Elsevier

Body Image

Volume 30, September 2019, Pages 56-63
Body Image

“No seconds for you!”: Exploring a sociocultural model of fat-talking in the presence of family involving restrictive/critical caregiver eating messages, relational body image, and anti-fat attitudes in college women

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2019.05.004Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Restrictive/critical caregiver eating messages correlated with family fat talk.

  • Relational body image and anti-fat attitudes were mediators.

  • External body shame was the strongest mediator.

  • Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

Abstract

In line with sociocultural models of parental influence on body image, we examined the relationship between recall of restrictive/critical caregiver eating messages (RCEM) and current frequency of disclosing self-disparaging fat talk among family in 335 undergraduate women (Mage = 19.4; SD = 1.53; range = 18–27). Additionally, two forms of relational body image (i.e., perceived body acceptance by others, external body image shame) and anti-fat attitudes were tested as potential explanatory pathways. RCEM were positively related to current frequency of self-directed fat talk in the family context. All three proposed mediators helped explain this relationship, with external body image shame demonstrating the largest observed effect. Findings suggest frequent recollections of caregivers’ implied weight-stigmatizing comments surrounding eating may contribute to more frequent self-denigrating body talk with family members at present via both positive and negative dimensions of relational body image and endorsed explicit weight bias. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Introduction

Fat talk encompasses negative, self-focused appearance-related remarks, which typically occur in conversations among both women and girls (Nichter & Vuckovic, 1994). Researchers have theorized that fat talk likely serves multiple purposes. For example, it may serve as a vehicle for reassurance seeking from others and an attempt to regulate one’s own feelings about their body (Salk & Engeln-Maddox, 2011). Fat talk may also serve to indicate agreement with cultural body ideals. For instance, a study by Guertin, Barbeau, Pelletier, and Martinelli (2017) found that women who were extrinsically motivated (e.g., motivated by appearance) were more likely to engage in fat talk conversations.

Although many women report that they believe that engagement in fat talk will improve their experience of their body (Salk & Engeln-Maddox, 2011), this self-deprecating conversation style has been associated with increased levels of body dissatisfaction as well as a variety of other negative correlates which include, but are not limited to, self-objectification, disordered eating, thin-ideal internalization, depressive symptoms, and upward social comparison (Mills & Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, 2018; see Shannon & Mills, 2015 for a review). A recent systematic review and meta-analysis by Mills and Fuller-Tyszkiewicz (2017) further explored the relationship of fat talk with body image disturbances. This review supported the link between fat talk and a broader range of body image concerns such as body checking, body shame, and perceived pressure to be thin.

Most of the extant fat talk research has focused on investigating this phenomenon in peer groups; however, this line of research has recently been expanded to also include family settings, consistent with past scholarship supporting the importance of the early family context in impacting later body image (Kroon Van Diest & Tyłka, 2010; Rodgers, 2012). Indeed, fat talk conversations are common in families (Lydecker, Riley, & Grilo, 2018; MacDonald, Dimitropoulos, Royal, Polanco, & Dionne, 2015; Neumark-Sztainer et al., 2010) and overhearing parents emphasizing the importance of appearance and achieving a thin body type is linked to body dissatisfaction and disordered eating in children (see MacDonald et al., 2015 for a discussion). Other researchers have also explored the implications of fat talk conversations within the family setting, confirming the relationship of this conversational style to higher levels of body image dissatisfaction and disordered eating (e.g., Arroyo & Andersen, 2016; Chow & Tan, 2018; Greer, Campione-Barr, & Lindell, 2015; Rogers, Martz, Webb, & Galloway, 2017) and to lower levels of body appreciation, functional body appreciation, and mindful eating (Webb, Rogers, Etzel, & Padro, 2018).

Nevertheless, little is currently known about what early environmental factors may contribute to disclosing self-deprecating comments about one’s physical appearance by young adult women amidst family. Addressing this gap could aid in future efforts to bring awareness to the role of the family environment in perpetuating this maladaptive expression of negative body image and to stimulate prevention within the family context. Rogers et al. (2017) found that perceived fat talk of mothers explained more of the variance in fat talk of college-aged women than the perceived fat talk of their friends, suggesting that the role of the family is still quite relevant for fat talk behavior at this later age. Therefore, due to the widespread nature of this conversational style within the family setting, and the important role of caregivers in impacting body image and eating behaviors (Rodgers, 2012; Thompson, Heinberg, Altabe, & Tantleff-Dunn, 1999) the present study explored family-related factors associated with engagement in family fat talk among college women. More specifically, this analysis targeted evaluating recollections of restrictive/critical comments made about participants’ eating behavior in childhood as an early exposure variable that may persist in contributing to present-day fat talk with family members. We additionally explored both positive and negative forms of relational body image (i.e., perceived body acceptance by others and external body shame, respectively) and anti-fat attitudes as potential explanatory variables in this predicted relationship.

