- Email: [email protected]
Obesity and gender as status beliefs
Social Science Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Social Science Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ssresearch
Obesity and gender as status beliefs Heather L. Gordon, Lisa Slattery Walker∗, Shahar Gur, Jessie L. Olien University of North Carolina Charlotte, United States
AR TI CLE I NF O
AB S T R A CT
Keywords: Obesity Gender Status Status beliefs Status value Influence
For over 30 years, researchers have examined social influence using status characteristics theory (Berger and Conner, 1974). While research has investigated beauty and attractiveness as status characteristics (e.g., Webster and Driskell, 1983), there is a dearth of research that examines whether obesity has status value using status characteristics theory. The current paper reviews the literature on, demonstrating how they are related to status characteristics. Next, this paper demonstrates how the effects of both gender and obesity can be explained by considering them as status characteristics, which have the potential to create subsequent status beliefs and stigma. Finally, this study reports empirical findings that support obesity as a status characteristic. We find an effect for obesity on ratings of diffuse status, and effects for both obesity and gender on ratings of influence.
1. Obesity and gender as status beliefs According to the Center for Disease Control (NCHS, 2016), over seventy percent of Americans in 2014 were categorized as overweight (body mass index [BMI] < 25), and 37.9% of Americans qualified as obese (BMI < 30). Furthermore, research has shown certain stereotypes and biases occur against obese individuals (Crandall and Biernat, 1990; Larkin and Pines, 1979; Puhl and Brownell, 2003; Puhl and Heuer, 2009 Ryckman et al., 1989). This prevalent issue has negative consequences, but the mechanism by which these consequences occur is unknown. The goal of this study is to provide evidence that obesity can operate as a status characteristic, and that this status characteristic creates subsequent status beliefs. Status characteristics create perceptions of how an individual will perform on a given task (Berger, 1985). Previous research has shown that these status characteristics create subsequent beliefs about an individual's general competence, what Ridgeway (1997) calls status beliefs. Rashotte and Webster (2005) empirically investigated status beliefs about gender. Their research indicates that gender creates status beliefs, such that men are believed to perform better at most tasks than women. While one of our goals in the current study is to replicate Rashotte and Webster's (2005) findings on gender, our main goal is to investigate the possibility of another status characteristic: obesity. This paper extends theory and previous research by investigating obesity as a status characteristic and the ways in which these status beliefs work to affect perceptions of both influence. Specifically, drawing from prior research on status characteristics theory and status beliefs (Ridgeway, 1997), we first demonstrate the links between gender, obesity, and status assumptions. Second, we clarify how these status characteristics are related to perceptions of performance. Third, we report empirical findings from an experiment that tests how obesity and gender relate to perceptions of one's influence and persuasiveness. Finally, we discuss the implications of our findings in both social and organizational life.
∗
Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (L.S. Walker).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2017.12.004 Received 13 February 2017; Received in revised form 30 November 2017; Accepted 9 December 2017 0049-089X/ © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: Gordon, H.L., Social Science Research (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2017.12.004
Social Science Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
H.L. Gordon et al.
1.1. Status characteristics theory Per expectation states theory (Bales, 1950; Berger et al., 1980), status characteristics theory examines certain attributes and qualities that carry value and provide status differentiation. Berger and colleagues (1980: 479) define a status characteristic as “any characteristic of actors around which evaluations of and beliefs about them come to be organized”. Some examples of status characteristics include age, sex, race, physical attractiveness, education, and task expertise (Lucas and Phelan, 2012). These status characteristics may be either specific or diffuse. Specific status characteristics are certain attributes or qualities that are linked to specific abilities, and diffuse status characteristics are considered to affect status beliefs in general and across situations, and have typically included characteristics such as race, sex, age, and, more recently, attractiveness (Berger and Conner, 1974; Berger et al., 1980; Webster and Driskell, 1983). Status characteristics create a hierarchy of expectations in which individuals with high status will influence the behavior of low status individuals more often than low status individuals will influence high status individuals. Additionally, Walker et al. (2011) demonstrate how any nominal descriptive quality can be assigned a status value by either (1) attaching it to another status characteristic or (2) attaching it to unfair outcomes. Thus, a quality that does not previously have any social value can acquire it to create differentiated performance expectations. Therefore, we test whether the state of being obese has a negative status value, especially when attached to the state of being female, which is a lower status for gender. 1.2. Gender and status beliefs Despite society's attempts to create equality among men and women, research has consistently demonstrated how men are favored across most life situations (Cha and Weeden, 2014; Eagly et al., 1992; Ridgeway, 2011; Smith-Lovin et al., 1986). Indeed, from the initial conception of status characteristics theory, gender was recognized as a status characteristic that consistently favored men as the higher status (Berger and Conner, 1974; Berger et al., 1980). While research has shown mixed results on the fifth assumption for status characteristics described previously (Smith-Lovin and Brody, 1989; Rashotte and Smith-Lovin, 1997), empirical investigation on gender as a status characteristic has received overall support. Recently, Rashotte and Webster (2005) empirically investigated status beliefs about gender. Based on the work by Ridgeway (1997), Rashotte and Webster (2005: 618) state that gender status beliefs might exist non-consciously as they create a biased pattern of an advantage for men and disadvantage for women when it comes to evaluations, behaviors, and reward outcomes. Rashotte and Webster provided gender information and pictures of applicants to participants and then asked them a variety of status-related questions about the individual in the photograph. Their research indicates that gender creates status beliefs that will affect others’ perceptions on a variety of abilities and characteristics about an individual. Therefore, we hypothesize: Hypotheses 1a-b. Gender will create status beliefs such that men will be rated higher than women on (a) diffuse status characteristics and (b) specific status characteristics. In addition to gender status beliefs, we believe gender will create differences in the amount of perceived influence of an individual. If men are believed to be more intelligent and competent than women (Rashotte and Webster, 2005), they will also be more likely to be perceived as more influential and persuasive. The current study investigates the effects of gender status beliefs on the amount of perceived such that men are expected to demonstrate more influence than women. Hypothesis 1c. Gender will affect perceptions of influence such that men will be perceived as more influential than women.
1.3. Obesity and status beliefs Webster and Driskell (1983) found that beauty produces diffuse and specific status beliefs, such that people who are rated as more physically attractive are also rated as more competent in general and in specific situations. Their data did not support an interaction between the sex of the rater and the sex of the subject, suggesting that romantic or sexual attraction is not playing a role in these observed status differentiations. Therefore, a different mechanism is driving the differences in expectations. To further explore the mechanisms behind this finding, we focus on a subset of physical attractiveness, weight (Derous et al., 2016), and its related status beliefs. Weight is a continuous variable, but because we are using status characteristics theory as our framework, we operationalize it in a dichotomous way by describing the attribute of weight as obese or non-obese. We choose obesity as opposed to other subsets of beauty for the sake of clarity in this study because it is objective, salient, and prevalent. Obesity is defined by the Center for Disease Control as having an excessively high amount of body fat in relation to lean body mass. Obesity is a growing epidemic in the U.S. reflecting changes in work, leisure activities, and types and quantities of food consumption (Bell and McLaughlin, 2006), and is higher in women (38.3%) and middle-aged people (40.2%) (Ogden et al., 2015). As obesity prevalence increases, so does the prevalence of obesity's negative outcomes. Research on discrimination and mistreatment shows a persistent stigma against overweight individuals (Roehling, 1999). A review by Puhl and Brownell (2001) investigated years of research examining bias toward overweight and obese individuals. They found that weight discrimination is apparent across various environments including the workplace, health care, and education. For example, a study collected data from mental health professionals and found that they rated their obese clinical clients more negatively than their normal-weight counterparts (Young and Powell, 1985). Additionally, previous research has also shown that obese individuals are viewed as possessing the following negative traits: laziness (Ryckman et al., 1989); lack of self-discipline (Larkin and Pines, 1979); carelessness (Ruggs et al., 2015); sloppiness (Vartanian and Silverstein, 2013); and incompetence (Puhl and Brownell, 2
Social Science Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
H.L. Gordon et al.
