黑料网

Food addiction; Obesity; Weight stigma; Blame Attribution; Eating behaviors; Public health messaging

Introduction

Obesity is a growing global health concern, often accompanied by significant social stigma. Stigmatization of individuals with obesity can lead to discrimination, psychological distress, and reluctance to seek medical help, exacerbating health issues. Various explanatory models of eating behaviors have been proposed to understand obesity, including genetic, environmental, and psychological factors. Recently, the concept of food addiction has gained attention as a potential explanation for compulsive eating behaviors. This study aims to investigate how the food addiction model of eating behaviors impacts stigma related to weight. The origins of obesity are multifaceted, encompassing genetic, environmental, psychological, and behavioral factors. Recent discussions have introduced the concept of food addiction as a potential explanatory model for compulsive eating behaviors leading to obesity [1]. This model posits that certain foods—particularly those high in sugar, fat, and salt—can trigger addictive-like responses in the brain, similar to those seen with substance abuse. This perspective suggests that some individuals may be biologically predisposed to develop an addiction to food, which could contribute to overeating and subsequent weight gain. The food addiction model provides an alternative narrative to the more traditional view that emphasizes personal responsibility and behavioral control. By attributing eating behaviors to neurological and biological factors, this model could reduce the perceived personal blame for obesity, potentially leading to more empathetic and supportive attitudes. However, the implications of this model on stigma are not fully understood. On one hand, it might mitigate the moral judgments associated with obesity by shifting the focus from personal failings to biological vulnerabilities. On the other hand, it could reinforce stereotypes about lack of self-control or moral weakness, potentially perpetuating certain forms of stigma. Understanding how different explanatory models influence stigma related to weight is crucial for developing effective public health strategies [2]. If the food addiction model is shown to reduce stigma, it could be a valuable tool in creating more compassionate and supportive environments for individuals with obesity. Conversely, if it exacerbates negative stereotypes, alternative approaches may be necessary. This study aims to empirically assess the impact of the food addiction model on stigma, blame, and perceived control over eating behaviors compared to other models and a control condition.

Background

The notion of food addiction parallels the understanding of substance abuse, where certain foods, particularly those high in sugar and fat, are believed to trigger addictive-like responses in the brain. This model suggests that some individuals may be biologically predisposed to develop an addiction to food, leading to overeating and, consequently, obesity. While this perspective can reduce personal blame for weight gain by attributing it to biological factors, it may also reinforce negative stereotypes, such as the idea that individuals with obesity lack self-control [3].

Rationale

Understanding the impact of the food addiction model on weight stigma is critical for developing effective public health strategies. If this model reduces stigma by shifting blame away from individuals, it could be a valuable tool in combating weight-based discrimination. However, if it inadvertently increases stigma by reinforcing harmful stereotypes, alternative approaches may be needed.

Methods

Study Design

This experimental study employed a between-subjects design, where participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: (1) a group exposed to the food addiction explanatory model, (2) a group exposed to a behavioral explanatory model, and (3) a control group with no specific explanatory model. Participants were then asked to evaluate hypothetical individuals described as having obesity, using a series of questionnaires designed to measure stigma, blame, and perceived control over eating behaviors.

Participants

The study sample consisted of 300 adults, recruited through online platforms. The demographic characteristics of the sample, including age, gender, and body mass index (BMI), were recorded to ensure a diverse representation.

Procedure

Participants were first provided with a brief description of the study and gave informed consent. Those in the food addiction group read a passage explaining obesity in terms of food addiction, emphasizing biological predispositions and neurological responses to food. The behavioral model group read a passage explaining obesity as a result of poor eating habits and lack of exercise. The control group did not receive any explanatory passage.

After reading the passages, participants completed the following measures:

Weight Stigma Questionnaire: Assesses negative attitudes and beliefs about individuals with obesity.

Blame Attribution Scale: Measures the extent to which participants attribute blame to individuals for their weight.

Perceived Control Scale: Evaluates participants' perceptions of how much control individuals with obesity have over their eating behaviors.

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using ANOVA to compare stigma, blame, and perceived control across the three groups. Post-hoc tests were conducted to identify specific group differences. Additionally, regression analyses were performed to examine the relationship between demographic factors and stigma levels [3].

Results

Stigma Related to Weight

Participants exposed to the food addiction explanatory model reported significantly lower levels of stigma compared to those in the behavioral model group (p <0.05). However, the stigma levels in the food addiction group were still higher than those in the control group (p <0.05), indicating that while the food addiction model reduced stigma; it did not eliminate it entirely.

Blame Attribution

The food addiction group attributed significantly less blame to individuals with obesity than the behavioral model group (p <0.01). The control group attributed the least blame overall, but the difference between the control and food addiction groups was not statistically significant.

Perceived Control

Participants in the food addiction group perceived individuals with obesity as having less control over their eating behaviors compared to the behavioral model group (p <0.01). This perception was correlated with lower levels of blame attribution but was also associated with a higher likelihood of endorsing negative stereotypes about self-control [4].

