanian et al., 2018). For example, in an online study conducted by Douglas and Varnado-Sullivan (2016), it was found that weight bias internalization was a significant predictor of disordered eating above and beyond weight stigmatization and emotion dysregulation in a hierarchical regression model of a sample of 104 college students (ages 18 and older). Additionally, it is worth noting the differences between internalized weight stigma and the concept of internalization of the thin-ideal. Thin-ideal internalization is degree to which an individual “buying into” the unrealistic beauty standards set for women by the media, family, peers, and romantic partners, and the resulting behaviours used to personally achieve these ideals. Essentially, thin-ideal
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 10 internalization is socially driven by a need for acceptance, resulting in a narrow conceptualization of beauty and behaviours geared toward striving for thinness and reaching societal standards (Thompson & Stice, 2001). Internalized weight stigma centres more on the internalization of negative weight-based stereotypes and captures the self- disgust/loathing that an individual high in internalized weight stigma may feel towards their body, simply because of their size or weight.
As the research clearly demonstrates, internalized weight stigma is associated with a variety of negative psychological and physical health outcomes. So, what might protect against internalized weight stigma? Various factors that are linked to lower levels of internalized weight stigma have been identified, such as self-compassion, social support, and not engaging in appearance-based social comparisons (Hilbert et al., 2015; Ward, 2014). However, there is still relatively little work that has been done examining the ways in which internalized weight stigma may be reduced.
Body shame. Body shame is yet another negative downstream consequence of experienced weight stigma. It may be described as shame resulting from internalization of the thin ideal, and comparisons made between the individual’s actual body and this ideal. Body shame elicits feelings of wanting to disappear, feeling like a failure for not living up to this ideal, as well as feelings of worthlessness (Fredrickson et al., 1998).
It is common within the literature to find unidimensional models/assessments of body shame that are solely focused on the self-consciousness aspect of body shame. However, the phenomenology of body shame also includes emotional, motivational, and behavioural components of experiencing shame (Duarte et al., 2015; Fredrickson et al., 1998). For example, Fredrickson and colleagues describe the emotional aspect as being the shame resulting from internalizing the viewpoint that not meeting beauty standards is a moral failure of the self, and that the motivational and behavioural aspects are typified as the resulting desire to alter the aspects of the self that are deemed a failure/unworthy and feelings of wanting to hide, become smaller, etc. (Fredrickson et al., 1998). There have also been a number of studies conducted that have examined the potential effects of body shame on a variety of different health outcomes. For example, Lamont’s 2015 study
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 11 found that in a study of 177 undergraduate women, trait body shame predicted increased numbers of infections and poorer self-reported health. Additionally, body shame has been linked to a number of poor psychological health outcomes such as depression and eating disorders (Lamont, 2015). It is also important to distinguish that body shame and internalized weight stigma are indeed different constructs. Internalized weight stigma encompasses stigma internalized from the wide variety of sources mentioned earlier, whereas body shame is a variable that focuses on the individual’s internalization of the thin ideal, and the self-consciousness and shame that arises when you do not meet this ideal.
Stigmatizing others. Stigmatizing others based on their weight is another aspect of weight stigma. It is often associated with anti-fat attitudes, but the negative effects of weight bias may be felt by people anywhere on the weight spectrum. People who are classified as overweight are frequently negatively stereotyped as lazy, unmotivated, uninhibited, and ugly (Tomiyama, 2014). These biased perceptions have real-life consequences. For example, in their review Puhl and King (2013) describe the various consequences of experienced weight stigma, such as emotional strain, poor academic performance, avoidance of healthcare, and more. Additionally, Fikkan and Rothblum’s (2012) review identified areas such as employment, education, romantic relationships, health care, mental health care, and media portrayals of fat people, that are negatively influenced by the anti-fat attitudes held in Western society. For instance, fat women were found to have less opportunities in employment and education and experience more discrimination in these contexts. These negative perceptions work to further the disparities in how fat people are treated versus ‘normal’ weight individuals. In fact, these negative perceptions are so deeply entrenched that in Friedman and colleagues’ study (2005), the authors detail that individuals of higher weight status demonstrate prejudice against fat people as much as those living in smaller bodies. This stigmatization of others based on their weight feeds into the internalization of weight stigma, continuing the vicious cycle of weight stigmatization.
The importance of mitigating weight stigma is underscored by the very real outcomes that have been associated with both experiences and internalization of weight
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 12 stigma. Whether directly or indirectly (through internalized weight stigma), research has demonstrated that experienced weight stigma is related to negative consequences across multiple facets of life; for example, studies have shown weight stigma to be related to poorer mental health, disordered eating symptomology, avoidance of healthcare, and disparities in education and employment opportunities (Puhl & Heuer, 2010; Burley, 2013; Puhl et al., 2015; Incollingo Rodriguez et al., 2019; Hill et al., 2019). Additionally, it is important to keep in mind that the effects of weight stigma can be felt by individuals across the weight spectrum – with such a wide reach and variety of negative downstream consequences, it is clear to see why weight stigma is such a pervasive, corrosive phenomenon.
With the prevalence of weight-stigmatizing messages that individuals are barraged with on a daily basis, and the well-established connection between various aspects of weight stigma and a multitude of negative downstream consequences, it is clear that factors that may be related to less internalized body stigma must be explored. Although there has been some work done in this area (e.g., linking lower levels of internalized weight stigma to self-compassion, social support, etc., and the exploration of the relationship between body shame and feminist identity), a dearth of psychological research still exists (Hilbert et al., 2015; Ward, 2014). One factor that has yet to be examined and may potentially be related to lower levels of internalized body stigma, is having a feminist social identity.
1.6 The Current Study
Although there are numerous studies dedicated to investigating the different effects of weight stigma, much of this research takes an anti-fat, and weight biased approach (Calogero et al., 2016). Still, various factors that may potentially protect against internalizing weight stigma have been identified (e.g., self-compassion, social support, etc.). There have also been several studies conducted that speak to the potentially protective effects of feminist self-identification on various aspects of body dissatisfaction (Murnen & Smolak, 2009). However, to the best of my knowledge, no work has been done specifically exploring the link between feminist self-identification and internalized weight stigma within the field of psychology.
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 13
One aspect of feminism as a social identity is that it allows women to view their bodies not simply as objects whose worth is dependent on how closely it resembles what society tells us is beautiful, but as something to be celebrated and appreciated no matter what. Changing women’s perception of beauty and reframing experiences of weight stigma as a cultural problem instead of a personal problem may allow feminist women to see their own beauty, as well as others’, and ultimately, lower the endorsement of these prejudiced thoughts (about the self and about others). This study looks to explore whether feminist self-identification may extend its positive effects to perceptions of fat people more broadly, or, if it is limited to perceptions of the self (vs. perceptions of others).
1.6.1 Aims and Hypotheses
The current study has three primary aims and hypotheses. These hypotheses draw from the previous findings linking feminist identity and aspects of body image and the final prediction was based on the theorized mediation model of the relationship between feminist portrayal condition and body image outcomes through feminist self- identification (see Figure 1). First, the replication goals of this study were to conduct an independent partial replication and extension of Roy, Weibust and Miller’s (2007) study, with an emphasis on testing the boundary conditions of this manipulation. As such, the hypothesis for the replication aims is as follows: compared to the neutral control and negative feminist portrayal conditions, participants in the positive feminist portrayal condition will report greater feminist self-identification (Hypothesis 1a); feminist attitudes are not expected to vary as a function of feminist portrayal condition (Hypothesis 1b).
Second, the experimental goals of this study were to advance the literature by examining what factors may be related to less internalized body stigma (both self- directed and other-directed) – specifically, feminist self-identification and broader conceptualizations of beauty. It was hypothesized that compared to the neutral control and negative feminist portrayal condition, participants in the positive portrayal condition will report less internalized weight stigma, body shame, and anti-fat attitudes, as well as broader conceptualizations of beauty (Hypothesis 2). Additionally, it was hypothesized
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 14 that feminist portrayal condition will have an indirect effect on the body image variables of interest through feminist self-identification as the mediator (Hypothesis 3).
Finally, the aims of the pre-test were mainly driven by our skepticism of this manipulation and largely exploratory; after committee discussion, two questions arose. Firstly, if the experimental manipulation does work, for whom does it work? And secondly, what aspects of personality are associated with shifts in feminist self- identification?
Figure 1. Hypothesized mediation model of the effects of feminist portrayal condition on each of the main dependent variables through feminist self-identification.
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 15
Chapter 2 2 Method
Prior to conducting this partial replication, the study was pre-registered on the Open Science Framework (OSF; https://osf.io/athgm).
2.1 Participants
The study was approved by the Western University Research Ethics Board for Non-Medical Research Involving Human Subjects (#114182; see Appendix I). Participants were women-identified undergraduate students at Western University recruited through the SONA subject pool who completed the study in exchange for course credit. A power analysis conducted a priori with G*Power (Faul et al., 2009) determined that 110 participants were needed to achieve 80% power and detect a small effect size of f2 = .123 – the overall effect size of the relationship between feminist identity and body attitudes found in Murnen and Smolak’s 2009 meta-analysis – based on five predictor variables in a multiple regression model at α = .05. A total of 151 participants completed the study; after data cleaning and screening, the final sample included 149 participants. Participants ranged from 17 to 34 years old (Mage = 18.36,
SDage = 2.05) and primarily identified as White (41.3%) and heterosexual (90.7%; see Table 1 for additional demographic information). Out of the 112 individuals that responded to the question “Do you consider yourself a feminist?”, 95 of them responded ‘Yes’ (63.8%), 17 responded ‘No,’ and 37 did not respond. Finally, 27 participants (18.1%) reported never having experienced teasing about their weight and 56 individuals (37.6%) experienced weight-based teasing several times per year or more.
2.2 Materials 2.2.1 Pre-Test Measures
Feminist self-identification. To measure the degree to which an individual identified themselves as a feminist prior to the experimental manipulation, participants completed the 4-item Self-Identification as a Feminist scale (SIF; Szymanski, 2004; see Appendix B). Items on this scale were rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 16
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and include items such as “I identify myself as a feminist to other people” and “I support the goals of the feminist movement.” Higher scores on the SIF indicate stronger feminist self-identification. Original psychometrics of internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = .93) and convergent validity (e.g., correlations between the SIF and attitudes toward feminism, r = .75; Involvement in Feminist Activities Scale, r = .76; Woman of Color feminism, r = .49; etc., all significant at p < .01) reported by Szymanski (2004) support the reliability and validity of the measure. Cronbach’s alpha for the pre-test administration of the SIF was .90 in the current study.
Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of the Study Sample Characteristic N %
Sexual Orientation
Asexual 4 2.7
Bisexual 3 2.0
Heterosexual 135 90.6
Homosexual 3 2.0
Questioning 4 2.7
Political Views
Very liberal 5 3.4
Liberal 60 40
Middle of the road 68 45.3
Conservative 13 8.7 Fill in your own: "Don't know", "NDP", "I do not 3 2.0 know much" Relationship Status In a committed 29 19.3 relationship In a casual relationship 10 6.7 Single and actively 51 34.7 looking for a partner
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 17
Demographic Characteristics of the Study Sample Characteristic N % Single and not interested 59 39.3 in dating Ethnic Identity
Arab 1 0.7
Black 7 4.7
Chinese 31 20.7
Indigenous 3 0.02
Korean 1 0.7
Latin American 2 1.3
South Asian 28 18.7
Southeast Asian 5 3.3
West Asian 4 2.7
White 62 41.3
Mixed Race/Biracial 7 4.7
Note. N = 149
Experienced weight stigma. Participants’ experiences of weight stigma were assessed with one item in a measure designed for this study to evaluate multiple forms of teasing (e.g., gender-based, personality-based, etc.; see Appendix B for full measure). The item asked participants to “please indicate the frequency you have experienced teasing about your weight” and was measured on a 10-point Likert scale, with response options ranging from 1 (never) to 10 (daily). A higher score on this item indicates more frequent experiences of weight-based teasing. This item was embedded among four filler items to distract from the singular focus on weight stigma.
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 18
2.2.1.1 Exploratory Variables
Social dominance. To measure participants’ support for group-based hierarchies and dominance over other groups, the 8-item Social Dominance Orientation – Version 7
Short Form (SDO – SF7; Ho et al., 2015) was administered.
This scale assesses four dimensions of social dominance: pro-trait dominance (e.g., “An ideal society requires some groups to be on top and others to be on the bottom”), con-trait dominance (e.g., “No one group should dominate in society”), pro- trait anti-egalitarianism (e.g., “Group equality should not be our primary goal”), and con- trait anti-egalitarianism (e.g., “We should work to give all groups an equal chance to succeed”). Using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly oppose) to 7 (strongly favour), higher scores on this measure indicate higher levels of social dominance. In their
2015 paper, Ho and colleagues reported reliabilities for the full SDO7-Short ranging from Cronbach’s α = .78 to .90. In the current study, Cronbach’s alpha for the entire scale was 0.78 (pro-trait dominance subscale: α = .68; con-trait dominance subscale: α = .53; pro- trait anti-egalitarianism subscale: α = .74; con-trait anti-egalitarianism subscale: α = .77).
Need for cognitive closure. Participants’ need for cognitive closure was assessed using the 15-item Need for Closure scale – Short Form (NFC – SF; Roets & Van Hiel, 2011), measured on a 7-point Likert scale with response options ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Higher scores indicate a higher need for cognitive closure. Individuals high in need for closure enjoy order, structure, and predictability; they are often uncomfortable with ambiguity and tend to be dogmatic in their beliefs/thinking. A sample item from this scale is “I feel uncomfortable when I don’t understand the reason why an event occurred in my life.” Reliability statistics originally reported by the authors demonstrated that the NFC – SF has adequate internal reliability (α = .87) and test-retest reliability (r = .79). Cronbach’s alpha was .86 in the current study.
Personality. To measure individual differences in personality, participants were asked to complete the 10-item Big Five Inventory – 10 (BFI – 10; Rammstedt & John, 2007). This questionnaire assesses the five facets of personality – extraversion,
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 19 agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience – and consists of five corresponding subscales. Each of the five subscales is comprised of two items, measured on a 7-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 = disagree strongly to 7 = agree strongly). Higher scores in each of the subscales indicates higher levels of the corresponding personality facet (e.g., agreeableness). A sample item from the extraversion subscale is “I see myself as someone who is outgoing, sociable”; Cronbach’s alpha for the extraversion subscale in the current study was .61. An example of an item from the agreeableness subscale is “I see myself as someone who is generally trusting”; Cronbach’s alpha for the agreeableness subscale was .37 for this study. A sample item from the conscientiousness subscale is “I see myself as someone who does a thorough job”; Cronbach’s alpha in this study was .48 for the conscientiousness subscale. An example of an item from the neuroticism subscale is “I see myself as someone who gets nervous easily”; Cronbach’s alpha was .55 for the neuroticism subscale in this study. Lastly, a sample item from the openness to experience subscale is “I see myself as someone who has an active imagination”; Cronbach’s alpha was .28 in this study for the openness to experience subscale. Part-whole correlations originally reported between the full BFI-44 and BFI-10 averaged out to .83, demonstrating that the shortened scale contained a good representation of the concepts measured by the BFI-44. Additionally, Rammstedt and John (2007) reported acceptable convergent validity value of .67 with the NEO-PI-R subscales, supporting the construct validity of the BFI-10 (Costa & McCrae, 1992).
