Social body weight norms: A Population-Based Profile in Germany, the Netherlands, and the United States

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4310602/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Social body weight norms: A Population-Based Profile in Germany, the Netherlands, and the United States

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4310602/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Which body weight is considered ideal and socially accepted in modern societies? A widely held belief is that social body weight norms are strict and thin in Western societies. This belief is supported by empirical evidence drawn from samples that do not necessarily represent common views in the population. This study presents the first population-based profile of social body weight norms using survey data collected in 2019 in the United States (N = 1,390, ages 18 to 84), Germany (N = 4,285, ages 24 to 74), and the Netherlands (N = 2,040, ages 18 to 84). Norms were measured on a validated figure rating scale. In all study populations, male and female figures representing the range from normal weight to slight overweight were generally rated as ideal and neither too thin nor too heavy. Heavier norms were found in older people and men, and more often in the Netherlands than in Germany and the United States. People generally perceived social body weight norms as thinner than what actual ratings revealed. This perception bias was most pronounced in the United States. These findings provide a population-representative baseline of social body weight norms and contradict the notion of a thinness norm.

Which body weight is viewed as ideal? Which range of body weight is socially accepted? Who is seen as “too thin” and who is seen as “too heavy”? In light of their personal and societal relevance, media, research, and policy have been occupied with these questions for decades.^{1, 2, 3, 4, 5} Answers to these questions invoke social body weight norms as a societal phenomenon: Normative evaluations about what body weight is commonly considered ideal and what body weight is within the socially accepted range, that is, commonly considered as neither too thin nor too heavy. ^{6, 7}

The importance of social body weight norms at an individual and societal level is widely acknowledged in the literature. Social body weight norms governing Western societies are advanced as explanatory factors particularly in studies of population health concerned with eating disorders and mental health consequences of overweight and obesity. ^{9, 10} The theoretical vantage point in the vast majority of these studies is that social body weight norms in Western societies are strict and that ideal bodies are “thin and possibly underweight”.¹⁰ These norms, in turn, are construed as a social force that put pressure on individuals via media, peer comparisons and family interactions. Consequently, those who do not conform experience social and psychological problems. ^{5, 11, 12}

Although social body weight norms are so prominent in research and public debates, their nature is usually taken for granted. Relatively few studies have attempted to obtain empirical measures for these norms in Western societies. Moreover, existing studies rely on data that preclude generalization to the population level. Data sources were fashion media,^{13, 14} surveys among undergraduate students and other convenience samples,^{10, 15} and ethnographic material. ¹⁶ Results found in such samples can differ strongly from results found in representative samples¹⁷ and may therefore not adequately reflect social body weight norms held in the general population. Moreover, the sampling bias of extant studies towards younger people of higher socioeconomic background and professionals in the fashion or media industry disproportionately selects people of substantially lower levels of Body Mass Index (BMI) or preferences for lower levels of BMI compared the general population.

Given the ubiquity of overweight and obesity in contemporary Western societies, ¹⁸ the social acceptance of higher body weight appears more widespread than what previous research suggests.¹⁹ Indirect support of this idea is visible from a trend study reporting a decline in people with higher levels of BMI who self-classify as overweight.^{20, 21, 22} Yet, population-representative studies including direct measures of social body weight norms are still absent from the literature.

In this study, we draw on a new source of representative population data allowing us to empirically examine social body weight norms and critically evaluate the dominant notion of a “strict thinness norm” governing ideal and acceptable body weight. We obtained these data from a project funded by the Open Probability-Based Panel Alliance (OPPA). The project yielded established and novel measures of social body weight norms for female and male bodies in large-scale probability samples representative of the adult population in the US, Germany, and the Netherlands (N = 7,715). Based on these data, we present a cross-nationally comparative profile of social body weight norms in the populations of contemporary Western societies.

The study was preregistered at Open Science Framework. Anonymized registration for the review purposes can be viewed under the following link: https://osf.io/26dj8/?view_only=bf3203400f7b4136b5141f7bafa9bb13

Data

We analyzed data collected in 2019 within a project on social body weight norms. These data come from three probability-based and population-representative online panel studies: the Understanding America Study (UAS), the German GESIS Panel, ^{23, 24} and the Dutch LISS Panel. All three participate in the Open Probability-Based Panel Alliance (OPPA), a collaboration between several probability-based surveys providing an infrastructure for collecting representative data for international comparisons. The three surveys are directly comparable in their sampling strategies, target populations, and survey modes. In each of the surveys, respondents who could not participate otherwise were provided with a computer and an Internet connection. Detailed information about each of the surveys as well as about data and code availability is included in Supplement S2.

