The Stigma of Obesity and Discrimination in Performance Appraisal - A Theoretical Model.
The Stigma of Obesity and Discrimination in Performance Appraisal - A Theoretical Model.
The Stigma of Obesity and Discrimination in Performance Appraisal - A Theoretical Model.
To cite this article: Regina Ferreira Bento , Lourdes Ferreira White & Susan Rawson Zacur
(2012) The stigma of obesity and discrimination in performance appraisal: a theoretical
model, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23:15, 3196-3224, DOI:
10.1080/09585192.2011.637073
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:11 26 April 2015
The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 23, No. 15, September 2012, 3196–3224
Introduction
Performance appraisal is one of the most widely used practices in managing human
resources in organizations around the world (Rynes, Gerhart and Parks 2005; Gomez-
Mejia, Balkin and Cardy 2010). It plays a significant role in the allocation of
organizational rewards such as incentive pay and career advancement, thus having a
profound impact on employee morale and performance. It also affects the quality of
employees that organizations are able to attract and retain (Lawler 1971, 1990; Rynes et al.
2005). This is particularly relevant because appraisal and reward processes represent areas
where line managers are expected to perform HR roles and enact HR practices (Poole and
Jenkins 1997; Gilbert, De Winne and Sels 2011), even when they lack specific training or
expertise in those roles and practices (Lee 1985). Performance appraisal processes are vital
to organizational competitiveness and survival and depend on a foundation of rationality,
objectivity and impartiality in decision making in order to foster motivation and
perceptions of fairness.
A variety of mechanisms are used to enforce this ethos (Shields 2007). There is
evidence, however, that in spite of the espoused theories (Argyris 1976) touting
the rationality and objectivity of appraisal and reward processes, they are plagued by the
possibility of error (Gerhart and Rynes 2003) particularly when the target of
the performance appraisal is a member of a stigmatized minority or outgroup (Crandall,
Nierman and Hebl 2009; Puhl and Heuer 2009). This may then result in intended or
unintended, subtle or blatant discrimination and bring negative consequences not only for
the individuals and organizations directly involved, but also for the broader society. Here,
we examine how one specially ingrained, widespread and intense stigma – the stigma
against obesity – may creep into the performance appraisal process and lead to
discrimination.
Research on the effects of stigma in the workplace has been neglected, in comparison
with other life contexts, but there is increasing evidence that stigmatization in work
settings can be harmful to individuals and organizations (Dipboye and Colella 2005;
Paetzold, Dipboye and Esbach 2008; Judge and Cable 2011). Here, we propose a
theoretical model that examines how three sets of factors – individual factors in the
appraiser(s) and the obese appraisee, factors in the performance appraisal process, and
contextual factors – may make it easier or harder for obesity stigma to affect the
performance appraisal of obese employees (OEs), resulting in bias and discrimination.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:11 26 April 2015
While examining the interplay of forces that facilitate or inhibit the expression of obesity
stigma in the affective, cognitive and behavioral responses of appraisers, we introduce the
concept of ‘aversive weightism’. This concept enhances understanding of the stress
between the intention of objectivity in performance appraisal and the deeply rooted, often
unconscious influences of societal prejudice and stigma against obesity. This is
particularly relevant because once the appraisal process attaches a negative performance
label to an obese individual, no matter how incorrect or subjective that appraisal may be, it
becomes the unchallenged ‘factual’ basis for numerous interrelated decisions in areas such
as training and development, assessment of potential and career planning, compensation,
and promotions (Bento 1997).
It has been established that weight-based discrimination occurs in the workplace.
Empirical studies have consistently provided evidence of weight-based bias in evaluative
workplace outcomes including performance appraisal and rewards (Gortmaker, Must,
Perin, Sobol and Dietz 1993; Sargent and Blanchflower 1994; Pagan and Davlia 1997;
Haskins and Ransford 1999; Crandall et al. 2009; Rudolph, Wells, Weller and Baltes
2009).
A landmark interdisciplinary literature review of empirical studies of weight-based
discrimination in employment (Roehling 1999), encompassing both laboratory and field
studies, found ‘consistent evidence of weight discrimination at virtually every stage of the
employment cycle, including career counseling, selection, placement, compensation,
promotion, discipline, training and discharge’ (Roehling 1999; Crandall 2000; Crandall,
Eshleman and O’Brien 2002; Crandall and Eshleman 2003; Roehling, Roehling and
Odland 2008; LaVan and Katz 2009).
There is evidence that this weight-based discrimination in employment continues
unabated as we enter the twenty-first century. Puhl and Heuer (2009) examined the
scientific evidence on weight bias toward adults through a review of studies published
between 2000 and 2008 in the USA and internationally. They found an increase in survey
research, large population studies, and experimental work looking at weight
discrimination in employment over a previous review (Puhl and Brownell 2001).
Findings consistently showed weight bias in performance evaluations and employment
outcomes, including a wage penalty for obesity that was higher for women than men in
both the USA and the European Union (Puhl and Heuer 2009, p. 942). The authors call for
research in the area of employment specifically assessing discriminatory practices in the
performance appraisal and rewards of OEs. This article provides a theoretical model to
help frame such inquiry.
3198 R.F. Bento et al.
OE’s individual contribution to the group, or may encompass broader levels of analysis,
such as the performance of the group or even the entire organization. The appraisal process
may be as simple as a formal yearly evaluation of performance, or as complex as an
ongoing, daily mix of formal and informal interactions between appraisers and appraisees.
For the sake of simplicity, our model depicts a DM in a supervisory position, conducting a
yearly appraisal of the individual performance of an OE, which will serve as the basis for
administrative decisions regarding the kind of individual rewards, if any, the OE will
receive (such as incentive pay, in the form of merit pay or an individual bonus,
promotions, special assignments, training and other career opportunities, or simply
retention).
The model proposes that a variety of factors may make it easier or harder for
weightism to be expressed through cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses that lead
to bias and discrimination in the performance appraisal of OEs. They include factors
related to the individuals involved in the appraisal process (DMs, OEs), the appraisal
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:11 26 April 2015
process itself, and the context in which it takes place. The multiple possible combinations
and interactions of these factors may help explain the variations in the degree to which
obesity stigma may compromise fairness in appraisal decision making.
The model further proposes that the perceived presence or absence of the expression of
weightism in biases and discrimination in the OE’s performance appraisal may, in turn,
trigger feedback loops (indicated by dotted lines in Figure 1) that will affect these various
factors and prompt new cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses, thereby influencing
future appraisal decisions. Vicious or virtuous cycles may thus ensue, exacerbating or
attenuating the long-term discriminatory effects of obesity stigma on performance
appraisal and related administrative decisions in the allocation of organizational rewards.
The following sections explore the various elements included in the model and their
relationships: obesity bias and weightism, the biases and discrimination that the
expression of weightism may introduce in performance appraisal, and the individual,
appraisal and contextual factors that may affect the expression of weightism.
rejected, lonely, shy, dependent, greedy for affection, lazy, and unhappy (DeJong and
Kleck 1981). These stereotypes are still prevalent and powerful, in spite of the
considerable empirical evidence that refutes their validity (Roehling et al. 2008).
The media reinforces these erroneous beliefs with sensationalist stories about people
who achieved significant weight loss, at least in the short term. This perception of
controllability causes obesity stigma to be perceived as a character flaw (succumbing to
the temptations of food), and places it simultaneously in two of Goffman’s (1963) stigma
categories: ‘abominations of the body’ and ‘blemishes of the character’ (Biernat and
Dovidio 2000). It also contributes to social acceptance of overweight stigmatization
and overt expressions of prejudice (Quinn and Crocker 1998; Miller and Major 2000).
These societal views may carry over in the perceptions of those who make evaluative
decisions about the performance of OEs.
Crandall and Eshleman’s (2003) justification-suppression model (JSM) of the
expression and experience of prejudice has been shown to be particularly well-suited to
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:11 26 April 2015
the study of weight-based prejudice stemming from the stigma of obesity (King et al.
2006; Crandall et al. 2009). The model in Figure 1 uses the JSM framework to indicate that
DMs involved in the performance appraisal and incentive pay of OEs tend to harbor
weightism (Blaine and McElroy 2002; Calogero, Herbozo and Thompson 2009; Stockton
2010) – a raw, underlying prejudice that stems from the ‘pervasive and unyielding’
societal stigma toward obesity (King et al. 2006) – a ‘genuine prejudice [that] is primary,
primal, underlying, powerful, early-learned, automatic, cognitively simple and relatively
effortless’ (Crandall and Eshleman 2003, p. 415). This underlying weightism is a deeply
negative attitude toward the obese that is usually developed early in life, long-lasting and
difficult to change.
The urge to express this prejudice is, however, counteracted by ‘suppression’ forces
(Crandall and Eshleman 2003, p. 417) to keep weightism from being publicly expressed or
even privately, consciously experienced by the DM. Appraisers are socialized to believe
that personnel decisions such as performance appraisal are supposed to be rational,
objective, driven by facts and not emotions.
The strong undercurrents of weightism are still present, however, creating a tension
with the suppression forces. To relieve this tension, an opposing set of forces brings into
play beliefs, ideologies, and attributions that make it possible for justification processes
(Crandall and Eshleman 2003, p. 417) to allow at least some of the underlying weightism
to be privately experienced and/or publicly expressed without guilt, anxiety, or blame.
Justification acts like a valve that relieves the increasingly uncomfortable tensions created
by suppression. To a greater or lesser degree, justification allows unexpressed weightism
to overcome or bypass suppression forces by providing rationalizations that disguise it and
make it acceptable to oneself and others. For example, ideologies that value hard work
and self-determination – such as the Protestant work ethic, a ‘just world’ belief that
‘people get what they deserve’, and authoritarianism (Crandall 1994; Crandall and
Eshleman 2003; King et al. 2006) – contribute to the stigmatization of obesity. In the JSM,
these ideologies provide justification for the expression of weightism by giving rise to
controllability beliefs that the obese are fundamentally responsible for causing and
perpetuating their own condition (Crandall and Eshleman 2003). Studies by King et al.
(2006) offer powerful evidence that such controllability beliefs can act as significant
justification forces, as proposed in the JSM, and contribute to interpersonal discrimination
against the obese in the workplace.
The tension between justification and suppression of weightism represented in
Figure 1 also leads us to propose the new concept of ‘aversive weightism’. In Stockton’s
3202 R.F. Bento et al.
(2010) study of weight-based discrimination in the USA and the UK, the concept of
‘symbolic weightism’ was used to extend to weight-based prejudice and discrimination the
dynamics that have been observed in ‘symbolic racism’, where prejudice is expressed in
symbolic forms such as ideology (Sears, Henry and Kosterman 2000). Gaertner and
Dovidio’s (1986) concept of ‘aversive racism’ has become very influential in the
understanding of the subtle forms of expression of modern racial prejudice (Gaertner and
Dovidio 1986; Dovidio and Gaertner 2004; Hodson, Dovidio and Gaertner 2004) and has
been extended to other forms of prejudice, such as ‘aversive sexism’ (Ramirez-Melgoza
and Wolfram Cox 2006).
Here, we propose the concept of ‘aversive weightism’ as a modern prejudice that arises
from the interplay of two sets of forces: on the one hand, the obesity stigma that is
historically and deeply rooted in modern culture and Western society; and, on the other
hand, the egalitarian values that lead well-intentioned individuals to want to preserve a
self-image and reputation as being unprejudiced toward the obese. In situations where
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:11 26 April 2015
there are strict rules against the expression of weightism, suppression forces will be
strengthened enough to tip the scales toward overcompensation, so that the individual’s
affective, cognitive, and behavioral responses may be more favorable toward the obese
than toward those whose physical appearance falls within the ingroup’s normative
parameters. However, in situations where the rules are more ambiguous and allow for a
broader range of responses, there will be a lower need for suppression, and those same
well-intended individuals may express ‘aversive weightism’, not as blatant bias or
discrimination against the obese, but in more subtle ways, such as favoring members of the
normative-size ingroup, and feeling uncomfortable around obese people or avoiding
association with them. The stigma against obesity may be so strong that it may even be
extended to ‘normal’-weight people simply because they befriend obese coworkers, in
what is called stigma-by-association (Hebl and Mannix 2003; Kulik, Bainbridge and
Cregan 2008).
Irrespective of whether we are dealing with the expression of regular weightism or
aversive weightism, the model in Figure 1 further predicts that if justification forces
prevail over suppression forces, at least part of the DM’s underlying weightism will come
through as expressed weightism, a set of affective, cognitive, and behavioral responses
toward the OE (Dovidio, Major and Crocker 2000).