Social support. To measure participants’ social support (or lack thereof), the 15- item Social and Emotional Loneliness Scale for Adults – Short Form (SELSA – S; DiTommaso et al., 2004) was utilized. The scale consists of three subscales: the social subscale (current Cronbach’s α = .14), the family subscale (current Cronbach’s α = .37), and the romantic subscale (current Cronbach’s α = .36).
A sample item from the social subscale is “I don’t have any friends who share my views, but I wish I did,” assessed on a scale from 1 (disagree strongly) to 7 (agree strongly). The Cronbach’s alpha originally reported for the social subscale was .90 (DiTommaso et al., 2004). A sample item from the family subscale is “I feel alone when I
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 20 am with my family,” assessed on a scale from 1 (disagree strongly) to 7 (agree strongly). The Cronbach’s alpha originally reported for the family subscale was .89. A sample item from the romantic subscale is “I wish I had a more satisfying romantic relationship,” assessed on a scale from 1 (disagree strongly) to 7 (agree strongly). The Cronbach’s alpha originally reported for the romantic subscale was .87. Higher scores indicate higher levels of social and emotional loneliness, and unmet needs for social/emotional connections.
2.2.2 Experimental Manipulation
Paragraph conditions. Participants were randomly assigned to a condition, using a random number generator, to read one of three paragraphs3. Participants read about positive stereotypes about feminism/feminists, negative stereotypes about feminism/feminists, or a control paragraph about airline travel. The content for the positive and negative stereotypes about feminists was taken from Roy, Weibust, and Miller (2007). Both paragraphs included information about the goals of the feminist movement and a description of a typical feminist woman. The topic for the control paragraph was the rise of affordable airlines that offer cheap flights to select locations (i.e., ultra-low-cost carriers; ULCCs). This topic was considered to be unrelated to feminist stereotypes and therefore suitable for the control condition. All three paragraphs were equivalent in length.
Manipulation check. Participants who read one of the two paragraphs about feminists completed a single manipulation check item after reading the paragraph to confirm that participants were paying attention to the content of the paragraph. The single item used in the positive feminist portrayal condition was “To what extent did the paragraph you read portray feminists in a positive manner?” and was measured on a 7- point Likert scale, ranging from 0 (not at all positive) to 6 (very positive; Roy et al.,
3 All study packages had the same cover page so as to blind the research assistants to what the conditions were.
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 21
2007). The single item used in the negative feminist portrayal condition was “To what extent did the paragraph you read portray feminists in a negative manner?” and was measured on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 (not at all negative) to 6 (very negative; Roy et al., 2007). A higher score on the manipulation check item indicates that the participant understood that they read a paragraph that portrayed feminists in either a positive or negative manner.
2.2.3 Dependent Variable Measures
Paragraph quality. In line with the cover story, participants were asked to complete a 10-item measure assessing the quality of the paragraph they were assigned to read (Roy et al., 2007). These items were taken from the original study and contained items such as, “The paragraph was clear and well-written” (measured on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree).
Feminist self-identification. To measure the degree to which an individual identified themselves as a feminist after reading the assigned paragraph, participants again completed the 4-item Self-Identification as a Feminist scale (SIF; Szymanski, 2004) described above under the pre-test measures. Cronbach’s alpha for the post-test administration of the SIF was .82 in this study.
Endorsement of feminist ideology. To measure the degree to which an individual agrees with key aspects of feminist ideology, participants were asked to complete the 10- item short form of the Liberal Feminist Attitude and Ideology Scale (LFAIS – SF; Morgan, 1996). A sample item from this questionnaire is “Women have been treated unfairly on the basis of their gender throughout most of human history” and is measured on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Higher scores indicate higher levels of feminist attitudes and greater endorsement of feminist ideology. Cronbach’s alpha for the LFAIS – SF in this study was .69.
Internalized weight stigma. Participants’ level of internalized weight stigma was measured using the 13-item Weight Bias Internalization Scale – 2F (WBIS – 2F; Meadows & Higgs, 2019). For the purpose of this study, the items were modified to
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 22 apply to individuals across the weight spectrum and not only higher-weight individuals; for example, the item “Whenever I think a lot about being overweight, I feel depressed” was altered to read “Whenever I think a lot about my weight, I feel depressed.” The WBIS – 2F items are divided into the subscales of weight-related distress and weight- related self-devaluation and are measured on a 7-point Likert scale; response options range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), with higher scores indicating higher levels of internalized weight stigma. A sample item from the distress subscale is “My weight is a major way that I judge my value as a person,” and a sample item from the self-devaluation subscale is “If other people do not treat me with respect, I should put up with it because of my weight.” Cronbach’s alpha originally reported for the two subscales was .91 and .76, respectively. In the current study, Cronbach’s alpha was .93 for the weight-related distress subscale and .53 for the weight-related self-devaluation subscale.
Body shame phenomenology. To measure body shame phenomenology that includes the motivational, emotional, and behavioural components of experiencing shame (not just body shame beliefs), nine items from the Body Shame Phenomenology scale (BSP; Fredrickson et al., 1998) were presented to participants. The decision to reduce the number of BSP items was made in an effort to reduce the cognitive load on and mental fatigue of participants and was confirmed after committee discussion. These nine items were selected based on their representation of the concept (i.e., motivational, emotional, and behavioural), as well as their factor loadings4; items were only retained if their factor loadings were above .70 (Warner, 2013). One of the items chosen was “I wish I could disappear,” measured on a Likert scale of 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely), with higher scores indicating higher levels of body shame. Cronbach’s alpha for the nine-item BSP scale was .92.
Conceptualizations of beauty. Participants’ conceptualization of beauty was assessed using the 9-item Broad Conceptualization of Beauty Scale (BCBS; Tylka &
4 CFA utilizing ML estimation was conducted on the BSP data from Siegel et al., 2020.
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 23
Iannantuono, 2016). A sample item from this measure is “I appreciate a wide range of different looks as beautiful,” assessed on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Higher scores indicate having a broader conceptualization of beauty. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .88 in the original 2016 study and .80 in the current study.
Anti-fat attitudes. To measure the degree to which individuals stigmatize others based on their weight, the 5-item Anti-Fat Attitudes scale (AFA; Morrison & O’Connor, 1999) was administered to participants. This measure was included to assess broader negative attitudes toward fat people, as it includes items such as “Fat people only have themselves to blame for their weight.” The AFA is scored on a 5-point Likert scale with values ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Higher scores indicate greater endorsement of anti-fat attitudes. In the original studies conducted by Morrison and O’Connor (1999), Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .70 to .80; the AFA had a Cronbach’s alpha of .67 in the current study.
2.2.4 Integrity Checks
Suspicion. To assess whether participants were suspicious of the true hypotheses of the study, the open-ended item “What do you think the purpose of this study was?” was included at the end of the survey. Suspicion was deemed to be too great if the participant guessed that the purpose of the experiment was: a) to determine if reading a paragraph on feminism influenced participants’ attitudes towards feminism/feminists; b) to explore the relationship between feminism and aspects of body image; and c) specifically, to determine if being exposed to positive portrayals of feminism/feminists was related to less negative/more positive body image or if being exposed to negative portrayals of feminism/feminists was related to more negative/less positive body image. Any participant whose answer to the suspicion item touched upon these three points was to be excluded from analyses.
Attention check. In an effort to determine the quality of the data obtained from participants, individuals were asked to respond to the question “Based upon how much you paid attention during this study, would you recommend that we use your data?” This
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 24 was a dichotomous item (i.e., yes/no) included at the end of the survey. Any participants that answered ‘no’ to this item were to be excluded from analyses.
2.3 Procedure
The methods used in this experiment are an adaptation and extension of the methods used by Roy, Weibust, and Miller (2007). A cover story was used to describe the study as a task in which participants would rate the quality of a paragraph (written by a fellow university student) that may be used in future research, as well as completing measures about self, identity, and body image. Interested participants clicked a link embedded in the SONA advertisement to complete the first portion of the study, “A Pilot Study on Body Image and Personality”; this title was consistent with our cover story. Eligible participants were redirected to a Qualtrics survey, where they first read the Letter of Information and indicated their consent to participate through ticking a box (see Appendix A). Participants then went on to complete a pre-screen item assessing gender identity. If the participant answered anything other than “Female” or “Transgender woman,” a message appeared informing them that they are not eligible to participate in the study and to return to the SONA website. Those who passed through the initial verification were then asked to input a unique study ID, along with their SONA ID code. Participants were then presented with the pre-test measures (see Appendix B) that included a standard demographics form, as well as the single item “Do you consider yourself a feminist?” (Roy et al., 2007), the Self-Identification as a Feminist scale (SIF; Szymanski, 2004), the single-item measure to assess experiences of weight stigma, the short form of the Social Dominance Orientation scale – Version 7 (SDO7s; Ho et al., 2015), the short form of the Need for Closure scale (NFC-15; Roets & Van Hiel, 2011), the short version of the Big Five Inventory (BFI-10; Rammstedt & John, 2007), and the short form of the Social and Emotional Loneliness Scale for Adults (SELSA-S; DiTammaso et al., 2004).
Participants were first presented with the demographics form to complete (which included the single items measuring experienced weight stigma and feminist self- identification, and the SIF items); the rest of the pre-test measures were presented in a
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 25 system-randomized order by Qualtrics. Finally, participants were redirected to the SONA website where they signed up for a time to complete the main, in-lab portion of the study using an invitation code provided to them at the end of the pre-test survey. Once participants signed up for a timeslot, a random number generator was used to assign participants to read one of three paragraphs. In the positive stereotypes condition, participants read a paragraph that included positive stereotypes about feminism/feminists. In the negative stereotypes condition, participants read a paragraph that included negative stereotypes about feminism/feminists. In the control condition, participants read a paragraph about the rise of affordable airlines that offer cheap flights to select locations (i.e., ultra-low-cost carriers; ULCCs). Participants were reminded via SONA about their timeslot for the second part of the study, along with instructions to wait in the foyer for the researcher to come and get them.
For the second part of the study, research assistants greeted participants, reminded them of the study’s purpose, and provided instructions as to how to complete the study (see Appendix C). Participants read their assigned paragraph and rated 10 different aspects of the paragraph (e.g., argument quality, writing style, etc.), as well as whether the paragraph should be used in future research projects on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) (Roy et al., 2007). If assigned to one of the experimental conditions, the participants also completed a manipulation check item asking participants to rate the extent to which the paragraph portrayed feminists in a positive or negative manner, as well as the open-ended question “What does feminism mean to you and how do you feel about feminism/feminists?” This first portion was completed in a pen and paper format, and participants were allowed approximately five minutes to complete it (see Appendix D). Once the participant finished the “paragraph evaluation” portion of the study, they notified the researcher, who collected the packet and set up the final portion of the study (a battery of body image measures hosted on Qualtrics).
Participants then went on to complete the post-experiment measures in the following order described: “Do you consider yourself a feminist?” (Roy et al., 2007), the Self-Identification as a Feminist scale (SIF; Szymanski, 2004), and the short form of the
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 26
Liberal Feminist Attitude and Ideology Scale (LFAIS-SF; Morgan, 1996). The following measures were then presented to participants in a counter-balanced order: the two-factor Weight Bias Internalization Scale (WBIS-2F; Meadows & Higgs, 2019); nine items from the Body Shame Phenomenology scale (BSP; Fredrickson et al., 1998); the Broad Conceptualizations of Beauty Scale (BCBS; Tylka & Iannantuono, 2016); and the Anti- Fat Attitudes Scale (AFAS; Morrison & O’Connor, 1999). Finally, suspicion about the study’s hypotheses was addressed by asking participants to generate explanations about the study’s purpose and an attention check asking participants to indicate whether their data should be used (based on how much they paid attention) by choosing yes or no (see Appendix E for the full list of measures). Upon completion of the study, participants were debriefed verbally by the researcher and given a paper copy of the debriefing to take with them (Appendix F). Participants were compensated for their time through earning SONA credits that counted toward course credit.
2.4 Analytic Strategy
Data was prepared for analysis by first screening the data based upon attention checks and suspicion towards the study hypotheses. Missing data and normality of distributions were also analyzed, using Little’s MCAR test and scrutiny of skewness, kurtosis, and range values. Additionally, the dataset was examined for the presence of multivariate outliers through calculation of Mahalanobis distance scores for all variables to be included in analyses. An independent samples t-test comparing the mean scores of the manipulation check item (“To what extent did the paragraph you read portray feminists in a positive/negative manner?”), across the positive and negative feminist portrayal conditions, was conducted to determine whether or not participants recognized that they read a positive or negative paragraph about feminists. To test the effect of condition on feminist self-identification, a one-way ANCOVA adjusting for pre-test levels of feminist self-identification was conducted. Additionally, a one-way ANOVA was conducted to test the effect of condition on endorsement of feminist ideology.
For the main analyses, a one-way MANCOVA was conducted to test the effect of feminist portrayal on internalized weight stigma, body shame, broad conceptualization of beauty, and anti-fat attitudes. Due to the number of ANCOVAs being performed,
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 27
Bonferroni adjusted alpha levels were applied in an effort to reduce the probability of a Type I error occurring. To determine the source of any significant differences found in the ANCOVAs run, the Games-Howell post-hoc analysis was conducted, as this method of multiple comparison has been found to be the most suitable choice when data may be non-normal or there are unequal sample sizes across study conditions (Sauder & DeMars, 2019). The intended mediation analyses to test the direct and indirect effects of feminist portrayal condition on each of the main dependent variables through feminist self- identification (see Figure 1) were to be conducted using the PROCESS macro for SPSS, but the data did not support this. Finally, I conducted exploratory analyses of the potential associations between perceived social support and personality variables (in addition to feminist self-identification and endorsement of feminist ideology) with the body image variables of interest (see Appendix H for a summary of these analyses).
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 28
Chapter 3
3 Results
3.1 Preliminary Analyses
Data analysis for this study was conducted using SPSS (version 26.0). Preliminary analyses began with screening the data based on gender and attention checks, as well as suspicion about the study’s hypotheses. In this process, only one individual was removed on this basis, as they came too close to guessing the true purpose of the study5; no participants failed the gender or attention check. Missing data was determined not to be an issue for this data set, as only 1.449% of the total data was missing and Little’s MCAR test determined the missing values to be missing completely at random, χ2(1052) = 613.16, p = 1.00. As such, analyses utilized listwise deletion to account for missing data.
Through analysis of skewness and kurtosis values, as well as box plots, it was determined that all study variables of interest were normally distributed (actual skewness and kurtosis values ranged from |.55| to |2.89| and |.05| to |2.65|, respectively) except for pre-test levels of feminist self-identification (actual skewness value was -5.04 and kurtosis value was 3.00) and broad conceptualization of beauty (actual skewness = -5.33, actual kurtosis = 3.42). It was also noted that values for post-test feminist self- identification, body shame, the weight-related self-devaluation subscale (a facet of internalized weight stigma), the egalitarian subscale (a facet of social dominance orientation), and the family and romantic social loneliness subscales had skewness values that were slightly greater than the ±3 cut-off (George & Mallery, 2010). However, this was largely due to outliers that were determined to not have undue influence on the
5 Participant 9452SPB said this about the study’s purpose: “The purpose of this study is to see if reading a positive article about feminism will have a positive effect on how we view ourselves. This is because the article mentions that feminists are confident and then the questionnaire asks if we ourselves are feminists, then asks a series of questions on how we view ourselves based on whether we are feminists or not.”
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 29 results of the analyses conducted6. In addition to examination of standardized residuals, Cook’s distance, and leverage scores, Mahalanobis distance scores were calculated to flag multivariate outliers. Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) recommend a conservative threshold value of p < .001 when using this method to identify statistical outliers. After examination based upon this criterion, one participant was excluded. As the majority of the analyses conducted for this study were ANCOVAs, the non-normally distributed variables were determined to not be an issue as only the residuals for body shame were found to be problematic. Therefore, the final sample size was 149 participants across three conditions (npositive condition = 47, nnegative condition = 49, ncontrol condition = 53).
