ALL Metrics
-
Views
-
Downloads
Get PDF
Get XML
Cite
Export
Track
Research Article

The impact of Perspective-Taking on weight stigma among Chinese University students: The mediating role of Common ingroup identity

[version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]
PUBLISHED 15 Nov 2024
Author details Author details
OPEN PEER REVIEW
REVIEWER STATUS AWAITING PEER REVIEW

Abstract

Background/Objective

Weight stigma has significant psychological and social implications, yet studies on perspective-taking as an intervention strategy remain scarce. This study aimed to investigate the effect of perspective-taking on weight stigma among Chinese university students and examine the potential mediating role of common ingroup identity.

Methods

A randomized controlled experiment with 202 Chinese university students (experimental group, perspective-taking group: n = 102; control group: n = 100) was conducted. Weight stigma was measured pre- and post-intervention using the Anti-Fat Attitudes Test. The study employed a 2 × 2 mixed design with ANCOVA and mediation analysis.

Results

The experimental group showed significantly lower post-test weight stigma when controlling for pre-test scores (F(1, 199) = 25.69, p < .001). Perspective-taking engagement was significantly higher in the experimental group (t = 3.13, p = .002). Common ingroup identity negatively correlated with post-test weight stigma (r = -.28, p < .001) but did not significantly mediate the perspective-taking and weight stigma reduction relationship.

Conclusion

Perspective-taking effectively reduces weight stigma among Chinese university students, contributing to stigma reduction strategies in university settings. Further research on underlying mechanisms is warranted.

Keywords

Perspective-taking, Weight stigma, Common ingroup identity, Chinese university students

Introduction

Over the past half-century, global obesity rates have risen steadily, evolving into a serious public health concern.1 Individuals with obesity frequently face ridicule and devaluation in mainstream media, with negative stereotypes about obesity being pervasive in society.2,3 Weight stigma, defined as negative attitudes and beliefs about an individual’s weight, manifests as stereotypes, negative emotions, and discriminatory behaviors.3,4 Researchers from various disciplines worldwide have issued public statements calling for measures to eliminate weight stigma.5

The issue of weight stigma among university students is particularly concerning. As individuals in the emerging adulthood stage,6 university students are at a crucial phase of personal identity formation and development of social attitudes. During this formative period, they may be particularly susceptible to internalizing and perpetuating societal biases, including weight stigma. Moreover, university students represent future leaders, professionals, and decision-makers in various fields. Their attitudes towards weight and obesity can have far-reaching implications for social policies, healthcare practices, and overall societal perceptions of individuals with obesity.7 Therefore, investigating ways to reduce the formation and expression of weight stigma among university students is of paramount importance. By focusing on this population, we have the opportunity to intervene early in the development of weight-biased attitudes and potentially create a ripple effect of reduced stigma throughout society.

A critical question in addressing weight stigma among university students is how to effectively reduce their propensity to stigmatize others based on weight.8 Among various stigma intervention strategies in the literature, perspective-taking has shown promise as an effective approach, demonstrating significant advantages in reducing intergroup prejudice and improving intergroup relations.9 Perspective-taking typically involves an individual attempting to view situations from another person’s perspective, thereby better understanding their thoughts, emotions, and motivations.9 This process helps individuals see the world from others’ standpoints.10

Perspective-taking has been widely applied in various stigma research domains, showing promising intervention effects. However, in weight stigma intervention research, studies on using perspective-taking to improve university students’ weight stigma attitudes towards others are relatively scarce. Moreover, the mechanisms by which perspective-taking influences weight stigma are not well understood. Accordingly, this study aims to explore the effects of perspective-taking on reducing weight stigma among university students. Furthermore, to elucidate the mechanism by which perspective-taking influences weight stigma, we will examine the potential mediating role of common ingroup identity.

