Skip to main content

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

Abstract

Background

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.

Purpose

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.

Methods

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

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    In this manuscript, the term “overweight” is used inclusively to refer to both overweight and obese weight statuses and persons.

  2. 2.

    To ensure that participants interpreted our vignettes in the manner intended, we conducted a pilot study in which 43 additional participants recruited using the same method (M age = 26.21 years, SD = 8.66; 40 % female, 51 % college/university educated, 77 % Caucasian) were randomly assigned to read about a structured context predominately populated by “overweight” or “in-shape” persons and then asked to select the body silhouette that they believed best represented the individuals referred to in this context. Nine silhouettes, gender-matched to participants and ranging in status from underweight to obese, were presented. After controlling for the demographic variables that served as covariates during our main analyses, those in the overweight member composition condition (n = 26), M = 7.08, SD = 0.63, identified a silhouette that was significantly heavier than did those in the in-shape member composition condition (n = 16), M = 3.50, SD = 0.82, F(1,34) = 250.00, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.88. Thus, even though we did not explicitly specify that “in shape” implied that others would be of normal weight, participants themselves drew this conclusion and perceived a clear distinction between descriptions of overweight and in-shape people.

  3. 3.

    The BMI of 17 participants was below 18.5. As such, they were classified as “underweight” and excluded from our main analyses.

  4. 4.

    In addition to our main analyses, we considered participants’ weight in relation to activity status and social physique anxiety. Comparing the responses of overweight and normal-weight participants by way of independent samples t tests, we noted that activity status did not vary as a function of weight status, p = 0.43. Overweight individuals, however, reported a higher degree of social physique anxiety, M = 3.36, SD = 1.00, than did normal-weight participants, M = 2.67, SD = 0.84, t(142) = 4.38, p < 0.001, d = 0.75.

References

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Parfitt G, Glendhill C. The effect of choice of exercise mode on psychological responses. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2004;5:111–7.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Daley AJ, Maynard IW. Preferred exercise mode and affective responses in physically active adults. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2003;4:347–56.

    Article  Google 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Ackman D. The case of the fat aerobics instructor. Forbes. May 9, 2002. http://www.forbes.com/2002/05/09/0509portnick.html. Accessed 1 March 2012.

  11. 11.

    Festinger L. A theory of social comparison processes. Hum Rel. 1954;7:117–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Crandall C. Prejudice against fat people: ideology and self-interest. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1994;66:882–94.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  15. 15.

    Seacat JD, Mickelson KD. Stereotype threat and the exercise/dietary health intentions of overweight women. J Health Psychol. 2009;112:556–67.

    Article  Google 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.

    CAS  Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was facilitated by a fellowship awarded to William L. Dunlop and a research grant awarded to Toni Schmader, both from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William L. Dunlop.

Appendix

Appendix

Structured Context Vignette

You have just signed-up for an exercise class at your local fitness facility. Upon arriving at this class, you place your water bottle at the side of the room and take your place alongside your new classmates. The class would not begin for a couple of minutes and you start to look around the room to pass the time. As you do this, you notice that most people in the class are about your age, and the majority of these individuals are [overweight/in really good shape]. In fact, after looking around the room, you are only able to identify one person in the class who appears to be [in-shape/overweight]. As you come to this realization, the instructor emerges and the class begins.

Unstructured Context Vignette

You have just arrived at your local fitness facility. You come across a treadmill that is free and you begin to use it. After jogging for a couple of minutes, you start to look around and observe the other people exercising around you. As you do this, you notice that most of people in this facility are about your age, and the majority of these individuals are [overweight/in really good shape]. In fact, after looking around the facility, you are only able to identify one person who appears to be [in-shape/overweight].

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dunlop, W.L., Schmader, T. For the Overweight, is Proximity to In-Shape, Normal-Weight Exercisers a Deterrent or an Attractor? An Examination of Contextual Preferences. Int.J. Behav. Med. 21, 139–143 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-012-9281-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Contextual preferences
  • Weight status
  • Social physique anxiety
  • Relational demography
  • Social identity