2003). These negative perceptions of obese individuals persist even after medical research suggesting that weight is a result of genetic factors in addition to behavioral factors and the environment (Angier, 1997). A study by King and colleagues (2014) examined how even top executives in organizations are subjected to the effects of obesity stigma. They collected self- and other-report data on 757 top-level managers, vice presidents, and CEOs. They found that top-level executives received more negative evaluations if they had a larger waistline, even after accounting for BMI, physical activity, and other related covariates. The high status value of being a top executive does not shield someone from this effect. In addition, these negative evaluations can hinder a worker's ability to obtain promotions. Thus, their results corroborate a claim made by Glass et al. (2010), who reported that weight can also influence long-term career attainment. In addition to being stigmatized, obese individuals are also more likely to become targets of discrimination. Based on data from the National Survey of Midlife Development in the US, a nationally representative sample of adults aged 25–74 years, Roehling et al. (2007) found that overweight respondents were 12 times more likely, obese respondents were 37 times more likely, and severely obese respondents were 100 times more likely than normal weight respondents to report employment discrimination. In addition, women were 16 times more likely to report weight-related employment discrimination than men (Roehling et al., 2007). Carr and Friedman (2005) found that obese individuals, compared to normal weight individuals, are more likely to report interpersonal discrimination. In addition, within the workplace context, Carr and Friedman also found that obese professionals were more likely to report employment discrimination and interpersonal mistreatment than non-professionals. Obese individuals, and especially obese women, also receive lower wages than non-obese individuals (Cawley, 2004; Register and Williams, 1990). Experimental research has also shown that overall negative evaluations are more likely to occur for obese individuals than for normal weight individuals. Jasper and Klassen (1990) demonstrated that college students rated obese salespeople more negatively than non-obese individuals. Furthermore, their research showed that the negative evaluations of obesity were stronger for females than for males (Bellizzi et al., 1989). In a simulated work situation, Larkin and Pines (1979) also found that individuals were less likely to hire an obese job applicant despite equality of physical and mental abilities with normal weight applicants. Following Webster and Driskell's (1983) explanation of beauty as a status characteristic, obesity must meet the following definitional components. First, despite obesity's prevalence in society, it is viewed as less prestigious than being thin or of average weight (Hebl and Turchin, 2005). Researchers have also suggested that there is a bias against obese individuals called “symbolic fatism” (Crandall, 1994). This symbolic fatism shares some of the same issues of symbolic racism where there exists the belief that individuals do not have certain valued qualities due to their appearance, and this belief results in prejudicial views against the obese (Bell and McLaughlin, 2006). Second, as shown in the previous research investigating perceptions of obesity, the characteristic of being obese carries numerous connotations for other characteristics (i.e. lazy, incompetent, selfish, etc.). Finally, thin individuals will be perceived as being better at most tasks than obese individuals. This belief has been shown especially in relation to hiring practices, where thin or averageweighted individuals are selected and believed to perform better than obese individuals, all else being equal (Agerstrom and Rooth, 2011; Caliendo and Lee, 2013; Jasper and Klassen, 1990; Kutcher and Bragger, 2004; Larkin and Pines, 1979; Rooth, 2009). Given these findings, we deduce that obesity has a negative status value; individuals who are obese are considered low status and those who are not obese are considered high status. These status differentials will affect the expectations others have for obese individuals in an interaction. According to the first assumption of status characteristics, whenever weight differentiates individuals, it will become salient and important in an interaction. The second assumption will be in effect if whenever perceptions of weight are salient, people will treat weight as though it provided information about a person's abilities at a task. The third assumption states that if obesity is a status characteristic then it will create structure in interactions. The fourth assumption asserts that obesity will be aggregated with other status information to come to an overall expectation for an individual. Finally, the fifth assumption maintains that obesity will affect the behavior of others and how they relate in an interaction. To provide an initial empirical test of whether obesity operates as a status characteristic, we focus testing assumptions 1 and 2. We propose that the status characteristic of weight relates to general ideas about competence, or status beliefs, for those who are obese versus thin. We suggest that obese individuals are perceived to perform less well than thin or average-weight individuals on a variety of tasks and abilities: Hypotheses 2a-b. Obesity will create status beliefs such that obese individuals will be rated lower than thin individuals on (a) diffuse status characteristics and (b) specific status characteristics. Since the source of the influence is an important component in considering how well one is persuaded and influenced, it is likely that influence will also be affected by status beliefs of obesity. If individuals who are obese are viewed as less competent than their thin counterparts, they may also be perceived as having less of an ability to persuade and influence others: Hypothesis 2c. Obesity will affect perceptions of influence such that thin individuals will be perceived as more influential than obese individuals. Expectation states theory also explains the formation of interactional status structures that develop as individuals gather information from their surroundings to generate expectations about others competency and anticipated performance (Wagner and Berger, 2002). Per the fourth general assumption of status characteristics theory, actors combine all evaluated information, considering the valence of the status characteristics, to form aggregated expectations (e.g., Kalkhoff and Thye, 2006). As weight and gender characteristics co-occur, they may interact to create a synergistic effect, above and beyond that of additive effects. For example, a study by Smith et al. (2016) found interaction effects for weight and gender to predict perceived warmth of customer 3
Social Science Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
H.L. Gordon et al.
service agents. Therefore, being obese and being a woman may negatively influence status perceptions more so than being a woman or being overweight alone: Hypotheses 3a-b. Obesity and gender status beliefs will have an interaction effect such that women who are obese will be rated lower than women who are thin and men who are obese on (a) both diffuse and specific status characteristics and (b) perceptions of influence.
1.4. The current study The first two goals of this study are to investigate status beliefs about both obesity and gender (H1a, H1b, H2a, H2b). The third goal of this study is to examine how these two status characteristics affect perceptions on influence (H1c, H1d, H2c, H2d). We use a two-by-two experimental design in which participants were displayed photos of obese vs. thin and male vs. female individuals. To test the Hypotheses, the researchers gave a transcript of a lawyer's closing statement and the photo of an individual (fat or thin; male or female) to participants. The researchers chose to use a lawyer's closing statement because court settings have been found to be ideal for studying influence (Efran, 1974; Hahn and Clayton, 1996; Linz and Penrod, 1984). If gender and obesity create status beliefs, participants should rate individuals of different genders and weights differently. Different expectations should be found for both diffuse expectations and specific expectations. In addition, if status beliefs regarding gender and obesity affect perceived influence and persuasiveness, participants should rate individuals differently on the influence items even though the closing statement remains the same across conditions. 2. Methods 2.1. Sample and procedure Participants were recruited from an online subject pool at a large, public university in the Southeast. The sample includes 1089 participants and approximates the school's demographics on gender and race, with the sample including 763 females, 325 males, 816 whites, and 273 non-whites. Students from psychology courses were recruited for participation in the study via email. In exchange for participation, all individuals received credit for their general psychology class requirements. After agreeing to take part in the study, participants were sent a link to an online survey. Participants first saw a photo of an individual's face along with a fictitious name and age. The name of the individual was either Diane (for the female target) or John (for the male target). These names were chosen based on Rashotte and Webster's (2005) study, in which they used the same names when investigating gender. In all cases, the age of the target was 40 years old. The photo shown to participants represented one of four conditions. The photo was either of a male or female, who was either thin or obese. We chose photos that appeared to be average in weight and attractiveness; the pictures were then manipulated to appear as more overweight through Adobe for the obese condition. This resulted in a 2 (male vs. female) by 2 (thin vs. obese) experimental design. In addition to the picture and basic information about the individual (name and age), participants were told the target was a lawyer, and were presented with a closing statement (see Appendix) delivered by the target. The survey then asked the participant to examine the photo and read the lawyer's transcript. The transcript was the same across conditions. The closing statement transcript was adapted from an actual court case (The State of New York vs. Kaplan, 1991), and was used previously in a study examining the effects of presentation style and attorney gender on juror decisions (see Hahn and Clayton, 1996). A neutral closing statement that is neither extremely powerful nor weak, according to Hahn and Clayton (1996), was chosen to examine the perception of influence by participants. Once participants read the closing statement and examined the photograph, they answered questions about status beliefs, and influence. Demographic information regarding the participants’ sex, race, age, and major was also collected. Once participants finished the surveys, they were directed to a page debriefing them about the study. 2.2. Outcome variables 2.2.1. Status belief measures Webster and Driskell's (1983) measures of general expectations and specific performance expectations were both used to assess gender and obesity status beliefs. These two measures were developed for investigating status beliefs about both attractiveness (Webster and Driskell, 1983) and gender (Rashotte and Webster, 2005). These measures assess both specific and general performance expectations. The measure of general expectations has 9 response options with anchors ranging from “Below Average” at one end, “Average” in the middle, and “Above Average” at the other end. Responses are recorded by marking on one of nine blank spaces between the end points (these are not numbered). The composite score for the diffuse status belief measure was calculated from the mean of the following 9 items. The items all loaded onto one latent factor in an exploratory factor analysis (item lambdas ranged from .73 to .87), a confirmatory factor analysis had a satisfactory model fit index (CFI = .96), and the internal consistency of this measure was well above the cutoff value for acceptable reliability (α = .91). The general expectations measure asks the following questions: 4
Social Science Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
H.L. Gordon et al.
1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)
How intelligent do you perceive [name] to be? How well do you expect [name] to do at situations in general? In terms of things that you think count in this world, how does [name] rate? How capable do you think [name] is at most tasks? How do you rate [name] concerning reading ability? How do you rate [name] at abstract abilities? How would you rate [name's] grade point average?
