Next Article in Journal
Anti-Fat Attitudes Towards Weight Gain Caused by the COVID-19 Pandemic or by “Unhealthy” Lifestyle Choices
Previous Article in Journal
Nutritional Care Process in Hospitalized Patients with Obesity-Related Multimorbidity
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Obesities
Volume 5
Issue 2
10.3390/obesities5020040
obesities-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Feminism and Its Associations with Weight Stigma, Body Image, and Disordered Eating: A Risk or Protective Factor?

by
Brooke L. Bennett
1,*,
Allison F. Wagner
2,3,
Rebecca M. Puhl
4,5,
Alexis Lamere
1 and
Janet D. Latner
6
1
Department of Psychology, Clemson University, 321 Calhoun Drive, Brackett Hall 418, Clemson, SC 29634, USA
2
Eating Disorders Program, Student Health Services University of California San Diego, 9521 Mandeville Lane, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA
3
Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS), University of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, Galbraith Hall 190, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA
4
Rudd Center for Food Policy & Health, University of Connecticut, 1 Constitution Plaza, Suite 600, Hartford, CT 06103, USA
5
Department of Human Development and Family Sciences, University of Connecticut, 348 Mansfield Road, U-1058, Storrs, CT 06269, USA
6
Department of Psychology, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, 2530 Dole Street, Sakamaki C400, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Obesities 2025, 5(2), 40; https://doi.org/10.3390/obesities5020040
Submission received: 30 April 2025 / Revised: 16 May 2025 / Accepted: 19 May 2025 / Published: 1 June 2025
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

The feminist perspective is relevant to the understanding, prevention, and treatment of disturbances in eating and body image. However, limited empirical research has explored the relationship between feminist identity and weight stigma. The present study examined the associations between feminist beliefs, externalized weight bias, internalized weight bias, body image, and eating disturbances. Two hundred sixty-five racially and ethnically diverse young women were recruited from a university in the Pacific Rim. Participants completed questionnaires online and interrelationships were examined using a series of regressions. Externalized weight bias was significantly negatively associated with both feminist beliefs and identification as a feminist. However, stronger feminist beliefs and identity were significantly associated with higher internalized weight bias, worse body dissatisfaction, and greater incidence of eating disturbances. The results of the present study suggest that structural change driven by feminist values and principles may be effective for reducing weight bias and possibly other risk factors present in broader society but potentially less effective on an individual level. Longitudinal research is needed to confirm the direction of these relationships and to understand which components of feminist theory and feminist values can be most helpful in reducing weight bias on an individual level, while still addressing structural change.

1. Introduction

Feminism is the belief in and advocacy towards the equality of sexes across political, economic, and social domains. The feminist perspective is relevant to the understanding, prevention, and treatment of disturbances in eating and body image, as these disturbances are linked to societal appearance norms like the thin ideal, e.g., [1,2], often directed predominantly at women. Thus, a long-held belief in the eating disorder field posits that feminist attitudes should be a protective factor in preventing the onset of eating disorders and providing some relief from body dissatisfaction, e.g., [3,4]. In simple terms, it is proposed that within the stages of development as a feminist, individuals become educated on how societal structures create and reinforce norms and standards related to appearance [3]. This knowledge and understanding are proposed to help reduce the pressures felt by women to alter their bodies and strive for unattainable ideals that often stoke body dissatisfaction and disordered eating behaviors [1,3,5].
However, this proposed relationship is more complicated when examining the existing literature. Some research has supported the role of feminism in preventing or alleviating disordered eating behaviors and their risk factors. For example, a meta-analysis from 2009 showed small but significant negative associations between feminist identity and body dissatisfaction, eating pathology, and thin-ideal internalization [6]. In a more recent qualitative study of individuals in recovery from an eating disorder, 46% of participants described feminist themes as helpful in their recovery [7]. These themes included understanding harmful cultural forces like weight-related stigma, hearing about feminist ideas from clinicians, and engaging with feminist texts [7]. Other research findings have been more mixed, with some research showing feminist ideology predicting improved body image but not disordered eating [8,9]. Additionally, another study found that while holding feminist beliefs was associated with less trait body dissatisfaction, it did not translate to less upward social comparison, nor the experience of negative body image after engaging in such comparisons [10]. A recent meta-analysis by Kvaka and colleagues [11] aimed to update the findings from Murnen and Smolak’s 2009 paper and found mixed associations. They found a small negative association between feminist identity and body dissatisfaction. However, they found no significant association between feminist identity and thin-ideal internalization, nor disordered eating attitudes.
Some of the cited limitations for these conflicting findings include the complexity of measuring feminism [12]. Across studies, women are far more likely to endorse agreement with principles of feminism than identify themselves as a feminist [13,14,15,16]. In the qualitative study described above, even participants who endorsed that engaging with feminist themes was helpful for eating disorder recovery declined to describe those activities as feminist and outright rejected the label of feminist for themselves [7]. Additionally, research suggests that identifying as a feminist may be related to increased activism above and beyond beliefs alone [17]. Thus, studies that focus on only beliefs or identity when examining the relationship between feminism, eating pathology, and body image may miss important nuances. This complexity demonstrates that these topics warrant additional exploration in which both feminist beliefs and identity as a feminist are examined.
An additional area of work warranting further investigation is the role of feminism in protecting individuals not just from appearance pressures related to thinness but from the anti-fat bias similarly promoted in Western cultures. Weight bias, the stigmatizing attitudes and discriminatory practices against others due to their body size, has been operationalized in three ways: (1) externalized weight bias, or the outwardly directed negative attitudes towards individuals with larger bodies [18], (2) experienced weight bias or the experience of social devaluation due to weight [19], and (3) internalized weight bias or self-directed devaluation due to body weight [20]. Despite the initial identification of “Fat as a Feminist Issue” in 1978 [21], the explicit incorporation of weight-related stigma into feminist therapies remains a contested area [22,23]. Research in this domain is important as the effects of weight bias are more prevalent and more harmful towards women [22], with harmful effects across interpersonal [24], educational [25], employment [26], and healthcare domains [27,28].
While these constructs are not new to feminist scholars, i.e., [22,23,29,30], there is a notable dearth of research that has explored these relationships quantitatively. One recent study by Martin-Wagar and colleagues examined differences in internalized weight bias between feminists and non-feminists in both a sample of college women and a sample of women with eating disorders [15]. They found that while the individuals with an eating disorder endorsed significantly greater internalized weight bias than those without eating disorders, there were no differences between individuals who identified as a feminist and those who did not identify as a feminist in either sample [15], underscoring the need for more research on the relationship between feminism and weight bias. Furthermore, there appears to be no existing research that has examined the relationship between feminist beliefs on externalized weight bias or anti-fat attitudes towards others. A better understanding of the relationship between feminism, weight bias, and its internalization would clarify the utility of feminism in protecting against harmful body-related societal ideals. This clarity is similarly relevant in a therapeutic context—it is important to know how feminist beliefs and identities intersect with weight bias in order to best serve individuals facing these biases.
Considering the importance of feminist approaches to the formulation and treatment of eating disorders [3,4], further research is needed to elucidate the relationships between feminist beliefs, identification as a feminist, weight bias and its internalization, body image, and eating disturbances. The present study aimed to examine these associations among a sample of racially and ethnically diverse young women. Based on mixed relationships in the existing literature, it was hypothesized that greater feminist beliefs would be associated with (1) less weight bias towards others and (2) lower body dissatisfaction but unassociated with (3) weight bias internalization and (4) eating disorder risk. It was hypothesized that feminist identity would be more potent, such that a stronger identity as a feminist would be associated with (1) less weight bias towards others, (2) lower body dissatisfaction, (3) lower eating disorder risk, and (4) lower weight bias internalization.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants and Procedures

This study was reviewed and approved by the authors’ Institutional Review Board. Female-identifying college students were recruited from introductory psychology courses at a university in the Pacific Rim. Participants were offered course credit for participation. Participants completed the informed consent form and study questionnaires electronically. Two hundred and seventy-nine participants completed the consent form. Fourteen participants were excluded because they did not complete the battery of measures, leaving a final sample of 265 female-identifying participants. Participants identified primarily as Asian (50.7%), White or Caucasian (30.6%), Other (8.3%), Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (7.9%), and Black or African American (1.5%). The mean age of the sample was 20.11 (SD = 4.12), and the mean Body Mass Index (BMI) was 23.30 (SD = 4.84).

2.2. Measures

Demographic information was collected on self-reported age, ethnicity, height, and weight. Each participant’s BMI was calculated based on her self-reported height and weight.

