articles

nature publishing group

Behavior and Psychology

Parents and Vehicle Purchases for Their

Children: A Surprising Source of Weight Bias
Amanda Kraha1 and Adriel Boals1
According to current estimates, 68% of the population in United States is considered either overweight or obese.
Despite its relative frequency, prejudice and discrimination against overweight and obese Americans is a common
occurrence. This study seeks to build on previous findings that overweight individuals are more likely than their
skinnier peers to rely on themselves, rather than family, to fund their education. We examined whether this trend
continued in car-buying practices. Results suggest that overweight and obese individuals differentially rely on their
own sources of income to finance a car, even after controlling for socioeconomic differences. Possible explanations
and implications are discussed.
Obesity (2011) 19, 541545. doi:10.1038/oby.2010.192

Introduction

According to current estimates, rates of obesity in the United

States are roughly 33%. On combining that with those that are
overweight, the number jumps to 68% (1). Despite the relative frequency, stereotypes run rampant about these types of
individuals. Common stereotypes include that overweight
and obese individuals are lazy, lack self-control, and are less
agreeable. These stereotypes paint individuals in a negative
light, and are common in society even though research has
clearly shown them to be untrue (2). Perhaps because of these
stereotypes, obese and overweight individuals are discriminated against in various ways. Discrimination has been documented in the workplace, in interpersonal settings, health-care
settings, and even in the media (3,4).
Discrimination occurs in various facets of the work environment. For example, individuals are discriminated against
during the selection process (5,6). If these individuals manage
to overcome the increased difficulty of finding employment,
they are often paid less than their skinnier cohorts (79).
Another study suggests that the overweight individuals are
more downwardly mobile than their parents (10).
As discrimination persists throughout an individuals lifetime, there are lasting emotional and psychological consequences (11). The individual may begin to internalize these
values, resulting in increased levels of psychopathology (12,13).
For instance, overweight individuals are at an increased risk
for depression (1416), low self esteem (17,18), and body dissatisfaction (1921). This discrimination persists even after
controlling for variables such as age, obesity, gender, onset,
and BMI (22,23). These results suggest that, rather than being
a result of the obesity itself, these negative psychological consequences are a result of weight stigmatization (24).
1

Discrimination against the overweight comes from a variety

of sources. These individuals may have more difficulty finding dates, suggesting interpersonal discrimination (25).
Discrimination appears across different groups, including race
(26), medical professionals (27), and even other overweight
and obese individuals (28,26). In fact, health-care settings have
been shown to be a significant source of weight prejudice and
discrimination (29), suggesting serious implications for these
individuals physical health. Overweight individuals are less
likely to undergo routine preventative cancer screening (30,31)
due to fear of being discriminated against. This is especially
unfortunate because this group is at a greater risk of developing these cancers (32). Further, there is considerable negative
stigmatization of overweight people in both television and in
movies (33). This discrimination is not a phenomenon unique
to the United States (5).
Surprisingly, it appears that one source of discrimination
may be the individuals family. A series of studies by Crandall
(34,35) examined whether an adolescents weight would influence whether their families would help pay for their college
education. Researchers asked information to obtain the BMI
of each participant and gathered information to assess how
the students were paying for school, either through family or
nonfamily support. Nonfamily support included income from
scholarships, grants, or employment. Family support included
money held in trusts and money provided by anyone in the
family. Results indicated that, although most students indicated
a wide degree of family support in paying for college, there
were differential effects for overweight and obese individuals.
A much larger proportion of overweight and obese individuals
relied solely on scholarships, financial aid, and other nonfamily
support. In subsequent studies, researchers assessed various

Department of Psychology, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA. Correspondence:Adriel Boals (adriel@unt.edu)

Received 29 April 2010; accepted 5 July 2010; published online 9 September 2010. doi:10.1038/oby.2010.192
obesity | VOLUME 19 NUMBER 3 | march 2011

541

articles
Behavior and Psychology
possible explanations for these differential effects. Researchers
gathered information about parental income and education
levels, race, family size, and number of children currently in
college. A series of analyses revealed that the effects could not
be accounted for by these variables, suggesting possible unintentional discrimination on behalf of the family.
This study sought to expand on the studies of Crandall
(34,35) and test whether this discrimination extends to carbuying behaviors. Similar to college tuition, purchasing a car
during the college years is a major expense and investment that
parents can choose to provide assistance with or not. The study
examined how students funded their current car and assessed
current BMI by asking about weight and height. Finally, risktaking behavior and risky driving behavior, including drinking
and driving, were examined as possible confounding factors.
Some previous research has found gender differences (ref. 34,
Study 3), so we also tested for the presence of these differences.
We hypothesize that heavier individuals will rely on personal
support to finance a car, whereas skinnier individuals will tend
to receive help from their families for this large purchase.
Methods and Procedures
Participants
Participants consisted of 785 students at the University of North Texas,
who participated for partial course credit in a psychology class. Of the
785 participants, 399 (31% male) completed all measures included in
this study. Because of the fact that BMI increases as individuals get
older (36) as well as the fact that individuals are more likely to pay for
their own cars as they get older, a one and a half standard deviation cut
was made. Thus, all individuals above age 26 years were excluded from
further analysis. This cut resulted in 379 (30% male) total participants
with a mean age of 19.77 (s.d. = 1.78) and a range of 1726.
Materials
The Sensation Seeking Scale-V. The Sensation Seeking Scale-V
(37) is a 40-item self-report, forced choice questionnaire designed
to measure individual differences in stimulation and arousal needs.
Items break down into four subscales, including Thrill and Adventure
Seeking, which includes items expressing a desire to engage in sports
or other activities that involve speed or danger; Disinhibition, which
includes items that show a desire for social and sexual disinhibition as
expressed in drinking, partying, and variety in sexual partners; Boredom
Susceptibility, which represents an aversion to repetition, routine, and
dull people; and Experience Seeking, which represents the seeking of
experiences through the mind and senses, travel, and a nonconforming lifestyle (38). Reliability and validity have been well established (see
ref. 37 for review). Other authors have found internal consistencies
ranging from 0.75 to 0.80 on the four subscales of the measure and have
established convergent validity with the ZKPQ Impulsive Sensation
Seeking subscale (see ref. 39). In the current sample, internal consistencies range from 0.55 to 0.79.

The Barratt Impulsiveness Scale-11. The Barratt Impulsiveness

Scale-11 (40) is a 30-item self-report questionnaire designed to assess
the personality trait of impulsiveness. Items as a whole can be reported
to indicate a total measure of impulsiveness. All items together have
shown good Cronbachs values ( = 0.83). Six first-order subscales
emerge from individual items, which include Attention (inability to
concentrate), Motor, Self-Control, Cognitive Complexity, Perseverance, and Cognitive Instability. The items collapse into six first-order
subscales with ranging from 0.27 to 0.72. In the current sample,
internal consistencies on the first-order subscales range from 0.25 to
0.71. Three second-order factors emerge, which include Attentional,
542

Motor, and Nonplanning, The values for these subscales range from
0.59 to 0.74. In the current sample, were between 0.63 and 0.71.
Convergent and divergent validity, with testretest reliability, have also
been demonstrated (41).
BMI. This was computed from self-reported height and weight using
the following formula: (weight in pounds times 703) divided by
height in inches squared. BMI has been shown to accurately describe
levels of body fat (42) and serves as an adequate measure of physical
health(43).
Reckless Driving Scale. The Reckless Driving Scale (44) is a tenitem self-report questionnaire that asks how likely, on a scale from
0 (0% chance) to 10 (100% chance) the individual is to engage in
the risky driving behavior described. The items are summed to yield
a total risky behavior score, with higher scores indicating a higher
tendency to engage in reckless driving. Cronbachs for the ten
items has been reported to be around 0.80; in the current sample
= 0.73.
Drinking and Driving Scale. Questions for this scale are largely
modeled after Snortum and Berger (45). Scores are summed to yield an
overall measure of how likely an individual is to drink and drive. In the
current sample, internal consistency () was 0.56.
Procedure
As part of a mass testing session, participants completed a packet of
questionnaires that took roughly 1h to complete. Participants first completed the Sensation Seeking Scale, Barratt Impulsivity Scale, Reckless
Driving Stories, and the Drinking and Driving Scale. Participants
indicated if they drove a vehicle, and how they financed the purchase.
Choices included that they paid for it themselves, their family paid for
it, they partially paid for it, or other. For simplicity, this variable is
considered only in terms of whether the individual paid for the car or
if the individuals family paid for the car. Individuals also answered
questions about their family income. Responses ranged from 1 to 6,
with 1 representing income <$10,000 per year, 2 represented $10,000
29,999 per year, 3 represented $30,00049,999 per year, 4 represented
$50,00074,999 per year, 5 represented $75,00099,999 per year, and 6
represented $100,000 per year. Finally, participants completed items
on demographics and body weight and height.
Results

Similar to Crandalls (34,35) findings, the majority of students

relied on family support to finance their large purchase (77%).
To test the hypothesis that heavier individuals will be more
likely to rely on personal support to finance a car, we conducted a t-test comparing individuals by source of financing
on BMI. The results indicated that individuals who financed
their cars by themselves (m = 25.01, s.d. = 4.80) were heavier
than those individuals who received monetary support from
their family (m = 23.27, s.d. = 4.81), t(377) = 2.91, P = 0.004,
Cohens d = 0.36. Table1 provides a summary of individuals
weight by source of financing.
Because research on BMI and paying for college tuition
sometimes yields a gender interaction (34), we next conducted
a 2 (paid for car by themselves vs. family paid) 2 (gender)
ANOVA on BMI score. There was no main effect of gender,
F(3,375) = 1.18, P = 0.279. There was also no significant interaction between family support and gender, F(3,375) = 0.55,
P=0.45. Although previous research yielded differential effects
by gender, no such gender interaction was found in the current
sample.
VOLUME 19 NUMBER 3 | march 2011 | www.obesityjournal.org

articles
Behavior and Psychology
Odds ratio point estimates for income = 0.81, P = 0.01, 95%
confidence interval 0.690.95. Odds ratio point estimates for
BMI = 1.064, P = 0.01, 95% confidence interval 1.011.12. The
partial correlation between source of financing and BMI with
income partialed out was r(376) = 0.13, P = 0.009. Because
of the way our variables were coded, this correlation suggests
as BMI increases, individuals were more likely to finance the
purchase of a car by themselves.
Another possible explanation is that these individuals are
riskier than their skinny counterparts. Perhaps, there is something about their behavior that causes families to be weary
of such a large investment. To test this explanation, we conducted correlation analyses between BMI scores and the two
measures of personality traits related to personal risk taking,
the Sensation Seeking Scale and the Barratt Impulsiveness
Scale. Two measures of behavioral risk taking, the Reckless
Driving Scale and the Drinking and Driving Scale, were also
run in the analysis. Including the subscales of each of these
four measures, a total of 12 correlations were conducted with
BMI scores. At = 0.05 level, two correlations were significant
two subscales from the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale: Motor
and Motor Impulsivity. However, none of these correlations
meet the significance criterion once a Bonferonni correction
is made ( = 0.05/12 = 0.004). Thus the observed relationship
between BMI and source of finance could not be accounted for
by risk-taking behaviors. Table2 provides a summary of all
t-tests conducted.

Traditionally, individuals who are overweight have been

verrepresented in lower socioeconomic levels (46). This has
o
clear implications for our research question, as individuals with
low income would have a more difficult time paying for a car
than would those from the upper class. To test this explanation,
a logistic regression was run with BMI and income predicting
those students who funded their car purchase themselves. The
overall model was significant, 2(2, N = 379) = 14.31, P < 0.001.
Table 1 Weight category by source of financing for a car
purchase
% of group N

% of total N

Participant paid
Underweight

1.2

0.3

Normal weight

49

59.8

12.9

Overweight

22

26.8

5.8

Obese

10

12.2

2.6

Total

82

100

21.6

Family paid
Underweight

29

37.7

7.7

192

44.6

50.6

Overweight

48

11.2

12.7

Obese

28

6.5

7.4

297

100

78.4

Normal weight

Total

Table 2Differences in measures as a function of source of car financing

Source of financing
Family

Nonfamily

Variable

Mean (s.d.)

Mean (s.d.)

BMI

23.27 (4.81)

25.01 (4.80)

2.91**

0.36

4.32 (1.48)

3.78 (1.63)

2.86**

0.35

161.13 (72.75)

171.14 (72.64)

1.04

0.14

33.33 (14.56)

32.52 (16.26)

0.43

0.05

Disinhibition

3.89 (2.51)

4.55 (2.58)

2.09

0.26

Boredom Susceptibility

2.84 (1.94)

2.79 (1.86)

0.18

0.03

Experience Seeking

4.75 (2.13)

5.09 (2.20)

1.24

0.16

Thrill Seeking

6.16 (2.84)

6.17 (2.83)

0.02

0.00

Attention

10.67 (2.61)

10.61 (2.50)

0.19

0.02

Motor

15.26 (3.27)

16.10 (3.10)

2.09*

0.26

Self-Control

12.85 (3.03)

12.99 (3.22)

0.36

0.04

Cognitive Complexity

Income
Drinking and Driving Scale
Reckless Driving Scale

Sensation Seeking Scale-V

Barratt Impulsiveness Scale-11

11.66 (2.39)

11.51 (2.25)

0.51

0.06

Perseverance

6.90 (1.64)

7.22 (1.85)

1.51

0.18

Cognitive Instability

6.61 (1.81)

6.77 (1.57)

0.72

0.09

Attentional Impulsivity

17.28 (3.63)

17.38 (3.25)

0.22

0.03

Motor Impulsivity

22.16 (4.01)

23.32 (3.97)

2.32*

0.29

Nonplanning Impulsivity

24.51 (4.64)

24.50 (4.69)

0.02

0.00

*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01.

obesity | VOLUME 19 NUMBER 3 | march 2011

543

articles
Behavior and Psychology
Discussion

Even though the groups of interest in this study had dissimilar

socioeconomic statuses (i.e., ability to pay), the rates at which
families helped their adolescents pay for their car differed
depending on the childs weight, even after controlling for
this income discrepancy. This result was present regardless
of the individuals gender. The possibility that these students
were riskier was examined, but no group differences were
found. Although sometimes gender differences are found in
the literature (47) and sometimes not found (48), no gender
interactions were present in the current sample. Overall, this
study suggests a continuation of the trend found by Crandall
(34,35) that overweight students must rely more on their own
sources of income to finance college-related expenses than do
their skinnier counterparts.
A full 68% of the US population is either overweight or obese
(1). As noted before, these individuals face prejudice and discrimination in everyday life. In fact, the rates of weight discrimination are comparable to those of racial discrimination in the
United States (49). This can have negative effects not only on
physical functioning (32,50), but also on psychological functioning (11,18,22). These physical and psychological consequences
of the stigmatization of obesity illustrate that it is increasingly
important to recognize and be aware of the various ways that
subtle behaviors, such as buying a car for a child, may be serving
to discriminate against an overweight individual. These consequences call to attention the need to be aware of interactions not
only with others in society, but also within our own families. As
stated above, when individuals experience discrimination it can
lead to a myriad of negative outcomes. The lack of help from an
individuals family to finance college expenses, such as tuition
and a car, may contribute to individuals being more downwardly
mobile and being at risk for psychopathology.
The results of this study show that heavier students must rely
on their own funds to make large purchases, whether it is paying
for college (34) or buying a car. Several alternative explanations
arise, such as one originally proposed by Crandall (34). There is
a possibility that those individuals who financed the large purchase themselves gained weight because they spent more time
working. A consequence of this is that they had less time for
sports and similar activities that would cause a lowering of BMI.
Additionally, parental and family attitudes toward their children
were not assessed. It could be that what we have captured is not
a result of attitudes and resulting discrimination, but one of any
number of confounds that simply have not been addressed.
These are areas that should be pursued in future research in
order to further solidify and investigate these findings.
Despite these drawbacks, it is important to note the negative effects that stigmatization can have on an obese person.
As stated before, exposure to stigmatization and stereotypes
results in a myriad of physical and psychological problems.
These physical and psychological consequences persist over
time and often get progressively worse, further illustrating the
importance of this phenomenon. As the rates of obesity continue to trend upward in the United States, it is increasingly
important to recognize and be aware of the various ways that
544

subtle behaviors, such as buying a car for a child, may be serving to discriminate against an overweight individual. The lack
of help from an individuals family to finance college expenses,
such as tuition and a car, may contribute to individuals being
more downwardly mobile and being at risk for psychopathology. The current results suggest that trying to fund a car purchase is yet another potential source of discrimination these
individuals will likely encounter in their lives.
Disclosure
The authors declared no conflict of interest.
2010 The Obesity Society

References
1. Flegal KM, Carroll MD, Ogden CL, Curtin LR. Prevalence and trends in
obesity among US adults, 1999-2008. JAMA 2010;303:235241.
2. Roehling M, Roehling P, Odland L. Investigating the validity of stereotypes
about overweight employees: the relationship between body weight and
normal personality traits. Group Organ Manag 2008;33:392424.
3. Puhl R, Latner J. Weight bias: New science on and significant social
problem. Obesity 2008;16(suppl 2):S1S2.
4. Puhl R, Brownell KD. Bias, discrimination, and obesity. Obes Res
2001;9:788805.
5. Ding V, Stillman J. An empirical investigation of discrimination against
overweight female job applicants in New Zealand. NZ J Psychol
2005;34:139148.
6. Pingitore R, Dugoni BL, Tindale RS, Spring B. Bias against overweight
job applicants in a simulated employment interview. J Appl Psychol
1994;79:909917.
7. Baum CL 2nd, Ford WF. The wage effects of obesity: a longitudinal study.
Health Econ 2004;13:885899.
8. Larkin JE, Pines HA. No fat persons need apply. Sociol Work Occup
1979;6:313327.
9. DeBeaumont R. Occupational differences in the wage penalty for obese
women. J Socio Econ 2009;38:344349.
10. Goldblatt PB, Moore ME, Stunkard AJ. Social factors in obesity. JAMA
1965;192:10391044.
11. Eisenberg ME, Neumark-Sztainer D, Story M. Associations of weight-based
teasing and emotional well-being among adolescents. Arch Pediatr Adolesc
Med 2003;157:733738.
12. Friedman MA, Brownell KD. Psychological correlates of obesity: moving to
the next research generation. Psychol Bull 1995;117:320.
13. Kessler RC, Mickelson KD, Williams DR. The prevalence, distribution, and
mental health correlates of perceived discrimination in the United States.
JHealth Soc Behav 1999;40:208230.
14. Sachs-Ericsson N, Burns AB, Gordon KH et al. Body mass index and
depressive symptoms in older adults: the moderating roles of race, sex,
andsocioeconomic status. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2007;15:815825.
15. Jackson TD, Grilo CM, Masheb RM. Teasing history, onset of obesity,
current eating disorder psychopathology, body dissatisfaction, and
psychological functioning in binge eating disorder. Obes Res 2000;8:
451458.
16. Friedman KE, Ashmore JA, Applegate KL. Recent experiences of weightbased stigmatization in a weight loss surgery population: psychological and
behavioral correlates. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2008;16 Suppl 2:S69S74.
17. Annis NM, Cash TF, Hrabosky JI. Body image and psychosocial differences
among stable average weight, currently overweight, and formerly
overweightwomen: the role of stigmatizing experiences. Body Image
2004;1:155167.
18. Carr D, Friedman MA. Is obesity stigmatizing? Body weight, perceived
discrimination, and psychological well-being in the United States. J Health
Soc Behav 2005;46:244259.
19. Rosenberger PH, Henderson KE, Grilo CM. Correlates of body image
dissatisfaction in extremely obese female bariatric surgery candidates. Obes
Surg 2006;16:13311336.
20. Matz PE, Foster GD, Faith MS, Wadden TA. Correlates of body image
dissatisfaction among overweight women seeking weight loss. J Consult
Clin Psychol 2002;70:10401044.
21. Wardle J, Waller J, Fox E. Age of onset and body dissatisfaction in obesity.
Addict Behav 2002;27:561573.
VOLUME 19 NUMBER 3 | march 2011 | www.obesityjournal.org