To measure specific performance expectations, both Webster and Driskell (1983) and Rashotte and Webster (2005) used a single item regarding how well the participant perceived the individual to do at a private pilot's licensing exam. However, since the current study specifically assesses a target individual who is a lawyer, we created the item: “[Name] took the state bar exam in order to practice law. How well do you think [name] probably did on this exam?” The anchors for this item are identical to the general expectation items. 2.2.2. Influence To assess how influential the lawyer's closing statement was perceived to be, participants were asked to answer: “How much do you believe [name] influenced the jury's decisions?” This item's anchors and response scales was identical to those of the status belief measures. 2.3. Independent variables Target Gender and Target Weight were operationalized through the use of photographs. Both target gender and target weight was varied by condition, such that each participant was shown a photograph of either a man or a woman, who was either thin or obese. The photographs used in this study were obtained from a stock photo website. Two photos were chosen, one of a woman and one of a man. Photoshop was used to alter the appearance of weight in the photos (changed from average to both thin and obese). To control for other status issues (Hebl and Turchin, 2005), only white individuals were chosen for the photos. Once the final photos were developed, a pilot test was administered to ensure that the differences between the conditions were obvious. For analysis, target gender (0 = female, 1 = male) and target weight (0 = thin, 1 = obese) were dummy coded. 3. Analysis and results Descriptive statistics and point biserial correlations are presented in Table 1. Age has been centered since that is how we use it in the multivariate analysis below. The actual mean age of respondents was 23.2. To test the proposed Hypotheses, hierarchical multiple regression was used to assess main effects. Models were estimated for the dependent variables diffuse status, specific status, and influence. These variables were regressed onto the predictor variables target gender and target weight. Two-way interactions among target gender and target weight were also tested. The first model, used to test Hypotheses 1a and 2a, can be found in Table 2, Step 1. This model assessed the dependent variable diffuse status. Hypothesis 1a, that gender would create status beliefs such that men would be rated higher than women on diffuse status characteristics, was not supported. Target gender (b = .13, p > .05) did not significantly affect diffuse status beliefs. Hypothesis 2a, that obesity would create status beliefs such that obese individual would be rated lower than thin individuals on diffuse status, was supported. Target weight significantly affected diffuse status (b = −.31, p < .05). The second model in Table 2, Step 1 tested Hypotheses 1b and 2b. This model assessed the dependent variable specific status. No main effects were found for target weight or target gender on specific status beliefs. As such, Hypotheses 1b and 2b, that both gender and obesity would create status beliefs such than men and thin individual would be rated higher on specific status than women and obese individuals, were not supported. Table 1 Descriptive statistics and correlations.
Age (P) White (P) Male (P) Diffuse Status Specific Status Influence Male (T) Obese (T) MaleXObese (T)
M
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 .75 .30 5.94 6.17 5.59 .52 .48 .26
7.36 .43 .46 1.18 1.48 1.75 .50 .50 .44
– -.02 -.02 -.02 -.05 -.06 -.03 -.05 .00
– .08∗ .00 -.03 .00 -.01 .05 .01
– -.05 -.06 -.00 .01 .01 .02
– .74∗∗ .37∗∗ .05 -.12∗∗ -.06∗∗
– .31∗∗ .03 -.02 -.01
– .23∗∗ -.13∗∗ .06
– .04 .57∗∗
– .61∗∗
Note. N = 1089. ∗∗p < .01, ∗p < .05. (two-tailed test for significance). P=Participant; T = Target. Gender variables coded as 0 = female, 1 = male; race coded as 0 = non-white; 1 = white; target weight coded as 0 = thin; 1 = obese.
5
Social Science Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
H.L. Gordon et al.
Table 2 Results of hierarchical multiple regression (OLS) on Diffuse Status, Specific Status, and Influence. Model
1 - Diffuse Status
2 - Specific Status
3 - Influence
b
S.E
b
S.E
b
S.E
Intercept Male (T) Obese (T)
6.02∗∗ .13 -.31∗∗ .020
.06 .07 .07
6.17∗∗ .08 -.06 .001
.08 .09 .09
5.42∗∗ .81∗∗ -.48∗∗ .071
.09 .10 .10
Intercept Male (T) Obese (T) MaleXObese (T)
6.00∗∗ .18 -.26∗ -.10 .000
.07 .10 .10 .14
6.12∗∗ .18 .05 -.21 .001
.09 .13 .13 .18
5.44∗∗ .77∗∗ -.53∗∗ .09 .000
.10 .14 .15 .21
Intercept Male (T) Obese (T) MaleXObese (T) Age (P; centered) Male (P) White (P)
6.04∗∗ .18 -.26∗ -.09 .00 -.12 .00 .003
.10 .10 .10 .14 .01 .08 .08
6.24∗∗ .17 .05 -.21 -.01 -.18 -.08 .007
.12 .13 .13 .18 .01 .10 .10
5.46∗∗ .77∗∗ -.52∗∗ .09 -.01 .00 -.03 .002
.14 .14 .15 .21 .01 .11 .12
Step 1
R2 Step 2
ΔR2 Step 3
ΔR2 Note. N = 1089. b = unstandardized weight.
∗∗
p < .01, ∗p < .05. (two-tailed test for significance). P=Participant; T = Target.
The third model in Table 2, Step 1was used to test Hypotheses 1c and 2c and assessed the dependent variable influence. Hypothesis 1c, that gender will affect perceptions of influence such that men will be perceived as more influential than women, was supported (b = .81, p < .01). Hypothesis 2c, that weight will affect perceptions of influence such that than individuals will be rated as more influential than obese individuals, was supported. Target weight significantly affected perceptions of influence (b = −.48, p < .01). Finally, across all four models, the interaction term of weight and gender was entered in the second and third steps to test Hypotheses 3a and 3b. The interaction term did not have a statistically-significant effect on any of the dependent variables, even when subject characteristics are included as controls. Thus, we did not find support for the hypothesized interaction between weight and gender.
4. Discussion Overall, the results provide mixed support for our Hypotheses. While these data did not find obesity to be a significant predictor of specific status, a target's weight was found to be a significant predictor of diffuse status. This suggests that obesity does operate as a diffuse status characteristic, with thin individuals appearing to be valued differently and perform better on tasks in general than their obese counterparts. Most interesting, a target's weight and gender were both significantly predictive of ratings of influence. Both male targets and thin targets were perceived as more influential than female targets and obese targets. When taken with a lack of support for specific status, this may suggest that there is an additional underlying mechanism, other than status beliefs, driving perceptions of influence. However, it is also possible that social desirability may account for the observed discrepancies. This study helps clarify how weight, as a subset of physical attractiveness, can explain the observed status beliefs found in previous research. Our findings on influence may explain why obese individuals may be seen as performing less well than non-obese individuals, particularly for those in leadership roles at higher levels of the organization where these characteristics are highly relevant to one's job tasks. Thus, our research contributes to the literature by explaining the mechanism behind the stigma associated with obesity. Prior research has found that implicit gender belief measures, compared to explicit measures, tend to more accurately capture biased gender beliefs due to social desirability (Heyman and Legare, 2004). Additionally, Foschi and Lapointe (2002) did not find gender to be a status characteristic in their study on rejection of influence in an undergraduate sample. Therefore, it may be that individuals are more apt to answer in a socially-desirable way when asked more explicitly about competency perceptions. However, when asked more implicit questions, for example, those regarding influence, individuals may not be cognizant of how their answers are reflecting socially undesirable biases. A limitation to this study is the treatment of gender as binary in today's gender-diverse world (Davis, 2009). By focusing on the cisgendered categories of male and female, we are limited in our abilities to make predictions that include the trajectory of trans and non-binary gender categories. However, our theoretical framework enables us to make binary predictions because status characteristics theory mainly focuses on the differences between high status and low status categories. Future research can expand on our study by exploring status differences using a trajectory of genders.
6
Social Science Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
H.L. Gordon et al.