2.2.1. Feminist Perspectives Scale—Short Version (FPS3)

The FPS3 [31] is a 36-item self-report measure assessing two primary constructs: (1) feminist beliefs and (2) feminist behaviors. Participants answer each question on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree; higher scores indicate greater endorsement of feminist beliefs or behaviors. This scale is a shortened version of the 78-item Feminist Perspectives Scale (FPS2) [32]. The FPS3 pulls items from each of the attitudinal subscales included in the original article (conservative perspective, liberal feminist perspective, radical feminist perspective, socialist feminist perspective, cultural feminist perspective, and womanist perspective) to create the feminist beliefs composite score (FPS3-beliefs). The original article notes that the internal consistency of the individual subscales is weaker than the composite score and recommends using the composite score (all items from the conservative perspective reverse-scored and then all items summed) for a better proxy of attitudes [31]. This was consistent in the current sample, with internal consistency of the subscales ranging from 0.64 to 0.84, while the internal consistency was 0.89 for the feminist beliefs composite score. The FPS3 uses 6 items from the behavioral subscale of the FPS2 to create the feminist behaviors composite score. Internal consistency for feminist behaviors in the present study was low (α = 0.31). Therefore, the feminist behaviors subscale was excluded from analyses.

2.2.2. Self-Identification as a Feminist Scale (SIF)

The SIF [33] is a 4-item self-report measure designed to assess feminist identity, the degree to which participants identify themselves as feminists. This scale includes four components of self-identification as a feminist, (1) I consider myself a feminist, (2) I identify as a feminist to other people, (3) feminist values and principles are important to me, and (4) I support the goals of the feminist movement), in recognition of the complexity associated with feminist identity. Internal consistency in the present study was 0.90.

2.2.3. Universal Measure of Bias—Fat (UMB-FAT)

The UMB-FAT [34] is a 20-item self-report measure of bias towards “people with obesity”. In the current sample, internal consistency for the UMB-FAT was 0.89.

2.2.4. Weight Bias Internalization Scale—Modified Scale (WBIS-M)

The WBIS-M [35] is an 11-item self-report measure that assesses the degree to which respondents believe that negative stereotypes and self-statements about weight apply to themselves. The WBIS-M is a modified version of the original Weight Bias Internalization Scale [20] to be used by participants of all weight statuses. In the current sample, internal consistency was 0.94.

2.2.5. Eating Attitudes Test (EAT-26)

The EAT-26 [36] is a 26-item self-report measure assessing concerns about dieting, body weight, or problematic eating behaviors. The total score is used as an indicator of eating disorder risk. In the current sample, the internal consistency was 0.88.

2.2.6. Body Shape Questionnaire—8 Item Version (BSQ-8)

The BSQ-8 [37] is an 8-item self-report measure that assesses body dissatisfaction. The BSQ-8 is a shortened version of the original 34-item measure that has demonstrated superior sensitivity [38]. Internal consistency in the present sample was 0.94.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS v29 (Armonk, New York, NY, USA). Data were cleaned and three outliers were removed. Missing data were excluded pairwise. Baseline means and standard deviations were calculated for demographic variables and study constructs. Next, the relationship between demographic characteristics and both measures of feminism (FPS3-beliefs and SIF) and outcome measures (WBIS-M, UMB-FAT, BSQ-8, and EAT-26) was examined using bivariate correlations (age, BMI) and one-way ANOVAs (race). Lastly, a series of regressions were run, informed by the results of the correlations. The two measures of feminism were highly correlated and thus entered into separate regressions. In total, eight linear regressions were conducted: four with each measure of feminism (FPS3-beliefs, SIF) as the predictor for the outcome measures (WBIS-M, UMB-FAT, BSQ-8, and EAT-26), controlling for either age or BMI as dictated by the correlational findings (see below).