The mediating role of common ingroup identity

Common ingroup identity refers to an individual’s cognition of belonging to a particular social group, leading to emotional and interest-based identification with that group.11 The Common Ingroup Identity Model (CIIM) posits that when individuals recategorize members of different groups (including ingroups and outgroups) into a single, more inclusive superordinate group, their negative attitudes towards former outgroup members may decrease, and positive emotions may extend to these individuals.11 This adjustment in social categorization can improve intergroup relations and reduce negative stereotypes and prejudices by increasing perceptions of commonality and similarity while decreasing perceptions of difference.12

Based on CIIM, we propose that perspective-taking may facilitate the recategorization process central to common ingroup identity formation, thereby potentially reducing weight stigma. Perspective-taking encourages individuals to view situations from the standpoint of outgroup members, promoting recognition of shared experiences and characteristics.13 This recognition could lead to a more inclusive categorization where both the self and individuals with obesity are perceived as part of a larger, superordinate group (e.g., “people” or “students”) rather than as members of distinct weight-based groups. Through this process, perspective-taking can improve overall evaluations of minority groups, reduce perceptions of ingroup typicality, and alter the tendency to evaluate outgroups using internal standards.14 These effects align with the CIIM’s emphasis on reducing intergroup bias through recategorization, potentially reducing the salience of weight-based group boundaries and promoting a sense of “we” rather than “us” and “them”.11 Stephan and Finlay15 further argue that viewing issues from another group’s perspective can enhance the perception of common humanity and shared destiny, thereby increasing common ingroup identity.

As a result of this shift in social categorization, individuals may develop more positive evaluations of people with obesity. This occurs because the positive biases typically reserved for ingroup members may extend to those who were previously considered outgroup members but are now included in the superordinate group.16 In other words, as people with obesity become perceived as part of the broader ingroup, the favorable attitudes typically associated with ingroup membership may be applied to them as well.

Therefore, perspective-taking may not only directly reduce negative attitudes towards individuals with obesity but may also indirectly improve weight stigma by enhancing common ingroup identity.14,17 This dual pathway - direct attitude change through perspective-taking and indirect change via enhanced common ingroup identity - provides a theoretical framework for understanding how perspective-taking interventions might effectively reduce weight stigma.

Despite these theoretical expectations, empirical research on the effectiveness of perspective-taking in reducing weight stigmatizing attitudes has yielded mixed results. The limited existing studies suggest that perspective-taking may not always effectively reduce negative stereotypes about individuals with obesity. For instance, Gapinski et al.18 and Teachman et al.19 found that while perspective-taking could evoke empathy towards individuals with obesity among participants, this empathy did not necessarily translate into reduced negative attitudes. Paradoxically, empathy sometimes aroused participants’ fear of obesity, leading to discomfort and aversion, thereby potentially nullifying the sympathy towards the stigmatized group. These findings indicate that in the context of weight stigma, perspective-taking may not consistently yield positive outcomes and might even exacerbate negative emotions in some cases.

While research specifically applying perspective-taking to weight stigma remains scarce, studies in other domains of stigma have shown promising results. For example, Martinez et al.20 found that participants who imagined themselves as individuals with depression and recorded how antidepressants changed their lives showed significantly improved attitudes towards people with depression. In the realm of racial stigma, Shih et al.21 conducted an intervention experiment where participants were asked to experience the role of Asian individuals, resulting in significantly improved attitudes towards Asian groups.

Furthermore, several studies have examined the association between perspective-taking and common ingroup identity. Cohen and Insko22 posited that perspective-taking could be an effective method for reducing prejudice and optimizing intergroup relations. They argued that perspective-taking can enhance emotional connections between groups and promote the perception of common humanity and shared destiny with outgroups. In support of this idea, Sassenberg and Matschke23 demonstrated that students participating in international exchange programs increased their identification with the host country through perspective-taking. Sarge et al.24 conducted a public stigma intervention experiment focusing on Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Their findings revealed that perspective-taking not only enhanced participants’ emotional concern, helping intentions, and willingness to volunteer towards individuals with ASD, but also led to an increased sense of connection with this group. This increased connection was interpreted as evidence of a strengthened common ingroup identity, where participants began to view individuals with ASD as part of their broader social group rather than as outgroup members. Additionally, Andrighetto et al.25 discovered that frequently and deeply experiencing the plight of outgroup members could reduce conflicts between ingroups and outgroups and enhance intergroup understanding and identification among Kosovo Albanian students.

