Public Support for Weight-Related Antidiscrimination Laws and Policies

Abstract

Objective: Weight-related discrimination is prevalent and associated with health impairments for those who are targeted, which underscores the need of antidiscrimination legislation. This study is the first to examine public support of weight-related antidiscrimination laws or policies in Germany, compared to the US and Iceland. Methods: In a representative German population sample (N = 2,513), public support for general and employment-specific weight-related antidiscrimination policies, weight-based victimization, and weight bias internalization were measured through established self-report questionnaires. Results: Half of the German population sample agreed with antidiscrimination policies. General antidiscrimination laws received lower support than employment-specific laws. Support for policies considering obesity a physical disability was greatest in Germany, whereas support for employment-specific antidiscrimination laws was lower in Germany than in the US and Iceland. Total support for weight-related antidiscrimination policies was significantly predicted by lower age, female gender, obese weight status, residence in West Germany, church membership, and readiness to vote in elections. Conclusion: German support for weight-related antidiscrimination policies is moderate. Increasing awareness about weight-related discrimination and laws prohibiting this behavior may help to promote policy acceptance.

Does weight-related stigmatisation and discrimination depend on educational attainment and level of income? A systematic review

“…These two studies also provided data based on a Canadian sample of healthcare professionals and American, Australian and Icelandic student samples that did not meet the inclusion criteria and therefore all four samples had to be excluded. Three studies were based on a German sample10 45 46 and five studies based on one sample, from Paraguay,47 Mexico,48 Sweden,49 Denmark50 and Great Britain,51 respectively. The study by Brewis and Wutich,47 based on a Paraguayan sample also provided data of a comparison group of US-undergraduate students that were not considered in the analysis because of the homogenous study sample in terms of educational attainment.…”

“…Since the aim of the study was to outline the impact that socioeconomic status in the form of educational attainment and level of income have on weight bias, attention was paid to a variation in these variables within the samples. The studies included therefore focused either on a population-based sample10 38 39 45 46 49 or an convenience sample 37 40 41 43 44 50. Although Jiminez-Cruz and colleagues48 investigated stigmatising attitudes of an entirely low-income sample, they divided the socioeconomic factors (level of education and income) into five and four categories, respectively; thus, variation within the sample could be ensured.…”

“…Seventeen studies were found that assessed attitudes towards obesity in association with participants’ educational attainment and/or level of income. All of these 17 studies reported the participants’ educational attainment 10 36–51. Depending on the origin of the sample and the analogous countries’ educational system, categories were formed or years of educational attainment were gathered.…”

“…Depending on the origin of the sample and the analogous countries’ educational system, categories were formed or years of educational attainment were gathered. From 17 studies, 13 assessed participants’ level of income;10 36–42 45 46 48–50 therefore, income was either assessed by the annual, weekly, household or individual income.…”

Joint international consensus statement for ending stigma of obesity

“…The absence of national laws that prohibit weight discrimination can also contribute to expression of weight stigma, as it communicates a societal message that weight stigma is acceptable and tolerable. However, evidence in North America, Europe, Australia, and Iceland suggests that there might be substantial public support to enact and pass legislation to prohibit weight discrimination 75,76 .…”