Gaps in Measurement: Highlighting Anti‐Fat Bias as an Underrepresented Construct in the Modified Weight Bias Internalization Scale

ABSTRACT Increasing cross‐sectional literature highlights a strong overlap of internalised weight bias (i.e., weight‐based self‐devaluation) with constructs like body dissatisfaction. The highest overlap is in studies that use the Modified Weight Bias Internalization Scale (WBIS‐M). We argue that anti‐fat bias (e.g., negative judgements of fat people) is a core feature of internalised weight bias definitions not represented in the WBIS‐M, making its items less distinct from body dissatisfaction. To investigate, we examined the longitudinal relationships of anti‐fat bias with internalised weight bias among 3025 sexual minority men using random intercept cross‐lagged panel models. We contend that, if the WBIS‐M adequately captures anti‐fat bias, these constructs should be strongly associated across time. To the contrary, we found medium cross‐lagged (longitudinal) relationships of these constructs over time ( β s 0.07–0.08), and a small between‐person association of these constructs ( β = 0.10). The limited strength of these effects suggests that the WBIS‐M does not adequately capture anti‐fat bias to the extent that existing definitions suggest it should. Researchers must be cognisant of what measures capture, and consider what scales most appropriately capture the components of weight stigma they want to assess.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Social and Personality Psychology Compass
Published
2025-05-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.70057
Primary Topic
Obesity and Health Practices
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Gaps in Measurement: Highlighting Anti‐Fat Bias as an Underrepresented Construct in the Modified Weight Bias Internalization Scale

Scott K. Griffiths, Emma Austen, Sarah Bonell, Jeffrey M. Hunger
Social and Personality Psychology Compass
Obesity and Health Practices
article

Gaps in Measurement: Highlighting Anti‐Fat Bias as an Underrepresented Construct in the Modified Weight Bias Internalization Scale

Scott K. Griffiths, Emma Austen, Sarah Bonell, Jeffrey M. Hunger
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT Increasing cross‐sectional literature highlights a strong overlap of internalised weight bias (i.e., weight‐based self‐devaluation) with constructs like body dissatisfaction. The highest overlap is in studies that use the Modified Weight Bias Internalization Scale (WBIS‐M). We argue that anti‐fat bias (e.g., negative judgements of fat people) is a core feature of internalised weight bias definitions not represented in the WBIS‐M, making its items less distinct from body dissatisfaction. To investigate, we examined the longitudinal relationships of anti‐fat bias with internalised weight bias among 3025 sexual minority men using random intercept cross‐lagged panel models. We contend that, if the WBIS‐M adequately captures anti‐fat bias, these constructs should be strongly associated across time. To the contrary, we found medium cross‐lagged (longitudinal) relationships of these constructs over time ( β s 0.07–0.08), and a small between‐person association of these constructs ( β = 0.10). The limited strength of these effects suggests that the WBIS‐M does not adequately capture anti‐fat bias to the extent that existing definitions suggest it should. Researchers must be cognisant of what measures capture, and consider what scales most appropriately capture the components of weight stigma they want to assess.

Social and Personality Psychology CompassVol. 19(5)
The University of Melbourne (AU), Australian Psychological Society (AU), Miami University (US)
University of Melbourne, World Anti-Doping Agency, Medical Research Council, National Health and Medical Research Council
Openalex Percentile: Top 85%
Obesity and Health Practices
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.