To assess whether or not participants read and correctly interpreted the assigned paragraph (i.e., recognized that it described feminism/feminists in either a positive or negative manner), the mean scores of responses to the positive condition manipulation check item (M = 5.35, SD = .99, n = 46) and reverse coded responses to the negative condition manipulation check item (M = 0.23, SD = .66, n = 48) were compared in an independent samples t-test. A significant difference in this analysis would demonstrate that participants were paying attention to the content that they were exposed to, as those in the positive condition should have higher scores on average than the reverse coded responses of those in the negative condition. Results of the independent samples t-test were significant [t(77.79) = 29.29, p < .001], showcasing that participants in the positive and negative conditions did indeed read and correctly interpret the passage7.
Additionally, successful random assignment of participants across the three conditions was examined with a MANOVA to test for group differences across the exploratory variables. Results indicated that random assignment was successful, as no
6 Outliers were identified through visual examination of box and residual plots, as well standardized residual, Cook’s distance, and leverage values. Data points above the critical values were examined and analyses were run both excluding and including these outliers. However, it was determined that there were no notable differences in results.
7 Results reported are for equal variances not assumed as Levene’s test for equality of variances was significant, F(92) = 8.29, p = .005.
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 30 statistically significant differences were found, F(28, 254) = .992, p = .481, Wilks’ Λ = .813. Descriptive statistics for the main variables of interest, as well as relevant exploratory variables, are summarized in Tables 2 and 3, respectively; zero-order correlations between study variables can be found in Tables G1 – G3 (see Appendix G).
3.2 Hypotheses 1a and 1b
Hypothesis 1a stated that participants in the positive portrayal condition would report greater feminist self-identification than those in either the control or negative portrayal condition. Hypothesis 1b stated that feminist attitudes would not vary as a function of feminist portrayal condition. To test Hypothesis 1a, an ANCOVA was conducted with condition as the predictor and feminist self-identification (after exposure to the manipulation) as the dependent variable, controlling for pre-test levels of feminist self-identification. Results of the ANCOVA were not significant, F(2, 146) = .050, p = 2 .951, ηp = .001 – that is, there were no significant differences in feminist self- identification between the three conditions (Table 2).
In order to examine whether feminist attitudes were influenced by condition, an ANOVA was run with condition as the between-subjects factor and feminist attitudes as the dependent variable. Results of the ANOVA were not significant [F(2, 146) = 1.389, p = .252] and supported the prediction that there would be no significant differences in feminist attitudes across the three conditions (Hypothesis 1b).
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 31
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics of Feminist Identity and Body Image Variables by Condition
Positive Negative Control Total
Variable n = 47 n = 49 n = 53 N = 149
M SD M SD M SD M SD
Feminist self- identification (pre- 3.81 0.82 3.88 0.85 3.80 0.98 3.83 0.88 test)
Feminist self- identification (after 4.04 0.76 4.05 0.72 4.06 0.66 4.05 0.71 manipulation)
Liberal feminist attitudes and 5.06 0.45 5.06 0.44 5.17 0.32 5.10 0.41 ideology
Body shame 1.78 0.79 1.78 0.82 1.49 0.57 1.68 0.74
Internalized weight 3.08 1.05 2.80 1.04 2.64 1.06 2.83 1.06 stigma
Weight- related 3.85 1.60 3.38 1.66 3.19 1.57 3.46 1.62 distress
Weight- related 2.19 0.82 2.12 0.77 2.00 0.65 2.10 0.75 self- devaluation
Anti-fat attitudes 1.92 0.61 1.84 0.68 2.00 0.66 1.92 0.65
Broad conceptualization 6.02 0.71 6.22 0.64 6.05 0.68 6.10 0.68 of beauty
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 32
Table 3
Descriptive Statistics of Personality, Social Loneliness, and Teasing Variables by Condition
Variable Positive Negative Control Total
n M (SD) n M (SD) n M (SD) n M (SD)
Need for cognitive 4.76 4.52 4.79 4.69 47 46 52 145 closure (.85) (.78) (.80) (.82)
Social dominance
orientation
Pro-trait 2.96 2.64 2.99 2.86 46 47 51 144 dominance (1.21) (1.48) (1.43) (1.38)
Con-trait 5.57 5.66 5.35 5.52 46 47 51 144 dominance (1.33) (1.45) (1.13) (1.30)
Pro-trait anti- 2.89 2.55 2.78 2.74 46 47 51 144 egalitarianism (1.36) (1.32) (1.42) (1.37)
Con-trait anti- 5.88 6.11 5.98 5.99 46 47 51 144 egalitarianism (1.24) (1.04) (.96) (1.08)
4.22 3.67 3.80 3.89 Extraversion 47 47 52 146 (1.32) (1.23) (1.31) (1.30)
4.19 4.35 4.18 4.25 Agreeableness 47 47 52 146 (1.12) (1.07) (1.26) (1.15)
4.34 4.12 4.36 4.27 Conscientiousness 47 47 52 146 (1.07) (.96) (1.08) (1.04)
4.15 3.98 3.77 3.96 Neuroticism 47 47 52 146 (1.24) (1.48) (1.25) (1.33)
Openness to 4.48 4.77 4.24 4.49 47 47 52 146 experience (1.20) (1.30) (1.16) (1.23)
Social loneliness
3.10 3.05 3.02 3.06 Social 46 47 51 144 (.65) (.77) (.59) (.67)
4.94 5.04 4.77 4.91 Family 46 47 51 144 (.80) (.78) (.98) (.87)
5.35 5.30 5.30 5.32 Romantic 46 47 51 144 (.72) (1.03) (.87) (.88)
Teasing
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 33
3.72 3.24 4.02 3.67 Weight-based 47 49 53 149 (2.00) (1.81) (2.15) (2.01)
2.51 2.41 2.68 2.54 Gender-based 47 49 53 149 (1.91) (1.79) (2.20) (1.97)
3.96 3.92 4.38 4.09 Interest-based 47 49 53 149 (2.37) (1.96) (2.34) (2.22) Personality- 2.51 4.61 4.51 4.70 based 47 49 53 149 (1.91) (2.47) (2.22) (2.33)
Height-based 4.74 4.02 4.02 4.38 47 49 53 149 (2.82) (3.07) (2.15) (2.89) 3.3 Hypothesis 2
Hypothesis 2 stated that participants in the positive portrayal condition would report less internalized weight stigma, body shame, anti-fat attitudes, and broader conceptualizations of beauty compared with participants in the negative portrayal or control condition. A MANCOVA (controlling for pre-test feminist self-identification scores) was utilized, with a Bonferroni adjusted alpha level of .01 – calculated by dividing the traditional alpha value of .05 by five (the number of analyses run) – to account for the number of comparisons. There was no significant difference between conditions on the body image variables, controlling for pre-test feminist self- 2 identification, F(8, 286) = 1.480, p =.164, Wilks’ Λ = .922, ηp = .04. However, the body shame data demonstrated heterogeneity of variance (Levene’s test of equality of error variances: F(2, 147) = 4.738, p < .05). Thus, a Welch’s ANOVA was conducted to examine the effect of feminist portrayal condition on body shame. The results indicated no significant effect of condition on body shame, Welch’s F(2, 92.645) = 3.276, p = .04, est. ω2 = .030. Therefore, the hypothesis that participants in the positive portrayal condition would report less internalized weight stigma, body shame, and anti-fat attitudes, as well as broader conceptualizations of beauty (compared to the control and negative conditions), was not supported.
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 34
3.4 Hypothesis 3
Hypothesis 3 stated that feminist portrayal would have direct and indirect effects on the four dependent variables through feminist self-identification. However, as no significant effects were found for the relationship between feminist portrayal condition and the four body-image variables, I was unable to test the proposed mediation model.
3.5 Exploratory Analyses
A total of five separate, four-step hierarchical multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to examine the set of pre-test and exploratory variables as predictors of each of the body image measures in this sample. Personality measures (i.e., BFI-10, SDO
– SF7, and NFC-SF) were entered in Step 1 of the regression, experienced weight stigma was entered in Step 2, social loneliness was entered in Step 3, and pre-test feminist self- identification was entered in Step 48.
Four of the five models revealed significant associations between the predictors and the body image outcome (see Tables H1 – H5). For the model examining body shame, the analysis demonstrated that neuroticism and SDO – pro-trait dominance were significant predictors in step 1; SDO – pro-trait dominance and experienced weight stigma were significant predictors in step 2; and experienced weight stigma and social loneliness – romantic were significant predictors in steps 3 and 4 (see Table H1). For the model examining the weight-related distress factor of internalized weight stigma, the analysis revealed that need for cognitive closure was a significant predictor in all four steps, with experienced weight stigma as another significant predictor in steps 2, 3, and 4 (see Table H2). The model examining the weight-related self-devaluation factor of internalized weight stigma was the only regression analysis in this series that did not showcase any significant predictors across all four steps (see Table H3). For the model
8 Any measures of these variables that included subscales were entered as they were calculated – by entering the subscales, not overall scores (e.g., social loneliness was entered as the three separate subscales: social, family, and romantic).
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 35 examining anti-fat attitudes, neuroticism (steps 1 - 4), need for cognitive closure (steps 1- 3), social loneliness – social (step 3), SDO – con-trait dominance (step 4) and pre-test feminist self-identification (step 4) were significant predictors (see Table H4). Finally, for the model examining a broad conceptualization of beauty, agreeableness (steps 1 – 4), neuroticism (steps 1 – 4), and social loneliness – family (steps 3 and 4) were significant predictors. Overall, the variables that contributed significantly to women’s body image in this sample included the personality measures and experienced weight stigma, as these variables were each found to be a significant predictor in two out of the five hierarchical regressions performed (see Appendix H for full statistics).
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 36
Chapter 4
4 Discussion
The purpose of this study was two-fold – to conduct an independent partial replication of Roy, Weibust, and Miller’s (2007) study that tested the boundary conditions of this experimental manipulation, and to add to the body of literature on feminist self-identification as it relates to aspects of body image. This experiment specifically focused on distinguishing the effects of feminist self-identification on various forms of internalized body stigma (i.e., internalized weight stigma, body shame, anti-fat attitudes), as well as its relationship to individual conceptualizations of beauty.
Overall, the findings from this study did not support the hypotheses put forward. The experimental exposure to varying portrayals of feminists failed to have an effect on feminist self-identification as no statistically significant shifts occurred in participants’ levels of feminist self-identification. As such, this study largely failed to replicate the original findings of Roy, Weibust, and Miller (2007). Although correlations between study variables were in the expected directions (see Appendix G), evidence was not found to support the hypothesis that feminist self-identification had an effect on body image. Moreover, the feminist content that individuals assigned to the experimental conditions were exposed to had no significant influence on the body image variables of interest. As a result, the hypothesized mediation model testing the indirect effects of feminist portrayal condition on the four body image variables through feminist self- identification was not tested.
4.1 Activating Feminist Self-Identification
The results of this study were somewhat unexpected, especially in light of recent efforts that have successfully replicated Roy, Weibust, and Miller’s 2007 findings (Moore & Stathi, 2019). Several observations seem relevant to the null findings and the failure of the experimental manipulation. First, it is possible that base levels of feminist self-identification in this sample were already high compared to the general population
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 37
(pre-test for overall sample: M = 3.81, post-manipulation for overall sample: M = 4.03; measured on a 5-point scale, with higher scores indicating greater identification). Thus, it is possible there was a ceiling effect that limited variability in the measure of feminist self-identification and how much higher it could go. This observation would only seem relevant for those participants in the positive feminist portrayal condition, however. For women in the negative feminist portrayal condition, there is evidence for negative reactions to the negative content describing feminists, which may have affected how people responded and certainly not producing a lowered feminist self-identification score. Out of the 49 participants in the negative feminist portrayal condition, 27 either subtly or overtly, detailed the misconceptions that they perceived others to have about feminism when asked the open-ended question, “What does feminism mean to you and how do you feel about feminism/feminists?” A sample response from one participant (3598JAM) exemplifies this common theme:
“Feminism is not the hatred of men, nor is the idea that women are superior to men. Feminism is a concept that wants to allow women to be treated with equal respect and right compared to men. I feel it is very important in our society and that feminists should not have a negative connotation.”
Second, Moore and Stathi’s (2019) successful replication of Roy et al. was based on a sample that was more diverse in terms of age, education, and sexual orientation. The demographics of the current sample limit the conclusions we are able to draw from this study, as participants were largely white, young, and educated (as they were university students).
Third, participants seemed to bring different understandings of feminism to their interpretation of the passage they read in their experimental condition. Feminist identity is a notoriously difficult concept to operationalize, as its meaning has expanded and shifted, moving from the political to the personal for many individuals (Rogan & Budgeon, 2018). Given such variability around what feminism means to individuals, reliable and valid measurement of this construct has been difficult (Henley & McCarthy, 1998; Siegel & Calogero, 2019). This variability in defining feminism was evident in
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 38 several participants’ open-ended comments, such as these excerpts from 7353SKC and WRS1117:
“Feminism in today's society is a difficult term to define. In some ways, the opinion expressed in this paragraph is representative of how feminism can be misunderstood by individuals in society: ‘feminists are anti-male’. However, I believe feminism is and should continue to represent equality in both sexes and strive to open up opportunities for all types of people.” (7353SKC, 2020)
“Feminism means more about equality to me. It's about that the two genders should have the equal rights, and duties, and so on. I support feminism, but I feel like there have been misinterpretations of feminism and it's hard to define what is the real ‘feminism’/’feminist’.” (WRS1117, 2020)
Fourth, as previously mentioned, the roots of weight stigma run deep and a manipulation of this nature (i.e., relatively short and passively engaging) may not be able to affect any noticeable change. It is also possible that the experimental manipulation utilized in this study was too short and ‘weak’ to shift the deeply rooted beliefs about weight and body image held by these women. With an identity that involves values this personal or ‘controversial,’ reading a paragraph on stereotypes about feminists/feminist identity for approximately five minutes was likely not involved enough to shift participants’ attitudes. Having participants engage in a feminist-oriented activity or intervention may be a more effective way to combat this (Berel, 2004). If individuals are more actively engaged, especially in solving a dilemma surrounding body image and involving aspects of psychoeducation on ‘traditionally’ feminist ideologies and issues, this may prove to be more effective in making body image-related feminist values more salient to participants (Piran, 2019). The manipulation or intervention needs to include more aspects of feminist conceptualizations of beauty and deconstruction of the objectification of women (e.g., the root of unrealistic beauty standards and why/how women are groomed to be overly preoccupied with their appearance, especially body weight).
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 39
Finally, it may not even be possible to shift a social identity using a manipulation such as the one used in this study. Thinking critically, the manipulation created by Roy and colleagues (2007) seems to be capturing willingness to report feminist self- identification as opposed to an actual shift in self-identification. In situations where the manipulation is successful, perhaps it does so by removing or reinforcing the last perceived barrier to ‘admitting’ that they are a feminist (i.e., exposure to positive or negative stereotypes about feminism/feminists, respectively; Zucker, 2004).