To increase understanding of body image and its expression, sociocultural models have been utilized to examine how contextual factors impact the experience of the body (Tiggemann, 2011). One particular focus of scholarship is parental influence (Rodgers, 2012; Thompson et al., 1999). Parents have been demonstrated to serve an important role in impacting body image (2008, Field et al., 2001). Furthermore, this influence can be either direct, such as comments explicitly made about weight or body shape, or more indirect (e.g., parental modeling of dieting behaviors or comments implying parental dissatisfaction with the child’s eating behaviors). Although there has been a wealth of research demonstrating the negative effects of direct commentary about young adult children’s weight on their body image (Baker, Whisman, & Brownell, 2000; Gross & Nelson, 2000; Rodgers, Paxton, & Chabrol, 2009), the present study explores the potential negative effects of more indirect commentary in which a caregiver’s criticism of one’s eating behavior implies commentary about one’s weight or body size (Kroon Van Diest & Tyłka, 2010).

The impact of restrictive/critical caregiver eating messages in early life appears to persist into young adulthood; for instance, Iannantuono and Tylka (2012) noted the relationship between recall of these messages and later psychological distress. Recall of restrictive messages from childhood regarding food by college students positively correlated with increased focus on food and disordered eating as well as less engagement in adaptive food intake processes such as intuitive eating (Kroon Van Diest & Tyłka, 2010; Tan, Ruhl, Chow, & Ellis, 2016). The relationship between recall of these messages and disordered eating has also been demonstrated in samples with a more diversified age range (Oliveira et al., 2019). Importantly, recall of restrictive/critical messages in young adult samples was also related to facets of both negative and positive body image such as increased levels of body dissatisfaction, internalized and externalized body shame, and perceived pressure by family to be lean, as well as lower levels of appearance control beliefs and body appreciation (Daye, Webb, & Jafari, 2014; Kroon Van Diest & Tyłka, 2010; Oliveria, Pires, & Ferreira, 2018; Wansink, Latimer, & Pope, 2016).

Based on extant literature, we propose that this relationship will be mediated by three constructs: anti-fat attitudes, perceived body acceptance by others, and external body image shame.

Unfortunately, although perhaps intended to be helpful, parental messages about child eating-related behaviors may transmit and reinforce harmful cultural appearance ideals. Anti-fat attitudes, a form of explicit weight bias, are comprised of three dimensions: dislike of fat individuals, the belief that weight loss failure is the responsibility of the person who is fat, and fear of gaining weight and becoming part of a marginalized out-group (Crandall, 1994). Regardless of intent, these eating-related messages likely indirectly communicate that the child’s current weight or body size is unacceptable (Kroon Van Diest & Tyłka, 2010) and, in addition to reinforcing and leading to internalization of societal values and weight bias, may also lead the recipient to change their perspective on their own body. Later, participation in fat talk may serve as an opportunity to express agreement with these sentiments and provide distance from the undesirable out-group (Alperin, Hornsey, Hayward, Diedrichs, & Barlow, 2014; Webb, Fiery, & Jafari, 2016).

When caregivers provide their children with restrictive/critical eating messages, it is likely that they are perceived as communicating a lack of acceptance of the child’s behaviors and a desire to change the child’s body. Indeed, Kroon Van Diest and Tyłka (2010) found that restrictive/critical caregiver eating messages negatively correlated with perceived body acceptance by family members; further, perceived acceptance accounted for the relationship between recall of caregiver eating messages and levels of body appreciation. In accordance with work by Tylka et al. (2014), fat talk may serve as a means by which individuals confirm their perceptions of their family’s critical view of their body. Disclosing fat talk among family members may be used to assess an individual’s standing with these important others and seek affirmation; for instance, if a family member provides reassurance in response to a self-deprecating fat talk statement, this could provide information on the individual’s current status as related to their appearance (Shannon & Mills, 2015).

Body shame refers to the shame that an individual experiences when they perceive that their appearance does not align with society’s idealized body shape or weight, particularly if they have internalized the thin ideal (McKinley & Hyde, 1996). Body shame is a multifaceted construct: external body shame describes the emotion that an individual experiences as a result of fearing that others will view their body and appearance as inadequate, whereas internal shame is characterized by self-directed negative evaluation (Goss & Allan, 2009). This perceived inadequacy associated with external body image shame likely contributes to distress in social situations if they perceive that others will criticize their appearance (Duarte, Pinto-Gouveia, Ferreira, & Batista, 2014).

Unsurprisingly, external body shame has been linked to a variety of body image disturbances (Daye et al., 2014; Duarte et al., 2014). Furthermore, a recent study by Oliveria et al. (2018) found that recall of restrictive/critical caregiver eating messages strengthened the relationship between external body image shame and other maladaptive outcomes (e.g., disordered eating behaviors). The results of their study support that recall of early caregiver eating messages is linked to increased present-day distress through feelings of inferiority (and that this recall also increases the likelihood that body image concerns will be present). Body shame has also been demonstrated to mediate the relationship between recall of these messages and later disordered eating behaviors (Oliveira, Marta-Simões, & Ferreira, 2019). Consistent with an affect regulation perspective (Daye et al., 2014; Webb et al., 2016), the expression of fat talk may function as a means of managing external body shame in the family environment stemming from earlier exposure to critical parental appearance-related commentary (MacDonald et al., 2015; Shannon & Mills, 2015).

In sum, restrictive/critical caregiver eating messages may be one contextual vehicle through which parents transmit cultural ideology reinforcing marginalization of larger bodies and communicate a lack of acceptance of the child’s physical appearance, simultaneously promoting body shame which may manifest through expressing fat talk when around family members in the present day. However, this has not been tested together in a unified model. The present study sought to integrate and extend complementary lines of research demonstrating: (a) restrictive/critical caregiver eating messages are associated with both reports of positive (i.e., perceived body acceptance by others; Kroon Van Diest & Tyłka, 2010) and negative (i.e., body shame; Daye et al., 2014) body image, and (b) engaging in fat talk with peers is associated with both anti-fat attitudes and body shame (Webb et al., 2016) in exploring a preliminary sociocultural model of family fat talk in college women. The inclusion of measures of both positive and negative body image is responsive to contemporary calls to provide a more holistic understanding of how these different dimensions of embodiment may operate simultaneously in contributing to the prediction of criterion variables of interest (e.g., Webb & Hardin, 2016).

Therefore, informed by elements from existing theories (Thompson et al., 1999; Tylka et al., 2014; Webb et al., 2016), we anticipated recall of more frequent restrictive/critical caregiver eating comments earlier in life to be strongly correlated with current levels of engaging in fat talk with family. We also hypothesized that perceived body acceptance by others, external body shame, and anti-fat attitudes would help explain this link when adjusted for participants’ body mass index (BMI) in a concurrent multiple indirect effect model. BMI (albeit an imperfect indicator) was included as a covariate in our model given that research has demonstrated significant positive relationships between restrictive/critical caregiver eating messages (Daye et al., 2014; Kroon Van Diest & Tyłka, 2010) and complaining about one’s appearance with family (MacDonald et al., 2015) with this biometric indicator among undergraduate women.

Section snippets

Participants and procedure

Three hundred and sixty-two undergraduate women consented to participate in this IRB-approved project from University of North Carolina at Charlotte. The specific measures used in this analysis were drawn from a larger data set from which two papers were recently published (please see Webb & Hardin, 2016 and Webb, Rogers et al., 2018). The primary measures featured in the current study did not overlap with those examined in the previously published work with the exception of socio-demographic

Preliminary analyses

Missing data examinations at the variable level indicated the following percentages: age (5.5%), restrictive/critical eating messages (4.4%), body acceptance by others (5.0%), anti-fat attitudes (5.0%), self-involvement in family fat talk (5.5%), external body shame (5.0%), and BMI (6.1%). Despite the fact that these levels of missing data were notable (Parent, 2013), when evidence points towards data missing completely at random (MCAR), it is acceptable to perform a complete case analysis

Discussion

Previous research has identifed the family context as an important factor in exerting risk for body image disturbance and disordered eating among children, adolescents, and young adults (Rodgers & Chabrol, 2009; Rodgers et al., 2009; Rodgers, 2012). The present study provided an initial test of a sociocultural model of engaging in fat talk within the family environment as a correlate of the frequency of recalling restrictive/critical caregiver eating messages. We additionally tested perceived

Author note

The results reported here were previously presented during a poster session sponsored by the Society for the Psychology of Women (Division 35) at the American Psychological Association’s 2016 Convention held in Denver, CO.

References (52)

  • R. Rodgers

    Body image: Familial influences

  • R. Rodgers et al.

    Effects of parental comments on body dissatisfaction and eating disturbance in young adults: A sociocultural model

    Body Image

    (2009)
  • C.B. Rogers et al.

