Separating binge‐eating disorder stigma and weight stigma: A vignette study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Vignette research on binge-eating disorder (BED) stigma is limited and lacking methodological rigor. Existing studies lack control vignettes and typically present characters with overweight or obesity, introducing the confound of weight stigma. This study examined BED stigma while addressing these limitations. METHOD: Participants (N = 421) were assigned to read one of six vignettes describing a woman with either BED or no BED as well as either no mention of weight, a recommended weight, or an obese weight. Four questionnaires examined personality stereotypes, emotional reactions to the character, desire for social distance from the character, and blame attributions. RESULTS: The character with BED was ascribed more negative personality characteristics and faced less positive emotional reactions than the character without BED, regardless of weight status. However, BED stigma did not emerge for social distance or blame attributions. Regarding weight stigma, evidence was limited and moderated by the presence of BED, suggesting no additive effect between BED stigma and weight stigma. In fact, blame attributions toward the character with obesity were reduced by the presence of BED. DISCUSSION: The results reveal that BED is a highly stigmatized eating disorder and suggest that weight stigma may be driven by assumptions about a person's eating behavior rather than their body size per se. Future studies must consider the relationship between BED stigma and weight stigma when assessing either form of stigma. The results also indicate new information to be integrated into anti-weight stigma campaigns as well as policy and public health initiatives.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".