International Journal of Behavioral Medicine

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 139–143 | Cite as

For the Overweight, is Proximity to In-Shape, Normal-Weight Exercisers a Deterrent or an Attractor? An Examination of Contextual Preferences




For the overweight, is the thought of exercising in close proximity to physically fit, normal-weight individuals a deterrent or an attractor? Efforts to address this question stand to inform future intervention-based research.


The purpose of the study was to examine whether overweight individuals possess a preference for exercising alongside similarly overweight (relative to in-shape, normalweight) persons.


Relying upon an experimental paradigm, American participants evaluated one of four exercise contexts and completed a measure of social physique anxiety.


Overweight participants high in social physique anxiety exhibited a preference for exercise contexts comprised of other overweight individuals whereas overweight participants low in physique anxiety exhibited a preference for contexts comprised of in-shape, normal-weight individuals. A relative preference for social contexts among normal-weight participants was not observed.


These findings suggest that the provision of group-based programs designed exclusively for the overweight may be appropriate for overweight individuals anxious about the evaluation of their physique. These results also suggest that such programs may conflict with the preferences of overweight persons with a low degree of social physique anxiety. Thus, for the overweight (but not the normal-weight), exercising in close proximity to in-shape, normal-weight individuals can be both a deterrent and an attractor.


Contextual preferences Weight status Social physique anxiety Relational demography Social identity 


  1. 1.
    Dishman RK, Waskburn RW, Heath GW. Physical activity epidemiology. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2004.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burke SM, Carron AV, Eys MA. Physical activity context: preferences of university students. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2006;7:1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Thompson CE, Wankel LM. The effects of perceived activity choice upon frequency of exercise behavior. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2006;10:436–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Parfitt G, Glendhill C. The effect of choice of exercise mode on psychological responses. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2004;5:111–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dishman RK, Farquhar RP, Cureton KJ. Responses to preferred intensities of exertion in men differing in activity levels. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004;26:783–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Daley AJ, Maynard IW. Preferred exercise mode and affective responses in physically active adults. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2003;4:347–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carron AV, Hausenblas HA, Mack DE. Social influence and exercise: a meta-analysis. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 1996;18:1–16.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beauchamp MR, Carron AV, McCutcheon S, Harper O. Older adults’ preferences for exercising alone versus in groups: considering contextual congruence. Ann Behav Med. 2007;33:200–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dunlop WL, Beauchamp MR. En-gendering choice: preferences for exercising in gender-segregated and gender-integrated groups and consideration of overweight status. Int J Behav Med. 2011;18:216–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ackman D. The case of the fat aerobics instructor. Forbes. May 9, 2002. Accessed 1 March 2012.
  11. 11.
    Festinger L. A theory of social comparison processes. Hum Rel. 1954;7:117–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Crandall C. Prejudice against fat people: ideology and self-interest. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1994;66:882–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Steele CM, Spencer SJ, Aronson J. Contending with group image: the psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. Adv Exp Soc Psychol. 2002;34:379–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schmader T, Hall W, Croft A. Stereotype threat in intergroup relations. In: Simpson J, Dovidio J, editors. APA handbook of personality and social psychology. Washington DC; APA; in press.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Seacat JD, Mickelson KD. Stereotype threat and the exercise/dietary health intentions of overweight women. J Health Psychol. 2009;112:556–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Inzlicht M, Ben-Zeev T. A threatening intellectual environment: why females are susceptible to experiencing problem-solving deficits in the presence of males. Psy Sci. 2000;11:365–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hart EA, Leary MR, Rejeski WJ. The measurement of social physique anxiety. J Sport Exercise Psy. 1989;11:94–104.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Martin Ginis KA, Prapavessis H, Haase AM. The effects of physique-salient and physique non-salient exercise videos on women’s body image, self-presentational concerns, and exercise motivation. Bod Imag. 2008;2:164–172.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Buhrmester M, Kwang T, Gosling SD. Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspect Psychol Sci. 2011;6:3–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    World Health Organization. Physical status: the use and interpretation of anthropometry. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1995.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dunlop WL, Beauchamp MR. Does similarity make a difference? Predicting cohesion and attendance behaviors within exercise group settings. Group Dynam. 2011;15:258–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. NJ: Earlbaum; 1988.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Karelis AD. Metabolically healthy but obese individuals. Lancet. 2008;372:1281–1283.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of Behavioral Medicine 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyThe University of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations