xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001913847
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 071017s2005 flu sbm 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0001407
Fat commentary and fat humor presented in visual media :
b a content analysis
h [electronic resource] /
by Susan Himes.
[Tampa, Fla] :
University of South Florida,
ABSTRACT: In order to examine the phenomenon of fat messages presented through visual media, a content analysis was used to quantify and categorize fat-specific commentary. Fat commentary vignettes were identified using a targeted sampling procedure, and 135 scenes were excised from movies and TV shows. The material was coded by trained raters. Reliability indices were uniformly high for the seven categories (% agreement ranged from .90-.98; kappas ranged from .66-.94). Results indicated that fat commentary and fat humor is often verbal, directed toward another person, and is often presented directly in the presence of the overweight target. Results also indicated that male characters are three times more likely to engage in fat commentary or fat humor than female characters. These findings provide the first information regarding the specific gender, age, and types of fat commentary that occur frequently in movies and TV shows. The stimuli should prove useful in future research examining the role of individual difference factors (e.g., BMI) in the reaction to viewing such vignettes.
Thesis (M.A. )--University of South Florida, 2005.
Includes bibliographical references.
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 25 pages.
Adviser: J. Kevin Thompson, Ph.D.
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
Fat Commentary and Fat Humor Presented in Visual Media: A Content Analysis by Susan Himes A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement s for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Psychology College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: J. Kevin Thompson, Ph.D. Michael Brannick, Ph.D. Joseph Vandello, Ph.D. Date of Approval: February 15, 2005 Keywords: Stigmatization, Weight Prejudi ce, Anti-Fat Bias, Media, Television Copyright 2005, Susan Himes
Table of Contents List of Tables ii Abstract iii Introduction 3 Fat Stigmatization 3 Fat Stigmatization in Media 4 Critique of Media Literature 5 Hypotheses 6 Method 7 Sampling Approach 7 Coding Procedure 9 Selection of Items 9 Random Assignment of Media Stimuli 10 Inter-rater Reliability Procedures and Results 10 Results 13 Discussion 16 References 19 Appendices 22 Appendix A: Measures 23 i
List of Tables Table 1 Inter-rater Reliability for Each Category 11 Table 2 Frequencies of Fat Commentary Within Categories 15 ii
Fat Commentary and Fat Humor Presented in Visual Media: A Content Analysis Susan Himes ABSTRACT In order to examine the phenomenon of fat messages presented through visual media, a content analysis was used to quantify and categorize fat-specific commentary. Fat commentary vignettes were identified using a targeted sampling procedure, and 135 scenes were excised from movies and TV shows. The material was coded by trained raters. Reliability indices were uniformly high for the seven categories (% agreement ranged from .90-.98; kappas ranged from .66-.94). Results indicated that fat commentary and fat humor is often verbal, directed toward another person, and is often presented directly in the presence of the overweight target. Results also indicated that male characters are three times more likely to engage in fat commentary or fat humor than female characters. These findings provide the first information regarding the specific gender, age, and types of fat commentary that occur frequently in movies and TV shows. The stimuli should prove useful in future research examining the role of individual difference factors (e.g., BMI) in the reaction to viewing such vignettes. iii
3 Introduction Fat Stigmatization The glorification of the thin ideal and denigration of its opposite, an overweight or obese status, has been l abeled fat stigmatization (NeumarkStzainer & Haines, 2004). While raci sm and sexism, or the endorsement of stereotypes related to these issues, appears to have decreased over the last 80 years (Bobo, 2001; Fiske, 2003), there is littl e evidence that f at disparagement is on the wan (Crandall, 1994; Robinson, Bacon, OReilly, 1993; Thompson, Heinberg, Altabe, & Tant leff-Dunn, 1999). Negative weight-related commentary emanating from sources such as peer s, parents and romantic partners has received substantial research attention and many researchers view the media as providing the impetus and model for i ndividuals who engage in fat humor (Thompson et al., 1999). Fat stereotyping in the media begins with a culture that promotes fat stigmatization. The psychosocial consequences of obesity are numerous and emerge from cultural val ues emphasizing the import ance of thinness (World Health Organization [WHO], 1998). Negat ive attitudes about body fat contribute to weight-related stigmatization (Cranda ll, 1994; Neumark-Sztainer & Haines, 2004). Previous research indicates t hat overweight individuals are often negatively stereotyped, treat ed differently, and face discrimination (Crandall,
4 1994; Crandall, 1995; Crik, 1997; Galen & Underwood, 1997; Ne umark-Sztainer, Story, & Faibisch, 1998; Rothblum, Brand, Miller, & Oetjen, 1990; Staffieri, 1967). Fat Stigmatization in Media Fat stigmatization is often presented in the form of commentary and humor through entertainment media. In a series of content analyses, Fouts and colleagues (1999, 2000, 2002) examined positive and negative verbal commentary received by characters in prim e-time television situation comedies. Fouts and Burggraf (1999) found that fe male overweight characters are underrepresented on television and that below average weight female characters receive more positive comments from male characters than overweight female characters. In a follow-up study, Fout s and Burggraf (2000) found, conversely, that the higher the weight of the female character, the more negative comments she received from male characters. In addition, Fouts and Vaughan (2002) found that although there was a higher prev alence of overweight among male characters than female characters, only 9% of males received negative comments from females regarding their weight. Importantly, Fouts and Burggraf (2000) found that audience laughter wa s significantly associated with men making negative comments about wom ens appearance, whereas Fouts and Vaughan (2002) found no association between womens comments on mens appearance and audience laughter. Fout s and Vaughn (2002) argued that popular prime-time programs reinforc e discriminatory behavior against women
5 based on weight and size, whereas heavy males receive little punishment or rejection, indicating a thin-ideal double standard in popular media programs. Fat stigmatization in media may influenc e children as well as adults. In a content analysis of childrens popular mo vies, Herbozo, Tantleff-Dunn, GokeeLarose, and Thompson (2004) found t hat obesity was equated with negative traits (evil, unattractive, unfriendly, cruel ) in 64% of the most popular childrens videos. In 72% of the videos, characters with thin bodies had desirable traits, such as kindness or happiness. Critique of Media Literature Although the issue of fat stigma tization is associated with negative psychosocial consequences (Neumark -Stzainer & Haines, 2004), with the exception of the few empi rical analyses noted above, little quantitative work has focused on a specific content analysis of instances of such fat disparagement in the media. The work of Fouts and colleag ues, although intriguing, was limited in terms of scope (narrow stimulus sampling) to an examination of 28 (Fouts & Burggraf, 1999), 36 (Fouts & Burggra f, 2000), and 27 (Fouts & Vaughn, 2002) situation comedy episodes. In a simila r vein, Herbozo et al. (2004) evaluated only the top 25 childrens movies and top 20 books. To date, a broad content analysis of movies and television designed to pinpoint fat humor vignettes has not been undertaken. Such a survey could provide information regarding the gender and age of those perpetuating and receiving negative weight-based comments, as well as yielding specifics
6 regarding the verbal and nonverbal natur e of such instances. Additionally, a content analysis of fat humor, resulting in a reliable set of stimuli, could potentially be used in work designed to explor e individual difference factors in the experience of such humor. For instance, it is possible that overweight or obese individuals may be more negatively affect ed by the viewing of fat humor than persons who are not overweight. Additionally, such a set of stimuli would allow for independent ratings of the humorousness of such material, revealing just which particular vignettes are rated as f unny (and by whom) and what material is seen as demeaning and unacceptable. Hypotheses Accordingly, the present study wa s designed to examine and quantify forms of fat-specific co mmentary found in television and movie media. The purposes of the study were threefold. First, a content analysis was performed to collect fat-specific commentary and fac ilitate the development of a categorization scheme. Second, inter-rater reliability was calculated to examine support for assignment of commentary to specific cat egories. Third, chi-square tests were conducted, when indicated, to test for differential categorical effects (e.g., gender).
7 Method Sampling Approach A targeted sampling approach was ut ilized to obtain fat-specific commentary and humor. Material was select ed using four methods: 1) a power search was conducted using an internet movie database (IMDb) to select for American movie and television plots fr om 1984-2004 containing the keywords obese, fat, and overweight, 2) T.V. sitcom guides were reviewed for weightrelated plots, 3) shelves at movie rent al stores were combed for possible plots and themes containing fat disparagement and, 4) films and T.V. shows were recommended by an eight member research group specializing in body image. Although content analyses are often used to investigate prevalence rates of a phenomenon, the targeted sampling approach employed in this study was not designed to index prevalence, given that the universe of TV shows and movies is of such magnitude to make such an analys is impossible. In stead, the sampling approach used in the current study was designed to locate as many fat commentary vignettes as possible, with a goal of analyzing the particularities of the social interactions (e.g., gender, age, verbal/nonverbal nature of the incident). This sampling procedure yielded 25 movies and 10 television series (see List-A and List-B).
8 List-A Movies Used for Content Analysis (1984-2004) Hannah and Her Sisters (1986) She-Devil (1989) Hook (1991) Heavyweights (1995) Major Payne (1995) The Nutty Professor (1996) Thinner (1996) Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me (1999) South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut (1999) Erin Brockovich (2000) Im the One that I Want with Margaret Cho (2000) The Tao of Steve (2000) Bridget Joness Diary (2001) Harry Potter and the Sorcerers Stone (2001) Monsters Ball (2001) On Edge (2001) Shallow Hal (2001) Shrek (2001) Summer Catch (2001) My Big Fat Greek Wedding (2002) Raising Victor Vargas (2002) Camp (2003) Love Actually (2003) Dodge Ball: A True Underdog Story (2004) Mean Girls (2004) List-B Television Programs Used for Content Analysis (1984-2004) Growing Pains (1985-1992) The Golden Girls (1985-1992) Martin (1992-1997) Friends (1994-2004) King of Queens (1998-current) Will and Grace (1998-current) Family Guy (1999-current) Saturday Night Live: The Best of Chris Rock (1999) The Parkers (1999-2004) The Tonight Show with Jay Leno (2004)
9 Coding Procedure Each vignette was coded and categoriz ed according to the following: a) gender of the commentator, b )gender of th e target, c) age of the commentator (children, adolescents, adults ), d) age of the target (children, adolescents, adults), e) target source (self, external in dividual, no specific target), f) type of comment (direct or indirect), and g) fo rm of comment (verbal or nonverbal). Each item was entered in a media edi ting database (Avid Xpress Pro Version 4.3) and was pruned of any response c ues following a fat comment (e.g., negative facial expressions, retorts). (Responses to commentary (e.g., upset expression) were deleted in ant icipation of using the set of stimuli for participant ratings in future research, given that target responses to commentary may provide cues for the viewer to sympathi ze or to laugh, thus manipulating the interpretation of the commentary.) A pproximately 98 hours were devoted to viewing and coding material, and roughly 72 hours were spent editing material in AVID. Selection of Items A total of 180 fat-specific commentar y items were selected from the media sources. Two pilot sessions were conduc ted in which material was rated for humor. Following humor rating sessions and discussion of items, some items were deemed inappropriate for future analyses. Items were removed from further analyses for the following reasons: skinny person as the target of fat disparagement (10 items), no clear cat egory (10 items), layering (making ethnic