4.2 Internalized Appearance Pressures and Stigma
Although a sizable proportion of the women in this study reported experiencing weight-related teasing in their lifetime, the mean scores of internalized weight stigma, anti-fat attitudes, and body shame were all quite low (internalized weight stigma: M = 2.83, body shame: M = 1.68, anti-fat attitudes: M = 1.92). Therefore, it is possible that this manipulation did not have a significant effect on body image scores because these stigmatizing thoughts, feelings, and attitudes are not strongly endorsed or salient. Alternatively, it is possible that individuals in this study did not report higher levels of experienced weight stigma due to the shortcomings of the measure itself (i.e., single-item measure). A single item was used in an effort to avoid unduly influencing our outcome measures, but this does not allow for the gathering of detailed information, particularly when these stigmatizing experiences are culturally accepted as a part of everyday life or subtly enacted.
Moreover, it is important to note that experiences of weight stigma are experienced at a disproportionately higher level among fat9 women than fat men, especially when this identity intersects with race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and sexual orientation. Notably, in the current sample of women-identified undergraduate students, average scores in both experiences of weight-based teasing and internalized
9 In this context, fat is not being used as a derogatory term but instead represents the reclamation of it by those who identify/describes themselves as fat. As described in Calogero et al., 2018, “…if we shun use of the word fat, we validate and perpetuate the stigma this term evokes,” (p. 3).
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 40 weight stigma were relatively low (i.e., fell below or around the respective mid-points of 3.5 and 5 on both measurement scales). This may indicate that the individuals who are most effected by weight stigma (i.e., fat women) were not appropriately represented within the current sample. This is a definite possibility, as the study was advertised as a pilot study on personality and body image and individuals who have body image concerns may have avoided participating in the study (whether consciously or unconsciously) due to discomfort. This has important implications for the interpretation of the results, as those who experience and internalize weight stigma to a higher degree typically demonstrate the greatest number and severity of negative consequences of weight stigma. Additionally, more experiences of body- and weight-based stigma may be related to a greater consciousness of appearance-related feminist ideology, as individuals are typically more invested in aspects of social identities that directly relate to them (i.e., fat women who experience weight stigma may be more likely to be aware of feminist conceptualizations of beauty and make an effort to incorporate these ideals into their own beliefs; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Coles & Swami, 2013). Another strong possibility is that individuals who participated in the study may have found it uncomfortable to report these experiences and therefore, respond less truthfully, even if they were a feminist (Coles & Swami, 2013).
Another possibility to consider when interpreting the findings of this study is that feminist self-identification may not be related to body image in the ways we anticipated. As mentioned previously, the literature in the field of feminism has focused on feminist self-identification as the key component to stronger association with endorsement of feminist ideology and intention to engage in collective action or other means of furthering the feminist cause (Zucker, 2004). However, it is possible that endorsement of feminist ideology may be more telling within the context of internalized body stigma, as we are looking to shift attitudes toward body weight and shape. If viewing feminist outcomes as personal versus political ramifications, it may follow that feminist ideology matters more in the context of personal consequences of feminism (e.g., having a broad conceptualization of beauty) and that feminist self-identification matters more in the context of political consequences (e.g., participation in collective action). Therefore, a
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 41 manipulation that appears to shift feminist self-identification may not be the most effective at changing internalized forms of body stigma.
Despite failing to observe the expected effects in the current study, there is still much to explore on the topic of feminist-based interventions that target forms of internalized body stigma (especially internalized weight stigma). Developing an intervention that is more involved, possibly longitudinal in nature, incorporates feminist ideology and beliefs about beauty in an effort to broaden conceptualizations of beauty, challenges dominant unhealthy beauty standards, and gives people the tools to uproot these beliefs is an area that needs further exploration and development (Peterson et al., 2006).
4.3 Exploratory Findings
Experienced weight stigma was the most consistent significant predictor of body shame in the hierarchical regression model utilized. This is consistent with the conceptualization and previous findings of phenomenological body shame, as more experiences of weight stigma reinforce the feelings of shame, failure, and embarrassment internalized from previous experiences. Pro-trait dominance social dominance orientation was a significant predictor for the first two steps of the hierarchical regression but was reduced to non-significance in steps 3 and 4, suggesting that supporting hierarchy within society may explain some of the variance in body shame but not enough to be significant when other variables are included in the model. Social loneliness – romantic was found to be a significant predictor in steps 3 and 4 as well, possibly indicating that individuals who are experiencing a greater level of romantic social/emotional loneliness are more likely to experience higher levels of body shame. Again, this would make sense as body shame involves turning the scrutinizing gaze of society inward, experiencing feelings of shame and wanting to change these appearance-related ‘failures’, and as we well know, establishing romantic relationships often involves managing appearances to make oneself more attractive to potential partners. However, these findings must be interpreted with caution, as the reliability of the social loneliness – romantic subscale leaves much to be desired.
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 42
The hierarchical regression conducted with internalized weight stigma – weight- related distress as the dependent variable found that need for cognitive closure and experienced weight stigma were consistent significant predictors. Experiences of weight stigma being related to internalized weight stigma was anticipated and consistent with previous literature that has examined this relationship. However, the relationship between need for cognitive closure and weight-related distress is less clear. It is possible that the need to have cognitive closure could be related to the cognitive aspect of weight-related distress of wanting to know what others are thinking about your body weight and whether or not you are being judged because of this. However, no significant predictors were found for the weight-related self-devaluation factor of internalized weight stigma. This is not entirely surprising given the low IWS scores reported by participants in general. It also possibly indicates even more strongly that fat women were not appropriately represented in this sample – significance in the weight-related distress subscale but not the self-devaluation subscale may indicate that women in this study are aware of and anxious about the social consequences of their weight, rather than the self- esteem/emotional consequences (Meadows & Higgs, 2019).
Finally, pre-test feminist self-identification was the only reliable significant predictor in the regression model conducted with anti-fat attitudes as the dependent variable. Neuroticism was a significant predictor of anti-fat attitudes in all four steps of the regression model but again, reliability for this subscale was quite low and interpretation of these results must be viewed in this context. Need for cognitive closure was found to be a significant predictor of AFA for steps 1 and 2 but was reduced to non- significance in the following steps of the regression analysis. Feminist self-identification as a significant predictor for anti-fat attitudes is interesting, as it potentially demonstrates that individuals who identify as feminists are indeed internalizing feminist beliefs about beauty to some degree; those with higher identification with feminism are more likely to not endorse negative stereotypes and attitudes toward individuals who are of higher weight-status. For the regression model including conceptualizations of beauty as the dependent variable, the agreeableness, neuroticism, and social loneliness – family variables were all found to consistently be significant predictors, across all steps of the regression model (with the exception of social loneliness – family, as this measure was
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 43 not entered into the regression until step 3). Unfortunately, the poor reliabilities of these subscales make any worthwhile interpretation of the results of the exploratory analyses difficult.
4.4 Limitations and Future Directions
As mentioned throughout this discussion, there were a number of limitations to this study. Levels of feminism were already high, and defensiveness elicited from negative stereotypes appeared to only reinforce this. The sample utilized was a convenience sample, lacking diversity and likely not capturing the true variety of experiences and attitudes present in the general population, as evidenced by the relatively low levels of internalized weight stigma, body shame, and anti-fat attitudes present in the sample. There were also difficulties associated with participants bringing different understandings of feminism to their interpretation of the passage that was read in the experimental conditions.
Finally, there were issues related to the measurement of experienced weight stigma, personality, and social loneliness. Experienced weight stigma was assessed with a single-item measure that was created by the author, which has implications for the validity and reliability of this score. This is particularly relevant with regard to experienced weight stigma, as a review of self-report experienced weight stigma measures identified a lack of consistent, detailed operationalizations and measures within the field (DePierre & Puhl, 2012). Additionally, the reliability of two of the personality measures used demonstrated poor reliability (SELSA-S and the BFI-10). However, this is largely inconsequential as these measures were included on a more exploratory basis and were not central to our main research questions.
Taken together, the homogeneity of the sample, under-representation of affected groups, and measurement issues limit the power of this study, despite the a prior power analyses conducted. Although the results of this study were largely not statistically significant, it sets the precedent for further exploration of this experimental manipulation, as well as other designs that may evoke stronger feminist self-identification. Researchers
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 44 in this field are encouraged to take a more nuanced approach to the study of feminist self- identification, as well as the many ways that it may influence women’s beliefs and attitudes toward body weight and shape. For example, it may be pertinent to revisit the manipulation paragraphs and update these materials to be sure that they are relevant to current conceptualizations of and thoughts about feminism/feminists. Furthermore, broad conceptualizations of beauty and how these relate to aspects of feminist identity need to be more thoroughly explored within the field of psychology.
4.5 Conclusions
Feminist self-identification, and its relationship to various forms of internalized body stigma, is a topic that is rich with possibilities and complexities. Continuing to distinguish between feminist self-identification and endorsement of feminist ideology, as well as refining the instruments that measure these concepts, is crucial to understanding how these aspects of feminism influence women’s body image (specifically, internalized weight stigma). Overall, the results of this study underscore the complexities of these relationships – the failure to replicate previously established patterns (i.e., Roy et al., 2007; Wiley et al., 2013; Moore & Stathi, 2019), the theme of confusion surrounding the label “feminist” reported by participants, and the correlations between aspects of feminist identity and internalized body stigma, all suggest that there is/are underlying mechanism(s) that we have yet to identify.
These findings add to the mixed results previously mentioned in the feminism and body image literature base; although largely not supportive of the posited hypotheses, the non-significant results of this study are telling. For example, the confusion around what feminism actually means reported by participants in the current sample and the failure to replicate Roy et al.’s (2007) findings implies that this manipulation may need to be updated to reflect current stereotypes about and attitudes towards feminism/feminists. This study’s preliminary findings are an important first step in establishing a research base within psychology that continues to explore the relationship between internalized appearance pressures and stigma, and feminist self-identification.
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 45
References
Alexander, S., & Ryan, M. (1997). Social constructs of feminism: A study of undergraduates at a women's college. College Student Journal, 31, 555–568.
Bagley, C. R., Conklin, D. N., Isherwood, R. T., Pechiulis, D. R., & Watson, L. A. (1989). Attitudes of nurses toward obesity and obese patients. Perceptual and motor skills, 68(3 Pt 1), 954. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1989.68.3.954
Berel, S. R. (2004). An intervention to reduce high risk dieting attitudes and behaviors in sorority women (Order No. AAI3110848). Available from APA PsycInfo®. (620620858; 2004-99010-241). https://www-lib-uwo-ca.proxy1.lib.uwo.ca/cgi- bin/ezpauthn.cgi?url=http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.lib.uwo.ca/dissertations- theses/intervention-reduce-high-risk-dieting-attitudes/docview/620620858/se- 2?accountid=15115
Boswell, R. B., & White, M. A. (2015). Gender differences in weight bias internalisation and eating pathology in overweight individuals. Advances in Eating Disorders, 3(3), 259-268. DOI: 10.1080/21662630.2015.1047881
Burley, J. D. (2013). An exploration of coping strategies in response to stigmatizing experiences among overweight and obese individuals with internalized weight bias (Publication No. 3643892) [Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts School of Professional Psychology]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Burn, S. M., Aboud, R., & Moyles, C. (2000). The relationship between gender social identity and support for feminism. Sex Roles, 42(11-12), 1081–1089. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007044802798
Buschman, J. K., & Lenart, S. (1996). “I am not a feminist, but…”: College women, feminism, and negative experiences. Political Psychology, 17(1), 59-75. https://doi.org/10.2307/3791943
Calogero, R. M., Tylka, T. L., & Mensinger, J. L. (2016). Scientific weightism: A view of mainstream weight stigma research through a feminist lens. In T-A. Roberts, N. C. Curtin, L. E. Duncan, & L. M. Cortina (Eds.), Feminist perspectives on
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 46
building a better psychological science of gender (pp. 9–28). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32141-7
Calogero, R. M., Tylka, T. L., Mensinger, J. L., Meadows, A., & Danielsdottir, S. (2019). Recognizing fat as a fundamental right: A weight-inclusive approach to size acceptance and healing from sizeism. Women & Therapy, 42(1-2), 22–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/02703149.2018.1524067
Cash, T. F., Ancis, J. R., & Strachan, M. D. (1997). Gender attitudes, feminist identity, and body images among college women. Sex Roles, 36, 433-477. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02766682
Coles, R., & Swami, V. (2013). Feminism and body image: a qualitative investigation. In Sams, L. B. and Keels, J. A. (Ed.) Handbook on body image: gender differences, sociocultural influences and health implications, 317-336. Nova Science Publishers.
Conlin, S., & Heesacker, M. (2016). The association between feminist self-labeling and gender equality activism: Exploring the effects of scale language and identity priming. Current Psychology, 37, 334 – 342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016- 9517-0
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). The five-factor model of personality and its relevance to personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 6(4), 343– 359. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.1992.6.4.343
Cowan, G., Mestlin, M., & Masek, J. (1992). Predictors of feminist self-labeling. Sex Roles, 27(7-8), 321–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00289942
Dahl Crossley, A. (2015). Young women’s feminist identities: The impact of feminist stereotypes and heterosexual relationships. In M. Texler Segal (Ed.) Interactions and intersections of gendered bodies at work, at home, and at play, 14, 339–355. Emerald Group. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1529-2126(2010)0000014019
DePierre, J. A., & Puhl, R. M. (2012). Experiences of weight stigmatization: a review of self-report assessment measures. Obesity Facts, 5(6), 897-918. DOI: 10.1159/000346259
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 47
DiTommaso, E., Brannen, C., & Best, L. A. (2004). Measurement and validity characteristics of the short version of the Social and Emotional Loneliness Scale for Adults. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(1), 99–119. https://doi.org10.1177/0013164403258450
Douglas, V., & Varnado-Sullivan, P. (2016). Weight stigmatization, internalization, and eating disorder symptoms: The role of emotion dysregulation. Stigma and Health, 1(3), 166–175. https://doi.org/10.1037/sah0000029
Duarte, C., Pinto-Gouveia, J., Ferreira, C., & Batista, D. (2015). Body image as a source of shame: A new measure for the assessment of the multifaceted nature of body image shame. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 22, 656–666. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.1925
Durso, L. E., Latner, J. D., White, M. A., Masheb, R. M., Blomquist, K. K., Morgan, P. T., & Grilo, C. M. (2012). Internalized weight bias in obese patients with binge eating disorder: associations with eating disturbances and psychological functioning. The International journal of eating disorders, 45(3), 423–427. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.20933
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149-1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
Fikkan, J. L., & Rothblum, E. D. (2012). Is fat a feminist issue? Exploring the gendered nature of weight bias. Sex Roles, 66, 575–592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199- 011-0022-5
Flair Airlines. (2018). Destinations. Retrieved April 24th, 2019, from https://flyflair.com/destinations/
Fredrickson, B. L., Roberts, T., Noll, S. M., Quinn, D. M., & Twenge, J. M. (1998). That swimsuit becomes you: Sex differences in self-objectification, restrained eating, and math performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 269– 284. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.75.1.269
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 48
Friedman, K. E., Reichmann, S. K., Constanzo, P. R., Zelli, A., Ashmore, J. A., & Musante, G. J. (2005). Weight stigmatization and ideological beliefs: Relation to psychological functioning in obese adults. Obesity Research, 13(5), 907–916. https://doi.org/10.1038/oby.2005.105
Frost, D. M. (2011). Social stigma and its consequences for the socially stigmatized. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(11), 824–839. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00394.x
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2010). SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference 17.0 Update. 10th Edition, Pearson.