3. Results

The means and standard deviations of the study constructs are presented in Table 1. Rates of agreement across the items of the SIF were varied. 50.6% of participants selected either strongly agree or agree to the question “I consider myself a feminist”, 25.7% identified themselves as a feminist to other people, 60.8% felt that feminist values and principles were important to them, and 64.5% agreed that they supported the goals of the feminist movement. Rates of endorsement, along with the nuance across items, are similar to rates documented in other college populations, e.g., [15].
Scores on the FPS3-beliefs and SIF were significantly positively correlated, r(257) = 0.49, p < 0.001. Age was significantly negatively correlated with UMB-FAT scores (r(256) = −0.20, p = 0.001). Age was not significantly correlated with feminist beliefs (FPS3-beliefs; p = 0.61), identification as a feminist (SIF; p = 0.19), weight bias internalization (WBIS-M; p = 0.47), eating disorder risk (EAT-26; p = 0.46), or body dissatisfaction (BSQ-8; p = 0.73). BMI was also not significantly correlated with either measure of feminism (FSP3-beliefs p = 0.08 and SIF p = 0.27), nor UMB-FAT (p = 0.30). However, BMI was significantly, positively associated with all remaining outcome measures, including the WBIS-M (r(261) = s0.50, p < 0.001), EAT-26 (r(260) = 0.23, p < 0.001), and BSQ-8 (r(261) = 0.42, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences across racial groups on the FPS3-beliefs (p = 0.29) or SIF (p = 0.74). There were also no differences across racial groups on any outcome measure, UMB-FAT (p = 0.51), WBIS-M (p = 0.16), EAT-26 (p = 0.17), and BSQ-8 (p = 0.63).
Table 2 shows paths between feminist beliefs and identity, and each domain of stigma, body image, and eating disorder risk. Controlling for age, stronger feminist beliefs (FPS3-beliefs) were significantly associated with lower UMB-FAT scores, F(2,250) = 24.78, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.17. A similar relationship was found between scores on the SIF and UMB-FAT such that greater identification as a feminist was significantly associated with less weight stigma towards others while controlling for age, F(2,255) = 15.50, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.11. Controlling for BMI, FPS3-beliefs scores accounted for a significant portion of variance in WBIS-M scores, F(2,254) = 51.97, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.29. However, the direction of the relationship was such that stronger feminist beliefs were associated with greater weight bias internalization. A similar significant relationship was found between SIF and WBIS-M scores, such that stronger identity as a feminist was significantly associated with greater internalized weight bias while controlling for BMI, F(2,260) = 48.92, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.27. Controlling for BMI, FPS3-beliefs scores accounted for a significant portion of variance in EAT-26 scores, such that stronger feminist beliefs were significantly associated with greater eating disorder risk, F(2,253) = 12.03, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.09. Scores on the SIF were significantly associated with scores on the EAT-26 in the same direction when controlling for BMI, F(2,259) = 12.12, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.09. Lastly, when controlling for BMI, FPS3-belief scores accounted for a significant portion of the variance in BSQ-8 scores, F(2,254) = 38.50, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.23. A similar relationship was found between SIF and BSQ-8 scores, such that stronger identification as a feminist was associated with greater body dissatisfaction when controlling for BMI, F(2,260) = 33.02, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.20.