articles
Behavior and Psychology
22. Friedman KE, Reichmann SK, Costanzo PR et al. Weight stigmatization
and ideological beliefs: relation to psychological functioning in obese adults.
Obes Res 2005;13:907916.
23. Rosenberger PH, Henderson KE, Bell RL, Grilo CM. Associations of weightbased teasing history and current eating disorder features and psychological
functioning in bariatric surgery patients. Obes Surg 2007;17:470477.
24. Puhl RM, Heuer CA. Obesity stigma: important considerations for public
health. Am J Public Health 2010;100:10191028.
25. Millman M. Such a Pretty Face: Being Fat in America. Norton: New York,
1980.
26. Wadden TA, Stunkard AJ. Social and psychological consequences of
obesity. Ann Intern Med 1985;103:10621067.
27. Allon N. The stigma of overweight in everyday life. In: Wolman B. (ed).
Psychological Aspects of Obesity: A Handbook. Van Nostrand: New York,
1982, pp. 130174.
28. Crandall CS, Biernat M. The ideology of anti-fat attitudes. J Appl Soc
Psychol 1990; 23:227243.
29. Puhl RM, Heuer CA. The stigma of obesity: a review and update. Obesity
(Silver Spring) 2009;17:941964.
30. Ferrante JM, Ohman-Strickland P, Hudson SV et al. Colorectal cancer
screening among obese versus non-obese patients in primary care
practices. Cancer Detect Prev 2006;30:459465.
31. stbye T, Taylor DH Jr, Yancy WS Jr, Krause KM. Associations between
obesity and receipt of screening mammography, Papanicolaou tests, and
influenza vaccination: results from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS)
and the Asset and Health Dynamics Among the Oldest Old (AHEAD) Study.
Am J Public Health 2005;95:16231630.
32. Amy NK, Aalborg A, Lyons P, Keranen L. Barriers to routine gynecological
cancer screening for White and African-American obese women. Int J Obes
(Lond) 2006;30:147155.
33. Himes SM, Thompson JK. Fat stigmatization in television shows and
movies: a content analysis. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2007;15:712718.
34. Crandall CS. Do heavy-weight students have more difficulty paying for
college? Pers Soc Psychol Bull 1991;17:606611.
35. Crandall CS. Do parents discriminate against their heavyweight daughters?
Pers Soc Psychol Bull 1995;21:724735.
36. Williamson DF, Kahn HS, Remington PL, Anda RF. The 10-year incidence
of overweight and major weight gain in US adults. Arch Intern Med
1990;150:665672.

obesity | VOLUME 19 NUMBER 3 | march 2011

37. Zuckerman, M. Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation

seeking. Cambridge University Press: New York, 1994.
38. Hardy DJ, Castellon SA, Hinkin CH, Levine AJ, Lam MN. Sensation
seeking and visual selective attention in adults with HIV/AIDS. AIDS Behav
2008;12:930934.
39. Roberti JW, Storch EA, Bravata E. Further psychometric support for the
Sensation Seeking ScaleForm V. J Pers Assess 2003;81:291292.
40. Patton JH, Stanford MS, Barratt ES. Factor structure of the Barratt
impulsiveness scale. J Clin Psychol 1995;51:768774.
41. Stanford M, Mathias C, Dougherty D et al. Fifty years of the Barratt
impulsiveness scale: an update and review. Pers Individ Diff 2009;47:
385395.
42. Heinrich KM, Jitnarin N, Suminski RR et al. Obesity classification in military
personnel: a comparison of body fat, waist circumference, and body mass
index measurements. Mil Med 2008;173:6773.
43. Hassan MK, Joshi AV, Madhavan SS, Amonkar MM. Obesity and healthrelated quality of life: a cross-sectional analysis of the US population.
Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2003;27:12271232.
44. Ben-Ari OT, Florian V, Mikulincer M. The impact of mortality salience on
reckless driving: a test of terror management mechanisms. J Pers Soc
Psychol 1999;76:3545.
45. Snortum JR, Berger DE. Drinking-driving compliance in the United States:
perceptions and behavior in 1983 and 1986. J Stud Alcohol 1989;50:
306319.
46. McLaren L. Socioeconomic status and obesity. Epidemiol Rev 2007;29:
2948.
47. Haines J, Neumark-Sztainer D, Eisenberg ME, Hannan PJ. Weight
teasing and disordered eating behaviors in adolescents: longitudinal
findings from Project EAT (Eating Among Teens). Pediatrics 2006;117:
e209e215.
48. Puhl RM, Brownell KD. Confronting and coping with weight stigma: an
investigation of overweight and obese adults. Obesity (Silver Spring)
2006;14:18021815.
49. Puhl RM, Andreyeva T, Brownell KD. Perceptions of weight discrimination:
prevalence and comparison to race and gender discrimination in America.
Int J Obes (Lond) 2008;32:9921000.
50. Puhl RM, Moss-Racusin CA, Schwartz MB. Internalization of weight
bias: Implications for binge eating and emotional well-being. Obesity
(SilverSpring) 2007;15:1923.

545