Signaling sizeism: An assessment of body size‐based threat and safety cues

Abstract

Pervasive stigma against fat people and evidence for its harmful health consequences highlight the need for a better understanding of people's first‐hand experiences of navigating the world with a stigmatized body size. Drawing on social identity threat theory, we conducted a mixed‐method study with a qualitative examination of threat and safety cues as experienced by people who self‐identify as overweight. In an online survey, 48 people who self‐identified as overweight responded to open‐ended prompts to describe how situational features of a setting signal weight‐based threat and safety to them. Using thematic analysis, we identified several themes that characterized threat and safety cues. Particularly notable were inverse themes, such as structural exclusion versus structural accommodation and homogeneity of others versus general diversity, that highlighted how physical features of, and the people in, an environment positively or negatively impact fat people's psychological experience. Moreover, we conducted exploratory deductive coding using a recent taxonomy of safety cues developed by Kruk and Matsick (in press). Results highlighted how weight‐based stigma both parallels and diverges from other cues of identity safety (e.g., by gender or race/ethnicity). We suggest knowledge about situational cues can inform interventions to mitigate threat and promote safety among both fat people and other stigmatized groups.

A taxonomy of identity safety cues based on gender and race: From a promising past to an intersectional and translational future.

“…This pattern is unsurprising given identity safety cue research emerged from foundational studies based on gender and race in the stereotype threat literature. Nevertheless, people who encounter stigma based on other identities, such as sexual orientation, social class, and weight, display vigilance to their environments and navigate spaces keenly aware of situational cues that influence their belonging (e.g., Cipollina & Sanchez, 2021; Oswald et al, under review; Trawalter et al, 2021). The neglect of people’s identities beyond gender and race constrains the applicability of identity safety cues and leaves behind vulnerable populations as individuals and organizations plan to transform their environments.…”

Too fat to learn: Sizeism as a barrier to college student learning.

“…Which I think reiterates stereotypes that we, as fat people, deal with every day.In this excerpt, Mandy explicitly names how space holds powerful meaning and messages, and when campuses have spaces that do not accommodate fat bodies, the message is clear that fat bodies do not belong. Mandy’s assertion connects to Oswald et al’s (2022) articulation of the relationship between the environment, environmental cues, and minoritized status; this is to say, Mandy’s learning suffered due to an environmental cue or message that fat bodies ought to not exist in the learning space, or if a fat body must exist in the space it must do so uncomfortably and in pain. Mandy expands upon her understanding of the messaging emphasizing a synthesis of common conceptions of the relationship between fatness and intelligence, which inevitably invokes interrelatedness between fatness and ableism broadly (Morimoto, 2019).…”

“…Expressions of sizeism have been found to resemble those of sexism, ableism, racism, and classism (Bucchianeri et al, 2013;Van Amsterdam, 2013) and are also coconstitutive of them (Harrison, 2021;Strings, 2019). Therefore, body size and perceptions thereof are representative of a social category and identity (Campbell, 2022;Oswald et al, 2022), where fat bodies represent a minoritized status. Laurie and Khan (2017) share that "political violence separates majoritarian social formation from the groups they seek to diminutise or exclude" (p. 2).…”

“…For example, explicit weight bias by medical students was measured at more than double the rate of similar bias for socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, or racial groups (Phelan et al, 2014), which underscores antifat sentiment in higher education-in this case-medical curriculum. Still others highlighted the interrelatedness of environment and minoritized status, citing that environmental cues providing safety within the context of race and gender can provide the same positive effect for fat bodies (Oswald et al, 2022), when those environmental cues are present.…”

“…Examples of physical manifestations of weight-based oppression include the presence of unisize and restrictive furniture (Carels & Latner, 2016), which impose a “weight-related barrier” restricting access to physical spaces (Chrisler & Barney, 2017, p. 44). Negative experiences with physical spaces on college campuses that make no accommodation for size have the potential to “create or reinforce feelings of fat stigma” (Brewis et al, 2017, p. 260), which may result in avoidance of these environments (Oswald et al, 2022). Such environments relegate nonconforming bodies to a position of inferiority, resulting in self-blame, withdrawal, and invisibility (Owen, 2012; Stevens, 2018), revealing a size-based hidden curriculum (Stevens, 2018).…”