CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 43Obesity and Health PracticesEating Disorders and BehaviorsSocial and Intergroup Psychology

The effect of GLP-1 receptor agonist use on negative evaluations of women with higher and lower body weight

Open access
Post, Stacy M., Persky, Susan·2024·International Journal of Obesity
DOI 10.1038/s41366-024-01516-4PMC PMC12439114
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have dramatically altered obesity treatment. Media reports suggest that GLP-1 RAs users often report feeling judged for taking a "shortcut" to lose weight, which may be related to negative stereotypes toward people with larger bodies. Media reports also describe negative attitudes about lean people who take GLP-1 RAs to enhance their appearance. The present research used a 2 × 2 experimental design to test the effects of GLP-1 RA use and body size on attitudes and egocentric impressions. Subjects/methods A sample of 357 U.S. adults (M age = 37.8, SD = 13) were randomly assigned to read about a woman, who either was lean or had obesity, and who lost 15% of her body weight either with diet/exercise or a GLP-1 RA. Participants answered questions measuring endorsement of negative weight-related stereotypes and egocentric attitudes toward the woman, as well as beliefs that she took a shortcut to lose weight and beliefs that biogenetic factors caused her baseline weight. Results Negative evaluations and egocentric impressions were stronger toward a woman who lost weight with a GLP-1 RA compared to diet/exercise. Losing weight with a GLP-1 RA led to stronger negative evaluations through higher weight loss shortcut beliefs irrespective of body size. Losing weight with a GLP-1 RA also led to higher egocentric impressions through higher shortcut beliefs, and this effect was stronger for a lean woman. Finally, losing weight with a GLP-1 RA led to more negative evaluations through stronger endorsement of biogenetic causal beliefs for a lean woman only. Conclusions This timely study provides evidence that people with larger and smaller bodies alike are at-risk for being judged for using GLP-1 RAs due to beliefs that these medications are a shortcut. Findings also demonstrate novel reactions related to egotism when weight loss is achieved with pharmacological interventions. PRE-REGISTRATION AND DATA: osf.io/xme4w.

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 · 10.1038/s41366-024-01516-4

Cites

2 of 2 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?

  • People using GLP1-RAs have reported similar reactions from others.

    “People using GLP1-RAs have reported similar reactions from others.136”

    From The societal implications of using glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists for the treatment of obesity (2025) · cites this paper as [136]

  • Early evidence points to similar QoL outcomes following GLP1-RA-supported weight loss as after bariatric surgery.

    “Early evidence points to similar outcomes following GLP1-RA-supported weight loss.136”

    From The societal implications of using glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists for the treatment of obesity (2025) · cites this paper as [136]

    The Discussion compares negative judgments of GLP-1 RA users with prior findings about bariatric surgery, not quality-of-life outcomes. The Methods describes a survey of attitudes toward a hypothetical woman, and searches for quality of life and comparable post-treatment outcomes found no passage addressing the claimed comparison. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 31

