Cultural stereotypes and personal beliefs about thin people: A form of fat resistance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stereotypes about fatness and fat people are central to a large body of research examining how fatness operates in intergroup relations, and much is known about the content of these stereotypes about fat people. However, intergroup relations are necessarily bidirectional, and many fat people engage in resistance of the thin ideal, challenging the social power afforded to thinness. Building upon evidence that members of other marginalized groups engage in upward stereotyping – that is, hold stereotypes about members of relevant advantaged groups – we examined fat people’s knowledge and endorsement of stereotypes about thin people to gain insight into fat people’s resistance. In Study 1, we used a qualitative paradigm to elucidate fat people’s ( N = 196) awareness of cultural stereotypes about thin people. In Study 2, we examined fat people’s ( N = 139) personal endorsement of these stereotypes about thin people. Participants generally endorsed thin stereotypes at or above the scale mean, and endorsement of thin stereotyping was positively associated with fat people’s resistance to the notion that thin people are superior. Together, these studies highlight novel stereotype content about thin people and provide insight into fat people’s cognitive, affective, and attitudinal experiences within fat-thin intergroup relations. • We examined fat people’s knowledge and endorsement of stereotypes about thin people. • A qualitative paradigm revealed awareness of cultural stereotypes about thin people. • Upward resistance predicted fat people’s endorsement of stereotypes about thin people. • Research must consider fat people as active agents in thin-fat intergroup relations.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".