Affective responses tend to play a particularly prominent role in obesity and other
stigmas and have an immediate, primitive nature (Jones et al. 1984). Affective responses
may involve disgust, revulsion and anger, or sympathy and compassion (Dovidio et al.
2000, p. 13; Hebl, Tickle and Heatherton 2000). These two sets of affective responses may
be experienced at the same time, leading to ambivalence and psychological discomfort, as
proposed in the JSM and aversive theories of prejudice (Crocker, Voelkl, Testa and Major
2000; Hebl et al. 2000; Crandall and Eshleman 2003).
Cognitive responses involve stereotypes about overweight people and causal
attributions about the onset, progress, and reversibility of the stigmatizing condition.
Cognitive and affective responses are closely related to behavioral responses. For example,
those who are disgusted by the sight of obese people, attribute the stigma to controllable
causes, and hold negative stereotypes about the bearers of stigma will be more likely to
avoid interactions with obese individuals and be less likely to engage in helping or
cooperative behavior. External attributions or internal attributions to uncontrollable causes
would be more likely to be accompanied by affective responses of sympathy and pity,
which would facilitate helping and cooperative behaviors.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 3203
The cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses associated with obesity stigma
and the expression of weightism may introduce several biases in the appraisal process and
result in discrimination outcomes in the performance appraisal of the obese.
Gaertner, Anastasio and Sanitioso 1992). We predict that the DM will interpret the OE’s
performance information in ways that confirm the DM’s obesity stereotypes and do not
raise dissonance with the DM’s attitudes. Positive behaviors and outcomes will tend to be
discounted and explained away by being attributed to external factors, such as help from
someone else, simplicity of the task, good luck (Weiner 1995). The blame for negative
behaviors and outcomes, however, is likely to be attributed to internal causes (such as lack
of ability, skills, or effort).
Discrimination
In spite of the possibilities for bias in performance appraisal, most organizations use the
results of the appraisal process for important administrative purposes, including decisions
about the allocation of rewards such as pay, promotions, and other organizational rewards,
as well as decisions about retention and termination. The rationale for tying appraisal to
rewards relies on assumptions about correct measurement of relevant dimensions of
performance, and about fairness and objectivity in judgments about that performance, but
in the presence of obesity stigma these assumptions may be violated, with very real
consequences for motivation, performance, workplace morale, and turnover.
Even when the appraisal process is severely compromised by the biases discussed
above, the widely and deeply held organizational assumptions about its fairness,
rationality, and objectivity still allow the labels that it attaches to the OE’s performance to
acquire the status of ‘facts’, which will then inform decisions about the individual rewards
the OE will (or will not) receive as a result of his or her performance, such as incentive pay
(base-building merit pay, or one-shot bonuses and awards), promotions, opportunities for
other career advancement, and so on. If the possible impacts of obesity stigma and
expressed weightism in the appraisal process are ignored, they may result in
discrimination when these flawed appraisal results are applied to decisions in any or all
of these areas, with serious consequences for the individuals involved and their
organizations. This may happen whether or not there is any intention to discriminate
against the OE, or even any awareness that such discrimination is happening, because
the ‘rationality cloak’ covers the cognitive, affective, and behavioral ‘messiness’ of the
appraisal process. In other words: the OE is receiving lower incentive pay or being
bypassed for promotion not because of discrimination, but because the OE’s performance
appraisal results are poorer than those of his or her thinner peers. This rationale, by the
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 3205
way, may be believed not only by the DM, but also by the OE, resulting in feedback loops
of future behaviors and perceptions that might eventually result in self-fulfilling
prophecies.
When weightism is expressed in cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses that
introduce bias in the appraisal process, this may result in discrimination affecting one or
more of the administrative uses of the appraisal process (pay, promotion, etc.). The model
highlights three such types of discrimination: blatant, subtle, and covert (Benokraitis
1997). Blatant discrimination is highly visible, overtly unfair, and often intentional. It can
be clearly attributable to prejudice and is often accompanied by an environment of
harassment, offensive language, jokes, and other forms of overt unequal treatment of
obese people in the workplace.
Subtle discrimination is not as visible, usually involves a moderate differential in the
treatment of the OE and somewhat plausible rationalizations, and may be intentional or
unintentional. It is often surrounded by attributional ambiguity, mixed messages about
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:11 26 April 2015
Individual factors
Several individual factors in the DM and the OE may influence their cognitive, affective,
and behavioral responses to obesity stigma and weightism: nature of the obesity condition
itself; experience with obesity; gender, race and age; physical attractiveness; personality
and ideology; status, power, and reputation; interpersonal and job skills.
beauty, especially if accompanied by less attractive facial features); peril to others (fear of
discomfort for people sharing tight spaces with the OE; fears that the OE presence may
jeopardize safety to others in places like elevators; fears that the OE will increase
insurance costs or reduce sales and productivity). Intensity of overweight also tends to be
correlated with level of fitness, overall health conditions, and ability to cope with the
physical demands of the job. Based on research on stigma and physical appearance
(DeJong and Kleck 1981; Schwartz and Brownell 2004), we predict that the higher the
intensity of the obesity, the higher the likelihood that stigma will be associated with
negative affective, cognitive, and behavioral responses.
Another aspect of the nature of obesity is the pattern of weight variation. Patterns of
stable overweight, continuous weight gain, or small or large variations up or down may
have implications for OE and DM controllability beliefs and thus influence the affective,
cognitive, and behavioral responses associated with the stigma. Interestingly enough,
research suggests that weight loss may actually increase the negativity of responses,
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:11 26 April 2015
possibly because it reinforces controllability beliefs (Cash 1990; Smart and Wegner 2000;
Blaine, DiBiasi and Connor 2002). Both the nature of obesity and one’s experience with
obesity (examined next) may affect social self-view (Fiske and Ruscher 1993; Swann,
Polzer, Seyle and Ko 2004).
Gender
Drawing on the classical work by Collins (1998) about the intersection of gender-based
prejudice with various types of stigmatization and on the emerging literature on gender
and obesity (Crandall et al. 2009; Judge and Cable 2011), we predict that responses
associated with obesity stigma will be more negative when the OE is a woman, because of
societal expectations about female beauty and gender roles (Polivy et al. 1981; Quinn and
Crocker 1998). There is also research evidence that women DMs are harsher in their
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 3207
attitudes toward obese people (DeJong and Kleck 1981; King et al. 2006). We predict less
negative responses when the OE and the DM are male (Roehling 1999; Schwartz et al.
