Rebecca M Puhl1,2, Leah M Lessard1, Rebecca L Pearl3,4, Allison Grupski5, Gary D Foster4,5. 1. Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity, University of Connecticut, Hartford, Connecticut, USA. 2. Department of Human Development & Family Sciences, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut, USA. 3. Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA. 4. Center for Weight and Eating Disorders, Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 5. WW International, Inc, New York, New York, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Across the world, it remains legal to discriminate against people because of their weight. Although US studies demonstrate public support for laws to prohibit weight discrimination, multinational research is scarce. The present study conducted a multinational comparison of support for legislative measures to address weight discrimination and bullying across six countries. METHODS: Participants were adults (n = 13,996) enrolled in an international weight-management program and residing in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the UK, and the US. Participants completed identical online surveys that assessed support for antidiscrimination laws and policies to address weight bullying, demographic characteristics, and personal experiences of weight stigma. RESULTS: Across countries, support was high for laws (90%) and policies (92%) to address weight-based bullying, whereas greater between-country variation emerged in support for legislation to address weight-based discrimination in employment (61%, 79%), as a human rights issue (57%), and through existing disability protections (47%). Findings highlight few and inconsistent links between policy support and sociodemographic correlates or experienced or internalized weight stigma. CONCLUSIONS: Support for policies to address weight stigma is present among people engaged in weight management across Westernized countries; findings offer an informative comparison point for future cross-country research and can inform policy discourse to address weight discrimination and bullying.
OBJECTIVE: Across the world, it remains legal to discriminate against people because of their weight. Although US studies demonstrate public support for laws to prohibit weight discrimination, multinational research is scarce. The present study conducted a multinational comparison of support for legislative measures to address weight discrimination and bullying across six countries. METHODS: Participants were adults (n = 13,996) enrolled in an international weight-management program and residing in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the UK, and the US. Participants completed identical online surveys that assessed support for antidiscrimination laws and policies to address weight bullying, demographic characteristics, and personal experiences of weight stigma. RESULTS: Across countries, support was high for laws (90%) and policies (92%) to address weight-based bullying, whereas greater between-country variation emerged in support for legislation to address weight-based discrimination in employment (61%, 79%), as a human rights issue (57%), and through existing disability protections (47%). Findings highlight few and inconsistent links between policy support and sociodemographic correlates or experienced or internalized weight stigma. CONCLUSIONS: Support for policies to address weight stigma is present among people engaged in weight management across Westernized countries; findings offer an informative comparison point for future cross-country research and can inform policy discourse to address weight discrimination and bullying.
Authors: Rebecca M Puhl; Leah M Lessard; Rebecca L Pearl; Mary S Himmelstein; Gary D Foster Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 5.095
Authors: Rebecca M Puhl; Dianne Neumark-Sztainer; S Bryn Austin; Joerg Luedicke; Kelly M King Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2014-05-29 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: L McGowan; E Heery; Eleni Spyreli; A Kelly; H Croker; C Lawlor; R O'Neill; C C Kelleher; M McCarthy; P Wall; M M Heinen Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2022-10-13 Impact factor: 4.135