5. Conclusions While previous research has reported on the effects of obesity-related stigma (Schafer and Ferraro, 2011), the current paper extends this research by providing a theoretical explanation for the negative connotations associated with obesity by demonstrating that it has status value. As the prevalence of weight-based discrimination continues to rise (Lusk and Ellison, 2013), it is important to understand the theoretical underpinnings driving stigmatization. By approaching obesity as a status characteristic, future research can investigate how obesity fits into larger constellations of status characteristics and provide a clearer picture of how obesity operates with already-known status characteristics such as age and race. In addition, future contributions in this area could attempt to address some of the shortcomings of this current study. Future research could employ an alternative to still photographs, potentially using video recordings to present targets of varying weights. Future research could also incorporate target ethnicity to test whether status beliefs regarding obesity are moderated by racial characteristics. Recently, the popular press has brought attention the negative biases engendered by both weight and ethnicity (Young, 2013). Understanding how weight and ethnicity operate together is a societal concern, and one that can be further addressed through the application of status characteristics theory. Ultimately, unlike discrimination based on other status characteristics, such as race or gender, obesity discrimination is not generally illegal (Bell and McLaughlin, 2006). As such, our findings highlight the need for further empirical and conceptual work addressing obesity status perceptions within the workplace. With the persistence of weight bias and discrimination at the workplace (Puhl and Brownell, 2001), it is important for researchers to explore the mechanisms driving negative perceptions of obese individuals. To ensure fairness practices within the workplace, it is vital that future research addresses in what ways, if any, obesity impacts implicit perceptions regarding the competency of overweight workers. Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2017.12.004. Appendix. Prosecuting Attorney's Closing Statement PROSECUTING ATTORNEY: Ladies and gentlemen, Martin Kaplan was found three blocks from the scene of the assault and robbery. He had blood on his hands and blood on his boots. He was brought to the station, placed in a line-up with seven other men, and identified by an eye-witness … an eye-witness who watched the entire scene from a pay phone just twenty feet away, relaying information to the 9-1-1 dispatcher. He was without a doubt in the best position to view the attackers. You heard yourself how confident Mr. Wilder was in his identification of the defendant. “I saw him” he stressed in his testimony, pointing at the defendant. We're not charging Mr. Kaplan because we need someone to blame and he is convenient. We are charging Mr. Kaplan because he mauled two innocent men and took their wallets. Someone saw him do it. He had blood all over him. He matches the description of a medium-built young white man wearing all black and big boots. We also have the identification by Solder. Now, Solder isn't as absolutely sure that he had identified the right guy, as you heard in the testimony. But something compelled him to point out Kaplan in the line-up he had a gut feeling, and he was right. So, we have positive identification, a pretty-sure identification, black clothes, steel boots, bloody hands and boots, medium-build, white man … strong, strong evidence. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the man who mauled Mr. Solder and Mr. Leamy. This is the man who severely beat two young, innocent men for a little bit of cash. The evidence supports this, and you should make your decision accordingly. Thank you. References Agerstrom, J., Rooth, D.O., 2011. The role of automatic obesity stereotypes in real hiring discrimination. J. Appl. Psychol. 96, 790–805. Angier, N., 1997. Researchers Link Obesity in Humans to Flaw in Genes. New York Times, pp. A8 December: A1. Bales, R.F., 1950. Interaction Process Analysis. Addison Wesley, Reading, MA. Bell, M.P., McLaughlin, M.E., 2006. Outcomes of appearance and obesity in organizations. In: Konrad, A., Prasad, P., Pringle, J.K. (Eds.), The Handbook of Workplace Diversity. Sage, Thousand Oaks: CA, pp. 455–474. Bellizzi, J.A., Klassen, M.L., Belonax, J.J., 1989. Stereotypical beliefs about overweight and smoking and decision-making in assignments to sales territories. Percept. Mot. Skills 69, 419–429. Berger, J., Conner, T.L., 1974. Performance expectation and behavior in small groups: a revised formulation. In: Berger, J., Conner, T.L., Fisek, M.H. (Eds.), Expectations States Theory: a Theoretical Research Program. Winthrop, Cambridge, MA, pp. 85–109. Berger, J., Rosenholtz, S.J., Zelditch, M., 1980. Status organizing processes. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 6, 479–508. Berger, J., 1985. Status, Rewards, and Influence. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass. Caliendo, M., Lee, W.S., 2013. Fat chance! Obesity and the transition from unemployment to employment. Econ. Hum. Biol. 11, 121–133. Carr, D., Friedman, M.A., 2005. Is obesity stigmatizing? Body weight, perceived discrimination, and psychological well-being in the United States. J. Health Soc. Behav. 46, 244–259. Cawley, J., 2004. The impact of obesity on wages. J. Hum. Resour. 39, 452–474. Cha, Y., Weeden, K.A., 2014. Overwork and the slow convergence in the gender gap in wages. Am. Socio. Rev. 79, 457–484. Crandall, C., 1994. Prejudice against fat people: ideology and self-interest. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 66, 882–894. Crandall, C.S., Biernat, M.R., 1990. The ideology of anti-fat attitudes. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 20, 227–243. Davis, E.C., 2009. Situating “fluidity”(trans) gender identification and the regulation of gender diversity. GLQ A J. Lesbian Gay Stud. 15, 97–130. Derous, E., Buijsrogge, A., Roulin, N., Duyck, W., 2016. Why your stigma isn't hired: a dual-process framework of interview bias. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 26, 90–111. Eagly, A.H., Makhijani, M.G., Klonsky, B.G., 1992. Gender and the evaluation of leaders: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 111, 3–22. Efran, M.G., 1974. The effect of physical appearance on the judgment of guilt, interpersonal attraction, and severity of recommended punishment in a simulated jury
7
Social Science Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
H.L. Gordon et al.
task. J. Res. Pers. 8, 45–54. Foschi, M., Lapointe, V., 2002. On conditional Hypotheses and gender as a status characteristic. Soc. Psychol. Q. 65, 146–162. Glass, C.M., Haas, S.A., Reither, E.N., 2010. The skinny on success: body mass, gender and occupational standing across the life course. Soc. Forces 89, 1777–1806. Hahn, P.W., Clayton, S.D., 1996. The effects of attorney presentation style, attorney gender, and juror gender on juror decisions. Law Hum. Behav. 20, 533–554. Hebl, M.R., Turchin, J.M., 2005. The stigma of obesity: what about men? Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 27, 267–275. Heyman, G.D., Legare, C.H., 2004. Children's beliefs about gender differences in the academic and social domains. Sex. Roles 50, 227–239. Jasper, C.R., Klassen, M.L., 1990. Perceptions of salespersons: appearance and evaluation of job performance. Percept. Mot. Skills 71, 563–566. Kalkhoff, W., Thye, S.R., 2006. Expectation states theory and research: New observations from meta-analysis. Socio. Meth. Res. 35, 219–249. King, E., Rogelberg, S.G., Hebl, M., Braddy, P.W., Shanock, L., Doerer, S., Gordon, H., Mcdowell, S., 2014. Waistlines and ratings of top executives: does executive status overcome obesity stigma? Hum. Resour. Manag. 55, 283–300. Kutcher, E.J., Bragger, J.D., 2004. Selection interviews of overweight job applicants: can structure reduce the bias? J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 34, 1993–2022. Larkin, J.C., Pines, H.A., 1979. No fat persons need apply. Sociology of Work and Occupations 6, 312–327. Linz, D.G., Penrod, S., 1984. Increasing attorney persuasiveness in the courtroom. Law Psychol. Rev. 8, 1–47. Lucas, J.W., Phelan, J.C., 2012. Stigma and status: the interrelation of two theoretical perspectives. Soc. Psychol. Q. 75, 310–333. Lusk, J.L., Ellison, B., 2013. Who is to blame for the rise in obesity? Appetite 68, 14–20. National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), 2016. Health, United States, 2015: with Special Feature on Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities. (Hyattsville, MD). Ogden, C.L., Carroll, M.D., Fryar, C.D., Flegal, K.M., 2015. Prevalence of Obesity Among Adults and Youth: United States, 2011–2014. NCHS data brief, no 219. National Center for Health Statistics, Hyattsville, MD. Puhl, R., Brownell, K., 2001. Bias, discrimination, and obesity. Obes. Res. 9, 788–905. Puhl, R., Brownell, K.D., 2003. Ways of coping with obesity stigma: review and conceptual analysis. Eat. Behav. 4, 53–78. Puhl, R.M., Heuer, C., 2009. The stigma of obesity: a review and update. Obesity 17, 941–964. Rashotte, L.S., Smith-Lovin, L., 1997. Who benefits from being bold: the interactive effects of task cues and status characteristics on influence in mock jury groups. Adv. Group Process. 14, 235–255. Rashotte, L.S., Webster, M., 2005. Gender status beliefs. Soc. Sci. Res. 34, 618–633. Ridgeway, C.L., 1997. Interaction and the conservation of gender inequality. Soc. Psychol. Q. 62, 218–235. Ridgeway, C.L., 2011. Framed by Gender: How Gender Inequality Persists in the Modern World. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Register, C.A., Williams, D.R., 1990. Wage effects of obesity among young workers. Soc. Sci. Q. 71, 130–141. Roehling, M.V., 1999. Weight-based discrimination in employment: psychological and legal aspects. Person. Psychol. 52, 969–1016. Roehling, M., Roehling, P., Pichler, S., 2007. The relationship between body weight and perceived weight-related employment discrimination: the role of sex and race. J. Vocat. Behav. 71, 300–318. Rooth, D., 2009. Obesity, attractiveness and differential treatment in hiring: a field experiment. J. Hum. Resour. 44, 710–735. Ruggs, E.N., Hebl, M.R., Williams, A., 2015. Weight isn't selling: the insidious effects of weight stigmatization in retail settings. J. Appl. Psychol. 100, 1483–1496. Ryckman, R.M., Robbins, M.A., Kaczor, L.M., Gold, J.A., 1989. Male and female raters' stereotyping of male and female physiques. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 15, 244–251. Schafer, M.H., Ferraro, K.F., 2011. The stigma of obesity does perceived weight discrimination affect identity and physical health? Soc. Psychol. Q. 74, 76–97. Smith, N.A., Martinez, L.R., Sabat, I.E., 2016. Weight and gender in service jobs the importance of warmth in predicting customer satisfaction. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 57, 314–328. Smith-Lovin, L., Brody, C., 1989. Interruption in group discussions: the effects of gender and group composition. Am. Socio. Rev. 54, 424–435. Smith-Lovin, L., Skvoretz, J.V., Hudson, C.G., 1986. Status and participation in six-person groups: a test of Skvoretz's comparative status model. Soc. Forces 64, 992–1005. Vartanian, L.R., Silverstein, K.M., 2013. Obesity as a status cue: perceived social status and the stereotypes of obese individuals. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 43, E319–E328. Walker, L.S., Webster, M., Bianchi, A.J., 2011. Testing the spread of status value theory. Soc. Sci. Res. 40, 1652–1663. Wagner, D.G., Berger, J., 2002. Expectation states theory: an evolving research program. In: Berger, J., Zelditch Jr.M. (Eds.), New Directions in Contemporary Sociological Theory. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD, pp. 41–76. Webster, M., Driskell, J.E., 1983. Beauty as status. Am. J. Sociol. 89, 140–165. Young, L.M., Powell, B., 1985. The effects of obesity on the clinical judgments of mental health professionals. J. Health Soc. Behav. 26, 233–246. Young, R., 2013. August 12. Dissing Oprah: how race and size bias affect business [radio broadcast episode]. In: Here and Now. National Public Radio, Washington, DC.