The relationship between common ingroup identity and the reduction of stigma is particularly noteworthy. Gaertner et al.26argued that enhancing common ingroup identity could further motivate individuals to reduce negative stereotypes and prejudices towards outgroups, thereby improving weight stigmatizing attitudes towards others. Empirical research by Kunst et al.27 demonstrated that enhancing common ingroup identity could effectively reduce resource allocation bias between majority groups and immigrant groups. When a common ingroup was emphasized, majority group members were more likely to accept immigrants as valuable group members and support their equal status.

A study by Brochu et al.28 demonstrated how emphasizing a shared group identity can mitigate weight bias. In their study, the researchers manipulated common ingroup identity by highlighting shared identities such as “job seekers” or “professionals” that encompassed both individuals with and without obesity. They found that when participants identified with these inclusive categories, they became more aware of workplace discrimination faced by individuals with obesity, which crucially led to a significant reduction in weight bias towards overweight and obese individuals. In a follow-up experiment with over 200 American participants, Brochu et al. further validated these findings. The experimental group, where weight discrimination was highlighted and common ingroup identity was emphasized, showed significantly reduced weight bias compared to the control group. These findings provide strong empirical support for the effectiveness of common ingroup identity in reducing weight stigma. By fostering a sense of shared group membership, the study demonstrated that individuals were more likely to empathize with and show less bias towards people with obesity, directly illustrating the potential of common ingroup identity as an intervention strategy for weight stigma reduction.

Research questions and hypotheses

In summary, although no previous research has simultaneously explored the associations between perspective-taking, common ingroup identity, and weight stigma, based on the theoretical guidance of CIIM11 and existing empirical research results, we propose that perspective-taking should help reduce individuals’ weight stigma towards others. Moreover, common ingroup identity may play a mediating role in this relationship. The research questions of this study include:

  • a. Is perspective-taking effective in reducing weight stigma?

  • b. Does common ingroup identity mediate the effect of perspective-taking on weight stigma?

Based on these research questions and the reviewed literature, we propose the following hypotheses:

H1:

Participants engaged in a perspective-taking task will show lower levels of weight stigma compared to those in a control condition.

H2:

The effect of perspective-taking on weight stigma will be mediated by common ingroup identity, such that perspective-taking will increase common ingroup identity, which in turn will reduce weight stigma.

Methods

Experimental design and participants

This study employed a mixed experimental design with perspective-taking (experimental vs. control) as a between-subjects factor and measurement time (pre-test vs. post-test) as a within-subjects factor. A single-blind procedure was implemented, with participants unaware of their group assignment.

Participants were recruited from a university in China. Data collection took place between September and December 2023. The sample comprised 202 university students (N = 202) who completed the study and received 10 RMB as compensation. Participants were randomly assigned to either the experimental group (n = 102; 32 males, 70 females; age: M = 21.49 years, SD = 2.36) or the control group (n = 100; 29 males, 71 females; age: M = 21.45 years, SD = 1.74).

Sample size was determined using G*Power.29 Based on the study design (a 2×2 mixed ANCOVA with pre-test scores as a covariate; see Data Analysis section for details), we calculated that a minimum of 128 participants would be required to detect a medium effect size (f = 0.25) with 80% power at α = 0.05. Our final sample of 202 participants exceeded this requirement, ensuring adequate statistical power. The study was approved by the Jiangxi Psychological Consultant Association, with Protocol No/IRB No: JXSXL-2021-J99. The approval was granted on July 10, 2022.

Procedure

Participants in both the experimental and control groups completed the tasks individually. At the beginning of the task, all participants completed the weight stigma scale and a demographic survey as a pre-test, followed by a ten-minute break. Subsequently, participants in both groups read their respective experimental materials. The materials included descriptions of daily life, emotional experiences, and social interactions of individuals with obesity, emphasizing negative evaluations and emotional responses experienced in public settings.