Sample selection

We restricted all samples to respondents born in their country. Previous research has suggested that social body weight norms may differ between immigrants and natives as well as between ethnic groups within countries.²⁵ For the present study, we further focused on the larger subsample of White Americans and excluded subsamples of immigrants and other ethnic groups because of small number of cases.

The age range covered is 18 to 84 in the US sample and in the Dutch sample, and 24 to 74 in the German sample. Table S1 in the supplement summarizes all sample cuts and Table S2 shows descriptive statistics for each of the samples.

Measuring social body-weight norms (body weight norms)

Our measures captured two dimensions of social body weight norms. The ideal body weight norm denotes the body weight that is commonly considered beautiful, attractive, healthy, desirable, and socially rewarded. The accepted body weight norm denotes the range of body weight that is commonly considered as neither too thin nor too heavy, and hence not socially sanctioned.

Within both dimensions, our measures further distinguished between actual and perceived body weight norms. Actual body weight norms denote respondents’ own views about what body weight is ideal and what range of body weight is within the accepted range (i.e., who is not too thin and not too heavy). Perceived body weight norms denote respondents’ views about what body weight others find ideal and what range of body weight others find acceptable. Although actual and perceived body weight norms are related, distinguishing both components is important. Research on the psychological consequences of body weight norms has found perceived body weight norms to be even more relevant than actual body weight norms.^{7, 26} Conversely, actual body weight norms may be more relevant than perceived body weight norms when it comes to social consequences, as individuals are unlikely to sanction (i.e., treat unequally or disapprove of) those whom they actually consider ideal or within the accepted range.

For all survey questions capturing these types of social body weight norms, respondents rated line-drawn silhouettes on a figure rating scale (FRS). Respondents were presented with an extended version of most commonly used FRS initially developed by Stunkard, Sørensen, and Schulsinger in 1983.^{27, 28} With permission and approval of the author of the initial scale (T. I. A. Sørensen) and in collaboration with an illustrator, we extended the initial 9-silhouette scale to 11 silhouettes by adding one silhouette representing higher degree of underweight and one representing higher degree of overweight, respectively.

Figure S1 in the supplement shows the original and the extended FRS. Detailed information about validity and interpretation of the FRS scale are included in the supplement S3.

Survey questions and variables representing social body weight norms

The survey questions used to measure social body weight norms are shown in Table S3 in the supplement. Each question was initially developed in English. Linguistic quality and semantic equivalence in English, German, and Dutch were ensured by a review conducted by a professional translation service (cApStAn) and in collaboration with native-speaking colleagues. The questions in German and Dutch translation as well as survey questions presented to respondents in the web-based survey can be found in Supplement S2.

Reference groups

Social body weight norms operate in reference groups as individuals engage in social comparisons and form assumptions about body weight that is empirically common (descriptive norm) and considered ideal and accepted (injunctive norm).⁷ Most commonly, individuals compare themselves to others of their own age and sex, to others of the opposite sex, and to others with similar visible characteristics such as ethnicity.^{20, 29, 30} To account for social body weight norms within and across reference groups by age and sex, we conducted all analyses separately for men and women. We used a categorical age specification to control for differences in the age distributions across the three country samples and to capture non-linearities in the relationship between age and measures of social body weight norms.

Controls

The samples differed in the devices with which the surveys were completed (Table S2). Because the figures were presented vertically on a smartphone screen and horizontally on laptop, desktop PC, and tablet screens, our models controlled for a dummy variable coded 1 if the survey was completed on a smartphone and 0 otherwise. For the German sample, an additional control was coded 1 if the survey was completed online and 0 if the survey was completed via a paper and pencil questionnaire.

To avoid bias due to the order in which the figures were presented,³¹ the figures were ordered randomly. To assess the effects of ordering, an experiment was implemented in each of the surveys, whereby 50% of respondents saw one random order, and 50% another. All models included a control for the ordering of the figures on the FRS (group 1 vs. group 2).