Discussion

The findings of this study suggest that framing eating behaviors as an addiction can reduce blame but may not be effective in fully addressing weight stigma. The reduction in blame is a positive outcome, as it may encourage more empathetic attitudes towards individuals with obesity. However, the persistence of negative stereotypes, particularly those related to self-control, indicates that the food addiction model alone may not be sufficient to combat stigma. The findings indicate that the food addiction model can lead to a reduction in the personal blame attributed to individuals with obesity, which is a positive outcome in the context of stigma reduction [5]. This model’s focus on biological and neurological factors can shift the narrative away from personal failure, potentially fostering more empathy and support. However, while the food addiction model reduces blame, it does not entirely eliminate stigma. Participants exposed to this model still reported higher levels of stigma compared to the control group. This persistent stigma suggests that although the food addiction model addresses some aspects of negative attitudes, it may not fully resolve the complex social and psychological dimensions of weight-related stigma. The food addiction model’s emphasis on the addictive nature of certain foods might inadvertently reinforce stereotypes about lack of self-control, which could contribute to negative perceptions of individuals with obesity [6]. The study also found that participants in the food addiction group perceived individuals with obesity as having less control over their eating behaviors compared to those exposed to the behavioral model. This finding highlights the dual nature of the food addiction model—it reduces blame but may simultaneously perpetuate certain stereotypes. The perception of diminished control can lead to a more deterministic view of obesity, which might limit the perceived ability of individuals to change their behaviors or seek effective treatments. The implications of these findings for public health are significant. While the food addiction model offers a promising approach to reducing blame and fostering empathy, it must be implemented carefully to avoid reinforcing negative stereotypes [7]. Public health messages should balance the acknowledgment of biological factors with recognition of the complexity of obesity, including the role of lifestyle choices, environmental influences, and psychological factors. This balanced approach can help mitigate stigma while promoting a comprehensive understanding of obesity. Public health campaigns should also consider integrating multiple explanatory models to address the multifaceted nature of obesity. By combining insights from the food addiction model with other perspectives, such as behavioral and environmental factors, public health messages can provide a more nuanced and supportive framework for understanding and addressing obesity. Additionally, efforts to reduce stigma should focus on broader societal changes, including improving access to healthcare, promoting healthy environments, and challenging harmful stereotypes and discrimination [8]. This study has several limitations that should be considered. The use of self-reported measures may introduce biases, and the sample may not fully represent the general population. Future research should include diverse populations and employ a variety of methodological approaches to validate these findings. Longitudinal studies could also explore the long-term effects of different explanatory models on stigma and behavior change. Additionally, research should investigate how different models of eating behaviors influence actual treatment outcomes and behavioral changes. Understanding how these models affect individuals’ engagement with healthcare and their willingness to adopt healthy behaviors can provide further insights into their practical implications [9].

Implications for public health: These results have important implications for public health messaging. While the food addiction model may be useful in reducing personal blame, it should be presented carefully to avoid reinforcing harmful stereotypes. Public health campaigns may benefit from integrating multiple explanatory models that highlight the complexity of obesity without oversimplifying it as a matter of addiction or personal failure.

Limitations and future research: This study has several limitations, including its reliance on self-reported measures and a sample that may not be fully representative of the general population. Future research should explore the long-term effects of different explanatory models on weight stigma and investigate how these models influence actual behavior change and treatment outcomes [10].

Conclusion

The food addiction explanatory model has the potential to reduce blame and stigma associated with obesity, but it must be used with caution to avoid reinforcing negative stereotypes. A nuanced approach that incorporates multiple perspectives on eating behaviors may be more effective in reducing weight-related stigma and improving public health outcomes. By continuing to explore and refine approaches to stigma reduction, we can work towards more inclusive and effective strategies for addressing the complex challenges associated with obesity.

Acknowledgement

None

Conflict of Interest

None

1. Rim D, Wallace LA, Nabinger S, Persily A (2012) . Sci Total Environ. 432: 350-356.

,

2. Singer BC, Pass RZ, Delp WW, Lorenzetti DM, Maddalena RL (2017) . Build Environ. 43:3235–3242.

, ,

3. Kim H, Kang K, Kim T (2018) . Sustainability 10: 843.

,

4. Liu Q, Son YJ, Li L, Wood N, Senerat AM, et al. (2022) . Build Environ 207: 108448.

,

5. O’Leary C, Jones B, Hall I (2018) .

,

6. O’Leary C, De Kluizenaar Y, Jacobs P, Borsboom W, Hall I, et al. (2019) . Indoor Air 29: 423-438.

, ,

7. Jacobs P, Cornelissen E (2017) .
8. He C, Morawska L, Hitchins J, Gilbert D (2004) Contribution from indoor sources to particle number and massconcentrations in residential houses. Atmos Environ 38: 3405-3415.

, ,

9. Dobbin NA, Sun L, Wallace L, Kulka R, You H, et al. (2018) . Build Environ 135: 286-296.

,

10. Goldberg M, Burnett R, Bailar J, Brook J, Bonvalot Y, et al. (2001) . Environ Res 86: 12–25.

,