Global News. (2017, October 30). These are the low-cost airlines you can fly in Canada. https://globalnews.ca/news/3829068/low-cost-airlines-canada/
Grippo, K. P., & Hill, M. S. (2008). Self-objectification, habitual body monitoring, and body dissatisfaction in older European American women: Exploring age and feminism as moderators. Body Image, 5(2), 173-182. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.bodyim.2007.11.003
Gundersen, A. B. & Kunst, J. R. (2019). Feminist ≠ feminine? Feminist women are visually masculinised whereas feminist men are feminized. Sex Roles, 80(5-6), 291-309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0931-7
Haines, M. E., Erchull, M. J., Liss, M., Turner, D. L., Nelson, J. A., Ramsey, L. R., & Hurt, M. M. (2008). Predictors and effects of self-objectification in lesbians. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32(2), 181-187. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1471-6402.2008.00422.x
Harriger, J. A., Calogero, R. M., Witherington, D. C., & Smith, J. E. (2010). Body size stereotyping and internalization of the thin ideal in preschool girls. Sex Roles, 63, 609-620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9868-1
Henley, N. M., & McCarthy, W. J. (1998). Measuring Feminist Attitudes: Problems and Prospects. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22(3), 363–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1998.tb00162.x
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 49
Hilbert, A., Braehler, E., Schmidt, R., Lowe, B., Hauser, W., & Zenger, M. (2015). Self- compassion as a resource in the self-stigma process of overweight and obese individuals. Obesity Facts, 8, 293–301. https://doi.org/10.1159/000438681
Hill, A. J., Rodriguez Lopez, R. & Caterson, I.D. (2019). The relationship between obesity and tertiary education outcomes: a systematic review. International Journal of Obesity, 43, 2125–2133. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41366-018-0256-1
Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Kteily, N., Sheehy-Skeffington, J., Pratto, F., Henkel, K. E., Foels, R., & Stewart, A. L. (2015). The nature of social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO7 Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(6), 1003–1028. https:/doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000033
Hunger, J. M., & Major, B. (2015). Weight stigma mediates the association between BMI and self-reported health. Health Psychology, 34(2), 172–175. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000106
Hurt, M. M., Nelson, J. A., Turner, D. L., Haines, M. E., Ramsey, L. R., Erchull, M. J., & Liss, M. (2007). Feminism: What is it good for? Feminine norms and objectification as the link between feminist identity and clinically relevant outcomes. Sex Roles, 57, 355–363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9272-7
Incollingo Rodriguez, A. C., White, M. L., Standen, E. C., Mann, T., Wells, C. R., & Tomiyama, A. J. (2019). Body mass index and educational inequality: An update of Crandall (1995). Stigma and Health, 4(3), 357–363. https://doi.org/10.1037/sah0000149
Lamont, J. M. (2015). Trait body shame predicts health outcomes in college women: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Behavioural Medicine, 38, 998–1008. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-015-9659-9
Langdon, S. W., & Petracca, G. (2010). Tiny dancer: Body image and dancer identity in female modern dancers. Body Image, 7, 360–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2010.06.005
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 50
Leaper, C., & Arias, D. M. (2011). College women’s feminist identity: A multidimensional analysis with implications for coping with sexism. Sex Roles, 64, 475-490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9936-1
Leggatt, J. M. (2004). What happens when grrrls riot?: The relationship between feminism and eating pathology in adolescent girls (Publication No. NQ92547) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Windsor]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Lexico. (2021). Microaggression. Retrieved April 30th, 2021, from https://www.lexico.com/definition/microaggression.
Liss, M., & Erchull, M. J. (2010). Everyone feels empowered: Understanding feminist self-labeling. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34(1), 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2009.01544.x
Meadows, A., & Higgs, S. (2019). The multifaceted nature of weight-related self-stigma: Validation of the two-factor Weight Bias Internalization Scale (WBIS – 2F). Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00808
Mensinger, J. L., Calogero, R. M., & Tylka, T. L. (2016). Internalized weight stigma moderates eating behavior outcomes in women with high BMI participating in a healthy living program. Appetite, 102, 32–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.01.033
Merriam-Webster. (2017). Feminism. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism
Moi, T. (2006). “I am not a feminist, but…”: How feminism became the f-word. Modern Language Association, 121(5), 1735-1741. Retrieved July 29, 2020, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/25501655
Moore, A., & Stathi, S. (2019). The impact of feminist stereotypes and sexual identity on feminist self-identification and collective action. Journal of Social Psychology. 160(3), 267–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2019.1644280
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 51
Moradi, B., & Subich, L. M. (2002). Perceived sexist events and feminist identity development attitudes: Links to women’s psychological distress. The Counseling Psychologist, 30(1), 44–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000002301003
Morgan, B. L. (1996). Putting the feminism into feminism scales: Introduction of a Liberal Feminist Attitude and Ideology Scale (LFAIS). Sex Roles, 34(5-6), 359– 390. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01547807
Morrison, T. G., & O’Connor, W. E. (1999). Psychometric properties of a scale measuring negative attitudes toward overweight individuals. Journal of Social Psychology, 139(4), 436–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224549909598403
Murnen, S. K., & Smolak, L. (2009). Are feminist women protected from body image problems? A meta-analytic review of relevant research. Sex Roles, 60(3), 186– 197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9523-2
Neumark-Sztainer, D., Story, M., & Harris, T. (1999). Beliefs and attitudes about obesity among teachers and school health care providers working with adolescents. Journal of Nutrition Education, 31(1), 3-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022- 3182(99)70378-X
O'Brien, K. S., Latner, J. D., Puhl, R. M., Vartanian, L. R., Giles, C., Griva, K., & Carter, A. (2016). The relationship between weight stigma and eating behavior is explained by weight bias internalization and psychological distress. Appetite, 102, 70–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.02.032
Ojerholm, A. J., & Rothblum, E. D. (1999). The relationships of body image, feminism and sexual orientation in college women. Feminism & Psychology, 9(4), 431–448. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353599009004011
Pascoe, E. A., & Smart Richman, L. (2009). Perceived discrimination and health: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 135(4), 531–554. https:/doi.org/10.1037/a0016059
Peterson, R. D., Tantleff-Dunn, S., & Bedwell, J. S. (2006). The effects of exposure to feminist ideology on women’s body image. Body Image, 3(3), 237–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2006.05.004
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 52
Piran, N. (2019). Feminist and social justice-informed approaches toward the enhancement of positive embodiment. In T. L. Tylka, & N. Piran (Eds.), Handbook of positive body image and embodiment: Constructs, protective factors, and interventions; Handbook of positive body image and embodiment: Constructs, protective factors, and interventions (pp. 385-396, Chapter xviii, 443 Pages). Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Pont, S. J., Puhl, R., Cook, S. R., & Slusser, W. (2017). Stigma experienced by children and adolescents with obesity. Pediatrics, 140(6), e20173034. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2017-3034
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. (2010). Obesity stigma: Important considerations for public health. American Journal of Public Health, 100, 1019–1028. https://doi.org/10. 2105/AJPH.2009.159491
Puhl, R. M., & King, K. M. (2013). Weight discrimination and bullying. Best Practice & Research Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 27, 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beem.2012.12.002
Puhl, R. M., Latner, J. D., O’Brien, K., Luedicke, J., Danielsdottir, S., & Forhan, M. (2015). A multinational examination of weight bias: predictors of anti-fat attitudes across four countries. International Journal of Obesity, 39, 1166-1173. https://doi.org/10.1038/ijo.2015.32
Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10- item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001
Renzetti, C. M. (1997). Confessions of a reformed positivist: Feminist participatory research as good social science. In M. D. Schwartz (Ed.), Researching sexual violence against women: Methodological and personal perspectives (p. 131–143). (Reprinted in modified form from "Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services,"
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 53
3, 1995, pp.29–42) Sage Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483327907.n10
Robnett, R. D., Anderson, K. J., & Hunter, L. E. (2012). Predicting feminist identity: Associations between gender-traditional attitudes, feminist stereotyping, and ethnicity. Sex Roles, 67(3-4), 143-157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0170- 2
Rockwern, B., & Murnen, S. K. (2008). Internalization of “Everyday” Objectification Experiences, Feminist Attitudes, and Eating Disordered Attitudes. Poster presented at annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, April.
Roets, A., & Van Hiel, A. (2011). Item selection and validation of a brief, 15-item version of the Need for Closure Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(1), 90–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.09.004
Rogan, F., & Budgeon, S. (2018). The personal is political: Assessing feminist fundamentals in the digital age. Social Sciences, 7(132), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7080132
Roy, R. E., Weibust, K. S., & Miller, C. T. (2007). Effects of stereotypes about feminists on feminist self-identification. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 146–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00348.x
Rubin, L. R., Nemeroff, C. J., & Russo, N. F. (2004). Exploring feminist women’s body consciousness. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28(1), 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00120.x
Saguy, A. (2012). Why fat is a feminist issue. Sex Roles, 66, 600–607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0084-4
Sauder, D. C., & DeMars, C. E. (2019). An updated recommendation for multiple comparisons. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(1), 26-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918808784
Siegel, J. A., & Calogero, R. M. (2019). Conformity to feminine norms and self- objectification in self-identified feminist and non-feminist women. Body Image, 28, 115-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2019.01.005.
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 54
Siegel, J. A., Huelleman, K. L., Calogero, R. M., & Roberts, T.-A. (2020). Psychometric properties of the Phenomenological Body Shame Scale in community and college women. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Swami, V., Airs, N., Chouhan, B., Padilla Leon, M. A., & Towell, T. (2009). Are there ethnic differences in positive body image among female British undergraduates? European Psychologist, 14, 288–296. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.14.4.288
Swoop. (2019). Where we fly. Retrieved April 25th, 2019, from https://www.flyswoop.com/where-we-fly/
Szymanski, D. M. (2004). Relations among dimensions of feminism and internalized heterosexism in lesbians and bisexual women. Sex Roles, 51, 145–159. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SERS.0000037759.33014.55
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Experimental designs using ANOVA (p. 724). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Brooks/Cole.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.) The social psychology of inter-group relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.
Thompson, J. K., & Stice, E. (2001). Thin-ideal internalization: Mounting evidence for a new risk factor for body-image disturbance and eating pathology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(5), 181–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00144
Tiggemann, M. (2015). Considerations of positive body image across various social identities and special populations. Body Image, 14, 168–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2015.03.002
Tiggemann, M., Coutts, E., & Clark, L. (2014). Belly dance as an embodying activity?: A test of the embodiment model of positive body image. Sex Roles, 71, 197–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-014-0408-2
Tiggemann, M., & McCourt, A. (2013). Body appreciation in adult women: Relationships with age and body satisfaction. Body Image, 10(4), 624–627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2013.07.003
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 55
Tiggemann, M., & Stevens, C. (1999). Weight concern across the life-span: Relationship to self-esteem and feminist identity. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 26(1), 103-106. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098- 108X(199907)26:1<103::AID-EAT14>3.0.CO;2-0
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
Twenge, J. M., & Zucker, A. N. (1999). What is a feminist? Evaluations and stereotypes in closed- and open-ended responses. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 591– 605. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1999.tb00383.x
Tylka, T. L. (2011). Positive psychology perspectives on body image. In T. F. Cash & L. Smolak (Eds.), Body image: A handbook of science, practice, and prevention (pp. 56–64). The Guilford Press.
Tylka, T. L., & Iannantuono, A. C. (2016). Perceiving beauty in all women: Psychometric evaluation of the Broad Conceptualization of Beauty Scale. Body Image, 17, 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2016.02.005
Tylka, T. L., & Wood-Barcalow, N. L. (2015). What is and what is not positive body image? Conceptual foundations and construct definition. Body Image, 14, 118– 129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2015.04.001
Valenti, J. (2007). Full frontal feminism: A young woman’s guide to why feminism matters. Seal Press.
Vartanian, L. R., Pinkus, R. T., & Smyth, J. M. (2018). Experiences of weight stigma in everyday life: Implications for health motivation. Stigma and Health, 3(2), 85-92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/sah0000077
Ward, D. E. (2014). A weight off the shoulders: The effects of self-compassion on affect and self-stigma following negative association with weight and body-image (Publication no. 1563416) [Master’s thesis, Villanova University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 56
Warner, R. M. (2013). Applied statistics: from bivariate through multivariate techniques (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Wiley, S., Srinivasan, R., Finke, E., Firnhaber, J., & Shilinsky, A. (2013). Positive portrayals of feminist men increase men’s solidarity with feminists and collective action intentions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37(1), 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684312464575
Williams, R., & Wittig, M. A. (1997). “I’m not a feminist, but…”: Factors contributing to the discrepancy between pro-feminist orientation and feminist social identity. Sex Roles, 37, 885–904. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02936345
Williams, E. F., Cash, T. F., & Santos, M. T. (2004). Positive and negative body image: Precursors, correlates, and consequences. Paper presented at the 38th annual meeting of the Association for Advancement of Behavior Therapy. New Orleans, LA.
Wood-Barcalow, N. L., Tylka, T. L., & Augustus-Horvath, C. L. (2010). “But I like my body”: Positive body image characteristics and a holistic model for young-adult women. Body Image, 7, 106–116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2010.01. 001
Zucker, A. N. (2004). Disavowing social identities: What it means when women say, “I’m not a feminist, but…”. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 423–435. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00159.x
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 57
Appendices
Appendix A: Letter of Information and Consent Letter of Information and Consent
Project Title: A Pilot Study on Body Image and Personality
Researchers: Courtney Hillier, M.Sc. Student (Researcher) Email: [email protected]
Rachel Calogero, Ph.D. (Principal Investigator) Email: [email protected]
1. Invitation to Participate
You are invited to participate in a research study. The study is conducted under the direction of Rachel Calogero, Ph.D. and Courtney Hillier, M.Sc. Student, from the Department of Psychology at Western University.
2. Purpose of this Letter
The purpose of this letter is to provide you with information in order to allow you to make an informed decision regarding participation in this research.
3. Purpose of this Study
In this study, we are piloting potential future research materials. We are interested in your ratings of a paragraph written by a Western University student that may be used in future research, as well as a collection of survey items. The results of this study will determine whether these materials will be used and/or what changes need to be made to the material.
4. Inclusion Criteria
In order to participate, you must self-identify as female, be at least 17 years of age, and fluent in English.
5. Exclusion Criteria
Participants will be excluded if they do not meet the criteria listed above.
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 58
6. Study Procedures
Approximately 150 women are expected to participate in this study. Participants will read a letter of information and indicate that they have read and agree to the study procedures. First, participants will complete a standard demographic survey and then go on to sign up for the in-lab portion of the study. Participants will then come into the lab and read the paragraph. After reading the paragraph, participants will be asked to complete a variety of questionnaires about paragraph quality, attitudes toward sociocultural situations, and body image. At the end of the study, participants will receive 1.0 SONA credit as compensation for their participation in the in-lab portion (there is no compensation awarded for the pre- screen survey), which will be awarded within 3 days of study completion.
7. Possible Risks and Harms
None of the questions or tasks expose participants to subject matter that is not readily discussed or available in newspapers, magazines, radio, television, surfing the web, or online social media networks. Some people may feel uncomfortable answering sensitive questions about their personal habits and themselves. If you experience any distress from a question or do not wish to answer, you may leave that question blank without penalty or loss of credit. You are also free to withdraw from the study at any time and for any reason. It is important to note that you must participate in the in-lab portion of the study to receive credit, as there is no compensation awarded for the pre-screen questionnaire.
8. Possible Benefits
Aside from compensation, you may not directly benefit from participating in this study, but the knowledge gained from this study will help to create research materials that may better capture women’s sociocultural attitudes and behaviours.
9. Compensation
Compensation for this study is 1.0 SONA credit. For more information about SONA credits, please consult your course outline. You are also free to withdraw from the study at any time and for any reason. Please note, that you will not receive any credit for completion of the pre-screening survey. The pre-screening survey will be used solely to determine eligibility for the primary study. Credit is only awarded after the primary study.
