Family‐based weight stigma and psychosocial health: A multinational comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Family-based weight stigma can be expressed as criticism, judgment, teasing, and mistreatment by family members because of an individual's body weight. The current study compared the prevalence and psychosocial correlates of family-based weight stigma among adult members of a weight-management program living in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the UK, and the US. METHODS: Participants (N = 8100 adults who reported having ever experienced weight stigma; 95% female; 94% White) completed an identical online survey in their country's dominant language that assessed their experiences of weight stigma from 16 different family member sources, as well as internalized weight bias, body image, eating behaviors, perceived stress, and self-rated health. RESULTS: Family-based weight stigma, especially from mothers (49%-62%), spouses/romantic partners (40%-57%), and fathers (35%-48%), was highly prevalent across countries. Weight stigma from one's immediate family members was associated with indices of poorer psychosocial health across the six countries (β coefficients = |0.08-0.13|). CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight the need for weight stigma-reduction efforts to help family members distinguish between supportive, encouraging discourse and potentially weight-stigmatizing communication. Future research should examine the prevalence and correlates of family-based weight stigma in more diverse community samples, including among racially/ethnically and gender diverse adults, and in non-Western countries.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
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".