Statistical analyses

Linear probability models estimated the probability of rating each of the eleven figures on each of the eight outcome variables. The probabilities corresponded closely to the descriptive distributions, while correcting possible bias due to device type, survey mode (in Germany), and order of the figures on the FRS. For our purposes, estimates should reflect descriptive distributions correcting only for survey-related sources of bias. These analyses allowed for a detailed assessment of the population-based distribution of ratings of ideal and accepted body weight.

Predicted probabilities were calculated for each country, sex, and age category. The models for the U.S. and for Germany used the sampling weights provided by the UAS and the GESIS Panel, respectively. In light of the large number of models and subpopulations, we present our results in the form of graphs and summary measures, focusing on three age groups. Detailed results on female actual-ideal figures (including predicted probabilities and confidence intervals for each age group) are shown in supplementary material (Tables S7a-S7c).

Ideal body weight norms for female figures

Figure 1 summarizes the results on actual-ideal body weight norms by sex, age, and country. As visible from the ratings of own ideal figures, there is no evidence for a strict thinness norm on female body weight. Underweight- and very slender looking female figures (#F1, #F2, and even #F3) are rarely chosen as ideals by women, rarely chosen as ideals by men, and rarely chosen as ideals across all age groups and in all countries. Instead, actual-ideal body weight norms for females are concentrated in figures #F4, #F5 and #F6, corresponding to BMI levels of approximately 21.5, 24.5, and 27.5 (see Table S5a). Taken together, figures #F4, #F5 and #F6 have a cumulative probability of more than 85% of being rated as the ideal female figure in each of the countries, sexes, and age groups.

Figure 1 about here

Actual-ideal body weight norms for females are slenderer in Germany, especially when rated by women, slightly heavier in the U.S., and noticeably heavier in the Netherlands. In all countries, women tended to choose slenderer female ideal figures than men, and younger age groups tended to choose slenderer female ideal figures than older age groups. Yet, the probability of selecting very slender and underweight figures (#F1 and #F2) remained close to zero in all groups. The same is true for very heavy figures corresponding to strongly overweight or obese levels of BMI. As a result, the variance of actual-ideal body weight norms for females is rather small. A small variance is consistent with the idea of a strict norm. Yet, this variance is spread across normal-weight and slightly overweight female figures – inconsistent with the idea of a strict thinness norm.

Figure 2 contrasts actual-ideal with perceived-ideal body weight norms for female figures. On the graphs, the bars point upward if figures where more frequently chosen as perceived-ideals than as actual-ideals; the bars point downward if figures were less frequently chosen as perceived-ideals than as actual-ideals. In terms of upward and downward directions, the resulting picture is almost fully consistent across sexes, countries, and age groups: People’s perceived ideals are slenderer than people’s actual ideals. In terms of mean differences, the largest contrast appears in the US where the difference between actual and perceived ideal body weight norms approaches 1 SD.

Figure 2 about here

Ideal body weight norms for male figures

Figure 3 and Fig. 4 show the equivalent set of results for actual-ideal male body weight norms and the contrast to perceived-ideal male body weight norms.

Figure 3 about here

Figure 4 about here

The overall picture is similar to that obtained for women: no evidence for a strict thinness norm on male body weight ideals; very slender and very heavy figures are rarely chosen as ideals; the same sex (here: men) tends to choose slenderer ideals and younger age groups tend to choose slenderer male ideals than older age groups (sex and age differences are somewhat smaller than for female ideals); and perceived male ideals are slenderer than actual male ideals – a contrast that is once again most pronounced in the US.

The cross-national gradient in female ideals is not replicated in male ideals: Mean ideals are similar across the three countries. Actual-ideals are even slightly thinner in the Netherlands, a result that contrasts with heavier body weight norms on actual-ideal female figures. A further notable difference is the larger variance of male ideals. In all countries and subgroups studied, actual-ideal body weight norms for male figures are less strict than for female figures, as indicated by larger SDs.

Accepted body weight norms for female figures

Body weight norms are not only defined by which body weight is considered ideal, but also by which range of body weight is socially accepted. This range is defined by figures that are commonly rated as neither too thin nor too heavy. Figure 5 and Fig. 6 show the results for actual-accepted female figures and the contrast to perceived-accepted female figures.