10. Voluntary Participation
Your participation in this study is voluntary, and you may decide not to participate at any time. It is important to note that you must participate in the in- lab portion of the study to receive full credit. If you decide to withdraw from participating during the in-lab portion, you will still be compensated the promised
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 59
1.0 credit, and any data you have already completed will be retained. If you wish to withdraw your data for any reason, you may do so by providing the unique participant ID code (the code will be generated based on the last four digits of your phone number, first and last initial, and the first letter of your street name), this code will need to be provided by you in order to exclude your data from our records. During the study you are free to omit any question you wish not to answer, without penalty. You do not waive any legal rights by consenting to this study. If you wish to withdraw your data, please contact the Principal Investigator named below.
11. Confidentiality
All of your responses will remain confidential. Your SONA ID will only be used to initially link the online and in-lab data collection activities and in order to ensure that you are appropriately compensated. Once this is done, your SONA ID will be deleted from our records; all responses will be coded with your unique identifying code to ensure anonymity, as well as enable participants to withdraw their data. Your responses will be used for research purposes only. In reports of this study, only aggregated group data will be presented. All electronic documents will be kept on a secure university network and any paper documents will be kept in a securely locked office. The data will be kept for a period of 7 years in accordance with Western University policy. Representatives of The University of Western Ontario Non-Medical Research Ethics Board may require access to your study-related records to monitor the conduct of the research.
Your survey responses will be collected through a secure online survey platform called Qualtrics. Qualtrics uses encryption technology and restricted access authorizations to protect all data collected. In addition, Western’s Qualtrics server is in Ireland, where privacy standards are maintained under the European Union safe harbour framework. The data will then be exported from Qualtrics and securely stored on Western University's server. The paper research materials will be anonymous and only accessible to the researchers.
12. Contacts for Further Information
Participants are welcome to ask questions about the study at the end of the session. If you would like to receive any further information regarding this research or your participation in the study, you may contact Courtney Hillier ([email protected]), or Rachel Calogero ([email protected]).
If you have any questions about the conduct of the study, or your rights as a research participant, you may contact the Office of Human Research Ethics at Western University, 519-661-3036, or [email protected].
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 60
13. Publication
If the results of the study are published, only aggregated data will be used that does not identify you personally. If you would like to receive a copy of any potential study results, please contact Courtney Hillier ([email protected]).
You may print this form for your records.
Informed Consent
By clicking the following box, you confirm that you have read the Letter of Information, know what is being asked of you, and agree to take part in the study.
o I agree
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 61
Appendix B: Pre-Test Measures
Pre-Screen Question
What is your gender?
o Male o Female o Transgender man o Transgender woman o Nonbinary o Genderfluid o Other
Pre-Test Survey Items
Code Generator
Okay, great!
To get started, we need you to generate a unique ID code that only you will know. This code will be used to keep your responses confidential and anonymous.
This code will only be used to identify your data, should you wish to withdraw your responses from the study.
Please generate your own unique ID code using a combination of the following characters:
• The last four digits of your phone number
• The initials of your first and last name
• The first letter of the street where you live
For example, 1234JSW would be the code if the last four digits of your number were 1234, your first and last initial were J and S, and the first letter of your street name is W.
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 62
Please enter your unique ID code in the text box below.
______
Please enter your 6 digit SONA ID here in order to receive credit. If you do not know your SONA ID, please check your profile on the SONA website (it will be a 6 digit number, NOT your email or the unique ID you created above).
______
Demographics
1. Age (please specify): ______2. What is your sexual orientation? o Asexual o Bisexual o Heterosexual o Homosexual o Questioning o Other 3. How would you describe your political views? o Very liberal o Liberal o Middle of the road o Conservative o Very conservative o Fill in your own: ______4. Do you consider yourself a feminist? o Yes o No o Don’t know
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 63
5. Please indicate the degree to which you agree with each of the following statements using the scale provided.
5-point rating scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)
- I consider myself a feminist. - I identify myself as a feminist to other people. - Feminist values and principles are important to me. - I support the goals of the feminist movement.
6. In which country were you born? ______7. How long have you lived in Canada? ______8. Below are several terms used by Statistics Canada, presented alphabetically, that people could use to describe themselves. Please check off the one or ones that come closest to describing you. o Arab o Black o Chinese o Filipino o Japanese o Korean o Latin American o Southeast Asian (e.g., Cambodia, Laotian, Malaysian, Vietnamese) o West Asian (e.g., Iranian, Afghan) o White o Fill in your own: ______9. Are you an aboriginal or indigenous person? - Yes
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 64
- No 10. What is your major or program? ______11. How would you describe your relationship status? o In a committed relationship o In a casual relationship o Single and actively looking for a partner o Single and not interested in dating 12. Please indicate the frequency you have experienced teasing about: 10-point rating scale from 0 (Never) to 9 (Daily) - Your interests - Your weight - Your gender - Your height - Your personality (e.g., being called too shy, awkward, loud, etc.)
Social and Emotional Loneliness Scale for Adults – Short Form
Please indicate the degree to which you agree with the following statements using the scale provided.
7-point rating scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree)
- I feel part of a group of friends.
- My friends understand my motives and reasoning.
- I don’t have any friends who share my views, but I wish I did.
- I am able to depend on my friends for help.
- I do not have any friends who understand me, but I wish I did.
- I feel alone when I am with my family.
- There is no one in my family I can depend on for support and encouragement, but I wish there was.
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 65
- I feel close to my family.
- I feel part of my family.
- My family really cares about me.
- I have a romantic partner with whom I share my most intimate thoughts and feelings.
- I have a romantic or marital partner who gives me the support and encouragement I need.
- I wish I had a more satisfying romantic relationship.
- I have a romantic partner whose happiness I contribute to.
- I have an unmet need for a close romantic relationship.
Big Five Inventory – Short Form
How well do the following statements describe your personality? I see myself as someone who…
7-point rating scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree)
- …is reserved.
- …is generally trusting.
- …tends to be lazy.
- …is relaxed, handles stress well.
- …has few artistic interests.
- …is outgoing, sociable.
- …tends to find fault with others.
- …does a thorough job.
- …gets nervous easily.
- …has an active imagination.
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 66
Need for Closure
Please indicate the degree to which you agree with the following statements using the scale provided.
7-point rating scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree)
- I don’t like situations that are uncertain.
- I dislike questions which could be answered in many different ways
- I find that a well-ordered life with regular hours suits my temperament.
- I feel uncomfortable when I don’t understand the reason why an event occurred in my life.
- I feel irritated when one person disagrees with what everyone else in a group believes.
- I don’t like to go into a situation without knowing what I can expect from it.
- When I have made a decision, I feel relieved.
- When I am confronted with a problem, I’m dying to reach a solution very quickly.
- I would quickly become impatient and irritated if I would not find a solution to a problem immediately.
- I don’t like to be with people who are capable of unexpected actions.
- I dislike it when a person’s statement could mean many different things.
- I find that establishing a consistent routine enables me to enjoy life more.
- I enjoy having a clear and structured mode of life.
- I do not usually consult many different opinions before forming my own view.
- I dislike unpredictable situations.
Social Dominance Orientation scale – Version 7
Show how much you favour or oppose each idea below by selecting a number from 1 to 7 on the scale provided. You can work quickly; your first feeling is generally best.
7-point rating scale from 1 (strongly oppose) to 7 (strongly favour)
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 67
- An ideal society requires some groups to be on top and others to be on the bottom.
- Some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups.
- No one group should dominate in society.
- Groups at the bottom are just as deserving as groups at the top.
- Group equality should not be our primary goal.
- It is unjust to try and make groups equal.
- We should do what we can to equalize conditions for different groups.
- We should work to give all groups an equal chance to succeed.
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 68
Appendix C: Researcher Scripts
In-Lab Instructions
Thank you for participating in our study. This is a pilot test of various materials that may be used in future research. We are interested in students’ feedback on the quality of these materials to determine whether they will be used in future projects. This study is composed of two parts: first, you will review a paragraph written by a Western University student and rate its overall quality, as well as whether you think it should be used in future projects; finally, you will be asked to complete a variety of questionnaires in order to determine if they accurately measure what they are supposed to.
You will have five minutes to complete the first part of the study. Once you have finished, please let me know and I will set up the second part of the study for you to complete. Please note there are no right or wrong answers to any of the questions. We simply ask that you respond with your first reaction and answer truthfully.
Do you have any questions?
OK. To begin, you will need your SONA ID. Then please follow the instructions that are included in the package. Let me know if you have any questions during your session.
Verbal Debriefing
Thank you again for participating in this experiment. As you have learned in your introductory psychology class, an experiment means we are manipulating something. In this case, we were manipulating the type of paragraph you reviewed. The paragraphs included various stereotypes about feminists/feminism or a topic unrelated to both. We are interested in whether exposure to positive/negative stereotypes about feminism influences a person’s willingness to self-identify as a feminist, as well as feminist self- identification’s relationship to various body image variables. We hope this study will aid in the development of more effective eating disorder interventions. Please do not tell others about this small deception-- we need people to believe our cover story in order to test our hypothesis.
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 69
If you have any questions about the study, you can contact Courtney Hillier or her faculty advisor Dr. Rachel Calogero.
If any part of this study made you feel uncomfortable, please utilize the resources on your debriefing sheet.
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 70
Appendix D: In-Lab Study Package (Paper and Pen Format)
Positive Portrayal of Feminism/Feminists Condition
The following is a paragraph written by a Western University student that may be used in future research. Please carefully read the paragraph and complete the following items used to rate the quality of the paragraph. The results of this study will determine whether this paragraph will be used and/or what changes need to be made to the material. You will have five minutes to complete the evaluation. Please notify the researcher when you have completed the questions. You will then receive materials to complete the next portion of the study.
The feminist movement is very beneficial for all women and men. The main goal of the feminist movement is to eliminate sexism in our society. It is a movement that promotes equality in our society. People who are active in the movement seek to rid our society of discrimination in school, the workplace, and all parts of society. In reality, there is a great deal of discrimination in our society. Feminists recognize this discrimination and take a stand to end it.
Most people who identify as feminists are women. These women are strong, independent women who recognize the injustices in our society and try to fix them. Feminist women are intelligent women who are very knowledgeable about current issues and the world around them. They are often active in their communities, and work to promote positive change. They might do this by volunteering at an organization that seeks to end violence against women, or by educating people about the sexism that is present in our society. Feminist women are confident and assertive. They are not afraid to confront the inequalities that exist in our society.
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 71
Negative Portrayal of Feminism/Feminists Condition
The following is a paragraph written by a Western University student that may be used in future research. Please carefully read the paragraph and complete the following items used to rate the quality of the paragraph. The results of this study will determine whether this paragraph will be used and/or what changes need to be made to the material. You will have five minutes to complete the evaluation. Please notify the researcher when you have completed the questions. You will then receive materials to complete the next portion of the study.
The feminist movement is very harmful for all women and men. The main goal of the feminist movement is to point out why men are bad and why women are better than men. It is a movement that promotes inequality in our society. People who are active in the movement seek out what they think are examples of discrimination in school, the workplace, and all aspects of society. In reality, this discrimination doesn’t really exist. Feminists are hypersensitive to discrimination even when it’s not actually there.
Most people who identify as feminists are women. These women are overbearing, stubborn women who complain about what they think are injustices in our society. Feminist women are angry women who are very opinionated about current issues and the world around them. They are often anti-male, and work to show others why men are bad. They might do this by claiming that they have been discriminated against at work, or by holding a protest where they complain about men. Feminist women are demanding and aggressive. They are not afraid to say why they are better than men.
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 72
Control Condition
The following is a paragraph written by a Western University student that may be used in future research. Please carefully read the paragraph and complete the following items used to rate the quality of the paragraph. The results of this study will determine whether this paragraph will be used and/or what changes need to be made to the material. You will have five minutes to complete the evaluation. Please notify the researcher when you have completed the questions. You will then receive materials to complete the next portion of the study.
Over the past few years, there has been a rise in the number of airlines offering cheap airfare. These ultra-low-cost carriers (ULCCs) are making traveling to both national and international destinations more affordable and accessible. However, it has taken quite some time for ULCCs to make their way into Canada; in Europe, ULCCs have been around for years. Why is it that one of the most well-travelled nations took so long to offer low-cost airline options?
There are multiple reasons as to why this has been the case in Canada. One major factor is Canada’s physical size versus its actual population. Additionally, many Canadians simply cross into the United States to benefit from their low-cost carriers. However, growing interest in ULCCs within Canada has kickstarted the industry. Companies such as Swoop and Flair Airlines have sprung up in response to this interest.
Low-cost airlines are certainly gaining popularity, especially among young adults. Although it takes more effort in terms of research and may come with some slight inconveniences – these flights often charge for checked baggage and in-flight food services – traveling using ULCCs can save individuals a substantial amount of money.
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 73
Cover Story Items
Using the scale provided, please evaluate the paragraph you just read by indicating the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements (circle your answers):
1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Somewhat Disagree 4 = Neither Agree nor Disagree 5 = Somewhat Agree 6 = Agree 7 = Strongly Agree The paragraph had a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 clear and logical argument. The paragraph was 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 clear and well- written. The paragraph was 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 easy to understand. The author used 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 proper grammar. The sentences in the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 paragraph were well- constructed. The author put 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 enough thought into developing the argument.
The paragraph was 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 interesting to read.
The paragraph lacked 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 appropriate punctuation.
The author’s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 opinions were clearly expressed.
This paragraph 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 should be used in future research projects.
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 74
Manipulation Check
To what extent did the paragraph you read portray feminists in a positive/negative manner (circle your answer)?
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Not at all Extremely positive/ positive/negative negative
What does feminism mean to you and how do you feel about feminism/feminists?
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 75
Appendix E: In-Lab Qualtrics Survey Items
Instructions
The second portion of this study is the piloting of new questionnaires to be used in upcoming research projects. Please carefully read the instructions for each scale and complete the following items.
The results of this study will determine whether these items accurately measure what they are supposed to measure and if they will be useful to include in future studies.
Thank you for your help, it is greatly appreciated!
Feminist Self-Identification
Do you consider yourself a feminist?
o Yes
o No
o Don’t know
Self-Identification as a Feminist
Please indicate the degree to which you agree with the following statements using the scale provided.
5-point rating scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)
- I consider myself a feminist.
- I identify myself as a feminist to other people.
- Feminist values and principles are important to me.
- I support the goals of the feminist movement.
Liberal Feminist Attitude and Ideology Scale – Short Form
Please indicate to what degree you agree or disagree with each of the statements below.
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 76
6-point rating scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree)
- Women should be considered as seriously as men as candidates for the position of Prime Minister of Canada.
- Although women can be good leaders, men make better leaders.
- A woman should have the same job opportunities as a man.
- Men should respect women more than they currently do.
- Many women in the work force are taking jobs away from men who need the jobs more.
- Doctors need to take women’s health concerns more seriously.
- Women have been treated unfairly on the basis of their gender throughout most of human history.
- Women are already given equal opportunities with men in all important sectors of their lives.
- Women in Canada are treated as second-class citizens.
- Women can best overcome discrimination by doing the best that they can at their jobs, not by wasting time with political activity.
Weight Bias Internalization Scale – 2 Factor
Please indicate to what degree you agree or disagree with each of the statements below.
7-point rating scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree)
- Because of my weight, I feel that I am just as competent as anyone.
- I feel anxious about my weight because of what people might think of me.
- I wish I could drastically change my weight.