2003; Crandall et al. 2009).
Race
We predict that responses associated with obesity stigma will be more negative for whites
(Crandall et al. 2009). Obesity research suggests that obesity may be more prevalent,
culturally acceptable, and less stigmatizing for African-Americans and Hispanics,
particularly women (Hebl and Heatherton 1998; Quinn and Crocker 1998;
Jussim, Palumbo, Chatman, Madon and Smith 2000; Schwartz and Brownell 2004;
Crandall et al. 2009).
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:11 26 April 2015
Age
Although there is little research on the relationship between age and obesity stigma in
adulthood, we believe that obesity in middle age and later is associated with less negative
responses than overweight in young adults in their twenties and thirties, because of
societal expectations (DeJong and Kleck 1981; Crandall et al. 2009). In developed
countries, obesity rates peak for adults up to 50 –60 years old (The International Obesity
Task Force 2002). This age effect might be particularly true for women, because aging
tends to bring both weight gain and some degree of liberation from strict standards of
thinness (Bell and McLaughlin 2004).
Physical attractiveness
It has been said that the literature on physical attractiveness has difficulty in ‘bridging the
neck’, because most studies refer either to the face or the body, but seldom to both
(Herman, Zanna and Higgins 1981). Deeply ingrained attitudes that equate beauty with
goodness and being likeable are established early on in the developmental process and
perpetuated in fairy tales, movies, TV programs, and commercials (Chaiken 1981;
Dion 1981; Langlois 1981). Dipboye (2005) has conducted an extensive literature review
to document the link between physical attractiveness and occupational success, in areas
such as selection, performance appraisal, promotions, and pay. We propose that OEs who
have beautiful faces and are more physically attractive will elicit more positive responses
and be less negatively affected by obesity stigma. The same amount of obesity, however,
will be associated with more negative responses for less attractive OEs, or for people who
suffer from other stigmas that decrease their physical attractiveness (Hammermesh and
Biddle 1994; Averett and Korenman 1996). For the same reasons discussed under section
‘Nature of the obesity condition’, we believe that the DM’s own physical attractiveness
and their attitudes toward their own physical appearance may affect their responses to
different levels of OE attractiveness.
Personality
Certain personality traits have been found to affect responses associated with
stigmatization. For example, self-monitoring, field dependence, and susceptibility to
external feedback may influence the impact of stigma on self-esteem (Chaiken 1981;
Miller and Myers 1998; Crocker and Quinn 2000). Assertiveness may also lead to more
3208 R.F. Bento et al.
positive responses in the interactions between obese and non-obese people (Miller and
Myers 1998; Miller et al. 2000).
Ideology
As mentioned before, protestant work ethic and achievement ideologies tend to be
associated with controllability beliefs in regard to stigmas, and we expect them to also
be linked with negative responses to obesity (Quinn and Crocker 1999; Crandall 2000;
Jambekar, Quinn and Crocker 2001; King et al. 2006; Crandall et al. 2009).
with higher status, power, and reputation might be perceived as symbols of power and
strength, rather than lack of self-control (Siller 1981; Roehling 1999; Jussim et al. 2000).
escalating the likelihood that weightism will be expressed in biases in the appraisal
process.
Task uncertainty
Keeley’s (1978) classic contingency model of evaluation highlighted the importance of
task uncertainty in determining the appropriateness of other appraisal factors examined
here. He recommended the use of mechanistic, behavior-based evaluation procedures
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:11 26 April 2015
(e.g. behaviorally anchored rating scales) when tasks are low in uncertainty and employees
have low need for autonomy; moderately organic, objective-based procedures that
concentrate on the attainment of preestablished objectives (as in management-by-
objectives processes) for tasks of moderate uncertainty, where employees have moderate
need for autonomy; and highly organic, judgment-based evaluations, preferably relying on
multisource raters (as in 360-degree appraisal processes) for tasks with high uncertainty
and employees with high desire for autonomy. Keeley acknowledged that the subjectivity
inherent in the latter appraisal procedures, while necessary to address the high task
uncertainty, increases the likelihood of biases and errors, even when multiple raters are
involved. He also observed that even when judgment-based procedures strive for
‘objective measurement’ – that is, objectivity in ‘the ordering of performances on some
(interpersonal dimension of similarity)’ – there still remains the issue of ‘subjective
valuing – the human attachment of significance to that particular dimension used to order
performances’ (Keeley 1978, p. 432).
In our model, task uncertainty may adversely impact the appraisal of OEs through a
variety of mechanisms: increasing the difficulty in measuring short- and long-term
outcomes; increasing the difficulty in extricating the measurement of the OE’s individual
performance or contribution to group performance from its interdependence with others;
providing more room for ambiguity in the causal attribution of outcomes (e.g. uncertainty
about whether individual or group results were obtained due to the OE’s individual
performance or contribution to group performance, vs. the performance of others, the ease
of the task, or external factors such as luck). Task uncertainty increases the need for the
DM and the OE to interpret outcomes, in order to sort out controllable and uncontrollable
causes of performance. Uncertainty requires the OE and the DM to determine whether a
performance goal was not met because of a forecast error (the target itself turned out to be
unrealistic) or a performance error (the OE failed) (Merchant and Van der Stede 2003).
Visibility of outcomes
We predict that a low level of visibility of outcomes may increase subjectivity and
ambiguity in the appraisal process. When job outcomes are less visible and harder to
measure, the OE will experience more pressure to somehow document those outcomes,
and the DM will have more difficulty in interpreting reported outcomes, which will make
the evaluation process more prone to biases and discrimination. The DM may end up
focusing on visible outcomes that are actually irrelevant to evaluating the performance of
3210 R.F. Bento et al.
the OE, just because they are visible. This type of bias is known as an ‘outcome effect’ in
management control literature (Mitchell and Kalb 1981; Ghosh and Lusch 2000).
Performance measures
The model proposes that the focus of measurement in the appraisal process
(traits/behaviors/outputs, inputs/outputs) and the types of judgment that are required
from the appraiser(s) when conducting those measurements (relative/absolute) will
influence the likelihood of expressed weightism in appraisals that measure performance at
the individual level of aggregation (as opposed to group or organization levels).