Our previous findings on strict but not overly thin norms on female body weight are corroborated by the narrow valleys in the bar graphs of Fig. 5. Narrow valleys indicate that only a small range of female figures is commonly accepted as neither too thin nor too heavy. Very slender female figures #F1, #F2, corresponding to BMI levels of less than 19.5, are rated “too thin” by the vast majority in each country and in each subgroup. This rating extends to figure #F3 (BMI ~ 20.5) and partly even to figure #F4 in the Netherlands. U.S. and German raters are less decided over figure #F3, with one-third to one-half considering this figure “too thin”, and overwhelmingly consider #F4 within the accepted range.

Turning to figures considered “too heavy”, we observe that starting from figure #F7, heavy and very heavy figures are consistently excluded by a majority from the accepted range of female body weight. Female figure #F6, corresponding to a BMI level of about 26, is consistently rated within the accepted range by a majority, although substantial shares of German and U.S. raters (only one-fifth to one-third) consider this figure “too heavy.”

Figure 5 about here

Compared to actual-ideal body weight norms, age and sex differences in actual-accepted body weight norms are similar in direction but less pronounced. Similar to measures of body weight ideals, actual ratings of “too thin” and “too heavy” figures are related to individuals’ body weight, while perceived ratings are not (see Figure S3).

Figure 6 about here

Figure 6 shows the contrast between actual-accepted and perceived-accepted body weight norms on female figures. Once again, this contrast is most pronounced in U.S. raters, and most noticeable to the left and right of figure #F4. To the left, downward bars indicate that the slenderer figures #F2 and #F3 (corresponding to BMI ~ 18 and ~ 19.5, respectively) are more often perceived as located within the accepted range than the higher actual ratings of “too thin” reveal. To the right, upward bars indicate that the heavier figures #F5, #F6, and #F7 (corresponding to BMI ~ 24, ~ 26 and ~ 29) are less often perceived as located within the accepted range than the lower actual ratings of “too heavy” reveal.

Accepted body weight norms for male figures

Figure 7 and Fig. 8 show the equivalent set of results for the actual-accepted range of male figures and the contrast to the perceived-accepted range of male figures. The most obvious contrast to female figures are broader valleys. This finding corroborates the conclusion that norms on male body weight are less strict, a conclusion that applies in all countries and in all subgroups studied. The picture is notable for the absence of major differences between countries, between sexes, and across age groups.

Figure 7 about here

Figure 8 about here

Similar to the other results, ratings of the actual-accepted range of male body weight are related to individuals’ body weight, while ratings of the perceived-accepted range are not (see Figure S3). Yet, when comparing Fig. 7 and Fig. 8, we observe relatively small differences between actual-accepted and perceived-accepted body weight norms. For the U.S., this pattern contrasts with the gradient found in female figures, leading to a nuanced conclusion: For female body weight, but less so for male body weight, accepted body weight norms appear thinner to people than they are.

This study offers new answers to pertinent questions of high individual and societal relevance: Which body weight is viewed as ideal? Which range of body weight is socially accepted? Who is seen as “too thin” and who is seen as “too heavy”?

Previous answers to these questions mainly relied on non-representative data collected from mass media, convenience samples, and ethnographic sources, concluding that social body weight norms in modern societies are strict and thin. The notions of a “strict” and “thin” social body weight norm remain largely unquestioned in the research literature and have become firmly entrenched in the media and in the public discourse.

Our representative population data allowed us to examine if the notion of a strict thinness norm accurately reflects beliefs and expectations held in the general population: Is it true that social body weight norms are strict, allowing for only a narrow range of socially accepted body weight? And is it true that social body weight norms are thin, endorsing body ideals that are very slender and possibly underweight?

Our answer to the first question is yes, but our answer to the second question is no. Hence, our main conclusion is that social body weight norms are strict but not thin. This conclusion applies for female and male raters, for female and male bodies, in all age groups, and in all countries. The prominent notion of a very thin female ideal is not supported by population-based data. The probability of selecting very slender and underweight figures as female ideals is small in all countries and in all subgroups studied. The range of female figures considered by a majority as not too thin but also not too heavy, however, was narrow: Not only underweight but also slender female figures at the lower bound of normal BMI are commonly rated as “too thin”; not only very heavy or obese but also moderately overweight female figures are commonly rated as “too heavy.” This means that although the notion of a thin norm is not supported, the notion of a strict norm on female body weight is supported at population level.

For norms governing male body weight, results are similar regarding the uncommonness of thin ideals. A notable difference is that social body weight norms are less strict for men than for women. In all countries and all subgroups studied, norms for ideal and accepted body weight are less strict for male bodies.