10 or sexual orientation or age references in addition to the fat commentary) (15 items), fat empowerment co mmentary (3 items), bad qualit y of media (3 items), and item not weight-related (4 items). Following the excl usion of these items, a total of 135 vignettes were used for the content analysis. Random Assignment of Media Stimuli All vignettes were initially assigned to categories by the first author. Material was then coded by independent ra ters. Items were first assigned a number and a computer based randomizer was employed to generate random numbers whereupon vignettes were placed in random order in accordance with the numbers generated. At this point, t he material was encoded on videotape in the random order. This in sured that fat-commentary presented to the raters would be less likely to receive an assignment to a category based on assumptions regarding the similari ties of items presented together. Inter-Rater Reliability Procedures Body image research lab mem bers (four graduate students, two undergraduate students) were trained to serv e as raters. Before evaluating the items, they were given descriptions for each category. The si x raters completed examples with items not used in the analysis. Discrepancies were resolved and coding criteria were refined. Followi ng the training, the raters independently coded the material without further discussion. Inter-rater reliability wa s calculated for each ca tegory. Raw proportion of agreement was obtained by calculating the percentages of agreement for each of
11 the seven categories. In order to obtain a more c onservative estimate of agreement, kappa was calculated to corre ct for agreement due to chance. The raw agreement percentages ranged fr om 90% to 98% across all categories; this indicates an excellent level of in ter-rater agreement (see Table 1). Table 1 Inter-rater Reliability for Each Category____ __________________________ Categories Raw Proportion of Agreement Kappa Gender of Comment ator .98 .94 Gender of Target .97 .94 Age of Commentator .93 .84 Age of Target .90 .81 Target Source (Self, Other, No specific target) .95 .87 Type (Direct or Indirect) .93 .84 Form (Verbal or Nonverbal) .93 .66 Estimates for kappa ranged from 66% to 94%; these estimates suggest that for the majority of categories, there was a ve ry high level of agreement among raters (Landis & Koch, 1977). The somewhat lower kappa estimate for the category form (.66), which would be c onsidered a substantia l or good level of agreement, must be examined in conjunction with base ra te information. Base rates of a phenomenon are in corporated in the kappa statistic, and the form category had a high base rate of ver bal commentary (88%) vs. nonverbal commentary (7%). Therefore, rates of agreement due to chance were extremely
12 high (80%), which lowered kappa. Thus, the lower kappa for the category form primarily reflects lopsided base ra tes rather than rater disagreement.
13 Results Chi-square Goodness-of-Fit tests were used to analyze data. There was a significant difference in frequency of fat commentary am ong commentators (x 2 (2, N=135) = 112.93, p <.001). Males (74%) were three ti mes more likely to make fat comments than women (25%). There was not a significant difference in frequency of fat commentary among targets (x 2 (1, N=135) = .197, p <.65). Males (49%) and females (45%) were almo st equally likely to become targets of fat disparagement. There was a significant difference in frequency of fat commentary among the age groups of the commentators (x 2 (2, N=135) = 85.18, p <.001). Adults (70%) were most likely to make fat comments, follo wed by children (16%) and adolescents (13%). There was also a si gnificant difference in frequency of fat commentary among the age gr oups of the targets (x 2 (2, N=135) = 61.62, p <.001). Adults (62%) were most likely to become the targets of fat commentary, followed by adolescents (17%) and children (15%). Additionally, there was a significa nt difference in frequency of fat commentary among target sources (x 2 (2, N=135) = 128.13, p <.001). Targets were overwhelmingly other persons (79% ), with a significantly lower number of fat comments made about oneself (10%) or about no specific target (a group of individuals) (10%). There was also a signi ficant difference for commentary types
14 (x 2 (1, N=135) = 11.27, p <.001). Direc t commentary (64%), or commentary occurring in the presence of the tar get, was more common than indirect commentary (35%), which was commentar y occurring when the target is absent. Finally, there was a significant effect for commentary form (x 2 (2, N=135) = 182.71, p <.001). Fat commentary was overwhelmingly verbal (88%), though some types of expression were nonv erbal (7%). Some individuals used a combination of both verbal and nonverbal commentary (4%). Additional categories were created in order to further explore the implications of the analyses. Percentages of items falling into each category are reported in Table 2.
15 Table 2 Frequencies of Fat Commentary Within Categories_______________________ Gender of Commentator Gender of Target Type of Comment Percentage of Items in Each Category Male Female Verbal, Nonverbal 33% Male Male Verbal, Nonverbal 37% Male Male children Verbal, Nonverbal 6% Male Self (male) Verbal, Nonverbal 7% Female Male Verbal, Nonverbal 12% Female Female Verbal, Nonverbal 12% Female Male children Verbal, Nonverbal 2% Female Self (female) Verbal, Nonverbal 3% Adolescents Adolescents Verbal, Nonverbal 12% Children Children Verbal, Nonverbal 7% Male and Female No specific target Verbal, Nonverbal 10% Men engaged in fat commentary toward both men (37%) and women (33%) in approximately similar amounts and women also engaged in fat commentary toward both men (12%) and wo men (12%) in similar amounts. However, men had much higher frequenc ies of expressing fat commentary (74%).
16 Discussion The findings from this content anal ysis indicate that characters often confront one another directly with fat co mmentary. The data also suggest that the overwhelming majority of fat-specific material is verbal as opposed to nonverbal. Another interesting finding from the content analysis is that the target source is almost always another person. Fat comments made about the self are much less common. The findings also indi cate that male characters are three times more likely to engage in fat commentar y or fat humor; in contrast, female characters rarely engage in fat commentar y directed toward male characters. These data support previous findings of a double standard in weight-related media commentary directed toward women ( Fouts & Vaughn, 2002). However, the findings of higher levels of fat co mmentary expressed by men than women may be due partially to higher base rates of male characters on television. Nevertheless, these findings may accurate ly reflect genuine differences in the gender of commentators expressing fatspecific comments in the media. One particularly useful framework fo r interpreting results is Banduras social learning model ( 1965, 1977 ) Fouts suggested the application of social learning to understand the powerful nat ure of media weight-related messages that employ vicarious positive reinforc ement and punishment toward television characters. The combination of (a) popular characters modeling thinness and
17 receiving positive reinforcement and (b) simultaneously viewing overweight characters receiving punishment in the form of negative fat commentary could (c) increase internalization of the thin ideal ( Fouts & Burggraf, 1999). The combination of differential modeling and re inforcement is a very powerful means to shape behavior ( Bandura, 1965, 1977). This is consistent with the sociocultural model, which maintains that the development of body image and eating problems among women is partially due to unrealistic societal standards of beauty and the role of the mass media in transmitting those messages (Fallon, 1990; Raphael & Lacey, 1992; Rodin, Si lberstein, & Striegel-Morore, 1985; Thompson et al. 1999; Ti ggemann & Pickering, 1996.) One limitation of the study is t he sampling procedure used to collect material. Since it is impossible to select material from the entire universe of fat commentary items in movies and televi sion, a targeted sampling approach was employed. While this approach allowed for t he collection of over 180 pieces of fat commentary, it does not allow for an examinat ion of the actual prevalence rate of fat commentary, with respect to other interactions among TV and movie participants. Randomly recorded samplings of movies and television programs would provide such information; however, this strategy would likely be incredibly time intensive and shed little light on the specifics of fat commentary. This content analysis has laid the foundation for other studies by identifying reliable categories of fat specific commentary. With this set of stimuli it may now be possible in fu ture work to have participant s rate their responses to the viewing of such vignettes. By varyi ng participants on characteristics such as
18 body weight, gender, ethnicity, and age, it will be possible to determine which individual difference variables moderat e ratings of the humorousness of the particular categories (or even specific vignettes within categor y). The following questions, among others, might be addres sed: Are overweight and obese persons experiencing negative affect after viewing some types of fat-specific material? Do fat-specific content messages reinforce thin idea l internalization? Do fat-specific messages contribute to problem eating behaviors? One of the most intriguing avenues fo r future work is the issue of the heightened exposure to negative fat comm entary for individuals for whom the experience might be the most damaging. For instance, studies indicate that a dose-response relationship exists bet ween hours of television viewing and obesity (Dietz & Gortmaker, 1985); therefore, it is likely that overweight and obese individuals may be exposed to more negative fat commentary than nonoverweight individuals, with potentially negative effects on self-esteem and body image disturbance.
19 References Bandura, A. (1965). Infl uence of models reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1 589-595. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bobo, L.D. (2001). Racial attitudes and re lations at the close of the twentieth century. In N.J. Smelser, W.J. Wilson, & F. Mitchell. (Eds.), America Becoming: Racial trends and their consequences (pp.264-301). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Crandall, C.S. (1994). Prejudice against fat people: Ideology and self-interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66 5, 882-894. Crandall, C.S. (1995) Do parents discriminate against their heavyweight daughters? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21 ,7, 724-735. Crik, N.R. (1997). Engagement in gender normative versus non-normative forms of aggression: Links to social-psychological adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 33 610-617. Dietz, W., & Gortmaker, S. (1985). Do we fatten our children at the television set?: Obesity and television view ing in children and adolescents Pediatrics, 75 807-812. Fallon, A. (1990). Culture in the mirror: Sociocul tural determinant of body image. In T.F. Cash & T. Pruzinsky (Eds.), Body images: Development, deviance, and chance (pp.80-109). New York: Guilford. Fiske, S.T. (Ed.). (2003). Social Beings: A Core Mo tives Approach to Social Psychology New York: Wiley. Fouts, G., & Burggraf, K. (1999). Television situation comedies: Female body images and verbal reinforcements. Sex Roles, 40 473-481. Fouts, G., & Burggraf, K. (2000). Television situation comedies: Female weight, male negative comments, and audience reactions. Sex Roles, 42 925932.
20 Fouts, G., & Vaughan, K. ( 2002). Television situation comedies: Male weight, negative refrences, and audience reactions. Sex Roles, 46 439-442. Galen, B.R., & Underwood, M.K. (1997). A developmental investigation of social aggression among children. Developmental Psychology, 33 589-600. Herbozo, S., Tantleff-Dunn, S., GokeeLarose, J., & Thompson, J.K. (2004). Beauty and thinness messages in childre ns media: A content analysis. Eating Disorders, 12, 1, 21-34. Hu, F.B., Li, T.Y., Colditz, G.A., Wille tt, W.C., Manson, J.E. (2003). Television watching and other sedentary behaviors in relation to risk of obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus in women. JAMA, 289 ,14, 1785-1791. Landis, J.R. & Koch, G.G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174. Neumark-Sztainer, D. & Haines, J. (2004). Psychosocial and behavioral consequences of obesity. In J.K. Thompson (Ed.), Handbook of Eating Disorders and Obesity ( pp.349-371). Hoboken, N.J: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Neumark-Sztainer, D. & Stor y, M., Faibisch, L. (1998). Perceived stigmatization among overweight African American and Caucasian adolescent girls. Journal of Adolescent Health, 23, 5 264-270. Raphael, F.J., & Lacey, J.H. (1992). Socioc ultural aspects of eating disorders. Annals of Medicine, 24 293-296. Robinson, Bacon, OReilly (1993). Fa t phobia: Measuring, understanding, and changing anti-fat attitudes. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 14 4, 467-480. Rodin, J., Silberstein, L.R., & Striegel-Moore, R.H. (1985). Women and weight: A normative discontent. In T.B. Sonderegger (Ed.), Psychology and gender: Nebraska symposium on motivation, 1984 (pp.267-307). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Rothblum, E.D., Brand, P., Miller, C., & Oetjen, H. (1990). The relationship between obesity, employment discrimination and employment-related victimization. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37 251-266. Staffieri, J.R. (1967). A study of social st ereotype in children. Journal of Perspectives in Social Psychology, 7 101-107.
