![Sample our Health and Social Care journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5938/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Health-Social-Care.jpg"})
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this research was to compare the effects of different causal attributions for overweight and obesity, among individuals with overweight and obesity, on weight-related beliefs, stigmatising attitudes and policy support.
Design: In Study 1, an online sample of 95 US adults rated the extent to which they believed various factors caused their own weight status. In Study 2, 125 US adults read one of three randomly assigned online passages attributing obesity to personal responsibility, biology, or the ‘food environment.’ All participants in both studies were overweight or obese.
Main outcome measures: All participants reported beliefs about weight loss, weight-stigmatising attitudes, and support for obesity-related policies.
Results: In Study 1, biological attributions were associated with low weight-malleability beliefs and blame, high policy support, but high internalised weight bias. ‘Food environment’ attributions were not associated with any outcomes, while ‘personal responsibility’ attributions were associated with high prejudice and blame. In Study 2, participants who received information about the food environment reported greater support for food-related policies and greater self-efficacy to lose weight.
Conclusion: Emphasising the role of the food environment in causing obesity may promote food policy support and health behaviours without imposing the negative consequences associated with other attributions.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Rebecca Puhl, PhD, for providing feedback on the study design and manuscript, and Woo-kyoung Ahn, PhD, for providing feedback on the manuscript.
Funding
This research was funded by the Yale University Department of Psychology.