Focus of measure
Trait and behavior-based scales are more subjective, ambiguous, and conducive to
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:11 26 April 2015
Type of judgment
We propose that the use of relative measures (comparing the OE with peers by rank-
ordering their performance or slotting them into tiers), rather than absolute measures
(rating the OE’s performance along the various dimensions of absolute, predetermined
standards) may increase the likelihood of appraisal bias and discrimination, particularly
when the comparison involves peers who are not overweight and opens the opportunity for
subjective judgments and ambiguous attributions for the perceived differences in
performance. In organizations that practice relative performance measurement, the
performance of each individual is ranked relative to the performance of other individuals
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 3211
in a peer group, or compared against the average performance of a peer group. This
practice is often intended to remove or at least reduce the degree of uncertainty in
performance outcomes that depend on uncontrollable factors (Merchant 1989). By
comparing the performance of an OE against the performance of peers who presumably
faced similar uncontrollable factors, the DM should be better equipped to discount the
effect of uncontrollable circumstances encountered during the evaluation period.
However, relative performance measurement may only be favorable to the OE if the
performance measures used for ranking are objective in nature and not conducive to
contrast effects. If the performance measures are subjective, relative performance
measurement may just exacerbate overweight bias. On the other hand, the use of absolute
standards may not help the OE either, if they are compromised by subjectivity and
ambiguity (e.g. in situations where the standards involve metrics that are difficult to apply
or when meeting the standards may be discounted by attributions to external causes).
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:11 26 April 2015
Level of aggregation
The most common level of measurement is individual performance, but the assessment of
performance at a collective level (group, organization) may be preferred, for example,
in situations where the focus is on results but it is difficult to attribute results to the
performance of specific individuals, or in situations where management wants to promote
cooperation and collaboration, and where striving toward the achievement of individual
objectives might lead to conflicting priorities and sub-optimization of overall goals (Rynes
et al. 2005). The model predicts that appraisals that measure individual performance, or
the individual’s contribution to group performance, are more vulnerable to the expression
of weightism, because strictly collective-level measures, at the group or organizational
level, would obscure the effect of prejudice toward a particular individual.
appropriate. If, however, supervisors like certain subordinates for reasons that are not
related to their performance, and somehow that liking inflates their performance appraisal
of those liked subordinates, then it is not appropriate. To the extent that appraiser affect
harbors an aversion to obesity, this may result in weight-based bias or discrimination
(Roehling 1999).
We propose that single-rater appraisals where the DM is the OE’s direct supervisor
may increase the likelihood of the expression of weightism, because they will rely on the
cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses of just one appraiser, which will not be
counterbalanced by the perspectives of others. This will have particularly negative effects
in social contexts of appraisal characterized by low ‘affective regard’, where the
supervisor’s dislike for physically unattractive subordinates leads to lower, less accurate
ratings (Lefkowitz 2000), or whenever the supervisor displays negative ‘rater affect’
(Levy and Williams 2004). Examples of such social contexts are situations where the DM
might dislike or feel uncomfortable in relating to the OE, and where the DM might not be
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:11 26 April 2015
well informed about the OE’s performance because of low frequency or low quality of
contact with the OE.
We expect the appraisal process to be more favorable to the OE when OEs play an
active role in setting goals for their own performance (e.g. negotiation of budget goals,
choice of other nonfinancial objectives that more closely represent job effort). Research on
participative goal-setting has shown that high levels of participation are also associated
with increased goal commitment and motivation, which may lead to improved
performance (Brownell 1982; Shields and Shields 1998).
Multisource evaluation processes, such as 360-degree appraisals, may enrich the
quality of the process and reduce bias not only by bringing a variety of different
perspectives, but also by increasing rater accountability. On the other hand, increasing the
number of sources does not necessarily guarantee a diversity of perspectives, nor does it
necessarily remove the possibility of bias. Indeed, if the various sources share similar
prejudices toward the OE, including them in the OE appraisal might backfire and lead to
further sources of error, such as consensus biases and polarization (Martell and Borg
1993).
may actually feel virtuous about being demanding and uncompromising about placing
people at the top of the evaluation scale. In those high-performance situations, DMs would
not see themselves as harming OEs, but as simply abstaining from giving them any
undeserved special breaks.
Performance management
The performance appraisal process involves not only the measurement, but also the
management of performance. The model in Figure 1 proposes that if there are problems in
performance management involving, for example, the communication and relationships
between the DM and the OE, either in their formal interaction during an appraisal
interview or in their informal, daily interactions, this may affect the justification/suppres-
sion processes and contribute to the expression of weightism through cognitive, affective,
and behavioral responses that will increase the likelihood of biases and discrimination in
the appraisal of OEs.
Contextual factors
In addition to the social context of appraisal discussed previously (including issues of rater
affect and attitudes toward the OE), the likelihood of expression of weightism may also be
influenced by a variety of broader contextual factors: technology, organizational policies
and practices, organizational culture, legislation, and societal attitudes toward obese
3214 R.F. Bento et al.
people. For example, although DMs may not personally hold negative stereotypical views,
they may perceive pressure from others in the organization to discriminate against OEs
(LaVan and Katz 2009). Some contextual factors may be harder to change than other
factors in the model in Figure 1, but they may offer some possibilities for long-term
interventions.
Technology
The salience and relevance of obesity stigma may be affected by technology in different
ways. Technology can change how jobs are performed and thus may influence the DM’s
perception of the OE’s suitability for particular tasks (as argued by Stone and Colella
1996, regarding the disabled). Technology may also be used to increase job flexibility
(e.g. through telecommuting) and to reduce the OE’s visibility while increasing the
visibility of objective performance outcomes, which might improve actual job
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:11 26 April 2015
performance (e.g. online sales). We predict that the likelihood of expression of weightism
will be lower when technology is used to allow more flexibility and to increase the
visibility of performance, while reducing the visibility of the performer.
Organizational culture
The design and implementation of appraisal and reward processes are influenced by
cultural assumptions of system designers and key DMs. For instance, Bento and Ferreira
(1992) have found that certain cultural values (equality, certainty, uncontrollability,
collectivism, and personalistic foregrounding) foster appraisal and reward processes that
encourage cooperation, use absolute performance measures, promote personal security,
and protect appraisees from uncontrollable factors.
