| Literature DB >> 33489302 |
Andrew Christian1, Bina Parekh1, Gilly Koritzky1.
Abstract
Research on weight-bias against men and/or in the military is scarce. Such a bias might cause some military members, who are otherwise fit to perform their duties, to suffer from discrimination and undue stress. We showed military personnel a picture of a soldier who had either normal weight or overweight. In both conditions, the description of the soldier stated that his physical fitness and job-related skills were good. Nonetheless, the soldier's suitability for promotion was rated lower in the overweight condition. These findings improve our understanding of the impact of bias on the mental and physical health of men with overweight.Entities:
Keywords: discrimination; eating behaviors; eating disorders; gender; health psychology; male; military; obesity; overweight; stigma; weight bias
Year: 2020 PMID: 33489302 PMCID: PMC7768582 DOI: 10.1177/2055102920985374
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Health Psychol Open ISSN: 2055-1029
Differences between study conditions in attitudes toward the soldier.
| Evaluation of the soldier (1–5) | Soldier’s (“Tyler”) appearance | Test statistic |
|
| Cohen’s | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal weight | Overweight | |||||
| Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | |||||
| Tyler would be a role model for younger soldiers in the unit | 4.63 (0.73) | 4.39 (0.82) | 0.039 | 0.050 | 0.31 | |
| I would recommend Tyler for the promotion board | 4.90 (0.35) | 4.61 (0.78) | 0.004 | 0.025 | 0.48 | |
| I would be proud to have Tyler in my squad | 4.78 (0.48) | 4.46 (0.81) | 0.003 | 0.013 | 0.48 | |
| I think Tyler is a good leader | 4.47 (0.80) | 4.24 (0.91) |
|
| 0.27 | |
| Rating of Tyler’s tactical proficiency | 4.00 (0.62) | 3.86 (0.78) |
|
| 0.20 | |
| Rating of Tyler’s technical proficiency | 4.16 (0.73) | 4.05 (0.67) |
|
| 0.16 | |
| Rating of Tyler’s physical fitness | 3.31 (0.53) | 3.14 (0.78) |
|
| 0.26 | |
| Rating of Tyler: Overall | 3.96 (0.53) | 3.73 (0.65) | t(125.7) = 1.70 | 0.014 | 0.038 | 0.39 |
| Adjectives describing the soldier (1–5) | ||||||
| Lazy | 1.75 (0.92) | 1.91 (1.03) |
|
| 0.16 | |
| Has good will power | 4.16 (0.82) | 3.89 (0.99) | 0.046 |
| 0.30 | |
| Has good self-control | 4.18 (0.81) | 3.88 (0.99) | 0.029 |
| 0.33 | |
| Slow | 2.13 (1.15) | 2.46 (1.28) |
|
| 0.27 | |
| Has endurance | 3.72 (0.90) | 3.52 (1.10) |
|
| 0.20 | |
| Active | 4.19 (0.80) | 3.86 (1.01) | 0.019 |
| 0.36 | |
| Weak | 1.93 (0.95) | 2.05 (1.04) |
|
| 0.12 | |
| Self-sacrificing | 4.20 (0.73) | 3.86 (0.91) | 0.021 |
| 0.41 | |
| Self-confident | 4.27 (0.82) | 4.03 (0.84) |
|
| 0.29 | |
| Dependable | 4.34 (0.70) | 4.33 (0.75) |
|
| 0.01 | |
| Responsible | 4.40 (0.79) | 4.21 (0.83) |
|
| 0.23 | |
Uncorrected.
Benjamini–Hochberg correction applied.
p < 0.05. **p < 0.01.
Gender comparisons of service members’ attitudes toward the target soldier.
| Evaluation of the soldier (1–5) | Men | Women | Test statistic |
|
| Cohen’s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | |||||
| Tyler would be a role model for younger soldiers in the unit | 4.525 (0.774) | 4.471 (0.825) |
|
| 0.07 | |
| I would recommend Tyler for the promotion board | 4.758 (0.608) | 4.735 (0.666) |
|
| 0.04 | |
| I would be proud to have Tyler in my squad | 4.576 (0.716) | 4.735 (0.567) |
|
| 0.23 | |
| I think Tyler is a good leader | 4.364 (0.814) | 4.324 (1.007) |
|
| 0.05 | |
| Rating of Tyler’s tactical proficiency | 3.899 (0.735) | 4.029 (0.627) |
|
| 0.18 | |
| Rating of Tyler’s technical proficiency | 4.071 (0.689) | 4.206 (0.729) |
|
| 0.19 | |
| Rating of Tyler’s physical fitness | 3.091 (0.624) | 3.588 (0.657) | <0.0001 | 0.013 | 0.79 | |
| Rating of Tyler: Overall | 3.798 (0.589) | 3.971 (0.627) |
|
| 0.29 | |
| Adjectives describing the soldier (1–5) | ||||||
| Lazy | 1.909 (1.001) | 1.618 (0.888) |
|
| 0.30 | |
| Has good will power | 4.000 (0.904) | 4.118 (0.977) |
|
| 0.13 | |
| Has good self-control | 4.010 (0.863) | 4.059 (1.043) |
|
| 0.05 | |
| Slow | 2.404 (1.228) | 2.000 (1.155) | 0.048 |
| 0.33 | |
| Has endurance | 3.485 (1.014) | 4.000 (0.888) | 0.004 | 0.009 | 0.52 | |
| Active | 3.950 (0.941) | 4.235 (0.819) |
|
| 0.31 | |
| Weak | 2.061 (1.028) | 1.794 (0.880) |
|
| 0.27 | |
| Self-sacrificing | 4.010 (0.839) | 4.029 (0.904) |
|
| 0.02 | |
| Self-confident | 4.162 (0.829) | 4.147 (0.857) |
|
| 0.02 | |
| Dependable | 4.313 (0.709) | 4.382 (0.779) |
|
| 0.09 | |
| Responsible | 4.323 (0.793) | 4.235 (0.890) |
|
| 0.11 | |
Uncorrected.
Benjamini–Hochberg correction applied.
p < 0.05. **p < 0.01.