For the experimental group, the perspective-taking manipulation encouraged participants to think and perceive from the viewpoint of an individual with obesity. They received the following instructions: “You will now read a passage. As you read, please imagine yourself as the protagonist in the material. Try to put yourself in their shoes and experience their thoughts and inner feelings.” After reading, they were further instructed: “Imagine you are the protagonist. Considering what the protagonist has experienced, how do you feel? What would you like to say or do? What are your plans for the future? Please write your responses, taking 5 minutes and using at least 100 words.”

Control group participants read the same material but were instructed to remain objective: “You will now read a passage. We will test your memory of time and place cues. Please try to remain objective while reading and pay close attention to the plot and time points in the material.” After reading, they were asked to objectively describe the life of the individual with obesity: “Please summarize the events that happened to the protagonist in chronological order from a third-person perspective. Take 5 minutes and write at least 100 words.”

Immediately after completing the writing task, all participants completed the post-test, which included measures of perspective-taking engagement, the weight stigma scale, and the common ingroup identity scale.

Measures

Perspective-taking engagement

To assess the level of perspective-taking engagement, participants in both groups answered two questions during the post-test: “To what extent did you put yourself in the protagonist’s position while completing the task?” and “How deeply did you empathize with the protagonist’s feelings while completing the task?” Responses were recorded on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 represented “Not at all,” 3 represented “Moderately,” and 5 represented “Completely.” The McDonald’s omega coefficient for these two items across both groups was 0.75, indicating acceptable internal consistency. The sum of scores on these two items was used as a measure of perspective-taking engagement, serving as a manipulation check for the experimental intervention.

Anti-Fat Attitudes Test (AFAT)

The Anti-Fat Attitudes Test (AFAT), developed by Lewis et al.30 is widely used to measure public attitudes towards obesity and was employed in this study to assess weight stigma. The AFAT comprises three factors: Physical/Romantic Unattractiveness (views on the personality and external attractiveness of individuals with obesity), Weight Control/Blame (eating habits and factors influencing weight change), and Social/Character Disparagement (personal emotional reactions towards individuals with obesity). The AFAT has demonstrated high internal consistency, with Cronbach’s α coefficients typically ranging from 0.80 to 0.90.30Additionally, the AFAT has shown good test-retest reliability and criterion-related validity.31 Higher total scores on the AFAT indicate stronger negative attitudes towards individuals with obesity. In the present study, the omega coefficient was 0.95 for both pre-test and post-test, indicating excellent internal consistency reliability.

Common ingroup identity measure

To measure participants’ common ingroup identity, we adapted two items from the Common Ingroup Identity Scale developed by Ufkes, Dovidio, and Tel.32 The items were adjusted to measure common ingroup identity among university students: “I am very happy to be a member of the university student group that includes students of all body types in our country” and “Being part of the university student group that includes students of all body types in our country is an important part of my identity.” Responses were recorded on a 7-point Likert scale, where 1 represented “Strongly disagree” and 7 represented “Strongly agree.” The omega coefficient for these items was 0.70 for both pre-test and post-test, indicating acceptable internal consistency.

Data analysis

Data were analyzed using jamovi,33 which should be open access. First, we conducted descriptive statistics for all variables. To assess the effectiveness of the perspective-taking manipulation, we conducted an independent samples t-test. The experimental condition (perspective-taking vs. control) served as the independent variable, and participants’ self-reported perspective-taking engagement scores served as the dependent variable.

To examine differences in post-test weight stigma between the perspective-taking and control groups while controlling for pre-test scores, we conducted an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The experimental condition served as the independent variable, post-test weight stigma scores as the dependent variable, and pre-test weight stigma scores as the covariate.

To investigate the role of common ingroup identity in the relationship between perspective-taking and weight stigma, we conducted a mediation analysis. Prior to this analysis, zero-order correlations were examined. For the mediation model, the perspective-taking condition was dummy-coded (1 = experimental group/perspective-taking, 2 = control group). Common ingroup identity served as the mediator variable, and post-test weight stigma as the outcome variable. Pre-test weight stigma scores, gender, and age were included as covariates. The analysis was performed using the JAMM module in jamovi, with 5000 bootstrap resamples and 95% confidence intervals.

