Seediscussions,stats,andauthorprofilesforthispublicationat:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301692036

"YouBetterNotLeaveMeShaming!":ConditionalIndirectEffectAnalysesofAnti-fatAttitudes,BodyShame,andFatTalkasaFunctionofSelf-CompassioninCollegeWomen

ArticleinBodyImage·April2016

ImpactFactor:1.9·DOI:10.1016/j.bodyim.2016.04.009

READS

97

3authors:

JenniferBWebb

UniversityofNorthCarolinaatCharlotte

40PUBLICATIONS296CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

MalloryF.Fiery

UniversityofNorthCarolinaatCharlotte

8PUBLICATIONS24CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

NadiaJafari

UniversityofNorthCarolinaatCharlotte

5PUBLICATIONS12CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

Allin-textreferencesunderlinedinbluearelinkedtopublicationsonResearchGate,

lettingyouaccessandreadthemimmediately.

Availablefrom:JenniferBWebb

Retrievedon:01June2016

“as

JU

a

ARRA

KASBFC

i2cesoiDisart2phi

oS

h1

Body Image 18 (2016) 5–13

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Body Image

journa l h om epa ge: www.elsev ier .com/ locat e/bodyimage

You better not leave me shaming!”: Conditional indirect effectnalyses of anti-fat attitudes, body shame, and fat talk as a function ofelf-compassion in college women

ennifer B. Webb ∗, Mallory F. Fiery, Nadia Jafariniversity of North Carolina at Charlotte Health Psychology Ph.D. Program, Charlotte, NC, United States

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 23 June 2015eceived in revised form 1 February 2016ccepted 28 April 2016

eywords:

a b s t r a c t

The present investigation provided a theoretically-driven analysis testing whether body shame helpedaccount for the predicted positive associations between explicit weight bias in the form of possessinganti-fat attitudes (i.e., dislike, fear of fat, and willpower beliefs) and engaging in fat talk among 309weight-diverse college women. We also evaluated whether self-compassion served as a protective factorin these relationships. Robust non-parametric bootstrap resampling procedures adjusted for body mass

nti-fat attitudeself-compassionody shameat talkollege women

index (BMI) revealed stronger indirect and conditional indirect effects for dislike and fear of fat attitudesand weaker, marginal effects for the models inclusive of willpower beliefs. In general, the indirect effectof anti-fat attitudes on fat talk via body shame declined with increasing levels of self-compassion. Ourpreliminary findings may point to useful process variables to target in mitigating the impact of endorsinganti-fat prejudice on fat talk in college women and may help clarify who is at higher risk.

© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

For many women and girls, contemporary Western culture’sdealization of the thin, lean and “fit” body (Benton & Karazsia,015; Grogan, 2008; Homan, McHugh, Wells, Watson, & King, 2012)oincides with accentuating the intolerance and devaluation of fatmbodiment (Crandall, 1994; Smith, 2012). Anti-fat attitudes con-titute one approach to conceptualizing explicit weight bias. Asriginally defined by Crandall (1994) these deep-seated weight-sm beliefs are identified as occurring along three dimensions.islike attitudes reflect endorsements of strong contempt for fat

ndividuals. Willpower beliefs are rooted in Americans’ dominantocio-political ideology centering on valuing self-determinationnd personal control such that fat individuals are deemed whollyesponsible for their “excess” weight and are thus deserving ofheir consequent stigmatization (McHugh & Kasardo, 2012; Smith,012). Finally, fear of fat attitudes stem from Western society’s

ervasive degradation of fatness and represent intensified appre-ension over the prospect of gaining weight as a marker of

nhabiting a socially marginalized body (Crandall, 1994).

∗ Corresponding author at: University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Departmentf Psychology, Colvard 4024, 9201 University City Blvd, Charlotte, NC 28223, Unitedtates. Tel.: +1 704 687 1320; fax: +1 704 687 1317.

E-mail address: jennifer.webb@uncc.edu (J.B. Webb).

ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2016.04.009740-1445/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Scholarship has revealed that subscribing to such fat-oppressiveattitudes is associated with heightened body image and eatingdisturbances in women. For instance, research conducted in pre-dominantly college female samples indicates that higher anti-fatbias corresponds with increased levels of body dissatisfaction,dysfunctional appearance attitudes, drive for thinness, disorderedeating behavior, body checking, and inclinations to engage inphysical appearance comparisons (Alperin, Hornsey, Hayward,Diedrichs, & Barlow, 2014; Lin & Reid, 2009; Magallares, 2012;O’Brien, Hunter, Halberstadt, & Anderson, 2007; Pepper & Ruiz,2007). Importantly, recent findings also demonstrated that endors-ing anti-fat attitudes is linked with higher levels of participating inthe normative reciprocal denigration of one’s body termed “fat talk”(Alperin et al., 2014; Nichter, 2000).

This preliminary evidence suggests that advocating explicitweight bias may not only hold harmful intrapersonal consequencesbut its potential adverse effects may also infiltrate the relationalcontext as well. It stands to reason that each component of the con-stellation of anti-fat attitudes could serve as content for expressingfat talk with female peers. For example, a young woman could: (a)bemoan how she is lazy or embodies another negative fat stereo-type (dislike), (b) complain that she lacks sufficient self-control

in failing to stick to her intended exercise regime or diet plan(willpower), and (c) disclose distress over the belief that she is gain-ing weight and not fitting in her jeans (fear of fat). Thus, exchangingnegative body commentary with peers could be conceptualized

6 J.B. Webb et al. / Body Image 18 (2016) 5–13

ht stiR : Evalu2 d wit

aAigtrrc(

ccw2SabdisitbTtw

ipaiwmcsa(

psH(eaac

Fig. 1. Theoretical model of weigeprinted from “The weight-inclusive versus weight-normative approach to health014, Journal of Obesity, 2014, p. 9. Copyright [2014] by Tracy L. Tylka et al. Reprinte

s the interpersonal expression of internalized anti-fat bias. Yet,lperin et al. (2014) used a composite measure of anti-fat attitudes

n their analysis. Therefore, it was of interest in the present investi-ation to examine whether the strength of the effects varied amonghe three dimensions of the construct. This approach is aligned withesearch demonstrating the presence of larger effects for fear of fatelative to dislike and willpower beliefs in relation to eating con-erns and body dissatisfaction in ethnically-diverse college womenPepper & Ruiz, 2007).

Like holding negative views toward fatness, frequently dis-losing self-disparaging body-related complaints in everydayonversations with peers is a marker of women’s compromisedell-being (Clarke, Murnen, & Smolak, 2010; Compeau & Ambwani,

013; Jones, Crowther, & Ciesla, 2014; Shannon & Mills, 2015;harpe, Naumann, Treasure, & Schmidt, 2013). More precisely,

recent systematic review revealed higher levels of fat talk toe associated with increased depression, social comparison ten-encies, perceived sociocultural pressures to be thin, appearance

nvestment, body dissatisfaction, eating disorder pathology, bodyurveillance, body checking, and body-related cognitive distort-ons in college women (Shannon & Mills, 2015). More frequent fatalk was also linked to lower self-esteem, body appreciation, andody esteem in undergraduate females (Shannon & Mills, 2015).herefore, the co-occurrence of anti-fat attitudes and fat talk is par-icularly problematic in undermining young women’s psychosocialell-being.