8
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Social Science Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ssresearch
Obesity and gender as status beliefs Heather L. Gordon, Lisa Slattery Walker∗, Shahar Gur, Jessie L. Olien University of North Carolina Charlotte, United States
AR TI CLE I NF O
AB S T R A CT
Keywords: Obesity Gender Status Status beliefs Status value Influence
For over 30 years, researchers have examined social influence using status characteristics theory (Berger and Conner, 1974). While research has investigated beauty and attractiveness as status characteristics (e.g., Webster and Driskell, 1983), there is a dearth of research that examines whether obesity has status value using status characteristics theory. The current paper reviews the literature on, demonstrating how they are related to status characteristics. Next, this paper demonstrates how the effects of both gender and obesity can be explained by considering them as status characteristics, which have the potential to create subsequent status beliefs and stigma. Finally, this study reports empirical findings that support obesity as a status characteristic. We find an effect for obesity on ratings of diffuse status, and effects for both obesity and gender on ratings of influence.
1. Obesity and gender as status beliefs According to the Center for Disease Control (NCHS, 2016), over seventy percent of Americans in 2014 were categorized as overweight (body mass index [BMI] < 25), and 37.9% of Americans qualified as obese (BMI < 30). Furthermore, research has shown certain stereotypes and biases occur against obese individuals (Crandall and Biernat, 1990; Larkin and Pines, 1979; Puhl and Brownell, 2003; Puhl and Heuer, 2009 Ryckman et al., 1989). This prevalent issue has negative consequences, but the mechanism by which these consequences occur is unknown. The goal of this study is to provide evidence that obesity can operate as a status characteristic, and that this status characteristic creates subsequent status beliefs. Status characteristics create perceptions of how an individual will perform on a given task (Berger, 1985). Previous research has shown that these status characteristics create subsequent beliefs about an individual's general competence, what Ridgeway (1997) calls status beliefs. Rashotte and Webster (2005) empirically investigated status beliefs about gender. Their research indicates that gender creates status beliefs, such that men are believed to perform better at most tasks than women. While one of our goals in the current study is to replicate Rashotte and Webster's (2005) findings on gender, our main goal is to investigate the possibility of another status characteristic: obesity. This paper extends theory and previous research by investigating obesity as a status characteristic and the ways in which these status beliefs work to affect perceptions of both influence. Specifically, drawing from prior research on status characteristics theory and status beliefs (Ridgeway, 1997), we first demonstrate the links between gender, obesity, and status assumptions. Second, we clarify how these status characteristics are related to perceptions of performance. Third, we report empirical findings from an experiment that tests how obesity and gender relate to perceptions of one's influence and persuasiveness. Finally, we discuss the implications of our findings in both social and organizational life.
∗
Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (L.S. Walker).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2017.12.004 Received 13 February 2017; Received in revised form 30 November 2017; Accepted 9 December 2017 0049-089X/ © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: Gordon, H.L., Social Science Research (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2017.12.004
Social Science Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
H.L. Gordon et al.
1.1. Status characteristics theory Per expectation states theory (Bales, 1950; Berger et al., 1980), status characteristics theory examines certain attributes and qualities that carry value and provide status differentiation. Berger and colleagues (1980: 479) define a status characteristic as “any characteristic of actors around which evaluations of and beliefs about them come to be organized”. Some examples of status characteristics include age, sex, race, physical attractiveness, education, and task expertise (Lucas and Phelan, 2012). These status characteristics may be either specific or diffuse. Specific status characteristics are certain attributes or qualities that are linked to specific abilities, and diffuse status characteristics are considered to affect status beliefs in general and across situations, and have typically included characteristics such as race, sex, age, and, more recently, attractiveness (Berger and Conner, 1974; Berger et al., 1980; Webster and Driskell, 1983). Status characteristics create a hierarchy of expectations in which individuals with high status will influence the behavior of low status individuals more often than low status individuals will influence high status individuals. Additionally, Walker et al. (2011) demonstrate how any nominal descriptive quality can be assigned a status value by either (1) attaching it to another status characteristic or (2) attaching it to unfair outcomes. Thus, a quality that does not previously have any social value can acquire it to create differentiated performance expectations. Therefore, we test whether the state of being obese has a negative status value, especially when attached to the state of being female, which is a lower status for gender. 1.2. Gender and status beliefs Despite society's attempts to create equality among men and women, research has consistently demonstrated how men are favored across most life situations (Cha and Weeden, 2014; Eagly et al., 1992; Ridgeway, 2011; Smith-Lovin et al., 1986). Indeed, from the initial conception of status characteristics theory, gender was recognized as a status characteristic that consistently favored men as the higher status (Berger and Conner, 1974; Berger et al., 1980). While research has shown mixed results on the fifth assumption for status characteristics described previously (Smith-Lovin and Brody, 1989; Rashotte and Smith-Lovin, 1997), empirical investigation on gender as a status characteristic has received overall support. Recently, Rashotte and Webster (2005) empirically investigated status beliefs about gender. Based on the work by Ridgeway (1997), Rashotte and Webster (2005: 618) state that gender status beliefs might exist non-consciously as they create a biased pattern of an advantage for men and disadvantage for women when it comes to evaluations, behaviors, and reward outcomes. Rashotte and Webster provided gender information and pictures of applicants to participants and then asked them a variety of status-related questions about the individual in the photograph. Their research indicates that gender creates status beliefs that will affect others’ perceptions on a variety of abilities and characteristics about an individual. Therefore, we hypothesize: Hypotheses 1a-b. Gender will create status beliefs such that men will be rated higher than women on (a) diffuse status characteristics and (b) specific status characteristics. In addition to gender status beliefs, we believe gender will create differences in the amount of perceived influence of an individual. If men are believed to be more intelligent and competent than women (Rashotte and Webster, 2005), they will also be more likely to be perceived as more influential and persuasive. The current study investigates the effects of gender status beliefs on the amount of perceived such that men are expected to demonstrate more influence than women. Hypothesis 1c. Gender will affect perceptions of influence such that men will be perceived as more influential than women.
1.3. Obesity and status beliefs Webster and Driskell (1983) found that beauty produces diffuse and specific status beliefs, such that people who are rated as more physically attractive are also rated as more competent in general and in specific situations. Their data did not support an interaction between the sex of the rater and the sex of the subject, suggesting that romantic or sexual attraction is not playing a role in these observed status differentiations. Therefore, a different mechanism is driving the differences in expectations. To further explore the mechanisms behind this finding, we focus on a subset of physical attractiveness, weight (Derous et al., 2016), and its related status beliefs. Weight is a continuous variable, but because we are using status characteristics theory as our framework, we operationalize it in a dichotomous way by describing the attribute of weight as obese or non-obese. We choose obesity as opposed to other subsets of beauty for the sake of clarity in this study because it is objective, salient, and prevalent. Obesity is defined by the Center for Disease Control as having an excessively high amount of body fat in relation to lean body mass. Obesity is a growing epidemic in the U.S. reflecting changes in work, leisure activities, and types and quantities of food consumption (Bell and McLaughlin, 2006), and is higher in women (38.3%) and middle-aged people (40.2%) (Ogden et al., 2015). As obesity prevalence increases, so does the prevalence of obesity's negative outcomes. Research on discrimination and mistreatment shows a persistent stigma against overweight individuals (Roehling, 1999). A review by Puhl and Brownell (2001) investigated years of research examining bias toward overweight and obese individuals. They found that weight discrimination is apparent across various environments including the workplace, health care, and education. For example, a study collected data from mental health professionals and found that they rated their obese clinical clients more negatively than their normal-weight counterparts (Young and Powell, 1985). Additionally, previous research has also shown that obese individuals are viewed as possessing the following negative traits: laziness (Ryckman et al., 1989); lack of self-discipline (Larkin and Pines, 1979); carelessness (Ruggs et al., 2015); sloppiness (Vartanian and Silverstein, 2013); and incompetence (Puhl and Brownell, 2
Social Science Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
H.L. Gordon et al.