Results

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics and independent samples t-test results for weight stigma (pre-test and post-test), common ingroup identity, and perspective-taking engagement across experimental and control groups. Analysis revealed no significant differences between groups in pre-test or post-test weight stigma scores. Unexpectedly, the control group reported significantly higher common ingroup identity compared to the experimental group (t(200) = -2.47, p = .014). The manipulation check indicated that the experimental group demonstrated significantly higher perspective-taking engagement than the control group (t(200) = 3.13, p = .002), confirming the effectiveness of the perspective-taking manipulation.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the variables of interest by experimental and control groups.

Experimental groupControl group t-test (p-value)
Weight stigma (pre-test)73.08 (22.57)70.00 (16.88)1.08 (.280)
Weight stigma (post-test)69.56 (22.90)66.03 (16.37)-1.31 (.191)
Common ingroup identity12.67 (1.46)13.13 (1.12)-2.47 (.014)
Perspective-taking engagement8.25 (1.39)7.54 (1.77)3.13 (.002)

Despite the lack of significant differences in the t-tests for weight stigma between the two groups, the ANCOVA results ( Table 2) revealed significant differences when controlling for pre-test weight stigma scores. The experimental group showed significantly lower post-test weight stigma scores compared to the control group (F(1, 199) = 25.69, p < .001), supporting Hypothesis 1. This analysis met the assumption of homogeneity of regression slopes (F(1, 198) = 1.31, p = .255 for the interaction between experimental condition and pre-test weight stigma scores). Additionally, the effect of pre-test weight stigma scores on post-test scores was significant (F(1, 199) = 798.84, p < .001) with a large effect size (η2 = .78), justifying the use of ANCOVA.

Table 2. Summary of the covariance analysis.

Source SS df MS F p η2
Weight Stigma (pre-test)65507.39165507.39798.84<.0010.78
Group2107.3912107.3925.69<.0010.025
Error16318.61199
Total83933.39201

Table 3 presents the correlation coefficients among weight stigma (pre-test and post-test), common ingroup identity, perspective-taking engagement, and group assignment (experimental vs. control). Post-test weight stigma scores were significantly negatively correlated with common ingroup identity (r = -.28, p < .001). Perspective-taking engagement showed a significant positive correlation with common ingroup identity (r = .21, p = .003) and significant negative correlations with both pre-test (r = -.15, p = .039) and post-test (r = -.15, p = .037) weight stigma scores.

Table 3. Correlations (p-value) among variables of interest.

1234 5
1. Weight stigma (pre-test)1
2. Weight stigma (post-test)0.88 (<.001)1
3. Common ingroup identity-0.28 (<.001)-0.27 (<.001)1
4. Perspective-taking engagement-0.15 (.039)-0.15 (.037)0.21 (.003)1
5. Group (Ref: Experimental group)-0.08 (.281)0.09 (.192)0.17 (.014)-0.22 (.002)1

To examine the mediating role of common ingroup identity in the relationship between perspective-taking and weight stigma, we conducted a path analysis. Group assignment was used as the independent variable (1 = perspective-taking group, 2 = control group), with gender, age, and pre-test weight stigma scores as control variables. The results ( Table 4) indicated that the effect of group assignment on common ingroup identity was not significant. However, common ingroup identity (the mediator) had a significant negative effect on weight stigma (b = -2.89, SE = 1.27, t = -2.28, p = .023). The direct effect of group assignment on weight stigma was significant, with the control group showing higher levels of weight stigma compared to the experimental group (b = 6.80, SE = 1.26, t = 5.42, p < .001). Bootstrap analysis with 5000 resamples revealed a non-significant indirect effect (indirect effect = -2.72, 95% CI = [-0.80, 0.16]), as the 95% confidence interval included zero.

Table 4. Mediation effects of common ingroup identity on perspective-taking and weight stigma.

