Cited by 102Obesity and Health PracticesDiscrimination and Equality LawObesity, Physical Activity, Diet

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Potential Policies and Laws to Prohibit Weight Discrimination: Public Views from 4 Countries

Open access
PUHL, REBECCA M., LATNER, JANET D., O'BRIEN, KERRY S., LUEDICKE, JOERG, DANIELSDOTTIR, SIGRUN, SALAS, XIMENA RAMOS·2015·The Milbank Quarterly

Abstract

Policy Points : Policies and legal protections against weight‐based discrimination have broad public support in 4 nations where this discrimination is widely documented. Public support was strongest for policies and laws that would prohibit employers from denying employment, assigning lower wages, and refusing promotion to people based on their weight status. Women and individuals with higher weight expressed the greatest support. Weight discrimination is common in numerous life settings, creating social and economic inequities and adverse health outcomes. Policies and legal measures protecting against such discrimination need to be developed and implemented in the United States and elsewhere and would have considerable public support. Context: People viewed as “overweight” or “obese” are vulnerable to weight‐based discrimination, creating inequities and adverse health outcomes. Given the high rates of obesity recorded globally, studies documenting weight discrimination in multiple countries, and an absence of legislation to address this form of discrimination, research examining policy remedies across different countries is needed. Our study provides the first multinational examination of public support for policies and legislation to prohibit weight discrimination. Methods: Identical online surveys were completed by 2,866 adults in the United States, Canada, Australia, and Iceland. We assessed public support for potential laws to prohibit weight‐based discrimination, such as adding body weight to existing civil rights statutes, extending disability protections to persons with obesity, and instituting legal measures to prohibit employers from discriminating against employees because of body weight. We examined sociodemographic and weight‐related characteristics predicting support for antidiscrimination policies, and the differences in these patterns across countries. Findings: The majority of participants in the United States, Canada, and Australia agreed that their government should have specific laws in place to prohibit weight discrimination. At least two‐thirds of the participants in all 4 countries expressed support for policies that would make it illegal for employers to refuse to hire, assign lower wages, deny promotions, or terminate qualified employees because of body weight. Women and participants with higher body weight expressed more support for antidiscrimination measures. Beliefs about the causes of obesity were also related to support for these laws. Conclusions: Public support for legal measures to prohibit weight discrimination can be found in the United States, Canada, Australia, and Iceland, especially for laws to remedy this discrimination in employment. Our findings provide important information for policymakers and interest groups both nationally and internationally and can help guide discussions about policy priorities to reduce inequities resulting from weight discrimination.

Overview

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 · 10.1111/1468-0009.12162

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

  • Evidence in North America, Europe, Australia, and Iceland suggests that there might be substantial public support to enact and pass legislation to prohibit weight discrimination.

    “However, evidence in North America, Europe, Australia, and Iceland suggests that there might be substantial public support to enact and pass legislation to prohibit weight discrimination75,76.”