2003). These negative perceptions of obese individuals persist even after medical research suggesting that weight is a result of genetic factors in addition to behavioral factors and the environment (Angier, 1997). A study by King and colleagues (2014) examined how even top executives in organizations are subjected to the effects of obesity stigma. They collected self- and other-report data on 757 top-level managers, vice presidents, and CEOs. They found that top-level executives received more negative evaluations if they had a larger waistline, even after accounting for BMI, physical activity, and other related covariates. The high status value of being a top executive does not shield someone from this effect. In addition, these negative evaluations can hinder a worker's ability to obtain promotions. Thus, their results corroborate a claim made by Glass et al. (2010), who reported that weight can also influence long-term career attainment. In addition to being stigmatized, obese individuals are also more likely to become targets of discrimination. Based on data from the National Survey of Midlife Development in the US, a nationally representative sample of adults aged 25–74 years, Roehling et al. (2007) found that overweight respondents were 12 times more likely, obese respondents were 37 times more likely, and severely obese respondents were 100 times more likely than normal weight respondents to report employment discrimination. In addition, women were 16 times more likely to report weight-related employment discrimination than men (Roehling et al., 2007). Carr and Friedman (2005) found that obese individuals, compared to normal weight individuals, are more likely to report interpersonal discrimination. In addition, within the workplace context, Carr and Friedman also found that obese professionals were more likely to report employment discrimination and interpersonal mistreatment than non-professionals. Obese individuals, and especially obese women, also receive lower wages than non-obese individuals (Cawley, 2004; Register and Williams, 1990). Experimental research has also shown that overall negative evaluations are more likely to occur for obese individuals than for normal weight individuals. Jasper and Klassen (1990) demonstrated that college students rated obese salespeople more negatively than non-obese individuals. Furthermore, their research showed that the negative evaluations of obesity were stronger for females than for males (Bellizzi et al., 1989). In a simulated work situation, Larkin and Pines (1979) also found that individuals were less likely to hire an obese job applicant despite equality of physical and mental abilities with normal weight applicants. Following Webster and Driskell's (1983) explanation of beauty as a status characteristic, obesity must meet the following definitional components. First, despite obesity's prevalence in society, it is viewed as less prestigious than being thin or of average weight (Hebl and Turchin, 2005). Researchers have also suggested that there is a bias against obese individuals called “symbolic fatism” (Crandall, 1994). This symbolic fatism shares some of the same issues of symbolic racism where there exists the belief that individuals do not have certain valued qualities due to their appearance, and this belief results in prejudicial views against the obese (Bell and McLaughlin, 2006). Second, as shown in the previous research investigating perceptions of obesity, the characteristic of being obese carries numerous connotations for other characteristics (i.e. lazy, incompetent, selfish, etc.). Finally, thin individuals will be perceived as being better at most tasks than obese individuals. This belief has been shown especially in relation to hiring practices, where thin or averageweighted individuals are selected and believed to perform better than obese individuals, all else being equal (Agerstrom and Rooth, 2011; Caliendo and Lee, 2013; Jasper and Klassen, 1990; Kutcher and Bragger, 2004; Larkin and Pines, 1979; Rooth, 2009). Given these findings, we deduce that obesity has a negative status value; individuals who are obese are considered low status and those who are not obese are considered high status. These status differentials will affect the expectations others have for obese individuals in an interaction. According to the first assumption of status characteristics, whenever weight differentiates individuals, it will become salient and important in an interaction. The second assumption will be in effect if whenever perceptions of weight are salient, people will treat weight as though it provided information about a person's abilities at a task. The third assumption states that if obesity is a status characteristic then it will create structure in interactions. The fourth assumption asserts that obesity will be aggregated with other status information to come to an overall expectation for an individual. Finally, the fifth assumption maintains that obesity will affect the behavior of others and how they relate in an interaction. To provide an initial empirical test of whether obesity operates as a status characteristic, we focus testing assumptions 1 and 2. We propose that the status characteristic of weight relates to general ideas about competence, or status beliefs, for those who are obese versus thin. We suggest that obese individuals are perceived to perform less well than thin or average-weight individuals on a variety of tasks and abilities: Hypotheses 2a-b. Obesity will create status beliefs such that obese individuals will be rated lower than thin individuals on (a) diffuse status characteristics and (b) specific status characteristics. Since the source of the influence is an important component in considering how well one is persuaded and influenced, it is likely that influence will also be affected by status beliefs of obesity. If individuals who are obese are viewed as less competent than their thin counterparts, they may also be perceived as having less of an ability to persuade and influence others: Hypothesis 2c. Obesity will affect perceptions of influence such that thin individuals will be perceived as more influential than obese individuals. Expectation states theory also explains the formation of interactional status structures that develop as individuals gather information from their surroundings to generate expectations about others competency and anticipated performance (Wagner and Berger, 2002). Per the fourth general assumption of status characteristics theory, actors combine all evaluated information, considering the valence of the status characteristics, to form aggregated expectations (e.g., Kalkhoff and Thye, 2006). As weight and gender characteristics co-occur, they may interact to create a synergistic effect, above and beyond that of additive effects. For example, a study by Smith et al. (2016) found interaction effects for weight and gender to predict perceived warmth of customer 3
Social Science Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
H.L. Gordon et al.
service agents. Therefore, being obese and being a woman may negatively influence status perceptions more so than being a woman or being overweight alone: Hypotheses 3a-b. Obesity and gender status beliefs will have an interaction effect such that women who are obese will be rated lower than women who are thin and men who are obese on (a) both diffuse and specific status characteristics and (b) perceptions of influence.
1.4. The current study The first two goals of this study are to investigate status beliefs about both obesity and gender (H1a, H1b, H2a, H2b). The third goal of this study is to examine how these two status characteristics affect perceptions on influence (H1c, H1d, H2c, H2d). We use a two-by-two experimental design in which participants were displayed photos of obese vs. thin and male vs. female individuals. To test the Hypotheses, the researchers gave a transcript of a lawyer's closing statement and the photo of an individual (fat or thin; male or female) to participants. The researchers chose to use a lawyer's closing statement because court settings have been found to be ideal for studying influence (Efran, 1974; Hahn and Clayton, 1996; Linz and Penrod, 1984). If gender and obesity create status beliefs, participants should rate individuals of different genders and weights differently. Different expectations should be found for both diffuse expectations and specific expectations. In addition, if status beliefs regarding gender and obesity affect perceived influence and persuasiveness, participants should rate individuals differently on the influence items even though the closing statement remains the same across conditions. 2. Methods 2.1. Sample and procedure Participants were recruited from an online subject pool at a large, public university in the Southeast. The sample includes 1089 participants and approximates the school's demographics on gender and race, with the sample including 763 females, 325 males, 816 whites, and 273 non-whites. Students from psychology courses were recruited for participation in the study via email. In exchange for participation, all individuals received credit for their general psychology class requirements. After agreeing to take part in the study, participants were sent a link to an online survey. Participants first saw a photo of an individual's face along with a fictitious name and age. The name of the individual was either Diane (for the female target) or John (for the male target). These names were chosen based on Rashotte and Webster's (2005) study, in which they used the same names when investigating gender. In all cases, the age of the target was 40 years old. The photo shown to participants represented one of four conditions. The photo was either of a male or female, who was either thin or obese. We chose photos that appeared to be average in weight and attractiveness; the pictures were then manipulated to appear as more overweight through Adobe for the obese condition. This resulted in a 2 (male vs. female) by 2 (thin vs. obese) experimental design. In addition to the picture and basic information about the individual (name and age), participants were told the target was a lawyer, and were presented with a closing statement (see Appendix) delivered by the target. The survey then asked the participant to examine the photo and read the lawyer's transcript. The transcript was the same across conditions. The closing statement transcript was adapted from an actual court case (The State of New York vs. Kaplan, 1991), and was used previously in a study examining the effects of presentation style and attorney gender on juror decisions (see Hahn and Clayton, 1996). A neutral closing statement that is neither extremely powerful nor weak, according to Hahn and Clayton (1996), was chosen to examine the perception of influence by participants. Once participants read the closing statement and examined the photograph, they answered questions about status beliefs, and influence. Demographic information regarding the participants’ sex, race, age, and major was also collected. Once participants finished the surveys, they were directed to a page debriefing them about the study. 2.2. Outcome variables 2.2.1. Status belief measures Webster and Driskell's (1983) measures of general expectations and specific performance expectations were both used to assess gender and obesity status beliefs. These two measures were developed for investigating status beliefs about both attractiveness (Webster and Driskell, 1983) and gender (Rashotte and Webster, 2005). These measures assess both specific and general performance expectations. The measure of general expectations has 9 response options with anchors ranging from “Below Average” at one end, “Average” in the middle, and “Above Average” at the other end. Responses are recorded by marking on one of nine blank spaces between the end points (these are not numbered). The composite score for the diffuse status belief measure was calculated from the mean of the following 9 items. The items all loaded onto one latent factor in an exploratory factor analysis (item lambdas ranged from .73 to .87), a confirmatory factor analysis had a satisfactory model fit index (CFI = .96), and the internal consistency of this measure was well above the cutoff value for acceptable reliability (α = .91). The general expectations measure asks the following questions: 4
Social Science Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
H.L. Gordon et al.
1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)
How intelligent do you perceive [name] to be? How well do you expect [name] to do at situations in general? In terms of things that you think count in this world, how does [name] rate? How capable do you think [name] is at most tasks? How do you rate [name] concerning reading ability? How do you rate [name] at abstract abilities? How would you rate [name's] grade point average?