Mediator modelDependent model
95% CI95% CI
b (SE) t LLCIULCI β b (SE) t LLCIULCI β
Sex-0.09-1.12-0.240.07-0.081.35 (1.41)0.95-1.434.120.03
(Ref: Female)-0.08
Aga years-0.01 (0.02)-0.41-0.040.03-0.03-0.16-0.53-0.750.43-0.02
-0.3
Weight stigma (pre-test)-0.01 (0.01)-3.33-0.01-0.02-0.230.87 (0.03)26.380.80.930.87
Group (Ref: Experimental group)0.111.59-0.030.250.116.80 (1.26)5.424.349.260.17
-0.07
Common Ingroup Identity-2.89 (1.27)-2.28-5.38-0.41-0.07

Discussion

This study investigated the impact of perspective-taking tasks on weight stigma among Chinese university students and examined the potential mediating role of common ingroup identity. Our findings provide partial support for our hypotheses and offer insights into the complex relationship between perspective-taking, common ingroup identity, and weight stigma.

In testing our first hypothesis, we initially verified the effectiveness of the experimental manipulation. Students in the experimental group who engaged in the perspective-taking task showed significantly higher levels of perspective-taking engagement compared to the control group, confirming the success of our manipulation. Subsequent analysis using ANCOVA, controlling for pre-test weight stigma scores, supported Hypothesis 1. The experimental group exhibited significantly lower post-test weight stigma scores compared to the control group, indicating that perspective-taking can effectively reduce weight stigma. However, it’s worth noting that post-test scores in both groups were heavily influenced by their pre-test scores. This strong correlation may be attributed to the relatively short time interval (approximately two hours) between pre-test and post-test, likely resulting in a substantial memory effect. Nevertheless, by employing ANCOVA, we were able to control for this influence, thereby more accurately reflecting the effect of perspective-taking on reducing weight stigma attitudes.

The effectiveness of perspective-taking in reducing weight stigma can be understood through two theoretical frameworks. The empathy-altruism model suggests that when individuals perceive others’ predicaments, they experience empathy and sympathy, triggering altruistic motivation and reducing negative attitudes towards stigmatized groups.34 Complementarily, the self-other overlap theory posits that perspective-taking blurs the boundaries between self and others, leading individuals to view others’ traits as part of themselves, thereby enhancing empathy and reducing intergroup conflict.35 Our findings align with previous research demonstrating similar effects of perspective-taking on reducing stigma towards other marginalized groups.20,36

Contrary to our expectations, Hypothesis 2 was not supported. Path analysis failed to confirm the mediating role of common ingroup identity in the relationship between perspective-taking and weight stigma. Bootstrap analysis revealed that the 95% CI included zero, indicating that the effect of the perspective-taking manipulation on weight stigma attitudes was not mediated by common ingroup identity as anticipated. Despite this unexpected result, we observed a significant negative correlation between common ingroup identity and weight stigma. This suggests that enhancing common ingroup identity can still effectively reduce weight stigma, consistent with previous research28 and the Common Ingroup Identity Model.11 The model posits that when individuals transform their cognitive representation of intergroup boundaries from “us” and “them” to a more inclusive “we,” positive ingroup affect extends to former outgroup members, improving attitudes and behaviors towards them.

The lack of expected mediation may be attributed to the nature of our experimental manipulation. The perspective-taking task may have focused participants’ attention on specific scenarios, temporarily weakening their awareness of common ingroup identity. Conversely, the control group, not subjected to this intervention, may have naturally maintained a higher sense of group identification. This unexpected effect on ingroup identification across both groups might have interfered with the hypothesized mediation process. In light of these findings, future research could consider refining the experimental manipulation to more directly engage common ingroup identity while maintaining the benefits of perspective-taking. Additionally, exploring alternative mechanisms through which perspective-taking influences weight stigma, such as emotional resonance or cognitive restructuring, could provide valuable insights. These unmeasured processes may play crucial roles in the relationship between perspective-taking and reduced weight stigma, offering promising avenues for future investigation.