Given the host of negative health implications at stake, it ismportant to begin to identify potential modifiable psychologicalrocesses that may help explain the association between anti-fatttitudes and fat talk in young women. Pursuing this objectivenitially in cross-sectional research would provide a preliminary

indow into possible operative mechanisms for future experi-ental and/or intervention science to target toward averting the

ascade of ill effects downstream. The newly-introduced weighttigma and well-being theoretical model would elect body shames a leading candidate intermediary pathway in this relationshipTylka et al., 2014).

Body shame is an acute affective experience stemming fromerceptions of having failed to achieve narrowly-defined culturaltandards of body size (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; McKinley &yde, 1996). In Tylka et al.’s (2014) comprehensive framework

see Fig. 1), body shame partially accounts for why weight stigma

xerts its pernicious effects on both dimensions of psychologicalnd physiological health and well-being. In the present study wergue that this broader explanatory model could be adapted toonceptualize why espousing weight-stigmatizing beliefs (versus

gma and its associated variables.ating the evidence for prioritizing well-being over weight loss,” by T.L. Tylka et al.,

h permission.

exposure to weight-stigmatizing experiences per say) would beindirectly linked to the specific criterion domain of increased fattalk with peers via body shame.

First, existing evidence partially supports the proposed alphapathways between the predictors and mediator in our expandedmodel. McKinley and Hyde (1996) observed a positive associa-tion between fear of fat attitudes and body shame in constructingand validating their measure of objectified body consciousness ina modest-sized female college sample. Later analyses conductedby Burmeister, Hinman, Koball, Hoffman, and Carels (2013) furtherreplicated this effect (albeit non-significant) in a predominantlyfemale higher weight treatment-seeking sample. Social compari-son theory (Festinger, 1954) offers a compelling rationale for whyincreased anti-fat bias (and in particular those attitudes reflectingan elevated concern over becoming fat) co-occurs with increasedbody shame.

Indeed, adherence to negative attitudes toward fatness not onlyinvolves the externalized devaluing of others’ larger bodies but isalso associated with a reflexive body comparison process. Aware-ness of one’s own fat prejudice (e.g., interpersonal contact with ahigher weight individual) may prompt the automatic, internal eval-uation of one’s relative closeness to or distance from “embodyingfatness” as a marginalized social position (Alperin et al., 2014). Thisself-scrutiny in turn may hold important affective repercussionsfor the individual such as instigating self-denigrating body shame.This reasoning is consistent with evidence demonstrating howrestrained eaters felt worse about themselves when they perceivedthemselves to be more similar to a plus-size versus a thinnermodel (Papies & Nicolaije, 2012). Complementary support for thisrationale is also provided by findings implicating appearance com-parison processes in mediating the effect of internalization of thethin ideal (presumably the corollary to endorsing anti-fat atti-tudes) on body shame among undergraduate women (Markham,Thompson, & Bowling, 2005). Thus, we predict that body shamewill have the strongest association with fear of fat attitudes in ourweight-diverse sample. Yet we also surmise that the remainingdislike and willpower beliefs will demonstrate significant thoughmore modest-sized links with body shame in light of the overridinganti-fat sentiment permeating modern day public health efforts tostem the tide of “the obesity epidemic” (Puhl & Suh, 2015).

Secondly, research confirms the proposed beta pathwaybetween the mediator and criterion in our updated model. Schol-

arship has consistently documented the positive link betweenbody shame and fat talk in college women (Arroyo, Segrin,& Harwood, 2014; Clarke et al., 2010; Royal, MacDonald, &Dionne, 2013). Affect regulation theoretical principles offer a useful

dy Ima

fbii(CIepe(B2Bpt

atotc(coecTD&S

cbfrspba&dMsff

gerwufioaTeiec

H

on

J.B. Webb et al. / Bo

ramework for helping to explain this co-occurrence. This process-ased conceptualization emphasizes how individuals may engage

n maladaptive behaviors (e.g., disordered eating, body check-ng surveillance behaviors, etc.) to regulate the experience ofbody-related) negative affect (Anestis, Selby, Fink, & Joiner, 2007;orstorphine, Mountford, Tomlinson, Waller, & Meyer, 2007).

n keeping with other functional perspectives of fat talk (Jonest al., 2014; Nichter, 2000; Shannon & Mills, 2015), we considerarticipating in this behavior to serve as an interpersonal strat-gy to alleviate or avert the noxious experience of body shameDaye, Webb, & Jafari, 2014; Duarte, Pinto-Gouveia, Ferreira, &atista, 2014; Goss & Gilbert, 2002; Manjrekar, Schoenleber, & Mu,013). Both qualitative (Gruys, 2012) and quantitative (Gapinski,rownell, & LaFrance, 2003; Salk & Engeln-Maddox, 2011) evidencerovide preliminary support for this proposed body shame regula-ion conceptual model of fat talk.

Finally, it is beneficial to explore possible protective factors inn expansion of the Tylka et al. (2014) model that could diminishhe indirect effect of anti-fat bias via body shame in this contextf engaging in self-deprecating body talk with peers. We choseo test self-compassion as a potential buffer in this model. Self-ompassion is a Buddhism-inspired adaptive self-regulatory qualityNeff, 2003) with an accruing evidence base supporting its role inonstructively counteracting the shame induced by exposure ofne’s perceived flaws and inadequacies with self-kindness, mindfulquanimity, and a sense that suffering is part of the shared humanondition (Albertson, Neff, & Dill-Shackleford, 2014; Breines, Toole,u, & Chen, 2014; Daye et al., 2014; Ferreira, Pinto-Gouveia, &uarte, 2013; Gilbert, 2011; Johnson & O’Brien, 2013; Kelly, Carter,

Borairi, 2014; Liss & Erchull, 2015; Mosewich, Kowalski, Sabiston,edgwick, & Tracy, 2011; Woods & Proeve, 2014).

Importantly, previous research has established self-ompassion’s protective capacity in the specific domains ofody image and maladaptive eating behavior in undergraduateemale samples. This buffering effect was demonstrated in theelationships between: (a) restrictive/critical caregiver eating mes-ages and body shame (Daye et al., 2014), (b) perceived thinnessressures and both disordered eating and thin-ideal internalizationeliefs (Tylka, Russell, & Neal, 2015), (c) both body comparison andppearance contingent self-worth and body appreciation (Homan

Tylka, 2015), and (d) between BMI and both measures of disor-ered eating and body image flexibility (Kelly, Vimalakanthan, &iller, 2014). Lastly, it bears mentioning that reductions in body

hame and improvements in body appreciation were observedollowing a brief self-guided self-compassion intervention in aemale community sample (Albertson et al., 2014).