4. Discussion

The purpose of the present study was to examine the role of feminist identity and beliefs as they relate to self- and other-oriented attitudes about weight and bodies. Our results indicate that feminist identity and beliefs may be important protective factors against externalized weight bias against others, as those with greater endorsement of feminist beliefs and identity expressed less weight bias towards people with larger body sizes. It is possible that endorsement of feminist values and beliefs leads to a more inclusive worldview that extends beyond gender, including those living in larger bodies. Additionally, endorsement of feminist beliefs may lead to a more critical understanding of the ways in which externalized weight bias perpetuates the objectification of female bodies, leading to a host of downstream impacts [22], as well as recognition of the importance of accepting and empowering women of all body sizes. A values-based intervention to decrease external weight bias by eliciting people’s values of equality and kindness has shown positive results [39]. The authors of future studies should continue testing the potential for eliciting equity, compassion, and empowerment as a way to diminish weight bias and its harmful effects.
However, feminist identity and beliefs did not protect participants from body dissatisfaction, eating disturbances, or internalized weight bias. Instead, these attitudes about the self were associated with feminist beliefs in an unexpected direction, whereby those with greater endorsement of feminist beliefs exhibited higher body dissatisfaction, eating disturbances, and greater internalized weight bias; the same was true for identity as a feminist. Some past research has shown an absence of association between feminist beliefs and eating pathology, e.g., [8,9,11,15], while other research has shown small associations between stronger feminist beliefs and less eating pathology, e.g., [6]. In contrast, our findings suggest that whereas feminism might protect against weight-biased views about others, feminist beliefs and identification might have a seemingly paradoxical relationship with self-directed attitudes. It is possible that individuals who identify as feminists might have more critical consciousness that leads them to be more aware of the marginalization of larger bodies and thus strive to maintain thinness. For example, they may be more acutely aware of the ways in which women are punished for failing to conform to certain appearance ideals, as evidenced by the lower likelihood of women with higher body weights being hired and promoted [26,40]. Additionally, feminists may be more aware of the financial impacts of living in a larger body, including the costs incurred by individuals facing weight-based discrimination [41] and the wage penalties for women with higher weights in the workplace [42,43]. Thus, it is possible that increased feminist attitudes or identity are reflective of greater self-awareness, therefore exacerbating sensitivity to sociocultural contradictions. It is worth noting that the present study is cross-sectional; thus, causal conclusions cannot be drawn. As the present results are not longitudinal, it may be that individuals with greater distress from body dissatisfaction, eating concerns, or weight bias internalization are more likely to engage in feminist beliefs to seek relief from societal pressures and internal distress. These variables need to be studied across time to clarify the onset and direction of these relationships.
It is possible that the findings of the present study reflect the current feminist paradigms. Scholars have argued that feminism is currently in its fourth wave, with the start marked by the #MeToo movement in 2017 [44]. The first and second waves of feminism, while focused on expanding rights for women, were frequently critiqued as being exclusionary, particularly to Black women and other people of color [45]. It was during the third wave of feminism that the concept of intersectionality was first introduced by Kimberle Crenshaw in 1989 [46]. Scholars and feminist activists have since pushed for feminism to be more inclusive of race and gender, highlighting the ways in which oppression based on minoritized identities can compound and overlap. Despite the progress in intersectionality and inclusion, it is possible that our results reflect the current state of feminism; feminists may be more accepting of individuals across diverse body sizes. However, they themselves are not yet immune to the pressures of societal norms or the shifting appearance-based pressures from new sources like social media.
It is also possible that our findings can be explained by limitations in our study methodology or our sample. There is not currently a gold standard measure recommended for use in assessing feminist beliefs [12], and several previous reviews have documented the complexity of measuring feminism, e.g., [6,11,12]. We attempted to capture this construct with both an established measure of feminist beliefs (FPS3) [31] and a measure created specifically to address the construct of self-identification as a feminist (SIF) [33]. Both measures used in our study are older by research standards (2000 and 2004, respectively), and feminism and the perceptions of it are influenced by constantly changing social norms. Thus, it is possible that the items included in the FPS3-beliefs do not represent the current wave of feminist attitudes and that the SIF does not sufficiently capture identity as a feminist. However, the consistency in our outcomes across both measures feels worth noting. The authors of future studies should consider updating measures of feminist attitudes and behaviors to reflect modern perceptions of feminist paradigms. They should then consider repeating this study with new measures to assess whether the results have changed in response. Future research would also likely benefit from a measure specifically designed to capture feminist attitudes related to patriarchal norms of beauty and thinness. Additionally, it would be helpful for the authors of future studies to have a standardized set of measures used to improve the ability to compare outcomes across studies. Furthermore, in the present study, we were unable to examine the relationships between the outcome measures and feminist actions due to poor psychometric functioning of the FPS3’s feminist behaviors subscale. The authors of future studies should consider examining whether feminist behaviors have differential relationships with weight stigma, disordered eating, and body image than those of feminist beliefs or identity.
There are also several limitations and potential explanations for our findings related to the demography of our sample. This study was conducted using a sample of college-aged women, limiting its generalizability to people of other ages, genders, or education levels. In Kvaka and colleagues’ meta-analysis, the authors found that feminist identity was most strongly associated with less body dissatisfaction among the oldest age group [11]. Similarly, in Murnen and Smolak’s meta-analysis, the authors found that the protective value of feminist identity on body-image related outcomes increased when samples were older than college age or when the sample was restricted to individuals with explicit interest in the topic area, including students who had taken a women’s studies course [6]. We did not ask participants about their experience in women’s studies, limiting our ability to control for knowledge of or interest in feminism. The authors of future studies should examine similar relationships among participants of diverse age ranges and genders, as well as varying levels of knowledge related to feminism, to better understand what is driving our current findings. Additionally, the authors of future studies should consider examining these constructs in a sample with greater body weight diversity to see whether weight status or self-perceived weight status plays a role in these relationships.
Furthermore, our sample was more racially and ethnically diverse than much of the published literature in these topic areas. The authors of future studies should examine differences in feminism and its associations with body-related concerns across racial and ethnic groups to better elucidate the role of different social identities. Lastly, this study was conducted cross-sectionally, and thus, causal conclusions cannot be drawn. The authors of future studies should examine these questions longitudinally to clarify the direction and strength of these relationships.
Our findings are in line with Rothblum’s [47] prescient analysis entitled, “I’ll die for the revolution, but don’t ask me not to diet…”, illustrating that although feminists have made progress in the fight for women’s rights in many domains, women’s own body weight and related attitudes can remain influenced by the mainstream media and sociocultural values of thinness. The robustness of internal struggles, such as body dissatisfaction, eating disturbances, and internalized weight bias, suggests the need for comprehensive, evidence-based interventions to address these issues at a deep level, such as cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) [48]. It is possible that CBT’s emphasis on targeting maladaptive thoughts could be useful for navigating body-related cognitions that have been shaped by societal norms.
The present results suggest that future research is warranted to determine if adopting feminist values can be effective for addressing deep-seated or internalized attitudes about the self, while at the same time suggesting their important potential in changing societal attitudes of weight bias towards others. Structural change driven by feminist values and principles may be effective for reducing externalized weight bias (and possibly other risk factors) present in broader society, but potentially less effective at an individual level. More research is needed to understand which components of feminist theory and attitudes can be most helpful to address harmful weight-related attitudes on an individual level, while still addressing structural change.