- Whenever I think a lot about my weight, I get depressed.
- I feel that my weight does not interfere with my ability to be a good and decent person.
- I hate myself for being the weight that I am.
- My weight is a major way that I judge my value as a person.
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 77
- I do not feel that I deserve to have a really fulfilling social life as long as I am the weight that I am.
- At my weight, I feel that I am just as deserving of respect as anyone.
- Because of my weight, I do not feel like my true self.
- I feel that being the weight that I am does not make me unworthy of a loving relationship.
- Because of my weight, I do not understand how anyone attractive would want to date me.
- If other people do not treat me with respect, I should put up with it because of my weight.
Body Shame Phenomenology scale
Imagine that you are currently looking at your reflection in the mirror. Please indicate how much you are experiencing each of the following feelings when thinking about your body right now.
5-point rating scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely)
- I feel angry with myself.
- I wish I were invisible.
- I feel like cringing.
- I feel embarrassed.
- I feel disgusted with myself.
- I wish I could disappear.
- I feel ashamed.
- I feel like hiding.
- I feel like crawling into a corner.
Anti-Fat Attitudes scale
Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 78
5-point rating scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)
- Fat people are less physically attractive than thin people.
- I would never date a fat person.
- On average, fat people are lazier than thin people.
- Fat people only have themselves to blame for their weight.
- It is disgusting when a fat person wears a bathing suit at the beach.
Broad Conceptualizations of Beauty Scale
Please indicate the degree to which you agree with the following statements using the scale provided.
7-point rating scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree)
- Even if a physical feature is not considered attractive by others or by society, I think it can be beautiful.
- A woman’s confidence level can change my perception of her physical beauty.
- I think that a wide variety of body shapes are beautiful for women.
- I think that thin women are more beautiful than women who have other body types.
- A woman’s soul or inner spirit can change my perception of her physical beauty.
- I appreciate a wide range of different looks as beautiful.
- I think that women of all body sizes can be beautiful.
Suspicion About the Study’s Hypotheses
What do you believe is the purpose of this study?
______
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 79
Attention Check
Based upon how much you paid attention during this study, would you recommend that we use your data?
o Yes
o No
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 80
Appendix F: Debriefing Document
Debriefing: A Pilot Study on Body Image and Personality
Thank you for participating!
This form will explain to you in more detail the purpose of this study and aspects of the study that were not explained to you before the study began. In 2007, a study published in the academic journal Psychology of Women Quarterly demonstrated that women exposed to positive stereotypes about feminists were twice as likely to self-identify as feminists than women exposed to negative stereotypes or a control paragraph. The study you just completed was an independent replication and expansion of that (Roy, Weibust, & Miller, 2007) study. We are interested in further exploring the relations suggested by the original article in a new and different sample of women.
Feminist self-identification refers to an individual's willingness to label themselves a feminist, both privately and publicly. Past research has demonstrated that the majority of women endorsed feminist attitudes and ideology but were reluctant to actually self- identify as a feminist. As holding a feminist identity may provide protection against negative body image and experiences of sexism, it is important to examine why women are unwilling so self-identify as feminists. In this study, we aimed to determine experimentally whether exposure to negative stereotypes about feminists inhibited feminist self-identification in women. Additionally, we are interested in examining the relationships between feminist stereotypes and internalized weight stigma, body shame, and anti-fat attitudes, as well as the relationships between feminist self-identification and internalized weight stigma, body shame, and anti-fat attitudes.
We are conducting this study as an independent replication and expansion of Roy, Weibust, and Miller's original (2007) study to examine these effects in a current, more diverse sample to determine whether the results found in the original study hold true in today's culture of "personalized" feminism, as well as their links to various aspects of body image.
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 81
If participating in this study has caused you any distress or discomfort, please be aware that the researchers of this study are available to answer questions and discuss the purposes of the research further. Additionally, there are resources available through Western and the community to support you:
Western's Psychological Services: https://www.uwo.ca/health/psych/index.html, phone: 519-661-3031
ANOVA: 519-642-3000 (24/7 crisis line)
We are here to answer any questions you may have about the study. Please feel free to contact Courtney Hillier ([email protected]) or Dr. Rachel Calogero ([email protected]). If you have questions about your rights as a research subject, you should contact the Director of the Office of Research Ethics at [email protected] or 519-661-3036.
Thank you again for your time and participation – it is greatly appreciated!
Courtney Hillier & Dr. Rachel Calogero
For further information, you may find the following readings of interest:
Murnen, S. K. & Smolak, L. (2009). Are feminist women protected from body image
problems? A meta-analytic review of relevant research. Sex Roles, 60(3):186-197.
Roy, R. E., Weibust, K. S., & Miller, C. T. (2007) Effects of stereotypes about feminists
on feminist self-identification. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31: 146-156.
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 82
Appendix G: Zero-Order Correlations
Table G 1
Correlations Between Feminist Identity and Body Image Variables
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Feminist self- — identification (pre- test)
2. Feminist self- .53*** — identification (after manipulation)
3. Liberal feminist .34*** .54*** — attitudes and ideology
4. Body shame .09 .08 .19* —
5. Internalized .01 -.09 .13 .64*** — weight stigma: Weight-related distress
6. Internalized -.02 -.07 -.01 .38*** .40*** — weight stigma: Weight-related self-devaluation
7. Anti-fat -.25** -.30*** -.24** -.06 0.04 -.001 — attitudes
8. Broad .16 .21** .23** .11 .03 -.12 -.39*** — conceptualizations of beauty
Note. N = 149, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 83
Table G 2
Correlations Between Feminist Identity and Personality Variables
Feminist self- Feminist self- Liberal feminist identification (pre- identification (after attitudes and test) manipulation) ideology
Need for cognitive closure -.03 -.02 -.03
Social dominance orientation - pro-trait dominance -.03 -.24** -.20**
Social dominance orientation - con-trait dominance -0.02 .15 .08
Social dominance orientation - pro-trait anti-egalitarian -.06 -.23** -.16
Social dominance orientation - con-trait anti-egalitarian .08 .22** .19*
Extraversion -.05 -.07 -.04
Agreeableness .12 .06 .06
Conscientiousness .16 .14 .20*
Neuroticism .13 .13 .22**
Openness -.05 .15 .09
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 84
Table G 3
Correlations Between Feminist Identity, Social Loneliness, and Teasing Variables
Feminist self- Feminist self- Liberal feminist attitudes identification identification (after and ideology (pre-test) manipulation)
Experiences of interest-based .14 .13 .22** teasing (frequency)
Experiences of weight-based .08 .07 .25** teasing (frequency)
Experiences of gender-based .17* .28*** .23** teasing (frequency)
Experiences of height-based -.02 .15 .11 teasing (frequency)
Experiences of personality-based .12 .10 .17* teasing (frequency)
Social loneliness - -.11 -.09 .02 social subscale
Social loneliness - -.003 .06 -.04 family subscale
Social loneliness - .02 -.07 -.11 romantic subscale
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 85
Appendix H: Exploratory Analyses
Table H 1
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Body Shame
Variable β t sr2 R R2 ΔR2
Step 1 .345 .119 .119
Extraversion -.119 -1.380 -.119
Agreeableness .022 .254 .022
Conscientiousness -.062 -.705 -.061
Neuroticism .180 2.065* .176
Openness .110 1.317 .113
Need for Cognitive .095 1.076 .093 Closure
Social Dominance
Orientation – Pro-Trait -.222 -2.249* -.191 Dominance
Social Dominance
Orientation – Con- -.011 -.120 -.010 Trait Dominance
Social Dominance Orientation – Pro-Trait .097 .932 .081 Anti-Egalitarianism
Social Dominance Orientation – Con- -.095 -.959 -.083 Trait Anti- Egalitarianism
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 86
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Body Shame
Step 2 .431 .185 .067
Extraversion -.119 -1.425 -.123
Agreeableness .013 .155 .013
Conscientiousness -.111 -1.295 -.112
Neuroticism .159 1.891 .162
Openness .114 1.418 .123
Need for Cognitive .058 .668 .058 Closure
Social Dominance
Orientation – Pro-Trait -.193 -2.017* -.173 Dominance
Social Dominance
Orientation – Con- .018 .205 .018 Trait Dominance
Social Dominance Orientation – Pro-Trait .080 .799 .069 Anti-Egalitarianism
Social Dominance Orientation – Con- -.104 -1.082 -.094 Trait Anti- Egalitarianism
Experienced Weight .269 3.289** .275 Stigma
Step 3 .483 .233 .047
Extraversion -.080 -.964 -.085
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 87
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Body Shame
Agreeableness .026 .324 .029
Conscientiousness -.086 -1.014 -.089
Neuroticism .152 1.846 .160
Openness .082 1.021 .090
Need for Cognitive .054 .642 .056 Closure
Social Dominance
Orientation – Pro-Trait -.163 -1.718 -.150 Dominance
Social Dominance
Orientation – Con- .005 .054 .005 Trait Dominance
Social Dominance Orientation – Pro-Trait .069 .690 .061 Anti-Egalitarianism
Social Dominance Orientation – Con- -.092 -.972 -.085 Trait Anti- Egalitarianism
Experienced Weight .219 2.628* .225 Stigma
Social Loneliness - .142 1.409 .123 Family
Social Loneliness - .107 1.257 .110 Social
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 88
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Body Shame
Social Loneliness - -.219 -2.057* -.178 Romantic
Step 4 .488 .238 .005
Extraversion -.075 -.897 -.079
Agreeableness .022 .267 .024
Conscientiousness -.100 -1.157 -.102
Neuroticism .145 1.736 .152
Openness .087 1.081 .095
Need for Cognitive .056 .663 .059 Closure
Social Dominance
Orientation – Pro-Trait -.164 -1.726 -.151 Dominance
Social Dominance
Orientation – Con- .015 .170 .015 Trait Dominance
Social Dominance Orientation – Pro-Trait .071 .714 .063 Anti-Egalitarianism
Social Dominance Orientation – Con- -.094 -.989 -.087 Trait Anti- Egalitarianism
Experienced Weight .219 2.632* .227 Stigma
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 89
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Body Shame
Social Loneliness - .141 1.394 .122 Family
Social Loneliness - .122 1.406 .123 Social
Social Loneliness - -.214 -2.003* -.174 Romantic
Feminist Self- .077 .950 .084 Identification (pre-test)
Note. N = 143; *p <.05, **p <.01.
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 90
Table H 2
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Internalized Weight Stigma – Distress Subscale
Variable β t sr2 R R2 ΔR2
Step 1 .369 .136 .136
Extraversion -.079 -.748 -.065
Agreeableness .043 .359 .031
Conscientiousness .224 1.649 .142
Neuroticism .185 1.735 .149
Openness -.060 -.553 -.048
Need for Cognitive .499 2.801** .236 Closure
Social Dominance Orientation – Pro-Trait -.074 -.641 -.056 Dominance
Social Dominance Orientation – Con-Trait -.072 -.637 -.055 Dominance
Social Dominance Orientation – Pro-Trait -.036 -.288 -.025 Anti-Egalitarianism
Social Dominance Orientation – Con-Trait -.152 -1.020 -.088 Anti-Egalitarianism
Step 2 .419 .175 .040
Extraversion -.079 -.759 -.066
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 91
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Internalized Weight Stigma – Distress Subscale
Agreeableness .033 .283 .025
Conscientiousness .165 1.215 .105
Neuroticism .165 1.578 .136
Openness -.056 -.523 -.045
Need for Cognitive .440 2.498* .212 Closure
Social Dominance Orientation – Pro-Trait -.048 -.419 -.036 Dominance
Social Dominance Orientation – Con-Trait -.044 -.395 -.034 Dominance
Social Dominance Orientation – Pro-Trait -.051 -.421 -.037 Anti-Egalitarianism
Social Dominance Orientation – Con-Trait -.162 -1.108 -.096 Anti-Egalitarianism
Experienced Weight .166 2.515* .214 Stigma
Step 3 .440 .194 .019
Extraversion -.073 -.687 -.060
Agreeableness .007 .062 .005
Conscientiousness .175 1.279 .112
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 92
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Internalized Weight Stigma – Distress Subscale
Neuroticism .149 1.414 .124
Openness -.054 -.500 -.044
Need for Cognitive .429 2.430* .209 Closure
Social Dominance Orientation – Pro-Trait -.070 -.610 -.054 Dominance
Social Dominance Orientation – Con-Trait -.025 -.219 -.019 Dominance
Social Dominance Orientation – Pro-Trait -.032 -.265 -.023 Anti-Egalitarianism
Social Dominance Orientation – Con-Trait -.147 -1.004 -.088 Anti-Egalitarianism
Experienced Weight .165 2.415* .208 Stigma
Social Loneliness - .051 .261 .023 Family
Social Loneliness - .214 1.032 .091 Social
Social Loneliness - .212 1.045 .092 Romantic
Step 4 .441 .194 .000
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 93
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Internalized Weight Stigma – Distress Subscale
Extraversion -.074 -.693 -.061
Agreeableness .008 .070 .006
Conscientiousness .178 1.281 .113
Neuroticism .151 1.417 .124
Openness -.055 -.506 -.045
Need for Cognitive .428 2.417* .209 Closure
Social Dominance Orientation – Pro-Trait -.070 -.607 -.054 Dominance
Social Dominance Orientation – Con-Trait -.027 -.235 -.021 Dominance
Social Dominance Orientation – Pro-Trait -.033 -.268 -.024 Anti-Egalitarianism
Social Dominance Orientation – Con-Trait -.147 -.997 -.088 Anti-Egalitarianism
Experienced Weight .165 2.405* .208 Stigma
Social Loneliness - .051 .263 .023 Family
Social Loneliness - .209 .985 .087 Social
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 94
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Internalized Weight Stigma – Distress Subscale
Social Loneliness - .211 1.032 .091 Romantic
Feminist Self- -.022 -.148 -.013 Identification (pre-test)
Note. N = 143; *p <.05, **p <.01.