The current study’s evaluation of moderated indirect effects mayenerate useful preliminary insights indicating whether higher lev-ls of self-compassion serve as a buffer in this proposed body shameegulation model of fat talk in the context of culturally-ingrainedeightism. Such evidence would both align with as well as buildpon the findings reported in contemporary scholarship con-rming self-compassion as a moderator of indirect effect modelsf well-being (e.g., self-reported depression and disordered eating)lso involving self-objectification processes (Liss & Erchull, 2015).hese hypothesized effects would additionally assist in furtherlaborating the Tylka et al. (2014) integrative model by demonstrat-ng how self-compassion may mitigate body shame as predicted byndorsing weight stigmatizing beliefs in relation to this particularriterion domain of psychosocial well-being (i.e., fat talk).

ypotheses

Based on the previously summarized evidence, our analysisffered the following two primary hypotheses: First, each compo-ent of anti-fat attitudes will be indirectly related to engaging in

ge 18 (2016) 5–13 7

fat talk with peers via body shame adjusted for BMI. We expectedstronger effects to emerge for fear of fat and dislike anti-fat beliefsrelative to willpower beliefs. This hypothesis is grounded in anoverarching affect regulation perspective. This conceptualizationrecognizes that the content of the dislike and fear of fat dimensionsis more affectively charged than the more emotionally neutral itemcontent of the willpower beliefs’ measure and therefore shouldgenerate stronger effects for the former two components of theconstruct. Secondly, we predicted that self-compassion will atten-uate the indirect effects of each dimension of anti-fat attitudes onfat talk via body shame while controlling for BMI. We anticipatedthat in line with prior research, this moderating effect would occurin the specific pathway between body shame and fat talk in allmodels tested. We further expected in light of the aforementionedrationale that these conditional indirect effects based on level ofself-compassion would be stronger for fear of fat and dislike anti-fat attitudes in comparison to the size of the effect for willpowerbeliefs.

Method

Participants and Procedure

Three hundred twenty-seven undergraduate women betweenthe ages of 18–24 attending a large public southeastern univer-sity provided informed consent to participate in this IRB-approvedonline study administered through Sona Systems in exchange forresearch credit. All measures described below were presentedin a randomized sequence. The demographic characteristics ofthe final sample of 309 participants are included in the anal-yses reported here. Participants had a mean age of 19.5 years(SD = 1.48) and a mean BMI of 23.3 kg/m2 (SD = 4.97) falling withinthe normal weight range (CDC, n.d.). Twenty-five percent of thefemale student sample met the BMI thresholds of overweight(25–29.9 kg/m2) or obese (≥30 kg/m2) combined (CDC, n.d.). Theparticipant sample was distributed among the following academicclassifications: 52.4% first-years, 24.3% sophomores, 13.3% juniors,and 10.0% seniors. The young women represented the followingself-identified racial/ethnic groups: 19.4% Black/African American,66.7% White/European American, 5.8% Hispanic or Latina Ameri-can, 2.6% Asian or Asian American, 1.6% Native American/AlaskanNative, 1.0% Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and 2.9% Other.

Measures

Demographics and body mass index. Participants respondedto socio-demographic questions regarding their age, gender,race/ethnicity, year in school, height, and weight, which were usedto calculate BMI.

Anti-fat attitudes. Anti-fat attitudes were assessed using the13-item Anti-Fat Attitudes questionnaire (AFA; Crandall, 1994).Participants respond using a 10-point Likert-type scale rangingfrom (0 = very strongly disagree) to (9 = very strongly agree) gaug-ing various aspects of anti-fat attitudes (e.g., self-concern, reasonsfor fatness, interactions with fat people, etc.). The AFA has threesubscales: Dislike assesses an evaluation-based attitude (7 items;

= .84; e.g., “I really don’t like fat people much”), Fear of Fat (3items; = .79; e.g., “I worry about becoming fat”) measures theperson’s own concerns about weight and fat, and lastly Willpower(3 items; = .66; e.g., “Some people are fat because they have nowillpower”) evaluates a person’s beliefs about the controllability of

weight and fat (Crandall, 1994). Item-level responses are summedand then averaged to yield each subscale score with higher scoresindicative of stronger endorsement of that particular dimension ofinternalized fat bias. Research has shown higher levels of anti-fat

8 dy Ima

awe(wUplD

oaafwsciritswisaubfc

BatdSCaasBIoi&s(sa

Nar5bdeJot(ap

J.B. Webb et al. / Bo

ttitudes (particularly Dislike and Willpower beliefs) to correspondith stronger beliefs in a just world, political conservatism, mod-

rn racism, and the controllability of poverty among U.S. adultsCrandall, 1994). The original questionnaire was tested on 970 (538omen and 432 men) participants from six nations (Australia,nited States, India, Poland, Venezuela, and Turkey); nearly allarticipants were college students. In the present sample, the fol-

owing internal consistencies were observed for each subscale:islike ( = .86), Fear of Fat ( = .90), and Willpower ( = .78).

Fat talk. The Fat Talk Scale was used to measure the frequencyf engaging in fat talk with peers (FTS; Clarke et al., 2010). Theuthors developed the scale from a series of 16 scenarios in which

female subject is expressing fat talk and body disparagement withriends. An example item, “Naomi is eating lunch with her friendshen she decides to get up from the table and get dessert. Before

he leaves the table she makes a comment such as, ‘I am now offi-ially a huge fatty!”’ (Clarke et al., 2010). Nine items were includedn the final measure using a 5-point scale (e.g., 1 = I would neverespond that way, 5 = I would always respond that way). Summingtems yields a total score and higher scores indicate more participa-ion in fat talk conversations. A previously reported average fat talkcore was M = 24.3 and a high level of internal consistency ( = .90)as found among a sample of college women (N = 192) in the orig-

nal validation study (Clarke et al., 2010). Test–retest of fat talkcale scores across a five-week time period demonstrated accept-ble reliability (r = .82, p < .001; Clarke et al., 2010). Fat talk scoresniquely predicted variability in disordered eating attitudes andody shame in college women, suggesting that fat talk is distinctrom self-objectification (Clarke et al., 2010). A Cronbach’s alphaoefficient of .91 was achieved in the current study.

Body shame. McKinley and Hyde (1996) created the Objectifiedody Consciousness Scale (OBCS) from a sample of young woment high risk for body image disturbance (N = 121). The majority ofhe women were White (85.1%) and heterosexual (96.7%). Threeimensions comprise the following distinct subscales of OBC: Bodyurveillance (8 items), Body Shame (8 items), and Appearanceontrol Beliefs (8 items). Self-report responses are indicated on

7-point scale ranging from 1 = strongly agree to 7 = strongly dis-gree. Summing and averaging items provide a total score for eachubscale. For purposes of the current investigation only the 8-itemody Shame subscale was used (e.g., “I feel ashamed of myself when

haven’t made the effort to look my best”). An acceptable levelf internal consistency for this subscale was demonstrated in thenitial scale development and validation study ( = .75; McKinley

Hyde, 1996). Higher scores on Body Shame significantly corre-ponded with lower levels of body esteem among college womenMcKinley & Hyde, 1996). In the current sample, the internal con-istency reliability estimate for the Body Shame subscale exceededdequate limits ( = .84).