Considering the contrast between our results and the results of previous research based on non-representative samples, we find that a key descriptive conclusion – namely the central tendency of “thin” social body weight norms – does not replicate in representative samples. Several relational conclusions from previous research, however, do replicate: men’s female ideal is heavier than women’s female ideal; social body weight norms are stricter for women than for men; and social body weight norms are thinner and stricter for younger age groups.^{10, 32, 33, 34} The contrast between convenience-sampled data and population-representative data found in our study is consistent with findings from survey methodology, showing that in non-representative samples, descriptive distributions are often biased, whereas relational conclusions about two or more variables are often robust.¹⁷

However, our results are only partially consistent with the idea that bias towards younger and slenderer participants in samples used by earlier research is mainly responsible for the discrepancy in the findings. First, although we indeed found thinner social body weight norms among younger respondents and respondents with lower levels of BMI, figures representing very thin or underweight types were not considered ideal or accepted by the majority of young and slender respondents. Second, if very thin ideals found in previous studies had mainly resulted from sampling bias towards slenderer respondents, we would expect a different pattern of cross-national results than observed in the present study. Most notably, the US and Germany barely differed in their social body weight norms despite substantial population differences in body weight. Similarly, we found the heaviest social body weight norms in the Netherlands although this population is the thinnest among the three. These results suggest that cultural factors may still play an important role, next to own weight and beyond the social comparison mechanism.

Previous evidence was not only based on convenience samples but also on relatively old data collected in the 1990s and early 2000s. Changes since then are not limited to the continued spread of overweight and obesity. Cultural representations of beauty may also have changed. Studies speculate that recent social movements towards body acceptance may have led to more heterogeneous cultural ideals in the media.^{19, 35} Future population-based research should introduce more variation in cultural factors next to variation in population body weight as well as direct measures of cultural factors to understand why social body weight norms vary between societies.

Even though social body weight norms are not thin in any of the (sub)populations of this study, our findings demonstrate that people perceive body weight norms to be thinner than they are. The contrast between what people believe – actual body weight norms and what people believe others believe – perceived body weight norms is crucial to understand social body weight norms and their potential consequences for individuals. This contrast was most pronounced in the U.S. and concentrated in questions about the ideal female body weight.

We cannot explain the discrepancy between actual and perceived body weight norms with our data, but the evidence is suggestive: The ubiquitous notion of a strict thinness norm governing body weight ideals, and especially ideals about female bodies, may influence people’s perception. Even if a strict thinness norm is not real, it might be still perceived as real by many and therefore entail real consequences, as stipulated by the Thomas theorem.³⁶ This applies particularly to the perception of a strict thinness norm on female body weight in the U.S. If women perceive this norm as real, it may entail consequences for the risk of eating disorders, body dissatisfaction and psychological distress. However, we note that although differences between the actual body weight norms and perceived body weight norms were substantial, only a minority – albeit substantial in size – perceived very slender or underweight-looking figures as “most people’s ideal.”

Our results demonstrate the relevance and contribution of population-based research on social body weight norms to establish a representative baseline against which the dominant narrative can be evaluated. Our findings question this narrative and call for further population-based research to improve our understanding of social body weight norms, their representation in the media, and their perception in the public. An improved scientific understanding of social body weight norms can potentially reduce harmful consequences, in particular those associated with biased perceptions of a thinness norm that may not be real.

Ethical Approval and Consent to Participate

The ethical approvals has been provided by the ethical commitees of the LISS, UAS and GESIS Panel.

Each participant has provided consent to participate see the documentation (below) of the LISS, UAS and GESIS Panel for details.

Funding

This research has been funded by the Dutch Research Council (NWO). Grant nr. Vl.Veni.1915.029. Grant recipient: Dr. Liliya Leopold.

Availability of Data and Materials

The English version of the questionnaire and detailed documentation of the survey within the UAS (UAS survey number: UAS170) can be accessed here:

https://uasdata.usc.edu/index.php

The data is available upon registration.

The Dutch translation and documentation of the survey within the LISS can be accessed here:

https://www.dataarchive.lissdata.nl/question_constructs/view/33039

The data is available under: doi.org/10.17026/dans-xrc-x9gf upon registration.