Some organizations may be less explicit than others in terms of valuing objectivity in
performance appraisal and translating this into the norms and policies surrounding
appraisal. We would predict that in such organizations the effect of obesity stigma on
appraisal would be more pronounced, particularly if those organizations are embedded in
national cultures where social norms make it more acceptable for the interpersonal affect
between appraisers and appraisees to influence performance ratings (Amba-Rao, Petrick,
Gupta and Embse 2000; Gerhart and Fang 2005; Varma, Pichler and Srinivas 2005).
Legislation
A legal system that would extend to the obese the same protections afforded to other
outgroups might contribute substantially to reinforce suppression forces and decrease the
likelihood of expression of weightism in appraisal processes, thus reducing the prevalence
of discrimination in hiring, promotion, pay, and other organizational processes where
perceptions about the past or future performance of OEs might play a role in decision
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 3215
making. At present, however, obese individuals have no clear and unequivocal legal
protection against workplace discrimination, unlike other groups who have been victims
of discrimination based on sex, race, disability, or religion (Kristen 2002). For example, in
the USA, indirect protection has been attempted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
(1991) against disparate treatment and disparate impact discrimination, but this legislation
does not shield obese individuals from direct employment discrimination due to their
weight (Roehling 2002). This lack of legal recourse makes it easier for DMs to
discriminate against OEs when evaluating performance and assigning performance-based
rewards. Employers may still discriminate legally against obese job applicants when the
position requires certain physical appearance standards, or simply on grounds of customer
preference or employer image (Bell and McLaughlin 2004).
Attorneys who specialize in workplace discrimination cases are becoming concerned
that public campaigns intended to fight the ‘obesity crisis’ may contribute to more bias and
discrimination against the obese (Goll 2002). For example, if employers push for
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:11 26 April 2015
Societal attitudes
In the USA and Western Europe, children around age 3 years have already assimilated two
notions about body types: being thin is good, and being fat is bad (Jarvie, Lahey, Graziano
and Framer 1983). In a recent large-scale study of the content of the 10 most popular
fictional television shows, researchers have found that overweight people are significantly
underrepresented. When they did appear as television characters, they were frequently
portrayed with negative traits. Overweight characters were also more likely to be the target
of demeaning humor and to be shown eating (Greenberg, Eastin, Hofschire, Lachlan and
Brownell 2003).
Just as racial-based discrimination used to be socially acceptable, weight-based
discrimination still seems to be both legal and popular in Western society (Rothblum 1994;
Rothblum and Solovay 2009; Farrell 2011), which increases the likelihood of obesity bias
in performance appraisals. As a British reporter summarized, ‘Fat is the new black’
(Reeves 2003, p. 16). The prevailing weight stigma allows politicians to turn obesity into a
political issue, and to propose all sorts of ‘interventions’ to wage the so-called obesity war.
3216 R.F. Bento et al.
Strategies ranging from holding the fast-food industry responsible, to differential taxes for
fatty foods, and even higher taxes for overweight individuals have been proposed or tried
by different governments, with varying degrees of success (Reeves 2003; Crandall et al.
2009).
different levels of contact with obese people at home, in the family, etc.)? What is the
cumulative effect of multiple stigmas in the combination of weight, gender, race, and so on
(double, triple, quadruple ‘whammies’)?
Appraisal processes are uniquely suited for heeding Northcraft and Hastorf’s (1981)
call for research that explores the gap between macro outcomes (e.g. statistics on results of
discrimination, which are like the final score of a game) and molecular analysis (e.g. the
study of a single interaction, which is like watching a single play), in order to fully
appreciate the intricate dynamics of stigmatization (the entire game). Research on the
impact of obesity stigma has concentrated mostly on documenting its macro aspects and is
only starting to explore the dynamics of single appraisals, but is virtually nonexistent in
terms of the dynamics of the long-term effects of discrimination on subsequent motivation,
performance, appraisals, and rewards.
As pointed out by Crocker and Quinn (2000, p. 177), one-shot, laboratory experiments
using confederates are not appropriate for studying the ripple effects suggested by the
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:11 26 April 2015
Most diversity training and efforts are targeted at attributes like gender and race, and
virtually ignore body shape and size (Bell, McLaughlin and Sequeira 2002). There is only
limited evidence about the effectiveness of change efforts to reduce bias against obese
individuals, mostly consisting of lab experiments that prime different attributions for
origin and controllability of obesity. Diversity training programs that address the issue of
weight and that include the discussion of obesity stigma and its consequences should at
least serve to raise awareness about the problem, and possibly contribute to increase
suppression and decrease justification of weightism, thereby reducing its expression in the
workplace (Puhl and Brownell 2003).
Another promising avenue might be to intervene in some of the appraisal factors
discussed in our model, in order to decrease the opportunities and increase the costs of the
expression of weightism. Examples of such interventions include: mechanisms to increase
rater accountability, such as non-anonymous reviews, multisource evaluations, and written
evaluations (which review the level of attainment of preset performance goals and justify
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:11 26 April 2015
the links between performance and rewards); mechanisms for facilitating communication
about discrepancies in perceptions and interpretations, and for achieving agreement;
mechanisms for taking into account controllability considerations and for increasing
critical thinking about causal attributions of performance; appraiser training to improve
absolute and relative judgments about performance (e.g. frame-of-reference training);
appraisee training on how to prepare self-reports and provide thorough documentation of
performance; appraiser and appraisee training in participative goal-setting, communi-
cation and feedback; and other interventions to reduce uncertainty and ambiguity in
appraisal.
These kinds of interventions would make the appraisal process more resilient not only
against the effects of obesity stigma and weightism, but also against other forms of stigma
and prejudice. A better understanding of the effects of obesity stigma should help
individuals and organizations reap the motivation and performance benefits of appraisal
and reduce some of its human and organizational costs. Research and interventions
targeting the factors that introduce bias and discrimination in the appraisal process would
improve conditions for employees of all body types and sizes and ultimately result in
improved organizational performance.
References
Allport, G.W. (1954), The Nature of Prejudice, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Amba-Rao, S., Petrick, J.A., Gupta, J.D., and Embse, T. (2000), ‘Comparative Performance
Appraisal Practices and Management Values Among Foreign and Domestic Firms in India,’
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11, 1, 60 – 89.