Self-compassion. The 26-item Self-Compassion Scale (SCS;eff, 2003) was used to measure levels of self-compassions explained by Buddhist principles. Participants indicate theiresponses on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (almost never) to

(almost always) (Neff, 2003). Items are worded to representoth positive and negative dimensions of the construct, which areivided into the following six subscales: Self-Kindness ( = .78;.g., “I am tolerant of my own flaws and inadequacies”), Self-udgment ( = .77; e.g., “I am disapproving and judgmental of mywn flaws and inadequacies”), Common Humanity ( = .80; e.g., “I

ry to see my failings as part of the human condition”), Isolation

= .79; “When I fail at something important to me I tend to feellone in my failure”), Mindfulness ( = .75; e.g., “When somethingainful happens I try to take a balanced view of the situation”), and

ge 18 (2016) 5–13

Over-identification ( = .81; e.g., “When I fail at something impor-tant to me I become consumed by feelings of inadequacy”; Neff,2003). An overall self-compassion score was calculated by reversecoding negatively worded responses for the Self-Judgment, Isola-tion, and Over-identification subscales, then calculating the meansfor each subscale, then summing the means to obtain a total score.The original validation study included 391 undergraduate students(166 men; 225 women; M age 20.91 years; SD = 2.27) who wererandomly selected from psychology subject pool at a large south-western university. An internal consistency coefficient of .92 wasestablished from this sample for the 26-item SCS (Neff, 2003).Research has shown that female patients with eating disordersreported lower levels of self-compassion relative to a female non-clinical sample (Ferreira et al., 2013). In the present analysis, a highlevel of internal consistency was obtained ( = .91).

Data Analytic Strategy

Our approach to data analysis was fivefold. First, we assessed theamount of missing data at the variable level to determine whether asystematic pattern was evident. Secondly, basic descriptive statis-tics were computed in order to evaluate whether the distributionalcharacteristics of the data significantly departed from the assump-tions of normality underlying parametric analyses. Thirdly, thelinear relationships between the key study variables were evalu-ated using Pearson’s correlations.

In order to ascertain the presence of the hypothesized indirecteffects multiple linear regression analyses using Hayes’ (2013) PRO-CESS macro model 4 for SPSS were computed using the z-scoresfor each variable. Three models were tested, one for each anti-fatattitude dimension predicting variability in fat talk as mediatedby body shame and with BMI entered as a control variable. Thisrobust non-parametric bootstrap resampling procedure yields anindirect effect beta coefficient estimate in conjunction with its bias-corrected 95% confidence interval (CI). Statistical significance isestablished when zero is not included in the 95% CI. Ten thou-sand random resamples with replacement were performed for eachmodel evaluated.

Finally, to examine the potential moderating role of self-compassion, the PROCESS macro model 14 for SPSS (Hayes, 2013)was computed for each model with BMI again entered as a covari-ate along with body shame and self-compassion independently andtheir interaction term entered as additional predictors. This boot-strap resampling method (again with 10,000 random resampleswith replacement per analysis) yields conditional indirect effectestimates and bias-corrected 95% CIs for 3 levels of the modera-tor. Although these parameters provide evidence of whether theindirect effect is significant at the specific level of the moderatorwhen zero is excluded from the 95% CI, it does not indicate whetherthe separate conditional indirect effects are significantly differentfrom one another (Hayes, 2015). Therefore, this procedure addi-tionally generates an overall Index of Moderated Mediation (IMM;Hayes, 2015) alongside its accompanying 95% CI. When zero is notcaptured within the 95% CI of the IMM, one may then concludethat there is a meaningful difference in the magnitudes of the con-ditional indirect effects. In other words, evidence of a moderatedindirect effect is present such that the size and/or directionality ofthe indirect effect depends upon a particular level of the proposedmoderator.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Approximately 12% (N = 39) of the original sample of 327 hadincomplete data. Upon further inspection, 18 participants either did

J.B. Webb et al. / Body Image 18 (2016) 5–13 9

Table 1Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for primary study variables (N = 309).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. BMI –2. SCS −.04 –3. AFA-Dislike −.10 −.20** –4. AFA-Willpower −.04 −.15** .36** –5. AFA-Fear of Fat .25** −.38** .27** .39** –6. OBC-Body Shame .33** −.53** .31** .12* .57** –7. Fat Talk Scale .22** −.44** .28** .17** .53** .64** –

M 23.29 2.98 2.19 5.56 5.67 3.35 24.77SD 4.97 0.61 1.77 2.15 2.77 1.24 8.47

N Scale; OBC = Objectified Body Consciousness Scale.

nhv3DOmpte

Mieprdnnattm

ladbfaa

I

nmtio.moFCtes9

AFA-Dislike Fat Talk

Indirect Effect at 3 Levels of M oder ator:

Low Self-Compa ssion: β = .19 (95% CI: .12 to .27)

Avg. S elf-Compa ssion: β = .16 (95% CI: .10 to .24)

High Self-Compassion: β = .13 (95% CI: .0 6 t o .2 1)

Body Shame

.35*** .45***

.12*

Index of Moderated Mediation: -.03 (95% CI: -.06 to -.01)

Fig. 2. Conditional indirect effect model parameter estimates with AFA-Dislike asthe predictor controlling for BMI. N = 309. *p < .05. ***p < .001.

AFA-Fear of Fat Fat Talk

Indirect Effect at 3 Levels of M oder ator:

Low Self-Compa ssion: β = .24 (95% CI: .17 to .33)

Avg. S elf-Compa ssion: β = .19 (95% CI: .12 to .27)

High Self-Compassion: β = .14 (95% CI: .0 6 t o .2 3)

Body Sham e

.52*** .37***

.27***

Index of Moderated Mediation: -.05 (95% CI: -.08 to -.02)

ote: BMI = Body Mass Index; SCS = Self-Compassion Scale; AFA = Anti-Fat Attitudes* p < .05.

** p < .01.

ot provide sufficient information to calculate BMI (N = 14) and/orad not completed ≥50% of the items on a scale. Examination ofariable-level missing data from the remaining final sample size of09 revealed the following percentages: AFA-Fear of Fat (0%), AFA-islike (0.32%), AFA-Willpower (0.32%), FTS (0.65%), SCS (1.6%), andBC-Body Shame (4.8%). Given the relatively modest amount ofissing data and evidence supporting a pattern of missing com-

letely at random (MCAR; Little’s X2(865) = 904.8, p = .17) we usedhe recommended available item analysis data replacement strat-gy (Parent, 2013).