The German translation and the documentation of the survey within the GESIS Panel can be accessed here:

https://dbk.gesis.org/dbksearch/SDESC2.asp?no=5664&db=D (pages 4121- 4127 in ZA5664-65_fb.pdf).

The data is available under: https://doi.org/10.4232/1.13797 upon registration.

Competing Interest Declaration

There are no competing interests to declaire.

Ford, C. S., & Beach, F. A. (1951). Patterns of sexual behavior. Harper and Paul B. Hoeber.
Thompson, J. K., Heinberg, L. J., Altabe, M., & Tantleff-Dunn, S. (1999). Exacting beauty: Theory, assessment, and treatment of body image disturbance. American Psychological Association.
Calogero, R. M., Boroughs, M., & Thompson, J. K. (2007). The impact of Western beauty ideals on the lives of women: A sociocultural perspective. In The body beautiful (pp. 259-298). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Rand, C. S., & Resnick, J. L. (2000). The “good enough” body size as judged by people of varying age and weight. Obesity research, 8(4), 309-316.
Swami, V. (2015). Cultural influences on body size ideals. European Psychologist, 20, 44-51.
Etilé, F. (2007). Social norms, ideal body weight and food attitudes. Health Economics, 16(9), 945-966.
Bergstrom, R. L., & Neighbors, C. (2006). Body image disturbance and the social norms approach: An integrative review of the literature. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25(9), 975-1000.
Keel, P. K., & Forney, K. J. (2013). Psychosocial risk factors for eating disorders. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 46(5), 433-439.
Luppino, F. S., de Wit, L. M., Bouvy, P. F., Stijnen, T., Cuijpers, P., Penninx, B. W., & Zitman, F. G. (2010). Overweight, obesity, and depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Archives of general psychiatry, 67(3), 220-229.
Swami, V., Frederick, D. A., Aavik, T., Alcalay, L., Allik, J., Anderson, D., ... & Zivcic-Becirevic, I. (2010). The attractive female body weight and female body dissatisfaction in 26 countries across 10 world regions: Results of the International Body Project I. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 36(3), 309-325.
Frederick, D. A., Tylka, T. L., Rodgers, R. F., Pennesi, J. L., Convertino, L., Parent, M. C., ... & Murray, S. B. (2022a). Pathways from sociocultural and objectification constructs to body satisfaction among women: The US Body Project I. Body Image, 41, 195-208.
Frederick, D. A., Tylka, T. L., Rodgers, R. F., Convertino, L., Pennesi, J. L., Parent, M. C., ... & Murray, S. B. (2022b). Pathways from sociocultural and objectification constructs to body satisfaction among men: The US Body Project I. Body Image, 41, 84-96.
Garner, D. M., Garfinkel, P. E., Schwartz, D., & Thompson, M. (1980). Cultural expectations of thinness in women. Psychological reports, 47(2), 483-491.
Saraceni, R., & Russell-Mayhew, S. (2007). Cultural expectations of thinness in women: A partial replication and update of magazine content. Eating and Weight Disorders-Studies on Anorexia, Bulimia and Obesity, 12(3), e68-e74.
Rakhkovskaya, L. M., & Warren, C. S. (2016). Sociocultural and identity predictors of body dissatisfaction in ethnically diverse college women. Body image, 16, 32-40.
Brewis, A. A. (2010). Obesity: Cultural and biocultural perspectives. Rutgers University Press.
Jeong, M., Zhang, D., Morgan, J. C., Ross, J. C., Osman, A., Boynton, M. H., ... & Brewer, N. T. (2019). Similarities and differences in tobacco control research findings from convenience and probability samples. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 53(5), 476-485.
Chooi, Y. C., Ding, C., & Magkos, F. (2019). The epidemiology of obesity. Metabolism, 92, 6-10.
Karazsia, B. T., Murnen, S. K., & Tylka, T. L. (2017). Is body dissatisfaction changing across time? A cross-temporal meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 143(3), 293.
Burke, M. A., Heiland, F. W., & Nadler, C. M. (2010). From “overweight” to “about right”: evidence of a generational shift in body weight norms. Obesity, 18(6), 1226-1234.
Burke, M. A., & Heiland, F. W. (2018). Evolving societal norms of obesity: what is the appropriate response?. Jama, 319(3), 221-222.
Johnson, F., Cooke, L., Croker, H., & Wardle, J. (2008). Changing perceptions of weight in Great Britain: comparison of two population surveys. Bmj, 337.
GESIS (2021). GESIS Panel Extended Edition. GESIS Datenarchiv, Köln. ZA5664 Datenﬁle Version 41.0.0, doi: 10.4232/1.13784
