Does terminology matter when measuring stigmatizing attitudes about weight? Validation of a brief, modified attitudes toward obese persons scale

Author:

Martin‐Wagar Caitlin A.1ORCID,Melcher Katelyn A.1,Attaway Sarah E.1,Bennett Brooke L.2,Thompson Connor J.1,Kronenberger Oscar1,Penwell Taylor E.1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Psychology University of Montana Missoula Montana USA

2. Department of Psychology Clemson University Clemson South Carolina USA

Abstract

AbstractObjectiveCommonly used terms like “obese person” have been identified as stigmatizing by those with lived experience. Thus, this study sought to revise a commonly used measure of weight stigmatizing attitudes, the Attitudes Toward Obese Persons (ATOP) scale.MethodsThe original terminology in the 20‐item ATOP (e.g., “obese”) was compared to a modified version using neutral terms (e.g., “higher weight”). Participants (N = 832) were randomized to either receive the original or modified ATOP.ResultsThere was a statistically significant difference, with a small effect size (d = −0.22), between the scores of participants who received the original ATOP (M = 69.25) and the modified ATOP (M = 72.85), t(414) = −2.27, p = 0.024. Through principal component analysis, the modified ATOP was best used as a brief, 8‐item unidimensional measure. In a second sample, confirmatory factor analysis verified the fit of the brief, 8‐item factor structure.ConclusionsFindings suggest that a modified, brief version of the ATOP (ATOP‐Heigher Weight; ATOP‐HW) with neutral language is suitable for assessing negative attitudes about higher‐weight people. The ATOP‐HW may slightly underestimate weight stigma compared to the original ATOP, or the language in the ATOP may magnify negative attitudes. Further examination of the terminology used in weight stigma measures is needed to determine how to best assess weight stigma without reinforcing stigmatizing attitudes. The present study's findings suggest that the use of neutral terms in measures of anti‐fat bias is a promising solution that warrants further investigation.

Funder

National Institute of General Medical Sciences

National Institutes of Health

Publisher

Wiley

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3