According to criteria set forth by leading experts (Fritz &acKinnon, 2007), the final sample size of 309 exceeds the min-

mum N of 115 to achieve sufficient power to detect an indirectffect comprised of a combination of a small-medium sized alphaathway (≥.26) by medium-sized beta pathway (≥.39) utilizingobust bias-corrected bootstrapping procedures. Screening of theistributional characteristics of the key study variables indicatedo significant departures from normality as a function of skew-ess (<2.0) or kurtosis (<7.0). Given that these values fell withincceptable ranges (Curran, West, & Finch, 1996) no additional dataransformations were performed outside of the creation of z-scoreso enhance the interpretability of the regression estimates across

easures.Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations and corre-

ational matrix for the primary study variables. All basic linearssociations were in the expected directions. For example, all threeimensions of anti-fat prejudice were positively associated withoth fat talk and body shame with the strongest effects observedor fear of fat attitudes. Conversely, self-compassion was inverselyssociated with body shame, fat talk, and all three components ofnti-fat bias.

ndirect Effect Analyses

As predicted, significant indirect effects emerged linking inter-alized weight bias in the form of holding anti-fat attitudes toore frequently participating in fat talk via body shame in all

hree models tested adjusted for BMI. More precisely, the modelnclusive of AFA-Dislike as the predictor explained a total of 40%f the variance in FTS scores (direct effect: = .11, p = .02, 95% CI:

01–.20). An indirect effect of = .20 (95% CI: .13–.28) was esti-ated for this model. Similarly, in the second model with AFA-Fear

f Fat beliefs as the predictor a total of 44% of the variability inTS scores was accounted for (direct effect: = .27, p < .001, 95%I: .17–.38; indirect effect: = .24, 95% CI: .17–.32). Finally, the

hird model featuring AFA-Willpower attitudes as the predictorxplained 39% of the variance in FTS scores. Analyses also generatedmall direct ( = .09, p = .04, 95% CI: .003–.18) and indirect ( = .08,5% CI: .01–.15) effects in the prediction of this criterion.

Fig. 3. Conditional indirect effect model parameter estimates with AFA-Fear of Fatas the predictor controlling for BMI. N = 309. ***p < .001.

Conditional Indirect Effect Analyses

Figs. 2–4 provide graphical representations summarizing theresults of the moderated indirect effect analyses. In accordance

10 J.B. Webb et al. / Body Ima

AFA- Willpowe r Fat Talk

Indirect Effect at 3 Level s of Mo derator:

Low Self-Compassion: β = .08 (95% CI: .01 to .14)

Avg. Self-Compassion: β = .07 (95% CI: .01 to .13)

High Self-Compassion: β = .0 5 ( 95% CI: .01 t o .11)

Body Sham e

.13*.49***

.09

Index of Moderated Mediation: -.01 (95% CI: -.03 to -.002)

Fa

witSoArtoofwA

fwbbf2co2MAiib

iaierbtsatb

ig. 4. Conditional indirect effect model parameter estimates with AFA-Willpowers the predictor controlling for BMI. N = 309. *p < .05. ***p < .001.

ith hypotheses, self-compassion was shown to attenuate thendirect effects observed between each type of anti-fat atti-ude in predicting fat talk through self-reported body shame.pecifically, the indirect effects declined with increasing levelsf self-compassion with the strength of the effects observed forFA-Willpower to be marginal (see Fig. 4). IMM estimates furtherevealed that the magnitude of the differences between the condi-ional indirect effects was distinguished along specific dimensionsf explicit weight bias. More precisely, the largest difference wasbserved for AFA-Fear of Fat attitudes (see Fig. 3), the smallest dif-erence was demonstrated for AFA-Willpower beliefs (see Fig. 4)ith the differences in the conditional indirect effects yielded forFA-Dislike attitudes falling within the middle (see Fig. 2).

Discussion

The present study examined the relationships among anti-at attitudes, body shame, fat talk, and self-compassion in aeight-diverse college female sample. Our analysis was guided

y the integration of Tylka et al.’s (2014) weight stigma and well-eing model with contemporary body shame regulation theoreticalrameworks (Daye et al., 2014; Duarte et al., 2014; Goss & Gilbert,002). Overall, results were in the expected directions with basicorrelational findings both upholding as well extending the resultsf previous research (e.g., Alperin et al., 2014; Burmeister et al.,013; Clarke et al., 2010; Daye et al., 2014; Liss & Erchull, 2015;cKinley & Hyde, 1996; Mosewich et al., 2011; Royal et al., 2013).

dditionally, as hypothesized, significant indirect and conditionalndirect effects were generated in all models tested. More specif-cally, self-compassion was shown to weaken the relationshipetween body shame and fat talk adjusted for BMI in each analysis.

A major contribution of the present study was the resultsndicating that internalized body shame helped account for thessociations between three forms of anti-fat attitudes and engagingn fat talk with peers. This evidence replicates and extends Alperint al.’s (2014) recent work by proposing an affect regulation theo-etical model to explain why holding fat oppressive attitudes maye associated with participating in ritualized self-denigrating fatalk conversations with peers. It may be the case that seeking reas-

urance about one’s body through initiating fat talk exchanges tollay feelings of self-critical body-related shame could operate ashe relational form of “body-checking” or appearance monitoringehavior recent research has revealed occurs when interacting with

ge 18 (2016) 5–13

higher weight individuals (Alperin et al., 2014). As discussed ear-lier, for some, such encounters with persons of larger body sizefunctions to instigate a perceived similarity self-evaluative process(Papies & Nicolaije, 2012), from which body shame could emerge.These dynamic self-regulatory processes may unfold presumably toa larger extent for young women endorsing more deeply ingrainedanti-fat bias. Nevertheless, given that we did not directly includeappearance comparison processes within the current models, it willremain the task of future experimental and longitudinal researchparadigms to provide a stronger test of the process-oriented claimsgrounded within the present models evaluated here.

Findings obtained from the current investigation also provideinitial empirical support for the adapted Tylka et al. (2014) modeldescribing body objectification and internalized weight stigmaas intervening mechanisms linking weight stigma exposure toadverse psychosocial functioning. Although the authors’ integra-tive framework was originally offered as a formulation to helpexplain weight stigma’s negative impact on the well-being of higherweight individuals (Tylka et al., 2014), our adapted model suggestsit may be applicable to a wider range of weight statuses at leastin the specific context of predicting fat talk with peers. Impor-tantly, our findings are aligned with an expansion of the Tylkaet al. (2014) model through observing self-compassion’s protectiveeffects within this body shame regulation framework (Daye et al.,2014; Duarte et al., 2014; Goss & Gilbert, 2002).

More precisely, we found that higher levels of self-compassioncorresponded with weaker indirect effects for all dimensions ofanti-fat bias measured. Although greater magnitude effects weregenerated in the models featuring dislike and fear of fat weightbiased attitudes in comparison to the model with willpower beliefsas the primary predictor. As others have suggested (e.g., Daye et al.,2014), a self-compassionate mindset may have stronger effectswhen interacting with psychological processes that entail greatermodulation of affect intensity.