The findings of this study have significant implications for reducing weight stigma among university students and promoting intergroup harmony within campus environments. Our results suggest that interventions focused on enhancing perspective-taking abilities and fostering a sense of common ingroup identity can be effective strategies in combating weight stigma and promoting a more inclusive campus atmosphere. Universities could implement workshops or curriculum elements that encourage students to engage in perspective-taking exercises specifically focused on individuals with obesity, such as role-playing scenarios or guided discussions of personal narratives. Simultaneously, campus-wide initiatives that emphasize shared goals and experiences among all students, regardless of physical appearance, could help foster a stronger sense of common identity. An integrated approach combining these strategies may have a particularly profound impact, not only in reducing weight stigma but also in improving overall campus climate. By cultivating empathy, understanding, and a sense of shared identity, universities can work towards creating more supportive environments for students of all body sizes, potentially improving their well-being and academic performance. Moreover, these efforts may prepare students to be more empathetic and inclusive professionals in their future careers, contributing to a broader societal shift towards more body-positive and inclusive attitudes. While further research is needed to refine these interventions and assess their long-term impact, the present study provides a foundation for developing evidence-based strategies to combat weight stigma and promote intergroup harmony in university settings, taking significant steps towards creating more inclusive and harmonious campus communities.

Limitations

While this study provides preliminary evidence for the significant positive impact of perspective-taking on reducing weight stigma attitudes among university students through a mixed experimental design, several limitations should be acknowledged. The relatively short intervention period may not have fully captured the long-term effects on reducing weight stigma. Future research could benefit from extended intervention durations or more in-depth perspective-taking tasks to strengthen the intervention’s impact. Additionally, the brief interval between pre- and post-tests, despite our use of ANCOVA to control for pre-test influences, suggests that longer intervals between assessments could further refine the experimental manipulation in future studies. The absence of a significant mediating effect of common ingroup identity warrants further investigation, potentially through alternative experimental designs or larger sample sizes to validate this mediating mechanism. Moreover, exploring other potential mediating variables, such as emotional resonance or self-reflection, in the relationship between perspective-taking and weight stigma represents an important direction for future research. These refinements and expansions of the current study could provide more comprehensive insights into the mechanisms underlying the reduction of weight stigma through perspective-taking interventions.

Ethical considerations

The study was approved by the Jiangxi Psychological Consultant Association on July 10, 2022, with Protocol No/IRB No: JXSXL-2021-J99. The research strictly adhered to the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/) to ensure that the rights and well-being of participants were respected throughout the study.

Consent statement

All participants provided written informed consent prior to their involvement in the study. The research team thoroughly explained the study’s purpose and procedures. Participants were informed about the potential risks and benefits of their participation. They were assured that their involvement was voluntary and that they could withdraw from the study at any time without any adverse consequences. All participants were over the age of 18. Before signing the consent forms, participants had the opportunity to ask questions and received detailed answers to ensure their understanding. They were informed about the de-identification of data to protect their privacy.

Statement of Author roles/Contributions to the manuscript

Authors Xuelian Wang and I-Hua Chen were responsible for Conceptualization, Data curation, and Formal analysis. Both authors also contributed to Investigation and Methodology. I-Hua Chen oversaw the Project administration and provided Supervision. Xuelian Wang and I-Hua Chen jointly handled Validation and Visualization as well as Writing (original draft). I-Hua Chen took the lead in Writing (review and editing).

All authors have reviewed and agreed to their individual contributions before submission.

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1
VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 15 Nov 2024
Comment
Author details Author details
Competing interests
Grant information
Copyright
Download
 
Export To
metrics
Views Downloads
F1000Research - -
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
- -
Citations
CITE
how to cite this article
Wang XL and Chen IH. The impact of Perspective-Taking on weight stigma among Chinese University students: The mediating role of Common ingroup identity [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]. F1000Research 2024, 13:1370 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.157588.1)
NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
track
receive updates on this article
Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status:
AWAITING PEER REVIEW
AWAITING PEER REVIEW
?
Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW
ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1
VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 15 Nov 2024
Comment
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Sign In
If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password.

The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.

Email address not valid, please try again

You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.

You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.

Code not correct, please try again
Email us for further assistance.
Server error, please try again.