Cited by 690Obesity and Health PracticesEating Disorders and BehaviorsObesity, Physical Activity, Diet

Weight stigma is stressful. A review of evidence for the Cyclic Obesity/Weight-Based Stigma model

Open access
Tomiyama, A. Janet·2014·Appetite

Abstract

Weight stigma is highly pervasive, but its consequences are understudied. This review draws from theory in social psychology, health psychology, and neuroendocrinology to construct an original, generative model called the cyclic obesity/weight-based stigma (COBWEBS) model. This model characterizes weight stigma as a "vicious cycle" - a positive feedback loop wherein weight stigma begets weight gain. This happens through increased eating behavior and increased cortisol secretion governed by behavioral, emotional, and physiological mechanisms, which are theorized to ultimately result in weight gain and difficulty of weight loss. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the existing literature for evidence supporting such a model, propose ways in which individuals enter, fight against, and exit the cycle, and conclude by outlining fruitful future directions in this nascent yet important area of research.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.appet.2014.06.108

Cites

111 of 111 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Epel, E., Tomiyama, A. J., & Dallman, M. F. (2012). Stress and reward neural networks, eating, and obesity. In K. Brownell & M. S. Gold (Eds.), Handbook of food and addiction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  2. Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. A. (1997). Objectification theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(2), 173-206.
  3. Teegardin, C. (2012). Grim childhood obesity ads stir critics. The Atlanta Journal- Constitution, 1 January 2012, Atlanta, GA.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tomiyama, A. J.
Affiliations
University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
Tomiyama, A. Janet
Venue
Appetite
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-11
Volume
82
Pages
8-15
ISSN
0195-6663 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2138305066
Cited by
690
References
110
Citations by year
2026: 58 · 2025: 80 · 2024: 73 · 2023: 73 · 2022: 68 · 2021: 92 · 2020: 55 · 2019: 48 · 2018: 54 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 33 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 2
FWCI
5.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Appetite (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Obesity and Health Practices
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Eating Disorders and Behaviors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Keywords
weight stigma, obesity, vicious circle, positive feedback loop, weight gain, cortisol, dietary habits, stress, neuroendocrinology
MeSH terms
Feeding Behavior, Humans, Obesity, Stress, Psychological, Weight Gain, Weight Loss, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Social Stigma

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review