    Everyone else is doing it (I think): The power of perception in fat talk

    Body Image

    (2017)
  • A. Shannon et al.

    Correlates, causes, and consequences of fat talk: A review

    Body Image

    (2015)
  • C.C. Tan et al.

    Retrospective reports of parental feeding practices and emotional eating in adulthood: The role of food preoccupation

    Appetite

    (2016)
  • J.B. Webb et al.

    An integrative affect regulation process model of internalized weight bias and intuitive eating in college women

    Appetite

    (2016)
  • J.B. Webb et al.

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

    Body Image

    (2016)
  • J.B. Webb et al.

    “Mom, quit fat talking—I’m trying to eat (mindfully) here!”: Evaluating a sociocultural model of family fat talk, positive body image, and mindful eating in college women

    Appetite

    (2018)
  • P. Allison

    Listwise deletion: It’s NOT evil | statistical horizons

    (2014)
  • P.D. Allison

    Missing data

    (2001)
  • A. Arroyo et al.

    Appearance-related communication and body image outcomes: Fat talk and old talk among mothers and daughters

    Journal of Family Communication

    (2016)
  • L.C. Avalos et al.

    Exploring a model of intuitive eating with college women

    Journal of Counseling Psychology

    (2006)
  • C.W. Baker et al.

    Studying intergenerational transmission of eating attitudes and behaviors: Methodological and conceptual questions

    Health Psychology

    (2000)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

    About adult BMI

    (2017)
  • A. Conason

    Does criticizing our own bodies damage our kids’ body image? New research explains the impact of negative body talk on our kids

    (2018)
  • C.S. Crandall

    Prejudice against fat people: Ideology and self-interest

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1994)
  • Cited by (15)

    • Negative messages from parents and sisters and Latina college students’ body image shame

      2022, Body Image
      Citation Excerpt :

      Previous literature has identified the family as an important sociocultural agent that can directly impact young women’s (i.e., 18–27 years old) body image outcomes (Rogers et al., 2019). For instance, families can internalize certain beliefs (i.e., prioritization of thin bodies) and directly impact women’s perceptions about their bodies through verbal and nonverbal appearance-related messages and conversations (Rogers et al., 2019). Specifically, families may place strong emphasis on appearance by making comments regarding food and weight and these invalidating experiences may place young women at risk for body dissatisfaction (Gonçalves et al., 2020).

    • Feminist embodiment, body talk, and body image among mothers and daughters

      2022, Body Image
      Citation Excerpt :

      On the other hand, the daughters in our sample (who, on average, were born around 2000 and have also been exposed to the thin ideal), have seen the rise in the “body positive” movement. This movement spread through social media sites and online forums, with the goals of challenging sociocultural ideals and promoting body acceptance of diverse bodies (Cohen, Irwin, Newton-John, & Slater, 2019b; Lazuka, Wick, Keel, & Harriger, 2020; Rodgers, Meyer, & McCaig, 2020). Daughters also grew up during the current fourth wave of feminism, which started in the 2000 s with the advent of social media (e.g., Chamberlain, 2017).

    • Family members and peers’ negative and positive body talk: How they relate to adolescent girls’ body talk and eating disorder attitudes

      2022, Body Image
      Citation Excerpt :

      This finding provides empirical evidence for the proposition that perceiving others criticize and objectify their bodies can elicit a degree of self-consciousness and anxiety in the observer regarding how others may evaluate their own characteristics (Mills & Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, 2016). They also support the notion that perceiving others critically evaluate bodies or eating habits lowers one’s own self-acceptance by encouraging self-objectification (i.e., surveillance of one’s body out of fear of negative evaluation), which is aligned with previous retrospective research on mothers and daughters (Rogers et al., 2019). Increased fear of negative evaluation and lowered self-acceptance, in turn, may lead to the vocalization of these concerns when they are in the presence of others in the form of negative body talk.

    • “It really presents a struggle for females, especially my little girl”: Exploring father's experiences discussing body image with their young daughters

      2021, Body Image
      Citation Excerpt :

      Furthermore, some of the fathers in the current study discussed restricting their daughters’ food intake; yet, parental restriction of their child’s food intake has long-term, adverse implications. Rogers, Taylor, Jafari, and Webb (2019) found that the recall of restrictive and/or critical caregiver eating messages from childhood was related to more frequent negative self-body talk in the presence of family, which was partially mediated by higher levels of negative body image and heightened negative anti-fat attitudes. We strongly discourage fathers (and other parents, teachers, or guardians) from intentionally limiting young girls’ access to food as a means of teaching them about proper eating.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text