Bosnjak, M., Dannwolf, T., Enderle, T., Schaurer, I., Struminskaya, B., Tanner, A., & Weyandt K. W. (2017). Establishing an open probability-based mixed mode panel of the general population in Germany: The GESIS Panel. Social Science Computer Review, 36(1), https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439317697949.
Hoenink, J.C., et al. (2021). Body size ideals and body satisfaction among Dutch-origin and African-origin residents of Amsterdam: The HELIUS study. Plos one 16.5: e0252054.
Perkins, J. M., Perkins, H. W., & Craig, D. W. (2015). Misperception of peer weight norms and its association with overweight and underweight status among adolescents. Prevention Science, 16(1), 70-79.
Stunkard, A. J., Sørensen, T. I. A., & Schulsinger, F. (1983). Use of the Danish adoption register for the study of obesity and thinness. In: Genetics of Neurological and Psychiatric Disorders. (Eds.) Kety, S. S., Rowland, L. P., Sidman, R. L., Mathysse, S. W. New York, Raven Press. Pp. 115-120.
Sørensen, T. I. A., & Stunkard, A. J. (1993). Does obesity run in families because of genes? An adoption study using silhouettes as a measure of obesity. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 87(S370), 67-72.
Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M. K. (2000). A conceptual model of multiple dimensions of identity. Journal of college student development, 41(4), 405-414.
Suls, J., Martin, R., & Wheeler, L. (2002). Social comparison: Why, with whom, and with what effect?. Current directions in psychological science, 11(5), 159-163.
Doll, M., Ball, G. D., & Willows, N. D. (2004). Rating of figures used for body image assessment varies depending on the method of figure presentation. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 35(1), 109-114.
Johnson, S. N., & Engeln, R. (2021). Gender discrepancies in perceptions of the bodies of female fashion models. Sex Roles, 84(5), 299-311.
Kuipers, G. (2015). Beauty and distinction? The evaluation of appearance and cultural capital in five European countries. Poetics, 53, 38-51.
Vandebroeck, D. (2016). Distinctions in the flesh: Social class and the embodiment of inequality. Routledge.
Hockey, A., Milojev, P., Sibley, C. G., Donovan, C. L., & Barlow, F. K. (2021). Body image across the adult lifespan: A longitudinal investigation of developmental and cohort effects. Body Image, 39, 114-124.
Thomas, W. I., & Thomas, D. S. (1928). The methodology of behavior study. The child in America: Behavior problems and programs, 553-576.
Cardinal, T. M., Kaciroti, N., & Lumeng, J. C. (2006). The figure rating scale as an index of weight status of women on videotape. Obesity, 14(12), 2132-2135.
Lo, W. S., Ho, S. Y., Mak, K. K., & Lam, T. H. (2012). The use of Stunkard’s figure rating scale to identify underweight and overweight in Chinese adolescents. PloS one, 7(11), e50017.
Ralph-Nearman, C., & Filik, R. (2020). Development and validation of new figural scales for female body dissatisfaction assessment on two dimensions: thin-ideal and muscularity-ideal. BMC Public Health, 20, 1-11.
Samaras, T. T. (2012). How height is related to our health and longevity: a review. Nutrition and Health, 21(4), 247-261.

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Editorial decision: Revision requested
31 Oct, 2024
Reviews received at journal
31 Oct, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
07 Oct, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
07 Oct, 2024
Reviews received at journal
08 Aug, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
29 Jul, 2024
Reviewers invited by journal
25 Jul, 2024
Editor invited by journal
06 May, 2024
Submission checks completed at journal
01 May, 2024
Editor assigned by journal
01 May, 2024
First submitted to journal
23 Apr, 2024

You are reading this latest preprint version

Social body weight norms: A Population-Based Profile in Germany, the Netherlands, and the United States

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Methods

Data

Sample selection

Measuring social body-weight norms (body weight norms)

Survey questions and variables representing social body weight norms

Controls

Statistical analyses

Results

Ideal body weight norms for female figures

Ideal body weight norms for male figures

Accepted body weight norms for female figures

Accepted body weight norms for male figures

Discussion

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1