Collectively, the current findings add to the emerging literaturesuggesting a role for self-compassion’s capacity to buffer againstmaladaptive psychological processes that promote reduced well-being (e.g., Daye et al., 2014; Homan & Tylka, 2015; Johnson &O’Brien, 2013; Kelly, Carter, et al., 2014; Kelly, Vimalakanthan,et al., 2014; Liss & Erchull, 2015; Tylka et al., 2015). Indeed, ourresults suggest that self-compassion may lessen the impact ofpossessing explicit weight bias on reliance on eliciting fat talkas a means of regulating body shame. It stands to reason thatapproaching self-critical shame when negatively evaluating thebody with mindfulness, self-kindness, and a sense of commonhumanity may help temper the inclination to turn to participationin self-degrading body talk as a way to assuage these problematicthoughts and feelings. Later stage experimental analyses wouldbenefit from more formally assessing the validity of these sug-gested causal linkages alongside determining whether specificcomponents of self-compassion contribute more strongly to theseobserved effects.

Clinical and Public Health Implications

Our preliminary findings have implications for both substan-tiating as well as refining existing interventions for reducing fattalk and its associated risk for disordered eating and negative bodyimage in young women (see Shannon & Mills, 2015 for a review anddiscussion). Results have the potential to accomplish these goalsthrough considering directly targeting the roles of explicit weightbias, body shame, and self-compassion within current prevention

programs. Our results also add support for targeting the promotionof self-compassion early in the eating disorder treatment process,as it may help to mitigate both feelings of body shame (Kelly, Carter,et al., 2014) and its social extension – fat talk, thus facilitating the

dy Ima

rotL2tpbfsb(&tc

L

ctdoamctitNfri

siMlw2aMbSdaW&wiMHttp

titJbtseaM

J.B. Webb et al. / Bo

ecovery process. Findings additionally point to the possible utilityf incorporating self-compassion into broader public health effortso combat anti-fat bias and its ill effects (Fikkan & Rothblum, 2012;ee, Ata, & Brannick, 2014; McHugh & Kasardo, 2012; Puhl & Suh,015; Tylka et al., 2014). The practice of self-compassion holdsremendous potential for further advancing the weight-inclusivearadigm (Tylka et al., 2014) for promoting the health and well-eing of individuals traversing the weight spectrum. Nonetheless,uture research will need to determine the extent to which inclu-ion of internalized (i.e., self-directed) anti-fat stigma regardless ofody size (Pearl & Puhl, 2014) and measures of positive body imagee.g., positive and self-accepting body talk; Webb, Wood-Barcalow,

Tylka, 2015) further enhance our understandings of these rela-ionships (Puhl & Suh, 2015; Tylka et al., 2014) and their potentiallinical utility.

imitations and Future Research Directions

The current investigation’s unique contributions should beonsidered within the context of the following caveats and limi-ations, which also serve as the basis for additional future researchirections. First, our cross-sectional design precludes inferencesf causality. Therefore, it will be advantageous for subsequentnalyses to employ experimental methodology that for instanceanipulates activation of anti-fat bias and/or exposure to a self-

ompassion training to further assess the validity of the modelsested here. Furthermore, longitudinal designs will be better pos-tioned to capture any potential temporal relationships betweenhe development of anti-fat attitudes and engaging in fat talk, asichter’s (2000) work among adolescents may suggest. Secondly,

at talk, like the rest of our measures, was assessed via self-reportather than directly, perhaps leading to biased estimates surround-ng the frequency with which it occurred.

Thirdly, our exclusively female sample was appropriate in theense of recognizing the pervasiveness of the pressure to engagen fat talk among young women in Western culture (e.g., Payne,

artz, Tompkins, Petroff, & Farrow, 2010). However, it is also aimitation given that contemporary scholarship acknowledges that

ith the increasing sexual objectification of men (e.g., Rohlinger,002), many males today are participating in their own form of neg-tive body talk (Engeln, Sladek, & Waldron, 2013; Sladek, Engeln, &iller, 2014). Future analyses should ascertain whether compara-

le effects would emerge with the inclusion of male participants.imilarly, research suggests that race/ethnicity may affect both theegree of endorsing anti-fat bias (e.g., Hebl, King, & Perkins, 2009)longside the frequency of engaging in fat talk (e.g., Fiery, Martz,ebb, & Curtin, 2016; Gruys, 2012; Webb, Warren-Findlow, Chou,

Adams, 2013; see Engeln & Salk, 2014 for an exception). Thus, itould be worthwhile to continue to examine whether this cultural

dentity characteristic serves to also moderate the observed effects.oreover, BMI was included as a covariate in the current study.owever, given evidence of its variability in relation to several of

he other key variables, it would appear important to determinehe degree to which categorized weight status contributes to morerecisely specifying the models proposed here.

Later investigations may opt to provide a more comprehensiveest of the affect regulation models proposed here by also measur-ng changes in body shame occurring in the aftermath of eliciting fatalk (e.g., Corning, Bucchianeri, & Pick, 2014; Gapinski et al., 2003;ones et al., 2014; Salk & Engeln-Maddox, 2011). Relatedly, it wille critical to further ascertain whether young women engage in fatalk because it actually ameliorates body shame or whether women

imply do so because of a belief or perception that fat talk will lessenxperiences of this aversive affect despite it being an ineffectiveffect regulation strategy (Jones et al., 2014; Salk & Engeln-addox, 2012). Qualitative and/or mixed methods approaches are

ge 18 (2016) 5–13 11

particularly well-suited to further address this important issue.Moreover, our focus on the potential alleviation of body shame asa consequence of engaging fat talk from the perspective of the dis-closer (or elicitor) does not address the complexities of the likelydynamic effects experienced by the receiver (Corning et al., 2014),which should be further clarified in subsequent research. Finally,the measure used to assess fat talk in the present study was con-strained by its exclusive focus on the peer relational context, whichis consistent with previous research in this area (e.g., Gapinski et al.,2003; Salk & Engeln-Maddox, 2011). Nevertheless, the conditionalindirect effect models outlined here may be further refined byevaluating whether the observed associations are retained whenconsidering other interpersonal contexts in which fat talk occurs,such as within families (Berge, Trofholz, Fong, Blue, & Neumark-Sztainer, 2015; Greer, Campione-Barr, & Lindell, 2014; MacDonald,Dimitropoulos, Royal, Polanco, & Dionne, 2015).

Conclusions

Both subscribing to anti-fat bias and participating in fat talkare culturally normative yet corrosive to well-being in Westernsociety. Findings from the present study indicate that internalizedbody shame contributes to explaining the co-occurrence of explicitweight bias and self-denigrating body talk exchanges amongfemale peers. Moderated indirect effect analyses further tentativelysuggest that prioritizing cultivating self-compassion affect regu-lation skills may be beneficial in counteracting the inclination toparticipate in fat talk as a strategy to down regulate self-criticalbody shame perpetuated by anti-fat prejudice. Our preliminaryresults may hold promise in advancing body objectification-relatedtheoretical models delineating how both experiences of weightstigmatization and possessing weight-stigmatizing beliefs maynegatively affect health and well-being. In doing so, strongeremphasis may be placed on advocating a more compassionateweight-inclusive paradigm in promoting greater wellness (e.g.,eliminating fat talk) for individuals representing the full range ofweight diversity.

Acknowledgments

The results reported here were previously presented during aposter session at the Society of Behavioral Medicine’s 36th AnnualMeeting and Scientific Sessions held in San Antonio, Texas (April2015).