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 68

  1. 10.1038/ijo.2008.22 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1038/oby.2001.108 · DOI
  3. 10.1016/j.jvb.2008.09.008 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00993.x · DOI
  5. 10.1038/oby.2008.35 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1001/jama.2012.39 · DOI
  7. 10.1038/oby.2009.131 · DOI
  8. 10.1002/jclp.20749 · DOI
  9. 10.2105/AJPH.2009.159491 · DOI
  10. 10.1371/journal.pone.0070048 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1002/oby.20891 · DOI
  12. 10.1007/s12160-010-9238-9 · DOI
  13. 10.1177/002214650504600303 · DOI
  14. 10.1002/hec.881 · DOI
  15. 10.2307/3559022 · DOI
  16. 10.1023/A:1007712500496 · DOI
  17. 10.1016/j.jvb.2007.04.008 · DOI
  18. 10.1123/jsm.21.2.172 · DOI
  19. 10.1038/oby.2008.456 · DOI
  20. 10.1038/oby.2008.452 · DOI
  21. Binghamton Human Rights Law §§45‐1‐10 (2008). · DOI
  22. Theran EE, 2005, Weight Bias: Nature, Consequences, and Remedies, 195
  23. Kirkland A, 2008, Fat Rights: Dilemmas of Difference and Personhood
  24. 10.1002/oby.20094 · DOI · Paper page
  25. EEOC Press Release. July 24 2012.http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/7‐24‐12c.cfm. Accessed September 15 2015. · DOI
  26. EEOC Press Release. April 10 2012.http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/4‐10‐12a.cfm. Accessed September 15 2015. · DOI
  27. 10.1016/j.ehb.2010.12.001 · DOI
  28. 10.7570/kjo.2011.20.4.210 · DOI
  29. Rooth DO, 2009, Obesity, attractiveness, and differential treatment in hiring; a field experiment, J Hum Resources, 44, 710
  30. 10.1016/j.ehb.2008.09.001 · DOI
  31. 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2005.09.005 · DOI
  32. 10.1001/archpedi.1994.02170070019003 · DOI
  33. 10.1016/j.ehb.2006.11.002 · DOI
  34. 10.1016/S0731-2199(06)17009-0 · DOI
  35. 10.1016/j.ehb.2009.01.006 · DOI
  36. 10.1186/1471-2458-12-525 · DOI
  37. Luther E, 2010, Justice for all shapes and sizes: combatting weight discrimination in Canada, Alberta Law Rev, 48, 167, 10.29173/alr167 · DOI
  38. 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60813-1 · DOI · Paper page
  39. 10.1215/03616878-30-5-923 · DOI
  40. 10.1038/oby.2010.126 · DOI
  41. 10.1038/ijo.2010.194 · DOI
  42. 10.1002/oby.20750 · DOI
  43. 10.1057/jphp.2011.45 · DOI
  44. 10.4236/ojpm.2012.24067 · DOI
  45. 10.1038/ijo.2012.52 · DOI
  46. 10.1371/journal.pone.0083543 · DOI
  47. 10.1016/j.jcjd.2013.02.059 · DOI
  48. Lonner WJ, 1986, Field Methods in Cross‐Cultural Research
  49. Davis J, 2004, The relationship between ethnicity and obesity in Asian and Pacific Islander populations: a literature review, Ethnicity Dis, 14, 111
  50. 10.1080/10640266.2011.584813 · DOI
  51. 10.1080/08870446.2014.916807 · DOI
  52. 10.1038/oby.2003.161 · DOI · Paper page
  53. 10.1002/eat.22186 · DOI
  54. 10.1002/oby.20637 · DOI
  55. 10.1080/01973533.2012.746148 · DOI
  56. 10.1037/0022-3514.66.5.882 · DOI
  57. 10.1016/j.bodyim.2007.06.001 · DOI
  58. 10.2307/1924766 · DOI · Paper page
  59. Horner K., 2005, A growing problem: why the federal government needs to shoulder the burden in protecting workers from weight discrimination, Catholic University Law Rev, 54, 589
  60. Spitz L., Iceland: end of the constitutional saga?, Huffington Post
  61. 10.1159/000276547 · DOI
  62. 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2007.tb01354.x · DOI
  63. 10.1177/1049732314529667 · DOI
  64. 10.1177/01461672962211007 · DOI
  65. 10.1037/0278-6133.24.5.517 · DOI
  66. 10.1007/BF03325299 · DOI
  67. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00196.x · DOI
  68. 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.11.017 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
PUHL, R. M., LATNER, J. D., O'BRIEN, K. S., LUEDICKE, J., DANIELSDOTTIR, S., & SALAS, X. R.
Affiliations
  • University of Connecticut (US)
  • University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa (US)
  • Monash University Melbourne
  • StataCorp (United States) (US)
  • Directorate of Health Iceland
  • Canadian Obesity Network (CA)
Corresponding author
PUHL, REBECCA M.
Venue
The Milbank Quarterly
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-12
Volume
93
Issue
4
Pages
691-731
ISSN
  • 0887-378X (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-0009
OpenAlex
W2185245939
Cited by
102
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 2
FWCI
5.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Milbank Quarterly (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Rudd Foundation
  • University of Connecticut
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Obesity and Health Practices
  • Social Sciences › Law › Discrimination and Equality Law
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Keywords
weight discrimination, obesity, anti-discrimination policy, employment discrimination, body weight, civil rights legislation, disability protection, gender differences, cross-national comparison, health disparities
MeSH terms
Adult, Australia, Body Weight, Canada, Employment, Female, Health Status, Humans, Iceland, Male, Obesity, Prejudice, Public Opinion, United States, Social Discrimination

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