To measure specific performance expectations, both Webster and Driskell (1983) and Rashotte and Webster (2005) used a single item regarding how well the participant perceived the individual to do at a private pilot's licensing exam. However, since the current study specifically assesses a target individual who is a lawyer, we created the item: “[Name] took the state bar exam in order to practice law. How well do you think [name] probably did on this exam?” The anchors for this item are identical to the general expectation items. 2.2.2. Influence To assess how influential the lawyer's closing statement was perceived to be, participants were asked to answer: “How much do you believe [name] influenced the jury's decisions?” This item's anchors and response scales was identical to those of the status belief measures. 2.3. Independent variables Target Gender and Target Weight were operationalized through the use of photographs. Both target gender and target weight was varied by condition, such that each participant was shown a photograph of either a man or a woman, who was either thin or obese. The photographs used in this study were obtained from a stock photo website. Two photos were chosen, one of a woman and one of a man. Photoshop was used to alter the appearance of weight in the photos (changed from average to both thin and obese). To control for other status issues (Hebl and Turchin, 2005), only white individuals were chosen for the photos. Once the final photos were developed, a pilot test was administered to ensure that the differences between the conditions were obvious. For analysis, target gender (0 = female, 1 = male) and target weight (0 = thin, 1 = obese) were dummy coded. 3. Analysis and results Descriptive statistics and point biserial correlations are presented in Table 1. Age has been centered since that is how we use it in the multivariate analysis below. The actual mean age of respondents was 23.2. To test the proposed Hypotheses, hierarchical multiple regression was used to assess main effects. Models were estimated for the dependent variables diffuse status, specific status, and influence. These variables were regressed onto the predictor variables target gender and target weight. Two-way interactions among target gender and target weight were also tested. The first model, used to test Hypotheses 1a and 2a, can be found in Table 2, Step 1. This model assessed the dependent variable diffuse status. Hypothesis 1a, that gender would create status beliefs such that men would be rated higher than women on diffuse status characteristics, was not supported. Target gender (b = .13, p > .05) did not significantly affect diffuse status beliefs. Hypothesis 2a, that obesity would create status beliefs such that obese individual would be rated lower than thin individuals on diffuse status, was supported. Target weight significantly affected diffuse status (b = −.31, p < .05). The second model in Table 2, Step 1 tested Hypotheses 1b and 2b. This model assessed the dependent variable specific status. No main effects were found for target weight or target gender on specific status beliefs. As such, Hypotheses 1b and 2b, that both gender and obesity would create status beliefs such than men and thin individual would be rated higher on specific status than women and obese individuals, were not supported. Table 1 Descriptive statistics and correlations.
Age (P) White (P) Male (P) Diffuse Status Specific Status Influence Male (T) Obese (T) MaleXObese (T)
M
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 .75 .30 5.94 6.17 5.59 .52 .48 .26
7.36 .43 .46 1.18 1.48 1.75 .50 .50 .44
– -.02 -.02 -.02 -.05 -.06 -.03 -.05 .00
– .08∗ .00 -.03 .00 -.01 .05 .01
– -.05 -.06 -.00 .01 .01 .02
– .74∗∗ .37∗∗ .05 -.12∗∗ -.06∗∗
– .31∗∗ .03 -.02 -.01
– .23∗∗ -.13∗∗ .06
– .04 .57∗∗
– .61∗∗
Note. N = 1089. ∗∗p < .01, ∗p < .05. (two-tailed test for significance). P=Participant; T = Target. Gender variables coded as 0 = female, 1 = male; race coded as 0 = non-white; 1 = white; target weight coded as 0 = thin; 1 = obese.
5
Social Science Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
H.L. Gordon et al.
Table 2 Results of hierarchical multiple regression (OLS) on Diffuse Status, Specific Status, and Influence. Model
1 - Diffuse Status
2 - Specific Status
3 - Influence
b
S.E
b
S.E
b
S.E
Intercept Male (T) Obese (T)
6.02∗∗ .13 -.31∗∗ .020
.06 .07 .07
6.17∗∗ .08 -.06 .001
.08 .09 .09
5.42∗∗ .81∗∗ -.48∗∗ .071
.09 .10 .10
Intercept Male (T) Obese (T) MaleXObese (T)
6.00∗∗ .18 -.26∗ -.10 .000
.07 .10 .10 .14
6.12∗∗ .18 .05 -.21 .001
.09 .13 .13 .18
5.44∗∗ .77∗∗ -.53∗∗ .09 .000
.10 .14 .15 .21
Intercept Male (T) Obese (T) MaleXObese (T) Age (P; centered) Male (P) White (P)
6.04∗∗ .18 -.26∗ -.09 .00 -.12 .00 .003
.10 .10 .10 .14 .01 .08 .08
6.24∗∗ .17 .05 -.21 -.01 -.18 -.08 .007
.12 .13 .13 .18 .01 .10 .10
5.46∗∗ .77∗∗ -.52∗∗ .09 -.01 .00 -.03 .002
.14 .14 .15 .21 .01 .11 .12
Step 1
R2 Step 2
ΔR2 Step 3
ΔR2 Note. N = 1089. b = unstandardized weight.
∗∗
p < .01, ∗p < .05. (two-tailed test for significance). P=Participant; T = Target.
The third model in Table 2, Step 1was used to test Hypotheses 1c and 2c and assessed the dependent variable influence. Hypothesis 1c, that gender will affect perceptions of influence such that men will be perceived as more influential than women, was supported (b = .81, p < .01). Hypothesis 2c, that weight will affect perceptions of influence such that than individuals will be rated as more influential than obese individuals, was supported. Target weight significantly affected perceptions of influence (b = −.48, p < .01). Finally, across all four models, the interaction term of weight and gender was entered in the second and third steps to test Hypotheses 3a and 3b. The interaction term did not have a statistically-significant effect on any of the dependent variables, even when subject characteristics are included as controls. Thus, we did not find support for the hypothesized interaction between weight and gender.
4. Discussion Overall, the results provide mixed support for our Hypotheses. While these data did not find obesity to be a significant predictor of specific status, a target's weight was found to be a significant predictor of diffuse status. This suggests that obesity does operate as a diffuse status characteristic, with thin individuals appearing to be valued differently and perform better on tasks in general than their obese counterparts. Most interesting, a target's weight and gender were both significantly predictive of ratings of influence. Both male targets and thin targets were perceived as more influential than female targets and obese targets. When taken with a lack of support for specific status, this may suggest that there is an additional underlying mechanism, other than status beliefs, driving perceptions of influence. However, it is also possible that social desirability may account for the observed discrepancies. This study helps clarify how weight, as a subset of physical attractiveness, can explain the observed status beliefs found in previous research. Our findings on influence may explain why obese individuals may be seen as performing less well than non-obese individuals, particularly for those in leadership roles at higher levels of the organization where these characteristics are highly relevant to one's job tasks. Thus, our research contributes to the literature by explaining the mechanism behind the stigma associated with obesity. Prior research has found that implicit gender belief measures, compared to explicit measures, tend to more accurately capture biased gender beliefs due to social desirability (Heyman and Legare, 2004). Additionally, Foschi and Lapointe (2002) did not find gender to be a status characteristic in their study on rejection of influence in an undergraduate sample. Therefore, it may be that individuals are more apt to answer in a socially-desirable way when asked more explicitly about competency perceptions. However, when asked more implicit questions, for example, those regarding influence, individuals may not be cognizant of how their answers are reflecting socially undesirable biases. A limitation to this study is the treatment of gender as binary in today's gender-diverse world (Davis, 2009). By focusing on the cisgendered categories of male and female, we are limited in our abilities to make predictions that include the trajectory of trans and non-binary gender categories. However, our theoretical framework enables us to make binary predictions because status characteristics theory mainly focuses on the differences between high status and low status categories. Future research can expand on our study by exploring status differences using a trajectory of genders.
6
Social Science Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
H.L. Gordon et al.