References

Albertson, E. R., Neff, K. D., & Dill-Shackleford, K. E. (2014). Self-compassion and bodydissatisfaction in women: A randomized controlled trial of a brief. Mindfulness,http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s1267-014-0277-3. Advance online publication

Alperin, A., Hornsey, M. J., Hayward, L. E., Diedrichs, P. C., & Barlow, F. K. (2014).Applying the contact hypothesis to anti-fat attitudes: Contact with overweightpeople is related to how we interact with our bodies and those of others. SocialScience & Medicine, 123, 37–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.10.051

Anestis, M. D., Selby, E. A., Fink, E. L., & Joiner, T. E. (2007). The multifaceted roleof distress tolerance in dysregulated eating behaviors. International Journal ofEating Disorders, 40, 718–726. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eat.20471

Arroyo, A., Segrin, C., & Harwood, J. (2014). Appearance-related communicationmediates the link between self-objectification and health and well-being out-comes. Health Communication Research, 40, 463–482. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12036

Benton, C., & Karazsia, B. T. (2015). The effect of thin and muscular images onwomen’s body satisfaction. Body Image, 13, 22–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

j.bodyim.2014.11.001

Berge, J. M., Trofholz, A., Fong, S., Blue, L., & Neumark-Sztainer, D. (2015). A qualitativeanalysis of parents’ perceptions of weight talk and weight teasing in the homeenvironments of diverse low-income children. Body Image, 15, 8–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2015.04.006

1 dy Ima

B

B

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

D

D

E

E

F

F

F

F

F

F

G

G

G

G

G

G

H

H

H

2 J.B. Webb et al. / Bo

reines, J., Toole, A., Tu, C., & Chen, S. (2014). Self-compassion, body image, and self-reported disordered eating. Self and Identity, 13, 432–448. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2013.838992

urmeister, J. M., Hinman, N., Koball, A., Hoffman, D. A., & Carels, R. A. (2013). Foodaddiction in adults seeking weight loss treatment. Implications for psychosocialhealth and weight loss. Appetite, 60, 103–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2012.09.013

enters for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). About BMI for adults. Retrievedfrom http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/adult bmi/index.html

larke, P. M., Murnen, S. K., & Smolak, L. (2010). Development and psychometricevaluation of a quantitative measure of fat talk. Body Image, 7, 1–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2009.09.006

ompeau, A., & Ambwani, S. (2013). The effects of fat talk on body dissatisfactionand eating behavior. The moderating role of dietary restraint. Body Image, 10,451–461. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2013.04.006

orning, A. F., Bucchianeri, M. M., & Pick, C. M. (2014). Thin or overweight women’sfat talk: Which is worse for other women’s body satisfaction? Eating Disorders:The Journal of Treatment & Prevention, 22, 121–135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10640266.2013.860850

orstorphine, E., Mountford, V., Tomlinson, S., Waller, G., & Meyer, C. (2007). Distresstolerance in the eating disorders. Eating Behaviors, 8, 91–97.

randall, C. S. (1994). Prejudice against fat people: Ideology and self-interest. Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 882–894. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.5.882

urran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to non-normality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. PsychologicalMethods, 1, 16–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.16

aye, C. A., Webb, J. B., & Jafari, N. (2014). Exploring self-compassion as a refugeagainst recalling the body-related shaming of caregiver eating messages ondimensions of objectified body consciousness in college women. Body Image,11, 547–556. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2014.08.001

uarte, C., Pinto-Gouveia, J., Ferreira, C., & Batista, D. (2014). Body image as a sourceof shame: A new measure for the assessment of the multi-faceted nature of bodyimage shame. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cpp.1925. Advance online publication

ngeln, R., Sladek, M. R., & Waldron, H. (2013). Body talk among college men: Con-tent, correlates, and effects. Body Image, 10, 300–308. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2013.02.001

ngeln, R., & Salk, R. H. (2014). The demographics of fat talk in adult women: Age,body size, and ethnicity. Journal of Health Psychology, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1359105314560918. Advance online publication

erreira, C., Pinto-Gouveia, J., & Duarte, C. (2013). Self-compassion in the face ofshame and body image dissatisfaction: Implications for eating disorders. EatingBehaviors, 14, 207–210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2013.01.005

estinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7,117–140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202

iery, M. F., Martz, D. M., Webb, R. M., & Curtin, L. (2016). A preliminary investigationof racial differences in body talk in age-diverse U.S. adults. Eating Behaviors, 21,232–235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2016.03.004

ikkan, J. L., & Rothblum, E. D. (2012). Is fat a feminist issue? Exploring the genderednature of weight bias. Sex Roles, 66, 575–592. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0022-5

redrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. A. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward under-standing women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology ofWomen Quarterly, 21, 173–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x

ritz, M. S., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2007). Required sample size to detect the medi-ated effect. Psychological Science, 18, 233–239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01882.x

apinski, K. D., Brownell, K. D., & LaFrance, M. (2003). Body objectification and “fattalk”: Effects on emotion, motivation, and cognitive performance. Sex Roles, 48,377–388. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1023516209973

ilbert, P. (2011). Shame in psychotherapy and the role of compassion focusedtherapy. In R. L. Dearing & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Shame in the therapy hour (pp.325–354). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

oss, K., & Gilbert, P. (2002). Eating disorders, shame and pride: A cognitive-behavioural functional analysis. In P. Gilbert & J. Miles (Eds.), Body shame:Conceptualisation research and treatment (pp. 219–255). New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge.

reer, K. B., Campione-Barr, N., & Lindell, A. K. (2014). Body talk: Siblings’ use of posi-tive and negative body self-disclosure and associations with sibling relationshipquality and body-esteem. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0180-1. Advance online publication

rogan, S. (2008). Body image: Understanding body dissatisfaction in men, women, andchildren (2nd ed.). London/New York: Routledge.

ruys, K. (2012). Does this make me look fat? Aesthetic labor and fat talk as emo-tional labor in a women’s plus-size clothing store. Social Problems, 59, 481–500.http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/sp.2012.59.4.481

ayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional processanalysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

ayes, A. F. (2015). An index and test of linear moderated mediation. Multivari-

ate Behavioral Research, 50, 1–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2014.962683

ebl, M. R., King, E. B., & Perkins, A. (2009). Ethnic differences in the stigma of obesity:Identification and engagement with a thin ideal. Journal of Experimental SocialPsychology, 45, 1165–1172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/jesp.2009.04.017

ge 18 (2016) 5–13

Homan, K., McHugh, E., Wells, D., Watson, C., & King, C. (2012). The effect of viewingultra-fit images on college women’s body dissatisfaction. Body Image, 9, 50–56.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2011.07.006

Homan, K. J., & Tylka, T. L. (2015). Self-compassion moderates body comparisonand appearance self-worth’s inverse relationships with body appreciation. BodyImage, 15, 1–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2015.04.007

Johnson, E. A., & O’Brien, K. A. (2013). Self-compassion soothes the savage ego-threatsystem: Effects on negative affect, shame, rumination, and depressive symp-toms. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 32, 939–963. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2013.32.9.939