  1. [1]Prillaman M. The ‘breakthrough’ obesity drugs that have stunned researchers. Nature. 2023 Jan 5; 613(7942): 16– 8. 36600062
  2. [6]Prunty A, Clark MK, Hahn A, Edmonds S, O’Shea A. Enacted weight stigma and weight self stigma prevalence among 3821 adults. Obesity Research & Clinical Practice. 2020 Sep; 14(5): 421– 7. 32952068
  3. [7]Brochu PM, Esses VM. What’s in a Name? The Effects of the Labels “Fat” Versus “Overweight” on Weight Bias1: EFFECTS OF WEIGHT LABELS. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2011 Aug; 41(8): 1981– 2008.
  4. [8]Wu Y, Berry DC. Impact of weight stigma on physiological and psychological health outcomes for overweight and obese adults: A systematic review. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2018 May; 74(5): 1030– 42. 29171076
  5. [9]Hoyt CL, Burnette JL, Auster-Gussman L, Blodorn A, Major B. The obesity stigma asymmetry model: The indirect and divergent effects of blame and changeability beliefs on antifat prejudice. Stigma and Health. 2017 Feb; 2(1): 53– 65.
  6. [10]Crandall CS. Prejudice against fat people: Ideology and self-interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1994; 66(5): 882– 94. 8014833
  7. [11]Martingano AJ, Telaak SH, Schopp EM, Fortney C, Dolwick AP, Carnell S, Using Educational Videos and Perspective-Taking to Communicate Gene-By-Environment Interaction Concepts about Eating Behavior: Effects on Empathy and Weight Stigma. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior. 2023 Jan; 55(1): 55– 67. 36621267 PMC9833839
  8. [12]Persky S, Eccleston CP. Impact of Genetic Causal Information on Medical Students’ Clinical Encounters with an Obese Virtual Patient: Health Promotion and Social Stigma. ann behav med. 2011 Jun; 41(3): 363– 72. 21136226 PMC3098938
  9. [14]Xing S, Sharp LK, Touchette DR. Weight loss drugs and lifestyle modification: Perceptions among a diverse adult sample. Patient Education and Counseling. 2017 Mar; 100(3): 592– 7. 27847132
  10. [15]Fardouly J, Vartanian LR. Changes in weight bias following weight loss: the impact of weight-loss method. Int J Obes. 2012 Feb; 36(2): 314– 9. 21364528
  11. [16]Mattingly BA, Stambush MA, Hill AE. Shedding the Pounds but not the Stigma: Negative Attributions as a Function of a Target’s Method of Weight Loss: ATTRIBUTIONS OF WEIGHT LOSS. Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research. 2009 Jan 15; 14(3): 128– 44.
  12. [17]Vartanian LR, Fardouly J. The Stigma of Obesity Surgery: Negative Evaluations Based on Weight Loss History. OBES SURG. 2013 Oct; 23(10): 1545– 50. 23519633
  13. [18]Tchang BG, Aras M, Kumar RB, Aronne LJ. Pharmacologic Treatment of Overweight and Obesity in Adults. In: Feingold KR, Anawalt B, Blackman MR, Boyce A, Chrousos G, Corpas E,, editors. Endotext [Internet]. South Dartmouth (MA): MDText.com, Inc.; 2000 [cited 2023 Sep 26]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK279038/
  14. [23]Bonell S, Barlow FK, Griffiths S. The cosmetic surgery paradox: Toward a contemporary understanding of cosmetic surgery popularisation and attitudes. Body Image. 2021 Sep; 38: 230– 40. 33962222
  15. [25]Elboim-Gabyzon M, Attar K, Peleg S. Weight Stigmatization among Physical Therapy Students and Registered Physical Therapists. Obes Facts. 2020; 13(2): 104– 16. 32074613 PMC7250323
  16. [26]Flint SW, Hudson J, Lavallee D. UK adults’ implicit and explicit attitudes towards obesity: a cross-sectional study. BMC Obes. 2015 Dec; 2(1): 31. 26351567 PMC4560922
  17. [27]Puhl RM, Latner JD, O’Brien K, Luedicke J, Danielsdottir S, Forhan M. A multinational examination of weight bias: predictors of anti-fat attitudes across four countries. Int J Obes. 2015 Jul; 39(7): 1166– 73. 25809827
  18. [28]Cobanoglu C, Cavusoglu M, Turktarhan G. A beginner’s guide and best practices for using crowdsourcing platforms for survey research: The Case of Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). JGBI. 2021 Mar; 6(1): 92– 7.
  19. [29]Pearl RL, Lebowitz MS. Beyond personal responsibility: Effects of causal attributions for overweight and obesity on weight-related beliefs, stigma, and policy support. Psychology & Health. 2014 Oct 3; 29(10): 1176– 91. 24754230
  20. [30]Bacon J, Scheltema K, Robinson B. Fat phobia scale revisited: the short form. Int J Obes. 2001 Feb; 25(2): 252– 7. 11410828
  21. [31]Cohen J Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates; 1988.
  22. [33]Puhl RM, Liu S. A national survey of public views about the classification of obesity as a disease: Public Views About Obesity as a Disease. Obesity. 2015 Jun; 23(6): 1288– 95. 25970728
  23. [35]SIX Voluntary and Involuntary Exposure to Information: Theory. In: A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance [Internet]. Stanford University Press; 1957 [cited 2023 Sep 27]. p. 123– 37. Available from: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781503620766-007/html · DOI
  24. [36]Kruger J, Wirtz D, Van Boven L, Altermatt TW. The effort heuristic. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2004 Jan; 40(1): 91– 8.
  25. [37]Beames JR, Black MJ, Vartanian LR. Prejudice toward individuals with obesity: Evidence for a pro-effort bias. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. 2016 Jun; 22(2): 184– 95. 26866441
  26. [38]Throsby K The War on Obesity as a Moral Project: Weight Loss Drugs, Obesity Surgery and Negotiating Failure. Science as Culture. 2009 Jun; 18(2): 201– 16.
  27. [39]Ringel MM, Ditto PH. The moralization of obesity. Social Science & Medicine. 2019 Sep; 237: 112399. 31377501
  28. [40]Hofmann B Stuck in the Middle: The Many Moral Challenges With Bariatric Surgery. The American Journal of Bioethics. 2010 Dec 16; 10(12): 3– 11. 21161829
  29. [43]Himmelstein MS, Puhl RM, Quinn DM. Intersectionality: An Understudied Framework for Addressing Weight Stigma. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2017 Oct; 53(4): 421– 31. 28579331
  30. [44]Jackson SE, Beeken RJ, Wardle J. Obesity, perceived weight discrimination, and psychological well-being in older adults in England: Obesity, Discrimination, and Well-being. Obesity. 2015 May; 23(5): 1105– 11. 25809860 PMC4414736
  31. [45]Puhl RM, Himmelstein MS, Pearl RL, Wojtanowski AC, Foster GD. Weight Stigma Among Sexual Minority Adults: Findings from a Matched Sample of Adults Engaged in Weight Management. Obesity. 2019 Nov; 27(11): 1906– 15. 31689008 PMC6839787

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Post, S. M., & Persky, S.
Affiliations
  • George Washington University (US)
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Post, Stacy M.
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Obesity
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2024-04-01
Volume
48
Issue
7
Pages
1019-1026
ISSN
  • 0307-0565 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-5497
DOI
10.1038/s41366-024-01516-4
PMC
PMC12439114
OpenAlex
W4393381776
Cited by
43
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 5
FWCI
24.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Journal of Obesity (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (ZIAHG200396)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Obesity and Health Practices
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Eating Disorders and Behaviors
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
GLP-1 receptor agonists, weight loss, body size, obesity treatment, weight stigma, women, pharmacological weight loss
MeSH terms
Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists, Adult, Body Image, Body Weight, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Obesity, Stereotyping, United States, Weight Loss

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