This was an experimental study utilising a workplace wellness paradigm to explore the influence of high-weight individuals’ scores on the WSRS as a predictor of response to a potentially stigmatising cue – introduction of a workplace-sponsored weight-management programme, compared with a control cue – introduction of a workplace-sponsored stress-management programme. Dependent variables were attitudes toward the programme, the workplace, affect (PANAS-X subscales guilt, hostility, self-assurance), and self-rated health. Baseline data, including the WSRS, were collected at Time 1. Three filler measures were used to disguise the true nature of the study. These included the Modern Sexism scale, and two measures created for the study relating to (i) environmental/food/social justice concerns and intentions and (ii) to charitable giving and attitudes toward charitable institutions. The experimental manipulation and subsequent measures were collected at Time 2, two weeks later. Data for 197 high-weight UK-based adults were collected for the two time points. The prevalence of high-weight status is increasing globally, with approximately 60% of people in the UK considered 'overweight' or 'obese' by BMI standards, and similar rates in many other countries. Despite this, higher-weight individuals experience prejudice and discrimination in practically every domain of daily living, including education, employment, healthcare, and interpersonal relationships. We know from other oppressed groups that stigma is associated with poorer health and life outcomes, and in the last ten years, these effects have been demonstrated also in the case of weight stigma. A better understanding of how these processes occur and identification of potential targets for intervention to reduce resulting harms is of critical importance to public policy. Little is known about how the impact of weight stigma is transmitted, and even less on how the harms can be minimised. My PhD work focused predominantly on internalised weight stigma (IWS) - the phenomenon where higher-weight people devalue themselves because of their weight. IWS has been linked with a range of physical and psychological health problems, and unhelpful coping strategies such as disordered eating, avoidance of exercise, social isolation, and substance use. IWS is also an intermediary in many of the problems associated with experiencing stigma from others. However, we do not know why some people internalise societal stigma, others are largely unaffected, and some actively resist and challenge the stigma. During my PhD, I developed the first questionnaire to measure weight stigma resistance and demonstrated that resistance was associated with improved psychological wellbeing. I also drew on research from the mental health stigma literature and identified a number of key characteristics of internalisers and resisters. One important factor was whether the individual had a strong group identity - that is, whether they feel a sense of kinship and belonging with other higher-weight people. People with high group identity were less likely to internalise and more likely to resist. Another important factor was whether or not they felt that body weight was under individual control and simply a matter of willpower. Those who believed they could become slimmer tended not to resist stigma and were more likely to internalise it. But perhaps most interestingly, believing that stigma of higher-weight people was not justified helped to define resisters even if they didn't have high group identity and whether or not they felt their weight status was controllable. This means that it may be possible to develop health promotion interventions that take a social justice-based approach: that stigma is wrong whatever the circumstances and people deserve to be treated equally and with respect whatever their weight. Such an intervention may improve psychological wellbeing in higher-weight individuals regardless of their current beliefs and feelings about their weight.

Participants were recruited for a two-part study on “Your views on issues facing modern UK society.” In this case, recruitment was targeted to previously self-identified higher-weight adults aged 18–50 years, and currently living in the UK. We used separate but identical recruitment adverts, with either a male or female eligibility filter applied, to ensure that equal numbers of men and women were recruited. At the end of the study, current self-classified weight was requested to confirm eligibility based on weight status, as weight could have changed since screening items were completed. Participants no longer self-classifying as “overweight” were excluded from further analyses. A total of 242 participants completed Part 1 of the study. Two of the participants completed the study twice and only their first submission was included. Of these, 223 (92.9%) completed Part 2 of the study. One person was excluded for failing the manipulation check, and a further 25 were excluded as they no longer self-classified as “overweight.” Thus, the final sample size was 197 (98 identified as male, 99 as female, none refused). Mean age was 34.8 years (SD = 8.0, range 18-50). Over half of participants (58.9%) self-classified as “a little overweight”, 28.4% as “moderately overweight,” and 12.7% as “very overweight.” The majority (56.3% were in full-time employment, a further 17.3% in part-time employment, and the remainder in other roles (7.6%), not in paid work (11.7%), unemployed (5.1%), or declined to answer (2%). The vast majority (91%) were UK nationals and reported English as their first language.