Participants
A total of 330 students (Mage= 18.620, SDage = 1.33) from a U.S. southeastern university completed the survey (Table 2). Students identified as white (69.4%), black (15.5%), Hispanic or Latinx (5.1%), Asian (4.4%) or other (4%). Most students were freshman (80.4%), female (60.4%), and identified as straight (91.2%). Height and weight were self-reported (MBMI = 23.8; Min = 16.64; Max = 41.6).
Model Rating Scale Evaluation
Bartlett’s test was significant (p > .001) and the KMO value was .80 suggesting that data was able to accommodate a factor analysis [27]. The initial factor analysis confirmed that the four items loaded onto one factor through examination of the scree plot and eigenvalues [26]. Proportion of variance from all factor loadings was 70%, which is acceptable for social sciences [27]. The CFA suggested that the model yielded good fit, X² (2) = 34.21, CFI = .96, TLI = .88, and SRMR = .04, RMSEA is not reported due to the small degree of freedom [29]. Factor loadings for all four items were significant (p < .001) and values are provided in Table 1.
Comparison of Thin and Plus Size Model Ratings
There was a significant difference between the scores for plus size models (M = 11.69, SD = 2.52) and thin models (M = 14.68, SD = 1.68); t(329)= 29.16, p < .001. Thin models received more positive ratings.
Associations Among Model Ratings and Weight-Related Constructs
Higher ratings of thin models were positively associated with ratings of plus size models (Table 3). Higher ratings of thin models were negatively correlated with AFA Dislike and AFA Willpower scale, and pressure to be thin from peers. Plus size model ratings were negatively correlated with AFA Dislike and Willpower, a drive to look athletic, pressure to be thin from peers, but positively correlated with pressure to be thin from the media.
Predictions of Plus Sized Model Ratings
In the model with AFA Dislike, thin model ratings significantly predicted plus size ratings and accounted for 47% of the variation in plus size model ratings in block 1. The addition of the AFA Dislike subscale in block 2 explained an additional 6% of the variation, suggesting a .25 decrease on the scale for plus size models for every standard deviation of the AFA Dislike Scale. Similar patterns were encountered for AFA Willpower, SATAQ Athletic, and SATAQ Media subscales (Table 4).
Predictors and Differences Among Model Ratings and Participant Characteristics
Men (M = 10.31, SD = 2.34) and women (M =12.60, SD = 2.21); t(328)=-8.98, p < .001 had significantly different ratings of plus size models. There was also a significant difference for thin models when comparing ratings from men (M = 14.34, SD = 1.58) and women (M =14.90, SD = 1.71); t(328)=-3.01, p < .01. Gender was significantly predictive of plus-sized model ratings beyond thin-sized model ratings, and explained an additional 11% variability in ratings of plus size models (Table 5). Thus, female participants rated plus size models more positively.
In terms of weight bias, men reported higher levels of dislike of fat (M =18.8, SD = 9.2) than women (M =13.4, SD = 7.9); t(328)=5.40, p < .001 and higher belief that weight is a matter of willpower (M =12.5, SD = 5.2) than women (M =10.0, SD = 4.6); t(328)=4.61, p < .001. Women reported a higher fear of fat (M =11.8, SD = 5.7) than men (M =9.6, SD = 4.8); t(328)=-3.65, p < .001.
BMI was found to be just significant in relation to model ratings, explaining 1% variability in ratings of plus size models (Table 5). Individuals with higher BMI’s rated plus size models more positively.
Mediational Analysis
Model Ratings as Mediated by AFA Dislike, Controlling for Gender. Thin model ratings were significantly predictive of plus size model ratings without considering AFA Dislike, b =.94, t(317) = 17.02, p < .001. There was a significant, negative relationship between thin models ratings and AFA Dislike, b =-1.51, t(318) = -5.41, p < .001. The mediator, AFA Dislike, was significant in predicting plus size model ratings after controlling for thin model ratings, b = -.05, t(317) = -4.51, p < .001. The relationship between both model ratings was still significant after controlling for AFA Dislike, b = .87, t(318) = 15.41, p < .001, suggesting partial mediation; AFA Dislike accounts partially for the overall lower scores among plus size models in comparison to thin models, even when controlling for gender. The two other AFA subscales were considered as mediators, but were not found to be significant.
Gender and Plus Size Model Ratings as Mediated by AFA Subscales, Controlling for Thin Size Model Ratings. Gender was significantly predictive of plus size model ratings without considering the mediators, b =2.31, t(318) = 8.99, p < .001. There was a significant, negative relationship between gender and AFA Dislike, b =-5.39, t(318) = -5.58, p < .001, and separately, there was a significant, negative relationship between gender and AFA Willpower, b =-2.45, t(318) = -4.41, p < .001. The mediators were significant in predicting plus size model ratings, controlling for gender, for AFA Dislike, b =-0.08, t(316) = -5.12, p < .001, and AFA Willpower, b =-0.06, t(316) = -2.25, p < .05. The relationship between gender and plus size model ratings was significant after specifically controlling for both mediators, b = 1.71, t(316) = 6.88, p < .001, suggesting partial mediation. Bootstrapped indirect effects for both mediators, in comparison to the direct effect, suggested the proportion of the total effect that operates indirectly on the relationship between gender and plus size model ratings was 4.4% for AFA Dislike and 1.5% for AFA Willpower. Men were more critical towards plus size models, and had higher levels of AFA Dislike and AFA Willpower.