Jones, M. D., Crowther, J. H., & Ciesla, J. A. (2014). A naturalistic study of fat talk andits behavioral and affective consequences. Body Image, 11, 337–345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2014.05.007

Kelly, A. C., Carter, J. C., & Borairi, S. (2014). Are improvements in shame and self-compassion early in eating disorders treatment associated with better patientoutcomes? International Journal of Eating Disorders, 47, 54–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eat.22196

Kelly, A. C., Vimalakanthan, K., & Miller, K. E. (2014). Self-compassion moderatesthe relationship between body mass index and both eating disorder pathologyand body image flexibility. Body Image, 11, 446–453. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2014.07.005

Lee, M., Ata, R. N., & Brannick, M. T. (2014). Malleability of weight-biased attitudesand beliefs: A meta-analysis of weight bias reduction interventions. Body Image,11, 251–259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2014.03.003

Lin, L., & Reid, K. (2009). The relationship between media exposure and anti-fatattitudes: The role of dysfunctional appearance beliefs. Body Image, 6, 52–55.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2008.09.001

Liss, M., & Erchull, M. J. (2015). Not hating what you see: Self-compassion may pro-tect against negative mental health variables connected to self-objectification incollege women. Body Image, 14, 5–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2015.02.006

MacDonald, D. E., Dimitropoulos, G., Royal, S., Polanco, A., & Dionne, M. M. (2015).The Family Fat Talk Questionnaire: Development and psychometric propertiesof a measure of fat talk behaviors within the family context. Body Image, 12,44–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2014.10.001

Magallares, A. (2012). Well-being and prejudice toward obese people in womenat risk to develop eating disorders. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 15,1293–1302. http://dx.doi.org/10.5209/rev SJOP.2012.v15.n3.39415

Manjrekar, E., Schoenleber, M., & Mu, W. (2013). Shame aversion and maladaptiveeating-related attitudes and behaviors. Eating Behaviors, 14, 456–459. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2013.08.012

Markham, A., Thompson, T., & Bowling, A. (2005). Determinants of body-imageshame. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1529–1541. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.08.018

McHugh, M. C., & Kasardo, A. E. (2012). Anti-fat prejudice: The role of psychologyin explication, education, and eradication. Sex Roles, 66, 617–627. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0099-x

McKinley, N. M., & Hyde, J. S. (1996). The Objectified Body Consciousness Scale:Development and validation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 181–215.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1996.tb00467.x

Mosewich, A. D., Kowalski, K. C., Sabiston, C. M., Sedgwick, W. A., & Tracy, J. L. (2011).Self-compassion: A potential resource for young women athletes. Journal ofSport & Exercise Psychology, 33, 103–123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.08.011

Neff, K. D. (2003). The development and validation of a scale to measureself-compassion. Self and Identity, 2, 223–250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15298860390209035

Nichter, M. (2000). Fat talk. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.O’Brien, K. S., Hunter, J. A., Halberstadt, J., & Anderson, J. (2007). Body image and

explicit and implicit anti-fat attitudes: The mediating role of physical appear-ance comparisons. Body Image, 4, 249–256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2007.06.001

Papies, E. K., & Nicolaije, K. A. H. (2012). Inspiration or deflation? Feeling similaror dissimilar to slim and plus-size models affects self-evaluation of restrainedeaters. Body Image, 9, 76–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2011.08.004

Parent, M. C. (2013). Handling item-level missing data: Simpler is just asgood. The Counseling Psychologist, 41, 568–600. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011000012445176

Payne, L. O., Martz, D. M., Tompkins, K. B., Petroff, A. B., & Farrow, C. V. (2010). Gendercomparisons of fat talk in the United Kingdom and the United States. Sex Roles,65, 557–565. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9881-4

Pearl, R. L., & Puhl, R. M. (2014). Measuring internalized weight attitudes across bodyweight categories: Validation of the Modified Weight Bias Internalization Scale.Body Image, 11, 89–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2013.09.005

Pepper, A. C., & Ruiz, S. Y. (2007). Acculturation’s influence on antifat attitudes, bodyimage and eating behaviors. Eating Disorders, 15, 427–447. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10640260701667912

Puhl, R., & Suh, Y. (2015). Health consequences of weight stigma: Implications forobesity prevention and treatment. Current Obesity Reports, 4, 182–190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13679-015-0153-z

Rohlinger, D. A. (2002). Eroticizing men: Cultural influences on advertising

and male objectification. Sex Roles, 46, 61–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1016575909173

Royal, S., MacDonald, D. E., & Dionne, M. M. (2013). Development and validation ofthe Fat Talk Questionnaire. Body Image, 10, 62–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2012.10.003

dy Ima

S

S

S

S

S

S

J.B. Webb et al. / Bo

alk, R. H., & Engeln-Maddox, R. (2011). “If you’re fat, then I’m humungous!”:Frequency, content, and impact of fat talk among college women.Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35, 18–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0361684310384107

alk, R. H., & Engeln-Maddox, R. (2012). Fat talk among college women is both con-tagious and harmful. Sex Roles, 66, 636–645. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0050-1

hannon, A., & Mills, J. S. (2015). Correlates, causes, and consequences of fat talk: Areview. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2015.09.003

harpe, H., Naumann, U., Treasure, J., & Schmidt, U. (2013). Is fat talking a causal riskfactor for body dissatisfaction? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Inter-national Journal of Eating Disorders, 46, 643–652. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eat.22151

ladek, M. R., Engeln, R., & Miller, S. A. (2014). Development and validation of theMale Body Talk Scale: A psychometric investigation. Body Image, 11, 233–244.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2014.02.005

mith, C. A. (2012). The confounding of fat, control, and physical attractiveness forwomen. Sex Roles, 66, 628–631. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0111-5

ge 18 (2016) 5–13 13

Tylka, T. L., Annunziato, R. A., Burgard, D., Danielsdottir, S., Shuman, E., Davis, C., &Calogero, R. M. (2014). The weight-inclusive versus weight-normative approachto health: Evaluating evidence for prioritizing well-being over weight loss. Jour-nal of Obesity, 2014, 1–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/983495

Tylka, T. L., Russell, H. L., & Neal, A. A. (2015). Self-compassion as a moderator ofthinness-related pressures’ associations with thin ideal internalization and dis-ordered eating. Eating Behaviors, 17, 23–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2014.12.009

Webb, J. B., Warren-Findlow, J., Chou, Y., & Adams, L. (2013). Do you see what Isee? An exploration of inter-ethnic ideal body size comparisons among collegewomen. Body Image, 10, 369–379. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2013.03.005

Webb, J. B., Wood-Barcalow, N. L., & Tylka, T. L. (2015). Assessing positive

body image: Contemporary approaches and future directions. Body Image, 14,130–145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2015.03.010

Woods, H., & Proeve, M. (2014). Relationships of mindfulness, self-compassion, andmeditation experience with shame-proneness. Journal of Cognitive Psychother-apy, 1, 20–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/0889-8391.28.1.20