5. Conclusions

In summary, the present study identified seemingly paradoxical relationships between feminist beliefs and identity and body-image related constructs; greater feminism was associated with less weight bias towards others but worse self-directed bodily attitudes, including greater internalized weight bias, greater body dissatisfaction, and higher eating disorder risk. These findings highlight the complex nature of appearance-related attitudes towards the self versus others and underscore the need for additional research to better elucidate the role of feminism as both a risk and protective factor for women navigating sociocultural pressures about body ideals.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.L.B., A.F.W. and J.D.L.; methodology, B.L.B., A.F.W., R.M.P. and J.D.L.; formal analysis, B.L.B.; investigation, B.L.B. and A.F.W.; data curation, B.L.B. and A.F.W.; writing—original draft preparation, B.L.B., A.L. and J.D.L.; writing—review and editing, A.F.W. and R.M.P.; project administration, B.L.B. and A.F.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available from the first author upon reasonable request pending IRB approval.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors report no potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article. R.M.P. currently receives grant support, outside of the current study, from Eli Lilly and Company.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
BMIBody Mass Index
FPS3Feminist Perspectives Scale—Short Version
SIFSelf-Identification as a Feminist Scale
UMB-FATUniversal Measure of Bias—Fat Subscale
WBIS-MWeight Bias Internalization Scale—Modified Scale
EAT-26Eating Attitudes Test
BSQBody Shape Questionnaire—8-item version

