How conceptualising obesity as a disease affects beliefs about weight, and associated weight stigma and clinical decision-making in health care

Objectives: This study empirically investigated how conceptualizing obesity as a disease (i.e., pathologizing obesity) affects beliefs about weight, and weight stigma and discrimination among health professionals. Design: An experiment that manipulated the pathologization of obesity was completed by a multi-nation sample of health professionals from Australia, UK, and USA (N = 365). Methods: Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions where they were asked to conceptualize obesity as a disease or not a disease; then presented with a hypothetical medical profile of a patient with obesity who was seeking care for migraines. We measured biogenetic causal beliefs about obesity, endorsement of weight as a heuristic for health, negative obesity stereotypes, and treatment decisions. Results: Participants in the disease (vs. non-disease) condition endorsed biogenetic causal beliefs more strongly and made more migraine-related treatment recommendations. No effect of the manipulation was found for the remaining outcomes. Biogenetic causal beliefs about obesity were associated with less weight stigma. Endorsing weight as a heuristic for health was associated with greater weight stigma and differential treatment recommendations focused more on the patient's weight and less on their migraines. Conclusions: Pathologizing obesity may reinforce biogenetic explanations for obesity. Evidence demonstrates complex associations between weight-related beliefs and weight stigma and discrimination. Biogenetic causal beliefs were associated with less weight stigma, while endorsing weight as a heuristic for health was associated with greater weight stigma and differential treatment. Further research is needed to inform policies that can promote health without perpetuating weight-based rejection in health care

A community-led intervention to build neighbourhood identification predicts better wellbeing following prolonged COVID-19 lockdowns

IntroductionA growing body of research supports the importance of social cohesion for population wellbeing. However, the majority of this research has been correlational, and rarely have interventions been evaluated.MethodWe conducted a two-timepoint study investigating the role of Neighbour Day, a grass-roots, community-led intervention that seeks to build social cohesion across the population. Among a sample of 843, 125 were Neighbour Day participants while the remainder were not.ResultsWe found that, compared to non-participants, Neighbour Day participants had significantly higher neighbourhood identification, experienced greater social cohesion, and had larger neighbourhood social networks. Between timepoints, the majority of the sample experienced prolonged lockdowns to prevent COVID-19 transmission, and so unsurprisingly, wellbeing declined and psychological distress increased. However, Neighbour Day participants were protected against these negative mental health effects of lockdown. These benefits of Neighbour Day participation were mediated via neighbourhood identification.DiscussionOverall, the findings speak to the promise of large-scale interventions to build social identity, particularly due to their capacity to build resilience and protect people’s wellbeing during times of collective change or crisis

‘I have to be the mum and dad for 4 weeks straight’. Exploring the experiences and support needs of Australian parents and partners engaged in fly-in/fly-out work practices

Fly-in/fly-out (FIFO) work practices have become common place in Australia over the past two decades. Research has documented the personal impact of these work practices, but little peer-reviewed research is available on the family impact of this work. The study aimed to better understand (1) the impact of FIFO work arrangements on children, parents and relationships; (2) strategies parents use to manage the home-away cycle; and (3) preferences for parenting support. Interviews were conducted with six FIFO workers and 15 partners of FIFO workers with at least one child aged 2–12 years. Inductive thematic analysis revealed six themes: effects on children; effects on family relationships; effects on parenting; managing transitions; managing separations; and the need for flexible, tailored parenting support. The findings provided important insight into the experiences of working FIFO with a family and can inform the development of parenting support targeted at FIFO families

The countervailing effects of weight stigma on weight-loss motivation and perceived capacity for weight control

We hypothesized that exposure to weight stigma simultaneously motivation to lose or avoid gaining weight to avoid future stigma and perceived capacity to do so, by heightening concerns about experiencing stigma and negative affect. Study 1 showed that more frequently experiencing weight-based discrimination was associated with greater concerns about being a victim of weight stigma, which predicted increased motivation to lose weight but decreased perceived capacity for weight control. Study 2 showed that participants randomly assigned to view a weight-stigmatizing (vs. control) message showed increased concerns about being a target of weight stigma, which indirectly increased motivation to lose weight and decreased state self-control. These, in turn, predicted increased willingness to engage in unhealthy weight-loss behaviors and decreased perceived capacity for weight control, respectively. Study 3 showed that increased motivation to avoid stigma and increased negative affect mediate these effects of exposure to weight stigma

When stigma is the norm: how weight and social norms influence the healthcare we receive

This research seeks to broaden our understanding of weight stigma and discrimination in healthcare by exploring the influence of social norms on the treatment of higher-weight individuals. We conducted two experimental studies to investigate: (a) how health professionals' treatment decisions are influenced by patient weight; (b) the effect of norms that endorse weight stigma on health professionals' treatment decisions for patients of different weights; and (c) how these norms may operate differently within healthcare, compared with the general public. Practising health professionals (Study 1; N\ua0=\ua0243) and laypeople (Study 2; N\ua0=\ua0242) were randomly assigned to view the medical profile of either an average-weight or higher-weight patient who was seeking health care for migraines. Study 1 revealed that health professionals tended to treat the higher-weight patient for both their presenting condition and their weight. Health professionals who perceived weight stigma to be more normative among their colleagues displayed a hyper-vigilance toward weight, treating weight significantly more among both higher-weight and average-weight patients than those who perceived weight stigma to be less normative. Study 2 found that, unlike health professionals, laypeople treated the higher-weight patient for their weight at the expense of the presenting condition; and such differential treatment was inflated among those who perceived weight stigma to be the norm. The present research found clear evidence of bias in health professionals' treatment decision making—particularly for patients with larger bodies. However, unlike laypeople, this bias did not come at the expense of treating the presenting problem

When trust goes wrong: A social identity model of risk taking

Risk taking is typically viewed through a lens of individual deficits (e.g., impulsivity) or normative influence (e.g., peer pressure). An unexplored possibility is that shared group membership, and the trust that flows from it, may play a role in reducing risk perceptions and promoting risky behavior. We propose and test a Social Identity Model of Risk Taking in eight studies (total = 4,708) that use multiple methods including minimal group paradigms, correlational, longitudinal, and experimental designs to investigate the effect of shared social identity across diverse risk contexts. Studies 1 and 2 provided evidence for the basic premise of the model, showing that ingroup members were perceived as posing lower risk and inspired greater risk taking behavior than outgroup members. Study 3 found that social identification was a moderator, such that effect of shared group membership was strongest among high identifiers. Studies 4 and 5 among festival attendees showed correlational and longitudinal evidence for the model and further that risk-taking was mediated by trust, not disgust. Study 6 manipulated the mediator and found that untrustworthy faces were trusted more and perceived as less risky when they were ingroup compared with outgroup members. Studies 7 and 8 identified integrity as the subcomponent of trust that consistently promotes greater risk taking in the presence of ingroup members. The findings reveal that a potent source of risk discounting is the group memberships we share with others. Ironically, this means the people we trust the most may sometimes pose the greatest risk. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)