21 Stice, E. & Shaw, H. (1994). Adverse effe cts of the media portrayed thin-ideal on women and linkages to bulimic symptomatology. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 13 288-308. Thompson, J.K., Heinberg, L.J, Alt abe, M., Tantelff-Dunn, S. (1999). Exacting beauty: Theory, assessment, and treatment of body image disturbance Washington, D.C.: American P sychological Association. Tiggemann, M. & Pickering, A.S. (1996). Role of te levision in adolescent womens body dissatisfacti on and drive for thinness. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 20 199-203. World Health Organization (WHO). (1998). Obesity: Preventing and managing the global epidemic. Report of a WH O Consultation on Obesity, Geneva, June 3-5, 1997 (Publication No. WHO/NUT/NCD/ 98.1). Geneva: Author.
23 Appendix A: Measures A-1 Coding Criteria for Fat Co mmentary and Fat Humor Stimuli: Gender of commentator: Male Female Gender of target: Male Female Age of commentator: Children (ages 0-12) Adolescents (ages 13-18) Adults (ages 19-65) Age of target: Children (ages 0-12) Adolescents (ages 13-18) Adults (ages 19-65) Commentator source: Comment made about self Comment made to or about another person Comment made about no s pecific person (made about a group) Type of commentary: dire ct (comment made in t he presence of the target) Indirect (comment m ade about the target-target not present) Form of commentary: ver bal (expressing in words) nonverbal (expressing in body language)
Appendix A (Continued) A-2 Sample Rating Form: Fat Commentary and Fat Humor Stimuli Gender of Gender of Age of Age of Item Number commentator target commentator target Example 1 M F M F Child Adol Adult Child Adol Adult Example 2 M F M F Child Adol Adult Child Adol Adult Example 3 M F M F Child Adol Adult Child Adol Adult 1 M F M F Child Adol Adult Child Adol Adult 2 M F M F Child Adol Adult Child Adol Adult 3 M F M F Child Adol Adult Child Adol Adult 4 M F M F Child Adol Adult Child Adol Adult 5 M F M F Child Adol Adult Child Adol Adult 6 M F M F Child Adol Adult Child Adol Adult 7 M F M F Child Adol Adult Child Adol Adult 8 M F M F Child Adol Adult Child Adol Adult 9 M F M F Child Adol Adult Child Adol Adult 10 M F M F Child Adol Adult Child Adol Adult 11 M F M F Child Adol Adult Child Adol Adult 12 M F M F Child Adol Adult Child Adol Adult 13 M F M F Child Adol Adult Child Adol Adult 14 M F M F Child Adol Adult Child Adol Adult 15 M F M F Child Adol Adult Child Adol Adult 16 M F M F Child Adol Adult Child Adol Adult 17 M F M F Child Adol Adult Child Adol Adult 24
Appendix A (Continued) A-2 Sample Rating Form: Fat Commentary and Fat Humor Stimuli Source Type Form Self Person No specific target Direct Indirect Verbal Nonverbal Self Person No specific target Direct Indirect Verbal Nonverbal Self Person No specific target Direct Indirect Verbal Nonverbal Self Person No specific target Direct Indirect Verbal Nonverbal Self Person No specific target Direct Indirect Verbal Nonverbal Self Person No specific target Direct Indirect Verbal Nonverbal Self Person No specific target Direct Indirect Verbal Nonverbal Self Person No specific target Direct Indirect Verbal Nonverbal Self Person No specific target Direct Indirect Verbal Nonverbal Self Person No specific target Direct Indirect Verbal Nonverbal Self Person No specific target Direct Indirect Verbal Nonverbal Self Person No specific target Direct Indirect Verbal Nonverbal Self Person No specific target Direct Indirect Verbal Nonverbal Self Person No specific target Direct Indirect Verbal Nonverbal Self Person No specific target Direct Indirect Verbal Nonverbal Self Person No specific target Direct Indirect Verbal Nonverbal Self Person No specific target Direct Indirect Verbal Nonverbal Self Person No specific target Direct Indirect Verbal Nonverbal Self Person No specific target Direct Indirect Verbal Nonverbal 25