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 95
Table H 3
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Internalized Weight Stigma – Self-Devaluation Subscale
Variable β t sr2 R R2 ΔR2
Step 1 .234 .055 .055
Extraversion -.067 -1.318 -.114
Agreeableness -.047 -.826 -.071
Conscientiousness .049 .751 .065
Neuroticism -.012 -.246 -.021
Openness -.038 -.733 -.063
Need for Cognitive .061 .715 .062 Closure
Social Dominance Orientation – Pro-Trait -.043 -.774 -.067 Dominance
Social Dominance Orientation – Con-Trait -.014 -.251 -.022 Dominance
Social Dominance Orientation – Pro-Trait -.061 -1.033 -.089 Anti-Egalitarianism
Social Dominance Orientation – Con-Trait -.095 -1.341 -.116 Anti-Egalitarianism
Step 2 .256 .066 .011
Extraversion -.067 -1.319 -.114
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 96
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Internalized Weight Stigma – Self-Devaluation Subscale
Agreeableness -.050 -.868 -.075
Conscientiousness .034 .524 .046
Neuroticism -.017 -.338 -.029
Openness -.037 -.714 -.062
Need for Cognitive .047 .545 .047 Closure
Social Dominance Orientation – Pro-Trait -.036 -.658 -.057 Dominance
Social Dominance Orientation – Con-Trait -.007 -.126 -.011 Dominance
Social Dominance Orientation – Pro-Trait -.064 -1.096 -.095 Anti-Egalitarianism
Social Dominance Orientation – Con-Trait -.098 -1.377 -.119 Anti-Egalitarianism
Experienced Weight .040 1.239 .107 Stigma
Step 3 .279 .078 .012
Extraversion -.065 -1.254 -.110
Agreeableness -.056 -.964 -.085
Conscientiousness .039 .580 .051
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 97
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Internalized Weight Stigma – Self-Devaluation Subscale
Neuroticism -.024 -.474 -.042
Openness -.035 -.669 -.059
Need for Cognitive .043 .500 .044 Closure
Social Dominance Orientation – Pro-Trait -.041 -.728 -.064 Dominance
Social Dominance Orientation – Con-Trait -.001 -.021 -.002 Dominance
Social Dominance Orientation – Pro-Trait -.063 -1.059 -.093 Anti-Egalitarianism
Social Dominance Orientation – Con-Trait -.092 -1.284 -.112 Anti-Egalitarianism
Experienced Weight .033 .997 .087 Stigma
Social Loneliness - -.036 -.383 -.034 Family
Social Loneliness - .125 1.231 .108 Social
Social Loneliness - .077 .773 .068 Romantic
Step 4 .284 .080 .003
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 98
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Internalized Weight Stigma – Self-Devaluation Subscale
Extraversion -.067 -1.288 -.113
Agreeableness -.054 -.925 -.081
Conscientiousness .045 .670 .059
Neuroticism -.021 -.408 -.036
Openness -.037 -.705 -.062
Need for Cognitive .042 .485 .043 Closure
Social Dominance Orientation – Pro-Trait -.041 -.721 -.064 Dominance
Social Dominance Orientation – Con-Trait -.005 -.093 -.008 Dominance
Social Dominance Orientation – Pro-Trait -.064 -1.071 -.094 Anti-Egalitarianism
Social Dominance Orientation – Con-Trait -.091 -1.269 -.111 Anti-Egalitarianism
Experienced Weight .033 .991 .087 Stigma
Social Loneliness - -.035 -.372 -.033 Family
Social Loneliness - .114 1.101 .097 Social
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 99
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Internalized Weight Stigma – Self-Devaluation Subscale
Social Loneliness - .073 .738 .065 Romantic
Feminist Self- -.044 -.598 -.053 Identification (pre-test)
Note. N = 143; *p <.05, **p <.01.
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 100
Table H 4
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Anti-Fat Attitudes
Variable β t sr2 R R2 ΔR2
Step 1 .500 .250 .250
Extraversion -.080 -1.009 -.087
Agreeableness -.128 -1.635 -.140
Conscientiousness .016 .200 .017
Neuroticism -.215 -2.675** -.226
Openness .057 .745 .064
Need for Cognitive .178 2.179* .186 Closure
Social Dominance
Orientation – Pro-Trait .116 1.272 .110 Dominance
Social Dominance
Orientation – Con-Trait -.160 -1.009 -.163 Dominance
Social Dominance Orientation – Pro-Trait .190 1.978 .169 Anti-Egalitarianism
Social Dominance Orientation – Con-Trait .009 .098 .008 Anti-Egalitarianism
Step 2 .509 .259 .009
Extraversion -.080 -1.009 -.088
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 101
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Anti-Fat Attitudes
Agreeableness -.131 -1.681 -.145
Conscientiousness -.002 -.030 -.003
Neuroticism -.222 -2.771** -.234
Openness .059 .768 .067
Need for Cognitive .164 1.992* .171 Closure
Social Dominance
Orientation – Pro-Trait .127 1.390 .120 Dominance
Social Dominance
Orientation – Con-Trait -.149 -1.766 -.152 Dominance
Social Dominance Orientation – Pro-Trait .184 1.915 .164 Anti-Egalitarianism
Social Dominance Orientation – Con-Trait .006 .063 .005 Anti-Egalitarianism
Experienced Weight .101 1.300 .112 Stigma
Step 3 .547 .299 .040
Extraversion -.077 -.964 -.085
Agreeableness -.127 -1.636 -.143
Conscientiousness .005 .057 .005
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 102
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Anti-Fat Attitudes
Neuroticism -.236 -2.967** -.253
Openness .062 .814 .071
Need for Cognitive .162 2.002* .174 Closure
Social Dominance Orientation – Pro-Trait .137 1.510 .132 Dominance
Social Dominance Orientation – Con-Trait -.148 -1.772 -.154 Dominance
Social Dominance Orientation – Pro-Trait .165 1.735 .151 Anti-Egalitarianism
Social Dominance Orientation – Con-Trait .014 .151 .013 Anti-Egalitarianism
Experienced Weight .052 .654 .058 Stigma
Social Loneliness - -.148 -1.534 -.134 Family
Social Loneliness - .172 2.107* .182 Social
Social Loneliness - .044 .428 .038 Romantic
Step 4 .571 .327 .028
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 103
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Anti-Fat Attitudes
Extraversion -.089 -1.133 -.100
Agreeableness -.117 -1.525 -.134
Conscientiousness .036 .439 .039
Neuroticism -.217 -2.761** -.237
Openness .051 .675 .060
Need for Cognitive .158 1.982 .173 Closure
Social Dominance Orientation – Pro-Trait .138 1.552 .136 Dominance
Social Dominance Orientation – Con-Trait -.171 -2.067* -.180 Dominance
Social Dominance Orientation – Pro-Trait .159 1.704 .149 Anti-Egalitarianism
Social Dominance Orientation – Con-Trait .017 .196 .017 Anti-Egalitarianism
Experienced Weight .051 .651 .057 Stigma
Social Loneliness - -.145 -1.524 -.133 Family
Social Loneliness - .139 1.697 .148 Social
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 104
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Anti-Fat Attitudes
Social Loneliness - .031 .313 .028 Romantic
Feminist Self- Identification (pre-test) -.174 -2.295* -.199
Note. N = 143; *p <.05, **p <.01.
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 105
Table H 5
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Broad Conceptualizations of Beauty
Variable β t sr2 R R2 ΔR2
Step 1 .497 .247 .247
Extraversion .033 .408 .035
Agreeableness .205 2.621* .222
Conscientiousness .003 .041 .004
Neuroticism .292 3.629*** .300
Openness -.082 -1.059 -.091
Need for Cognitive -.058 -.708 -.061 Closure
Social Dominance
Orientation – Pro-Trait -.086 -.943 -.081 Dominance
Social Dominance
Orientation – Con-Trait .148 1.757 .151 Dominance
Social Dominance Orientation – Pro-Trait -.060 -.627 -.054 Anti-Egalitarianism
Social Dominance Orientation – Con-Trait .080 .873 .076 Anti-Egalitarianism
Step 2 .498 .248 .001
Extraversion .033 .406 .035
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 106
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Broad Conceptualizations of Beauty
Agreeableness .206 2.621* .222
Conscientiousness .008 .096 .008
Neuroticism .294 3.630*** .301
Openness -.082 -1.060 -.092
Need for Cognitive -.054 -.657 -.057 Closure
Social Dominance
Orientation – Pro-Trait -.089 -.965 -.084 Dominance
Social Dominance Orientation – Con-Trait .146 1.711 .147 Dominance
Social Dominance Orientation – Pro-Trait -.059 -.608 -.053 Anti-Egalitarianism
Social Dominance
Orientation – Con-Trait .081 .878 .076 Anti-Egalitarianism
Experienced Weight -.025 -.316 -.027 Stigma
Step 3 .547 .299 .051
Extraversion .009 .906 .010
Agreeableness .197 2.540* .218
Conscientiousness -.011 -.137 -.012
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 107
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Broad Conceptualizations of Beauty
Neuroticism .308 3.876*** .323
Openness -.068 -.887 -.078
Need for Cognitive -.051 -.631 -.055 Closure
Social Dominance Orientation – Pro-Trait -.111 -1.222 -.107 Dominance
Social Dominance Orientation – Con-Trait .151 1.803 .157 Dominance
Social Dominance
Orientation – Pro-Trait -.039 -.410 -.036 Anti-Egalitarianism
Social Dominance
Orientation – Con-Trait .068 .752 .066 Anti-Egalitarianism
Experienced Weight .040 .502 .044 Stigma
Social Loneliness - .041 .420 .037 Social
Social Loneliness - -.197 -2.409* -.208 Family
Social Loneliness - .072 .706 .062 Romantic
Step 4 .551 .304 .005
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 108
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Broad Conceptualizations of Beauty
Extraversion .015 .183 .016
Agreeableness .192 2.477* .214
Conscientiousness -.025 -.298 -.026
Neuroticism .300 3.752*** .315
Openness -.063 -.821 -.072
Need for Cognitive -.049 -.608 -.054 Closure
Social Dominance Orientation – Pro-Trait -.111 -1.229 -.108 Dominance
Social Dominance Orientation – Con-Trait .161 1.908 .166 Dominance
Social Dominance Orientation – Pro-Trait -.037 -.385 -.034 Anti-Egalitarianism
Social Dominance Orientation – Con-Trait .066 .733 .065 Anti-Egalitarianism
Experienced Weight .040 .507 .045 Stigma
Social Loneliness - .039 .405 .036 Social
Social Loneliness - -.182 -2.196* -.191 Family
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 109
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Broad Conceptualizations of Beauty
Social Loneliness - .077 .756 .067 Romantic
Feminist Self- .075 .976 .086 Identification (pre-test)
Note. N = 143. *p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 110
Appendix I: Ethics Approval Letter
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 111
Curriculum Vitae COURTNEY C. HILLIER Department of Psychology Western University
EDUCATION
MSc Western University, Social Psychology 2021 Supervisor: Rachel Calogero, Ph.D.
BSc York University, Honours Psychology 2018 Graduated Cum Laude Honours Thesis Supervisor: Erin Ross, Ph.D.
GRANTS, HONORS, AND SCHOLARSHIPS
Western Graduate Research Scholarship 2018 - 2020
Member, Golden Key International Honour Society 2017 - Present
• Inducted into York University’s chapter of the GKIHS in which membership is extended to students with GPAs in the top 15% of their respective faculties.
York University Continuing Student Scholarship 2015 - 2017
• Distributed annually to undergraduate degree students who have achieved outstanding academic results in the previous summer and fall/winter sessions.
Dean’s Honour Roll, York University 2014 - 2017
• Academic honour awarded to undergraduate students with a cumulative grade point average of 7.00+.
York University Renewable Entrance Scholarship 2013
• Awarded to secondary school students applying to a direct-entry undergraduate program who are Canadian citizens and have completed their secondary school diploma with high academic standing.
Faculty of Science Entrance Scholarship, York University 2013
• Awarded to Canadian high school students applying to the Faculty of Science with an admission average of 90% or above.
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 112
RESEARCH EXPERIENCE
Lawson Health Research Institute, Parkwood Institute, London, ON 2020 to Present Research Assistant, Mental Health Nursing Research Alliance • Conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews, largely with vulnerable populations (e.g., individuals with lived experience of homelessness/addiction/mental illness) • Gained proficiency in data entry/validation, generating data reports/exporting data, and survey creation using the REDCap database • Assisted with recoding and restructuring large datasets (via SPSS) for upload to ICES Ontario provincial database • Conducted statistical analyses for quarterly research project reports submitted to funding agencies (e.g., Ministry of Health, Public Health Agency of Canada, RBC Foundation) • Transcribed and validated qualitative research participant interviews • Assisted with manuscript preparation (e.g., statistical analyses, literature reviews) • Associated Projects: No Fixed Address, Community Homes for Opportunity, Methamphetamine Harm Reduction, Smart Homes, Homelessness Counts
Master’s Thesis, Western University, London, ON 2021 Supervisor: Rachel Calogero, Ph.D. • Conducting my master’s research on exploring the relationship between weight stigma and feminism, as well as a critical review of measures of experienced weight stigma
Honours Thesis, York University, Toronto, ON 2018 Supervisor: Erin Ross, Ph.D. • Completed undergraduate honours thesis project titled “Personality, Attachment Style, and Relationships in Emerging Adulthood”
Dr. Erin Ross’ Lab, York University, Toronto, ON 2017 to 2018 Research Assistant (Volunteer) • Assisted with the coding of qualitative data • Worked with fellow lab members to ensure consistent coding across study variables
TEACHING EXPERIENCE
Western University, London, ON September 2019 to April 2020 Teaching Assistant, Department of Psychology • Assisted with various teaching aspects of PSYCHOL 2820E, Research Methods and Statistical Analysis in Psychology. Duties included teaching weekly labs, editing and grading students’ research assignments, helping students with course material, and proctoring exams.
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 113
Western University, London, ON September 2018 to April 2019 Teaching Assistant, Department of Psychology • Assisted with various teaching aspects of PSYCHOL 2720 A/B, Introduction to Social Psychology. Duties included planning and teaching weekly tutorials, grading, helping students with course material, and proctoring exams.
PUBLICATIONS
Siegel, J. A., Huelleman, K., Hillier, C. C., & Campbell, L. (2020). The protective role of self-compassion for women’s positive body image: an open replication and extension. Body Image, 32, 136-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2019.12.003
MANUSCRIPTS IN PREPARATION
Hillier, C. C. & Calogero, R. M. (2021). A critical review of self-report measures of experienced weight stigma.
Hillier, C. C., Calogero, R. M., Meadows, A., & Siegel, J. A. (2021). The role of feminist identity in experienced and internalized weight stigma.
CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS
Siegel, J. A., Sawyer, K. B., & Hillier, C. C. (March 2019). You’re not really man-sized: Men, eating disorders, and the workplace. Poster presented at the International Conference on Eating Disorders (ICED), New York, United States.
Hillier, C. C. & Ross, E. C. (April 2018). Personality, Attachment Style, and Relationships in Emerging Adulthood. Poster presented at York University Honours Thesis Poster Presentation, Toronto, Canada.
PROFESSIONAL TRAINING
Leading Interactive Meetings Using Zoom Western University, London, ON, March 2021 Description: Attended virtual event that addressed the challenges of moving to virtual meetings, as well as how to make meetings interactive and engaging using a variety of tools available in Zoom. Highlights include the best use for each tool, how to utilize them, and keys for success.
How to Engage Patients as Members of the Research Team Lawson Health Research Institute, London, ON, January 2021 Description: Attended virtual education workshop organized by Parkwood Institute Research that taught attendees about the importance and benefits of engaging patients as part of the research team; designing research that includes patients as members of the research team; strategies that have been used to engage patients in research; and tips, tricks, and solutions to engage patients and overcome or avoid challenges.
FEMINISM AND BODY-BASED STIGMA 114
GradWrite: Graduate Writing Conference Western University, London, ON, May 2019 Description: Attended one-day conference that addressed specific graduate writing concerns and allowed students to learn need-to-know strategies from accomplished Western faculty. Workshops attended include: “The Secret Life of Sentences: Writing with Clarity and Style,” “Getting Published: Preparing a Manuscript and Writing for Grants,” and “Scholarships: Insights from a Tri-Agency Scholarship Liaison Officer.”
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
Academy for Eating Disorders, 2018 to Present Graduate Student Member
Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, 2018 to Present Graduate Student Member
American Psychological Association, 2018 to Present Graduate Student Member
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE
Organizing Committee Member 7th Annual International Weight Stigma Conference, June 2019
Peer-Reviewed Article(s) for: • International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship
PROFESSIONAL SKILLS
• Strong data analysis skills (familiar with programs such as R, SPSS, Jamovi, etc.) • Survey development/management (e.g., using platforms such as Qualtrics and REDCap) • Familiarity with event management using Whova platform • Manuscript preparation, submission, and review • Grant application preparation and submission • Familiarity with open science practices and registration • American Sign Language (ASL) – Beginner • Korean – Beginner • Experience conducting proxy cost analyses • Familiarity with inter-agency communication and collaboration • Producing digital assets for and moderating virtual events attended by media, city officials, researchers, community partners, etc.