Argyris, C. (1976), ‘Single-Loop and Double-Loop Models in Research on Decision Making,’
Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 3, 363– 375.
Arthur, W., and Doverspike, D. (2005), ‘Achieving Diversity and Reducing Discrimination in the
Workplace Through HRM Practices: Implications of Research and Theory for Staffing,
Training, and Rewarding Performance,’ in Discrimination at Work: The Psychological and
Organizational Bases, eds. R.L. Dipboye and A. Colella, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum,
pp. 305– 327.
Atkinson, A., Kaplan, R., and Young, S.M. (2003), Management Accounting (4th ed.), Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Averett, S., and Korenman, S. (1996), ‘The Economic Reality of the Beauty Myth,’ The Journal of
Human Resources, 31, 2, 304– 330.
Bell, M.P., and McLaughlin, M.E. (2004), ‘Obesity, Appearance, and Organizational Outcomes,’ in
Handbook of Organizational Diversity, eds. A.M. Konrad, P. Prasad and J.K. Pringle, Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 3219
Bell, M., McLaughlin, M., and Sequeira, J. (2002), ‘Age, Disability and Obesity: Diversity within
Diversity. Gender and Diversity in Organizations Conference Paper Abstracts,’ in Proceedings
of the Academy of Management, Denver, CO, p1, 20 pp.
Benokraitis, N. (1997), Subtle Sexism: Current Practice and Prospect for Change, Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Bento, R.F. (1997), ‘Unintentional Subtle Discrimination Against Latinas in the Work Place: When
Good Intentions Are Not Enough,’ in Subtle Sexism: Current Practice and Prospect for Change,
ed. N. Benokraitis, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 95 – 114.
Bento, R.F., and Ferreira, L. (1992), ‘Incentive Pay and Organizational Culture,’ in Performance
Measurement, Evaluation and Incentives, ed. W. Bruns, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Press, pp. 157– 182.
Bernardin, H.J., and Russell, J.E.A. (1993), Human Resource Management: An Experiential
Approach, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Biernat, M. (2009), ‘Stereotypes and Shifting Standards,’ in Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping
and Discrimination, ed. T. Nelson, New York: Psychology Press, pp. 137–152.
Biernat, M., and Dovidio, J.F. (2000), ‘Stigma and Stereotypes,’ in The Social Psychology of Stigma,
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:11 26 April 2015
eds. T.F. Heatherton, R.E. Kleck, M.R. Hebl and J.G. Hull, New York: Guilford Press,
pp. 88 – 125.
Blaine, E.B., DiBiasi, M.D., and Connor, M.J. (2002), ‘The Effect of Weight Loss on Perceptions of
Weight Controllability: Implications for Prejudice Against Overweight People,’ Journal of
Applied Biobehavioral Research, 7, 1, 44 – 56.
Blaine, B., and McElroy, J. (2002), ‘Selling Stereotypes: Weight Loss Infomercials, Sexism, and
Weightism,’ Sex Roles, 46, 9/10, 351– 357.
Bretz, R.D., Milkovich, G.T., and Read, W. (1992), ‘The Current State of Performance Appraisal
Research and Practice: Concerns, Directions, and Implications,’ Journal of Management, 18, 2,
321– 352.
Brownell, P. (1982), ‘Participation in the Budgeting Process: When it Works and When it Doesn’t,’
Journal of Accounting Literature, 1, 125– 153.
Brownell, K.D., Puhl, R.M., Schwartz, M.B., and Rudd, L. (2005), Weight Bias: Nature,
Consequences, and Remedies, New York: Guilford Press.
Calogero, R.M., Herbozo, S., and Thompson, J. (2009), ‘Complimentary Weightism: The Potential
Costs of Appearance-Related Commentary for Women’s Self-objectification,’ Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 33, 1, 120– 132.
Cardy, R.L., and Dobbins, G.H. (1994), Performance Appraisal: Alternative Perspectives,
Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.
Cash, T.F. (1990), ‘The Psychology of Physical Appearance: Aesthetics, Attributes, and Images,’
in Body Images: Development, Deviance, and Change, eds. T.F. Cash and T. Pruzinsky,
New York: Guilford Press.
Cawley, J. (2004), ‘The Impact of Obesity on Wages,’ The Journal of Human Resources, 39, 2,
451– 474.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2010), ‘Vital Signs: State Specific Obesity Prevalence
Among Adults – United States, 2009,’ Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, August 3.
Chaiken, S. (1981), ‘Physical Appearance and Social Influence,’ in Physical Appearance, Stigma,
and Social Behavior: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 3), eds. C.P. Herman, M.P. Zanna and
E.T. Higgins, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 143– 177.
Collins, P.H. (1998), ‘It’s All in the Family: Intersections of Gender, Race, and Nation,’ Hypatia, 13,
62 – 82.
Crandall, C.S. (1994), ‘Prejudice Against Fat People: Ideology and Self-Interest,’ Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 5, 882– 894.
Crandall, C.S. (2000), ‘Ideology and Lay Theories of Stigma: The Justification of Stigmatization,’
in The Social Psychology of Stigma, eds. T.F. Heatherton, R.E. Kleck, M.R. Hebl and J.G. Hull,
New York: Guilford Press, pp. 126 –150.
Crandall, C.S., and Eshleman, A. (2003), ‘A Justification-Suppression Model of the Expression and
Experience of Prejudice,’ Psychological Bulletin, 129, 3, 414– 446.
Crandall, C.S., Eshleman, A., and O’Brien, L. (2002), ‘Social Norms and the Expression and
Suppression of Prejudice: The Struggle for Internalization,’ Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 82, 3, 359–378.
3220 R.F. Bento et al.
Crandall, C.S., Nierman, A., and Hebl, M. (2009), ‘Anti-Fat Prejudice,’ in Handbook of Prejudice,
Stereotyping and Discrimination, ed. T.D. Nelson, New York: Psychology Press, pp. 469–487.
Crocker, J., and Quinn, D.M. (2000), ‘Social Stigma and the Self: Meanings, Situations, and Self-
esteem,’ in The Social Psychology of Stigma, eds. T.F. Heatherton, R.E. Kleck, M.R. Hebl and
J.G. Hull, New York: Guilford Press, pp. 153– 183.
Crocker, J., Voelkl, K., Testa, M., and Major, B. (2000), ‘Social Stigma: The Affective
Consequences of Attributional Ambiguity,’ in Stereotypes and Prejudice: Essential Readings,
ed. C. Stangor, Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press, pp. 353– 368.
DeJong, W., and Kleck, R.E. (1981), ‘The Social Psychological Effects of Overweight,’ in Physical
Appearance, Stigma, and Social Behavior: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 3), eds. C.P. Herman,
M.P. Zanna and E.T. Higgins, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 65 – 87.
Dion, K.K. (1981), ‘Stereotyping Based on Physical Attractiveness: Issues and Conceptual
Perspectives,’ in Physical Appearance, Stigma, and Social Behavior: The Ontario Symposium
(Vol. 3), eds. C.P. Herman, M.P. Zanna and E.T. Higgins, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum,
pp. 7 – 21.
Dipboye, R.L. (1985), ‘Some Neglected Variables in Research on Discrimination in Appraisals,’
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:11 26 April 2015
Ghosh, D., and Lusch, R. (2000), ‘Outcome Effect, Controllability and Performance Evaluation of
Managers: Some Field Evidence from Multi-outlet Businesses,’ Accounting, Organizations and
Society, 25, 411– 425.
Gilbert, C., De Winne, S., and Sels, L. (2011), ‘The Influence of Line Managers and HR Department
on Employee Affective Commitment,’ International Journal of Human Resource Management,
22, 8, 1618– 1637.
Goffman, E. (1963), Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity, New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Goll, D. (2002), ‘Workplace Fairness Can Be Weighty Issue,’ East Bay Business Times, February 18,
1 – 2.
Gomez-Mejia, L.R., Balkin, D.B., and Cardy, R.L. (2010), Managing Human Resources,
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Gortmaker, S.L., Must, A., Perrin, J.M., Sobol, A.M., and Dietz, W.H. (1993), ‘Social and Economic
Consequences of Overweight in Adolescence and Young Adulthood,’ New England Journal of
Medicine, 329, 14, 1008– 1012.
Greenberg, S.B., Eastin, M., Hofschire, L., Lachlan, K., and Brownell, K. (2003), ‘Portrayals of
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:11 26 April 2015
King, E.B., Shapiro, J.R., Hebl, M.R., Singletary, S.L., and Turner, S. (2006), ‘The Stigma of
Obesity in Customer Service: A Mechanism for Remediation and Bottom-Line Consequences of
Interpersonal Discrimination,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 3, 579– 593.
Kristen, E. (2002), ‘Addressing the Problem of Weight Discrimination in Employment,’
California Law Review, 90, 1, 57 – 109.
Kulik, C.T., Bainbridge, H., and Cregan, C. (2008), ‘Known by the Company We Keep: Stigma-by-
Association Effects in the Workplace,’ Academy of Management Review, 33, 1, 216 –230.
Langlois, J.H. (1981), ‘From the Eye of the Beholder to Behavioral Reality: Development of Social
Relations as a Function of Physical Attractiveness,’ in Physical Appearance, Stigma, and Social
Behavior: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 3), eds. C.P. Herman, M.P. Zanna and E.T. Higgins,
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 23 – 51.
LaVan, H., and Katz, M. (2009), ‘Managing Obesity: Human Resource Managers’ Perspectives,’
Compensation and Benefits Review, 41, 2, 54 – 61.
Lawler, E.E. (1971), Pay and Organizational Effectiveness: A Psychological View, New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Lawler, E.E. (1990), Strategic Pay: Aligning Organizational Strategies and Pay Systems, San
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:11 26 April 2015
Polivy, J., Garner, D.M., and Garfinkel, P.E. (1981), ‘Causes and Consequences of the Current
Preferences for Thin Female Physiques,’ in Physical Appearance, Stigma, and Social Behavior:
The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 3), eds. C.P. Herman, M.P. Zanna and E.T. Higgins, Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 89 – 112.
Poole, M., and Jenkins, G. (1997), ‘Responsibilities for Human Resource Management Practices in
the Modern Enterprise: Evidence from Britain,’ Personnel Review, 26, 5, 333– 356.
Puhl, R., and Brownell, K.D. (2001), ‘Bias, Discrimination, and Obesity,’ Obesity Research, 9,
788– 805.
Puhl, R., and Brownell, K.D. (2003), ‘Psychological Origins of Obesity Stigma: Toward Changing a
Powerful and Pervasive Bias,’ Obesity Reviews, 4, 213– 227.
Puhl, R.M., and Heuer, C.A. (2009), ‘The Stigma of Obesity: A Review and Update,’ Obesity, 17, 5,
941– 964.
Quinn, D.M., and Crocker, J. (1998), ‘Vulnerability to the Affective Consequences of the Stigma of
Overweight,’ in Prejudice: The Target’s Perspective, eds. J.K. Swim and C. Stangor, San Diego,
CA: Academic Press, pp. 125– 143.
Quinn, D.M., and Crocker, J. (1999), ‘When Ideology Hurts: Effects of Belief in the Protestant Ethic
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:11 26 April 2015
Smart, L., and Wegner, D.M. (2000), ‘The Hidden Costs of Hidden Stigma,’ in The Social
Psychology of Stigma, eds. T.F. Heatherton, R.E. Kleck, M.R. Hebl and J.G. Hull, New York:
Guilford Press, pp. 220–242.
Spychalski, A. (1997), ‘Effects of Processing Method, Performance Pattern, and Time Pressure On
Performance Rating,’ Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and
Engineering, 58, 3-B, http://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/19216/9727611.PDF?
sequence¼1
Stangor, C. (2009), ‘The Study of Stereotyping, Prejudice and Discrimination Within Social
Psychology,’ in Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping and Discrimination, ed. T. Nelson,
New York: Psychology Press, pp. 1 – 22.
Stockton, M.B. (2010), ‘Introducing “Symbolic Weightism”: Discourses of Agency and Morality in
Obesity Stigma,’ International Journal of Exercise Science, 6, 1, Article 41, http://
digitalcommons.wku.edu/ijesab/vol6/iss1/41
Stone, D.L., and Colella, A. (1996), ‘A Model of Factors Affecting the Treatment of Disabled
Individuals in Organizations,’ Academy of Management Review, 21, 352– 402.
Swann, W.B., Polzer, J.T., Seyle, D.C., and Ko, S.J. (2004), ‘Finding Value in Diversity:
Verification of Personal and Social Self-views in Diverse Groups,’ Academy of Management
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:11 26 April 2015