5. Conclusions While previous research has reported on the effects of obesity-related stigma (Schafer and Ferraro, 2011), the current paper extends this research by providing a theoretical explanation for the negative connotations associated with obesity by demonstrating that it has status value. As the prevalence of weight-based discrimination continues to rise (Lusk and Ellison, 2013), it is important to understand the theoretical underpinnings driving stigmatization. By approaching obesity as a status characteristic, future research can investigate how obesity fits into larger constellations of status characteristics and provide a clearer picture of how obesity operates with already-known status characteristics such as age and race. In addition, future contributions in this area could attempt to address some of the shortcomings of this current study. Future research could employ an alternative to still photographs, potentially using video recordings to present targets of varying weights. Future research could also incorporate target ethnicity to test whether status beliefs regarding obesity are moderated by racial characteristics. Recently, the popular press has brought attention the negative biases engendered by both weight and ethnicity (Young, 2013). Understanding how weight and ethnicity operate together is a societal concern, and one that can be further addressed through the application of status characteristics theory. Ultimately, unlike discrimination based on other status characteristics, such as race or gender, obesity discrimination is not generally illegal (Bell and McLaughlin, 2006). As such, our findings highlight the need for further empirical and conceptual work addressing obesity status perceptions within the workplace. With the persistence of weight bias and discrimination at the workplace (Puhl and Brownell, 2001), it is important for researchers to explore the mechanisms driving negative perceptions of obese individuals. To ensure fairness practices within the workplace, it is vital that future research addresses in what ways, if any, obesity impacts implicit perceptions regarding the competency of overweight workers. Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2017.12.004. Appendix. Prosecuting Attorney's Closing Statement PROSECUTING ATTORNEY: Ladies and gentlemen, Martin Kaplan was found three blocks from the scene of the assault and robbery. He had blood on his hands and blood on his boots. He was brought to the station, placed in a line-up with seven other men, and identified by an eye-witness … an eye-witness who watched the entire scene from a pay phone just twenty feet away, relaying information to the 9-1-1 dispatcher. He was without a doubt in the best position to view the attackers. You heard yourself how confident Mr. Wilder was in his identification of the defendant. “I saw him” he stressed in his testimony, pointing at the defendant. We're not charging Mr. Kaplan because we need someone to blame and he is convenient. We are charging Mr. Kaplan because he mauled two innocent men and took their wallets. Someone saw him do it. He had blood all over him. He matches the description of a medium-built young white man wearing all black and big boots. We also have the identification by Solder. Now, Solder isn't as absolutely sure that he had identified the right guy, as you heard in the testimony. But something compelled him to point out Kaplan in the line-up he had a gut feeling, and he was right. So, we have positive identification, a pretty-sure identification, black clothes, steel boots, bloody hands and boots, medium-build, white man … strong, strong evidence. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the man who mauled Mr. Solder and Mr. Leamy. This is the man who severely beat two young, innocent men for a little bit of cash. The evidence supports this, and you should make your decision accordingly. Thank you. References Agerstrom, J., Rooth, D.O., 2011. The role of automatic obesity stereotypes in real hiring discrimination. J. Appl. Psychol. 96, 790–805. Angier, N., 1997. Researchers Link Obesity in Humans to Flaw in Genes. New York Times, pp. A8 December: A1. Bales, R.F., 1950. Interaction Process Analysis. Addison Wesley, Reading, MA. Bell, M.P., McLaughlin, M.E., 2006. Outcomes of appearance and obesity in organizations. In: Konrad, A., Prasad, P., Pringle, J.K. (Eds.), The Handbook of Workplace Diversity. Sage, Thousand Oaks: CA, pp. 455–474. Bellizzi, J.A., Klassen, M.L., Belonax, J.J., 1989. Stereotypical beliefs about overweight and smoking and decision-making in assignments to sales territories. Percept. Mot. Skills 69, 419–429. Berger, J., Conner, T.L., 1974. Performance expectation and behavior in small groups: a revised formulation. In: Berger, J., Conner, T.L., Fisek, M.H. (Eds.), Expectations States Theory: a Theoretical Research Program. Winthrop, Cambridge, MA, pp. 85–109. Berger, J., Rosenholtz, S.J., Zelditch, M., 1980. Status organizing processes. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 6, 479–508. Berger, J., 1985. Status, Rewards, and Influence. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass. Caliendo, M., Lee, W.S., 2013. Fat chance! Obesity and the transition from unemployment to employment. Econ. Hum. Biol. 11, 121–133. Carr, D., Friedman, M.A., 2005. Is obesity stigmatizing? Body weight, perceived discrimination, and psychological well-being in the United States. J. Health Soc. Behav. 46, 244–259. Cawley, J., 2004. The impact of obesity on wages. J. Hum. Resour. 39, 452–474. Cha, Y., Weeden, K.A., 2014. Overwork and the slow convergence in the gender gap in wages. Am. Socio. Rev. 79, 457–484. Crandall, C., 1994. Prejudice against fat people: ideology and self-interest. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 66, 882–894. Crandall, C.S., Biernat, M.R., 1990. The ideology of anti-fat attitudes. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 20, 227–243. Davis, E.C., 2009. Situating “fluidity”(trans) gender identification and the regulation of gender diversity. GLQ A J. Lesbian Gay Stud. 15, 97–130. Derous, E., Buijsrogge, A., Roulin, N., Duyck, W., 2016. Why your stigma isn't hired: a dual-process framework of interview bias. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 26, 90–111. Eagly, A.H., Makhijani, M.G., Klonsky, B.G., 1992. Gender and the evaluation of leaders: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 111, 3–22. Efran, M.G., 1974. The effect of physical appearance on the judgment of guilt, interpersonal attraction, and severity of recommended punishment in a simulated jury
7
Social Science Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
H.L. Gordon et al.
task. J. Res. Pers. 8, 45–54. Foschi, M., Lapointe, V., 2002. On conditional Hypotheses and gender as a status characteristic. Soc. Psychol. Q. 65, 146–162. Glass, C.M., Haas, S.A., Reither, E.N., 2010. The skinny on success: body mass, gender and occupational standing across the life course. Soc. Forces 89, 1777–1806. Hahn, P.W., Clayton, S.D., 1996. The effects of attorney presentation style, attorney gender, and juror gender on juror decisions. Law Hum. Behav. 20, 533–554. Hebl, M.R., Turchin, J.M., 2005. The stigma of obesity: what about men? Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 27, 267–275. Heyman, G.D., Legare, C.H., 2004. Children's beliefs about gender differences in the academic and social domains. Sex. Roles 50, 227–239. Jasper, C.R., Klassen, M.L., 1990. Perceptions of salespersons: appearance and evaluation of job performance. Percept. Mot. Skills 71, 563–566. Kalkhoff, W., Thye, S.R., 2006. Expectation states theory and research: New observations from meta-analysis. Socio. Meth. Res. 35, 219–249. King, E., Rogelberg, S.G., Hebl, M., Braddy, P.W., Shanock, L., Doerer, S., Gordon, H., Mcdowell, S., 2014. Waistlines and ratings of top executives: does executive status overcome obesity stigma? Hum. Resour. Manag. 55, 283–300. Kutcher, E.J., Bragger, J.D., 2004. Selection interviews of overweight job applicants: can structure reduce the bias? J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 34, 1993–2022. Larkin, J.C., Pines, H.A., 1979. No fat persons need apply. Sociology of Work and Occupations 6, 312–327. Linz, D.G., Penrod, S., 1984. Increasing attorney persuasiveness in the courtroom. Law Psychol. Rev. 8, 1–47. Lucas, J.W., Phelan, J.C., 2012. Stigma and status: the interrelation of two theoretical perspectives. Soc. Psychol. Q. 75, 310–333. Lusk, J.L., Ellison, B., 2013. Who is to blame for the rise in obesity? Appetite 68, 14–20. National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), 2016. Health, United States, 2015: with Special Feature on Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities. (Hyattsville, MD). Ogden, C.L., Carroll, M.D., Fryar, C.D., Flegal, K.M., 2015. Prevalence of Obesity Among Adults and Youth: United States, 2011–2014. NCHS data brief, no 219. National Center for Health Statistics, Hyattsville, MD. Puhl, R., Brownell, K., 2001. Bias, discrimination, and obesity. Obes. Res. 9, 788–905. Puhl, R., Brownell, K.D., 2003. Ways of coping with obesity stigma: review and conceptual analysis. Eat. Behav. 4, 53–78. Puhl, R.M., Heuer, C., 2009. The stigma of obesity: a review and update. Obesity 17, 941–964. Rashotte, L.S., Smith-Lovin, L., 1997. Who benefits from being bold: the interactive effects of task cues and status characteristics on influence in mock jury groups. Adv. Group Process. 14, 235–255. Rashotte, L.S., Webster, M., 2005. Gender status beliefs. Soc. Sci. Res. 34, 618–633. Ridgeway, C.L., 1997. Interaction and the conservation of gender inequality. Soc. Psychol. Q. 62, 218–235. Ridgeway, C.L., 2011. Framed by Gender: How Gender Inequality Persists in the Modern World. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Register, C.A., Williams, D.R., 1990. Wage effects of obesity among young workers. Soc. Sci. Q. 71, 130–141. Roehling, M.V., 1999. Weight-based discrimination in employment: psychological and legal aspects. Person. Psychol. 52, 969–1016. Roehling, M., Roehling, P., Pichler, S., 2007. The relationship between body weight and perceived weight-related employment discrimination: the role of sex and race. J. Vocat. Behav. 71, 300–318. Rooth, D., 2009. Obesity, attractiveness and differential treatment in hiring: a field experiment. J. Hum. Resour. 44, 710–735. Ruggs, E.N., Hebl, M.R., Williams, A., 2015. Weight isn't selling: the insidious effects of weight stigmatization in retail settings. J. Appl. Psychol. 100, 1483–1496. Ryckman, R.M., Robbins, M.A., Kaczor, L.M., Gold, J.A., 1989. Male and female raters' stereotyping of male and female physiques. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 15, 244–251. Schafer, M.H., Ferraro, K.F., 2011. The stigma of obesity does perceived weight discrimination affect identity and physical health? Soc. Psychol. Q. 74, 76–97. Smith, N.A., Martinez, L.R., Sabat, I.E., 2016. Weight and gender in service jobs the importance of warmth in predicting customer satisfaction. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 57, 314–328. Smith-Lovin, L., Brody, C., 1989. Interruption in group discussions: the effects of gender and group composition. Am. Socio. Rev. 54, 424–435. Smith-Lovin, L., Skvoretz, J.V., Hudson, C.G., 1986. Status and participation in six-person groups: a test of Skvoretz's comparative status model. Soc. Forces 64, 992–1005. Vartanian, L.R., Silverstein, K.M., 2013. Obesity as a status cue: perceived social status and the stereotypes of obese individuals. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 43, E319–E328. Walker, L.S., Webster, M., Bianchi, A.J., 2011. Testing the spread of status value theory. Soc. Sci. Res. 40, 1652–1663. Wagner, D.G., Berger, J., 2002. Expectation states theory: an evolving research program. In: Berger, J., Zelditch Jr.M. (Eds.), New Directions in Contemporary Sociological Theory. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD, pp. 41–76. Webster, M., Driskell, J.E., 1983. Beauty as status. Am. J. Sociol. 89, 140–165. Young, L.M., Powell, B., 1985. The effects of obesity on the clinical judgments of mental health professionals. J. Health Soc. Behav. 26, 233–246. Young, R., 2013. August 12. Dissing Oprah: how race and size bias affect business [radio broadcast episode]. In: Here and Now. National Public Radio, Washington, DC.
8