References

  1. Thompson, J.K.; Heinberg, L.J.; Altabe, M.; Tantleff-Dunn, S. Exacting Beauty: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment of Body Image Disturbance; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Van den Berg, P.; Thompson, J.K.; Obremski-Brandon, K.; Coovert, M. The tripartite influence model of body image and eating disturbance: A covariance structure modeling investigation testing the mediational role of appearance comparison. J. Psychosom. Res. 2002, 53, 1007–1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. LaMarre, A.; Levine, M.P.; Holmes, S.; Malson, H. An open invitation to productive conversations about feminism and the spectrum of eating disorders (part 1): Basic principles of feminist approaches. J. Eat. Disord. 2022, 10, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. LaMarre, A.; Levine, M.P.; Holmes, S.; Malson, H. An open invitation to productive conversations about feminism and the spectrum of eating disorders (part 2): Potential contributions to the science of diagnosis, treatment, and prevention. J. Eat. Disord. 2022, 10, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Thompson, J.K.; Coovert, M.D.; Stormer, S.M. Body image, social comparison, and eating disturbance: A covariance structure modeling investigation. Int. J. Eat. Disord. 1999, 26, 43–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Murnen, S.K.; Smolak, L. Are feminist women protected from body image problems? A meta-analytic review of relevant research. Sex Roles 2009, 60, 186–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Venturo-Conerly, K.; Wasil, A.; Shingleton, R.; Weisz, J. Recovery as an “Act of rebellion”: A qualitative study examining feminism as a motivating factor in eating disorder recovery. Eat. Disord. 2020, 28, 265–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Borowsky, H.M.; Eisenberg, M.E.; Bucchianeri, M.M.; Piran, N.; Neumark-Sztainer, D. Feminist identity, body image, and disordered eating. Eat. Disord. 2015, 24, 297–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kinsaul, J.A.; Curtin, L.; Bazzini, D.; Martz, D. Empowerment, feminism, and self-efficacy: Relationships to body image and disordered eating. Body Image 2014, 11, 63–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Myers, T.A.; Ridolfi, D.R.; Crowther, J.H.; Ciesla, J.A. The impact of appearance-focused social comparisons on body image disturbance in the naturalistic environment: The roles of thin-ideal internalization and feminist beliefs. Body Image 2012, 9, 342–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kvaka, A.; Murnen, S.K.; Myers, T.A.; Nolan, E. Feminism, Femininity, and Body Concerns among Women: A Meta-Analytic Review. Sex Roles 2024, 80, 1844–1865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Siegel, J.A.; Calogero, R.M. Measurement of feminist identity and attitudes over the past half century: A critical review and call for further research. Sex Roles 2021, 85, 248–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Burn, S.M.; Aboud, R.; Moyles, C. The relationship between gender social identity and support for feminism. Sex Roles 2000, 42, 1081–1089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Liss, M.; Crawford, M.; Popp, D. Predictors and correlates of collective action. Sex Roles 2004, 50, 771–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Martin-Wagar, C.A.; Attaway, S.E.; Melcher, K.A. Differences among feminist and non-feminist women on weight bias internalization, body image, and disordered eating. J. Eat. Disord. 2023, 11, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Meijs, M.H.; Ratliff, K.A.; Lammers, J. The discrepancy between how women see themselves and feminists predicts identification with feminism. Sex Roles 2017, 77, 293–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Yoder, J.D.; Tobias, A.; Snell, A.F. When declaring “I am a feminist” matters: Labeling is linked to activism. Sex Roles 2011, 64, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Lawson, J.L.; Schuh, L.M.; Creel, D.B.; Blackinton, R.M.; Giambrone, S.A.; Grilo, C.M.; Ivezaj, V. Examining Weight bias and loss-of-control eating among individuals seeking bariatric surgery. Obes. Surg. 2021, 31, 3498–3505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Pearl, R.L. Weight bias and stigma: Public health implications and structural solutions. Soc. Issues Policy Rev. 2018, 12, 146–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Durso, L.E.; Latner, J.D. Understanding self-directed stigma: Development of the weight bias internalization scale. Obesity 2008, 16, S80–S86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ohrbach, S. Fat is a Feminist Issue: The Anti-Diet Guide to Permanent Weight Loss; Paddington Press: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  22. Fikkan, J.L.; Rothblum, E.D. Is fat a feminist issue? Exploring the gendered nature of weight bias. Sex Roles 2012, 66, 575–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Fikkan, J.L.; Rothblum, E.D. We agree: Fat IS a feminist issue! Response to commentators. Sex Roles 2012, 66, 632–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Puhl, R.M.; Lessard, L.M. Weight stigma in youth: Prevalence, consequences, and considerations for clinical practice. Curr. Obes. Rep. 2020, 9, 402–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Nutter, S.; Ireland, A.; Alberga, A.S.; Brun, I.; Lefebvre, D.; Hayden, K.A.; Russell-Mayhew, S. Weight bias in educational settings: A systematic review. Curr. Obes. Rep. 2019, 8, 185–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Giel, K.E.; Thiel, A.; Teufel, M.; Mayer, J.; Zipfel, S. Weight bias in work settings—A qualitative review. Obes. Facts 2010, 3, 33–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Bennett, B.L.; Lawson, J.L.; Funaro, M.C.; Ivezaj, V. Examining weight bias before and/or after bariatric surgery: A systematic review. Obes. Rev. 2022, 23, e13500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Puhl, R.M.; Lessard, L.M.; Himmelstein, M.S.; Foster, G.D. The roles of experienced and internalized weight stigma in healthcare experiences: Perspectives of adults engaged in weight management across six countries. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0251566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Chrisler, J.C. “Why can’t you control yourself?” Fat should be a feminist issue. Sex Roles 2012, 66, 608–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Roehling, P.V. Fat is a feminist issue, but it is complicated: Commentary on Fikkan and Rothblum. Sex Roles 2012, 66, 593–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Henley, N.M.; Spalding, L.R.; Kosta, A. Development of the short form of the feminist perspectives scale. Psychol. Women Q. 2000, 24, 254–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Henley, N.M.; Meng, K.; O’Brien, D.; McCarthy, W.J.; Sockloskie, R.J. Developing a scale to measure the diversity of feminist attitudes. Psychol. Women Q. 1998, 22, 317–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Szymanski, D.M. Relations among dimensions of feminism and internalized heterosexism in lesbians and bisexual women. Sex Roles 2004, 51, 145–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Latner, J.D.; O’Brien, K.S.; Durso, L.E.; Brinkman, L.A.; MacDonald, T. Weighing obesity stigma: The relative strength of different forms of bias. Int. J. Obes. 2008, 32, 1145–1152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Pearl, R.L.; Puhl, R.M. Measuring internalized weight attitudes across body weight categories: Validation of the modified weight bias internalization scale. Body Image 2014, 11, 89–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Garner, D.M.; Olmsted, M.P.; Bohr, Y.; Garfinkel, P.E. The Eating Attitudes Test: Psychometric features and clinical correlates. Psychol. Med. 1982, 12, 871–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Pook, M.; Tuschen-Caffier, B.; Brähler, E. Evaluation and comparison of different versions of the Body Shape Questionnaire. Psychiatry Res. 2008, 158, 67–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Cooper, P.J.; Taylor, M.J.; Cooper, Z.; Fairburn, C.G. The development and validation of the Body Shape Questionnaire. Int. J. Eat. Disord. 1987, 6, 485–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ciao, A.C.; Latner, J.D. Reducing obesity stigma: The effectiveness of cognitive dissonance and social consensus interventions. Obesity 2011, 19, 1768–1774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Rudolph, C.W.; Wells, C.L.; Weller, M.D.; Baltes, B.B. A meta-analysis of empirical studies of weight-based bias in the workplace. J. Vocat. Behav. 2009, 74, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Yetsenga, R.; Banerjee, R.; Streatfeild, J.; McGregor, K.; Austin, S.B.; Lim, B.W.; Diedrichs, P.C.; Greaves, K.; Mattei, J.; Puhl, R.M.; et al. The economic and social costs of body dissatisfaction and appearance-based discrimination in the United States. Eat. Disord. 2024, 32, 572–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Judge, T.A.; Cable, D.M. When it comes to pay, do the thin win? The effect of weight on pay for men and women. J. Appl. Psychol. 2011, 96, 95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kesaite, V.; Greve, J. The impact of excess body weight on employment outcomes: A systematic review of the evidence. Econ. Hum. Biol. 2024, 54, 101398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Day, K.; Wray, R. Fourth-wave feminism and postfeminism: Successes and failures. Transform. A J. Radic. Left 2018, 4, 113–137. [Google Scholar]
  45. Knellwolf, C. The history of feminist criticism. In The Cambridge History of Literacy Criticism; Knellwolf, C., Norris, C., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2001; pp. 191–206. [Google Scholar]
  46. Crenshaw, K. Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. Univ. Chic. Leg. Forum 1989, 1989, 8. Available online: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8 (accessed on 21 April 2025).
  47. Rothblum, E.D. “I’ll die for the revolution but don’t ask me not to diet”: Feminism and the continuing stigmatization of obesity. In Feminist Perspectives on Eating Disorders; Fallon, P., Katzman, M.A., Wooley, S.C., Eds.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 1994; pp. 53–76. [Google Scholar]
  48. Fairburn, C.G. Cognitive Behavior Therapy and Eating Disorders; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
Table 1. Means and standard deviations of the study constructs.
Table 1. Means and standard deviations of the study constructs.
ConstructMSD
FPS3-feminist beliefs composite score136.6221.24
SIF-Total 13.943.37
UMB-FAT61.7116.39
WBIS-M3.461.41
EAT-269.889.92
BSQ-824.7910.17
Table 2. Associations between feminism and weight bias, disordered eating, and body image.
Table 2. Associations between feminism and weight bias, disordered eating, and body image.
Feminist Beliefs—FPS3Identity as a Feminist (SIF)
βDftpβdftp
Weight bias (UMB-FAT) a−0.36250−6.17<0.001 ***−0.26255−4.45<0.001 ***
Age−0.18250−3.150.002 **−0.18255−2.990.003 **
Internalized weight bias (WBIS-M) b0.192543.63<0.001 ***0.152602.890.004 **
BMI0.482549.08<0.001 ***0.492609.24<0.001 ***
Eating disorder pathology (EAT-26) b0.192533.160.002 **0.192593.150.002 **
BMI0.202533.33<0.001 ***0.212593.52<0.001 ***
Body dissatisfaction (BSQ-8) b0.222543.98<0.001 ***0.162602.880.004 **
BMI0.412547.35<0.001 ***0.412607.39<0.001 ***
Note. ** indicates p < 0.01, and *** indicates p < 0.001. a = controlling for age; b = controlling for BMI.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bennett, B.L.; Wagner, A.F.; Puhl, R.M.; Lamere, A.; Latner, J.D. Feminism and Its Associations with Weight Stigma, Body Image, and Disordered Eating: A Risk or Protective Factor? Obesities 2025, 5, 40. https://doi.org/10.3390/obesities5020040

AMA Style

Bennett BL, Wagner AF, Puhl RM, Lamere A, Latner JD. Feminism and Its Associations with Weight Stigma, Body Image, and Disordered Eating: A Risk or Protective Factor? Obesities. 2025; 5(2):40. https://doi.org/10.3390/obesities5020040

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bennett, Brooke L., Allison F. Wagner, Rebecca M. Puhl, Alexis Lamere, and Janet D. Latner. 2025. "Feminism and Its Associations with Weight Stigma, Body Image, and Disordered Eating: A Risk or Protective Factor?" Obesities 5, no. 2: 40. https://doi.org/10.3390/obesities5020040

APA Style

Bennett, B. L., Wagner, A. F., Puhl, R. M., Lamere, A., & Latner, J. D. (2025). Feminism and Its Associations with Weight Stigma, Body Image, and Disordered Eating: A Risk or Protective Factor? Obesities, 5(2), 40. https://doi.org/10.3390/obesities5020040

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop