Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Affective Science logoLink to Affective Science
. 2024 Aug 23;5(4):405–416. doi: 10.1007/s42761-024-00255-z

Competence Perceptions and Affective Responses Limit Social Sharing of Images Featuring People with Larger Body Sizes

Fengshu Xie 1,✉, Bruce Doré 1
PMCID: PMC11624147  PMID: 39649463

Abstract

People with larger body sizes often face underrepresentation in popular media. However, the rise of social media has led to increased visibility for this demographic group. Our research, encompassing five studies, investigated how audiences react to social media images featuring individuals with larger body sizes, focusing on affective responses and social transmission dynamics. We identified a gender-specific gap in sharing behavior such that male viewers show lower sharing intentions for such images (Study 1), mediated by stereotypic perceptions of low competence in larger-sized people and decreased positive affect (Study 2). This pattern holds for images with both female and male models (Study 3) and extends to contexts where body size is not a central factor (Study 4). To address this, we developed social norm-based interventions that effectively increase sharing intentions evoked by images of people with larger bodies, mediated by social perceptions and affective responses (Study 5). Overall, our findings shed light on the psychological factors that influence the spread of body-related imagery on social media, demonstrating how stereotypes can shape affective responses and subsequent actions like social media sharing. Beyond theoretical insights, our research offers practical strategies for amplifying societal focus on underrepresented groups and promoting more diverse and inclusive representations of body image in digital spaces.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42761-024-00255-z.

Keywords: Information transmission, Emotion, Stereotype content, Weight bias

People with larger body sizes are underrepresented in popular media (Fikkan & Rothblum, 2012; Levitt, 2003; American Psychological Association, 2008). This underrepresentation can adversely affect body satisfaction, self-esteem, and mental health, impacting body image and self-perception (Bessenoff, 2006; Harper & Tiggemann, 2008; Hawkins et al., 2004). Although social media now increasingly features larger-sized individuals (Cohen et al., 2019b; Joo & Wu, 2021; Lin & McFerran, 2016), the affective responses and social transmission dynamics evoked by these messages are not yet well understood. Addressing this gap is crucial, as social transmission can determine the reach and societal impact of messaging.

Our research addresses several key questions: Is there a gap in sharing, such that images featuring individuals with larger body sizes are shared less? What affective and social cognitive mechanisms underlie this gap? And what interventions might help to close this gap?

Stereotypes Targeting People with Larger Body Sizes

Stereotypes about body size are linked to beliefs about weight controllability, leading to assumptions that overweight individuals are personally responsible for their body size (Bailey, 2010; Crandall, 1994; Crandall & Martinez, 1996; Puhl & Heuer, 2010). This view is associated with stereotypes like lack of self-discipline, low self-control, and low competence (Fikkan & Rothblum, 2012; Puhl & Heuer, 2009). Studies show that negatively stereotyped individuals are often seen as low in either warmth or competence (Cuddy et al., 2007; Fiske et al., 2002, 2007; Leach et al., 2007). Building on previous work using the stereotype content model in body size contexts (Bryksina et al., 2021; Baker & Florack, 2021; Cassiano et al., 2022; Durante et al., 2014; Kranz, 2023), our study examines how competence-related stereotypes influence digital social interactions, particularly image sharing on social media. We hypothesize that low competence stereotypes about people with larger bodies drive less positive affective responses to their images, mediating social sharing behavior (Cuddy et al., 2007; Fiske et al., 2007; Harris et al., 2008).

Downstream Consequences for Social Sharing

This study focuses on social sharing, the act of distributing content through social media or other channels. Research has shown that negative messages about larger-sized people are still prevalent on social media (Bograd et al., 2022; Lydecker et al., 2016; Wanniarachchi et al., 2022). However, social media can also counteract weight-based negativity by promoting the sharing of content that draws attention to social issues and influences public opinion (Kashima et al., 2019; Mavrodieva et al., 2019). Specifically, sharing images of people with larger bodies can promote inclusion and challenge thinness norms (Clark et al., 2021; Puhl, 2022).

Prior research indicates that sharing is driven by self-related motivations, such as self-presentation and impression management, as well as social motivations, like connecting with others (Berger, 2014). People often share content that makes them look good (Dubois et al., 2016; Taylor et al., 2012), and consider how their shared content will be perceived by others (Schultz et al., 2007).

People are also more likely to share emotional content, especially positive content (Al-Rawi, 2019; Berger & Milkman, 2012). Research on stereotype content suggests that emotions more strongly predict discriminatory behavior than stereotypes alone, acting as a mediator between stereotypes and behavior (Cuddy et al., 2007). According to appraisal theories of emotion, the meanings assigned to social situations guide specific emotions, which then drive behavior (Moors et al., 2013). Following these frameworks, we expect that the effect of body size on sharing will be mediated by competence stereotypes and affective responses, reflecting a pathway from cognitive appraisals through affective responses to behavior.

Gender Effects on Responses to Body Imagery

Gender differences may substantially influence attitudes toward body-size imagery. Objectification theory suggests that cultural norms lead to women being evaluated primarily based on their bodies, especially by men. This objectifying gaze is reinforced by visual media, where women are often depicted with an emphasis on their bodies (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; Vandenbosch et al., 2022). Studies with predominantly White, young adult samples in the US indicate that men tend to adopt an objectifying perspective when viewing women (Gervais et al., 2013; Heflick & Goldenberg, 2009). This suggests that gender effects may play a crucial role in perpetuating body size stereotypes.

Additionally, women tend to engage more with appearance-related content on social media and show higher levels of appearance preoccupation (Choukas-Bradley et al., 2022). The prevalent media depiction of thinness may worsen negative effects of social media imagery on women’s well-being (Cohen et al., 2019a; Davies et al., 2020; Perloff, 2014; Prnjak et al., 2020; Santoniccolo et al., 2023). Conversely, studies with young, predominantly White US samples found that men often display stronger anti-fat biases and a preference for social distance from overweight individuals (Chen & Brown, 2005; Pearl et al., 2012).

The Current Research

We examine affective responses and sharing intentions evoked by images featuring people with larger body sizes. In Study 1, we asked whether there is a gender-specific gap in affective responses and sharing intentions, apparent specifically among male viewers. Study 2 replicated these findings and additionally tested the hypothesis that reduced sharing is mediated by stereotypic perceptions of competence and less positive affective responses. Study 3 hypothesized that this gap extends to images featuring men, and Study 4 hypothesized that it also extends to contexts where body size is not a central factor. Finally, in Studies 5a and 5b, we asked whether social norm-based interventions targeting competence or warmth perceptions can help close this gap.

Study 1: Investigating the Body Size Sharing Gap

We conducted an initial exploratory study in which we examined sharing intentions evoked by imagery featuring women with larger versus smaller body sizes. This allowed us to ask whether there is a gap in sharing, such that images of people with larger body sizes evoke lower intentions to share.

Method

Study 1 used a within-subject, single-factor (model body size: larger vs. smaller) design in which all participants were exposed to both images featuring larger-sized models and images showing smaller-sized models, in counterbalanced order. We recruited 114 participants via Prolific; 18 participants were deemed ineligible as 17 did not answer the comprehension check questions correctly and 1 of them did not disclose their gender, leaving a final sample size of 96 (52% female, mean age = 29.05). Participant demographics of each study are included in Table 1. Study procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board at [redacted for blind peer review].

Table 1.

Demographic characteristics of each study

Study 1 Study 2 Study 3a Study 3b (Female subsample) Study 4 Study 5a Study 5b
Ntotal 96 160 172 185 212 171 174
Female
N (%) 50 (52%) 95 (59%) 0 185 (100%) 0 0 0
Age
M (SD) 29.05 (4.26) 25.64 (4.01) 25.85 (4.20) 27.37 (4.45) 28.22 (4.57) 27.84 (4.76) 28.71 (4.32)
Ethnicity
N (%)
White 52 (54%) 79 (49%) 124 (72%) 125 (68%) 162 (76%) 113 (66%) 134 (77%)
Black 19 (20%) 49 (30%) 24 (14%) 27 (15%) 18 (8%) 15 (9%) 17 (10%)
Asian 10 (10%) 8 (5%) 3 (2%) 14 (8%) 23 (11%) 32 (19%) 15 (9%)
Native American 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hispanic 11 (11%) 22 (14%) 15 (8%) 7 (4%) 4 (2%) 4 (2%) 5 (3%)
Others 4 (4%) 2 (2%) 6 (3%) 12 (6%) 5 (2%) 7 (4%) 3 (2%)
Median Clothing size
Female M (8–10) M (8–10) M (8–10)
Male L (12–14) L (12–14) M (8–10) M (8–10) L (12–14) M (8–10)
Open in a new tab

Participants were briefed that they would be viewing images posted on apparel companies’ social media feeds. They rated twelve images: six featuring larger-sized models and six featuring smaller-sized models. Additionally, participant ratings of perceived age, race, attractiveness, and emotional expressions of the models were collected in a pilot study so the mean ratings of these variables could be used as covariates in a follow-up robustness check (see Supplementary Materials for details). To test the robustness to potential confounds, we conducted supplementary analyses that included covariates for characteristics of both participants (age, clothing size, gender, ethnicity) and models depicted within the stimuli (age, race, attractiveness, emotional expressions). This revealed that the effects were robust to these potential confounds (see Supplementary Materials for details). The images for each body size were presented in blocks, while blocks and trial sequences were presented randomly to mitigate order effects. All images depicting female models were sourced from apparel brands’ official feeds, intended to simulate images seen during social media browsing. The structure of the image viewing task also mimics the experiences typical of highly visual social media platforms (see Supplementary Fig. 1 for an example stimulus and task structure).

Participants rated models in the larger-sized condition (Mlarger = 7.30) as higher in body weight than those in the smaller-sized condition (Msmaller = 3.76), b = 3.54, 95% CI [3.40, 3.68], p < .001, indicating that our manipulation of model body size was successful. Each image was rated on affective valence, sharing intention (To what extent would you like to share this post with others?; 0 not at all to 10 very much), and perceived model weight (To what extent do you think this model is?; 0 extremely underweight to 10 extremely overweight). For affective valence, participants reported how they were feeling at the present moment on two unipolar items anchored ‘Positive’ and ‘Negative’. We used the absolute difference between the values of the two items (positive—negative) to construct our affective valence score, and controlled for negative affect as a covariate (c.f. Kron et al., 2013). We analyzed the data from this study with multilevel regression models, estimating effect sizes with unstandardized coefficients. Categorical variables (model body size and participant gender), were contrast-coded. Participants’ clothing size, gender, ethnicity, and age were entered into the regression models as between-participant covariates. Analyses for all studies were conducted in R, using the lme4 package (Bates et al., 2015) for model fitting and the emmeans package (Lenth, 2023) to estimate condition means. Materials, data, code, and pre-registrations for every study are available at https://osf.io/mjypa/?view_only=e95e64e3ac4b4120be4bce46b0d032c4.

Results

Main Effects of Model Body Size

We observed marginally significant effects such that participants on average reported lower intentions to share imagery featuring larger-sized models (Mlarger = 1.89; Msmaller = 2.04), b = -.15, 95% CI [-.31, .01], p = .06, and that larger-sized models evoked less positive affective responses (Mlarger = 3.60) than smaller-sized models (Msmaller = 3.74), b = -.14, 95% CI [-.30, .02], p = .09.

These Effects were Driven Specifically by Male Participants

In line with prior evidence that weight bias targeting women is most pronounced amongst male audiences, we next examined whether these effects were moderated by participant gender. Indeed, there were significant interactions between body size and participant gender for both affective responses, b = .69, 95% CI [.37, 1.02], p < .001, and sharing intentions, b = .66, 95% CI [.35, .97], p < .001. Male viewers reported less positive affective responses for images featuring larger-sized models, b = -.49, 95% CI [-.72, -.26], p < .001, and lower sharing intentions, b = -.49, 95% CI [-.71, -.28], p < .001. In contrast, female audiences actually showed the opposite pattern: directionally, but not significantly, more positive affect to imagery featuring larger-sized (vs. smaller-sized) models, b = .20, 95% CI [-.04, .43], p = .10, and higher sharing intentions for images with larger body sizes, b = .16, 95% CI [-.06, .39], p = .15 (see Supplementary Fig. 2A and Fig. 2B).

Overall, these results suggest that there is a body size sharing gap that is specific to male audiences – that is, images of women with larger bodies evoked less positive affect and lower sharing intentions for male, but not female participants.

Study 2: Replicating the Sharing Gap, Examining Competence and Affect as Mediators

Study 1 provided initial exploratory evidence for a body size sharing gap specifically driven by male audiences. Study 2 aimed to replicate the male-specific sharing gap in a pre-registered test, and to additionally test our hypothesized mediators – competence perceptions and affective responses.

Method

The design, stimuli, and procedure of Study 2 were the same as those in Study 1, with one modification. In addition to sharing intentions, affect, and perceived model weight, participants also rated the perceived warmth and competence of the featured model (see correlations between outcome variables in Supplementary Table 1). We used a power analysis aiming to detect a smallest effect size of interest of Cohen’s D = .10 to set a target sample size of 180 participants, with six trials per condition. A total of 205 participants were recruited via Prolific; 45 participants were excluded from the final sample as 39 of them did not answer the comprehension check questions correctly and 6 of them did not disclose their gender, leaving a final sample of N = 160 (59% female, mean age = 25.64). Mediation analyses were conducted with the lavaan package (Rosseel, 2012), incorporating random intercept terms to account for participant nesting.

Results

The Sharing Gap was Replicated

Collapsing across gender, there was no significant main effect of body size on affect, b = .04, 95% CI [-.09, .17], p = .56, or sharing intentions, b = -.03, 95% CI [-.19, .12], p = .69. However, replicating Study 1, there was an interaction between model body size and participant gender for sharing intentions, b = 1.23, 95% CI [.91, 1.54], p < .001. Male viewers showed lower intentions to share images of people with larger body sizes, b = -.76, 95% CI [-.99, -.53], p < .001, whereas female participants showed the opposite effect: higher sharing for larger body sizes, b = .47, 95% CI [.26, .67], p < .001 (see Fig. 1A). This interaction pattern is also seen for affective responses, b = .61, 95% CI [.34, .87], p < .001, such that male participants reported less positive affect for images featuring people with larger body sizes, b = -.29, 95% CI [-.48, -.10], p = .003, while female viewers showed the opposite, b = .28, 95% CI [.11, .46], p = .002.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

(A) Male participants showed lower sharing intentions for larger-sized models, whereas female participants showed the opposite pattern. (B) In male participants, the effect of model body size on sharing intentions is serially mediated by perceived competence and affective responses

This Sharing Gap is Mediated By Perceived Competence and Affect

Next, we conducted a serial mediation analysis to ask whether the sharing gap seen amongst male participants could be explained by competence stereotypes targeting people with larger bodies (mediator 1), and in turn by less positive affective responses to these images (mediator 2). To do so, we fit a mediation model to the data from the male participants, which indicated that the effect of model body size was indeed serially mediated by competence perceptions and affective responses, indirect effect = -.16, 95% CI [-.27, -.05], p = .004 (see Fig. 1B). Fitting the same mediation model to the data from the female participants showed no such mediation effect, indirect effect = .01, 95% CI [-.05, .08], p = .73. We also fit a moderated serial mediation model, in which we included the interaction between model body size and participant gender. This interaction was calculated as a separate variable before putting into the moderated mediation model. The results showed that the first stage of the serial mediation path was significantly moderated by gender such that the conditional indirect effect was significant for men, -.17, 95% CI [-.26, -.07], p < .001, but not for women, .01, 95% CI [-.05, .07], p = .73, That is, male participants rated people with larger bodies as lower in competence, b = -.65, 95% CI [-.83, -.47], p < .001, but female participants did not, b = .04, 95% CI [-.11, .19], p = .58.

Overall, this study replicated the sharing gap apparent amongst male participants, and revealed evidence that this gap is mediated via stereotypic perceptions of competence and less positive affective responses.

Study 3a: Examining the Body Size Sharing Gap for Images Featuring Men

Studies 1 and 2 identified a body size sharing gap driven by male participants. However, a limitation of these studies is that they only examined responses to imagery featuring women. In Study 3a, we ask whether the effects of Studies 1 and 2 extend to images featuring men.

Method

The design, procedure, and measures of Study 3a are similar to Study 2, with the exceptions that the task stimuli were images featuring men, and that only male participants were recruited for this study, as results from Studies 1 and 2 indicate that the body size sharing gap is driven specifically by males. As with the prior studies, images used as stimuli were drawn from social media imagery used in promotions from apparel brands, and downloaded from brands’ official feeds. We recruited 230 male participants via Prolific and had 172 in the final sample (mean age = 25.85). Participants rated models in the larger-sized condition (Mlarger = 7.31) as higher in body weight than those in the smaller-sized condition (Msmaller = 3.87), b = 3.44, 95% CI [3.34, 3.55], p < .001, again indicating a successful manipulation of model body size.

Results

The Body Size Sharing Gap Extends to Images Featuring Men

On average, male participants had significantly lower sharing intentions, b = -.37, 95% CI [-.49, -.24], p < .001, and directionally less positive affective responses, b = -.08, 95% CI [-.19, .03], p = .14, for images featuring men with larger body sizes (versus smaller body sizes). And they rated male models with larger body sizes as less competent than smaller-sized ones, b = -.23, 95% CI [-.33, -.12], p < .001.

Mediation by Perceived Competence and Affect Also Extends to Images Featuring Men

Next, we asked whether the same mediators – perceived competence and affect – also explained the sharing gap observed for images featuring men. Indeed, we found that the effect of model body size on sharing intentions was serially mediated by competence perceptions and affective responses indirect effect = -.05, 95% CI [-.09, -.01], p = .007 (see Supplementary Fig. 3). Further, the mediation effect held when additionally controlling for perceptions of warmth, indirect effect = -.04, 95% CI [-.06, -.01], p = .002, suggesting that this effect is driven specifically by perceptions of competence, beyond any effects on perceived warmth.

Overall, Study 3a showed that the body size sharing gap, and its underlying mediators, generalize to instances where male audiences are evaluating images featuring men.

Study 3b: Incorporating responses from female participants

Study 3a showed that male participants show a sharing gap for male images, but did not speak to the question of whether female participants might show the same gap. To examine this, we conducted a follow-up analysis incorporating responses from female participants.

Method

To ask whether a body size sharing gap is shown by women viewing images of men, we conducted a follow-up to Study 3a that sampled female participants within the same experimental protocol. We analyze the data from Studies 3a and 3b together, to compare effects across men and women participants. The combined dataset included 357 individuals (52% female, mean age = 26.64). All participants viewed images of larger- and smaller-sized male models. We again conducted mediation analyses with the lavaan package (Rosseel, 2012).

Results

Main Effects of Model Body Size

Collapsing across gender, participants on average reported lower sharing intentions, b = -.21, 95% CI [-.29, -.13], p < .001, less positive affect, b = -.09, 95% CI [-.17, -.02], p = .01, and lower perceived competence, b = -.12, 95% CI [-.19, -.05], p < .001, for images featuring larger-sized targets.

The Sharing Gap is Shown by Male, but not Female Participants

However, there was a significant interaction between model body size and participant gender on sharing, b = .31, 95% CI [.15, .47], p < .001, such that male participants were less likely to share images of larger male bodies, b = -.37, 95% CI [-.49, -.24], p < .001, whereas female participants did not show a significant difference, b = -.06, 95% CI [-.16, .05], p = .29.

Mediation by Competence and Affect

We also fit a moderated mediation model, in which we included the interaction between model body size and participant gender. As with the prior study, the conditional indirect effect was significant for men, -.04, 95% CI [-.06, -.01], p = .006, but not for women, -.00, 95% CI [-.03, .02], p = .75, reinforcing the idea that lower competence perceptions and positive affect drive male but not female participants’ sharing behaviors.

These findings suggest that a body-size sharing gap emerges specifically for male viewers, regardless of whether the images feature male or female bodies. They also show that lower perceived competence and less positive affect do not drive the sharing behavior of women responding to images of men.

Study 4: Examining the body size sharing gap in a context where body size is not central

The results of Studies 1, 2, and 3 consistently show a body size sharing gap among male participants. However, it remains unclear if these effects mainly occur in contexts where body size is central, such as clothing promotions. To investigate this, Study 4 examined whether the body size sharing gap extends to contexts where body size is not central – technology product promotions.

Method

The design, procedure, measures, and analyses in Study 4 were largely the same as in the previous studies. The key difference was that task stimuli here depicted female models promoting technology products (smartphones). We recruited 268 male participants from Prolific and excluded 48 participants who were inattentive or did not indicate gender, leaving a final sample of 212 (mean age = 28.22).

Results

The Body Size Sharing Gap and Mediation Pathway Extends to the Context of Technology Advertising

Consistent with results of our prior studies, models with larger bodies were rated as less competent, ​​b = -.36, 95% CI [-.47, -.26], p < .001, evoked less positive affective responses, b = -.25, 95% CI [-.34, -.16], p < .001, and lower sharing intentions, b = -.56, 95% CI [-.67, -.46], p < .001. As in studies 2 and 3, the effect of model body size was serially mediated by competence perceptions and affective responses, indirect effect = -.05, 95% CI [-.08, -.01], p = .009 (see Supplementary Fig. 4), and this held when additionally controlling for model warmth indirect effect = -.04, 95% CI [-.07, -.01], p = .004. This suggests that the body size sharing gap and underlying drivers generalize to a communication context where body size is not a central factor.

To further validate these effects and assess the robustness to potential carryover or demand effects, we conducted supplementary between-subjects analyses with data from Studies 1 to 4. The results reinforced that the sharing gap we identified persists in a between-subject setting, supporting the robustness of our findings (see Supplementary Materials for details).

Study 5a: Experimentally Targeting Competence Stereotypes with Social Norms

Studies 1 through 4 identified that male audiences share images of people with larger body sizes less frequently, influenced by competence stereotypes and affective responses. However, these studies do not address whether these stereotypes can be experimentally targeted. To explore this, Study 5a tested the causal impact of competence stereotypes by manipulating them with social norm information that either affirmed or challenged the competence of people with larger bodies, measuring the impact on sharing intentions and the responses mediating this effect.

Method

Study 5a examined the effects of an intervention in which peers’ perceived competence of the featured social target was displayed to the participants. To develop this intervention, we draw from prior research that has successfully used similar social norm-based manipulations to influence attitudes and behaviors like racial beliefs, alcohol use, and body image disturbance (Bergstrom & Neighbors, 2006; Berkowitz, 2005; Stangor et al., 2001). This used a within-subject, 2 (Model body size: larger-sized vs. smaller-sized) by 2 (Displayed competence norm: high vs. low) design. Participants were presented with both imagery featuring larger-sized female models and imagery showing smaller-sized female models and were exposed to both high competence norm and low competence norm information.

The procedure and measures in Study 5a are similar to those in the prior studies, with an additional manipulation of social norms. In each trial, participants were presented with information on previous participants' perceived competence of the featured model. In the high competence norm condition, participants viewed the text ‘A group of participants before you rated this model as a [8.5/9.0/9.5] out of 10 on intelligence’. In the low competence norm condition, participants viewed the text ‘A group of participants before you rated this model as a [2.5/3.0/3.5] out of 10 on intelligence’. We recruited 222 male participants via Prolific and 171 remained in the final sample (mean age = 27.84) after excluding those who failed the comprehension check questions.

Results

Main Effects of Model Body Size

We first looked at the main effects of model body size. The results showed that participants on average reported lower sharing intentions for images featuring larger-sized (vs. smaller-sized) models, b = -.39, 95% CI [-.52, -.26], p < .001, but did not show a significant difference in affective responses to the two types of imagery, b = -.06, 95% CI [-.16, .05], p = .28.

The Competence Intervention Influenced Sharing Intentions Via Positive Affect

Consistent with our hypotheses, competence norm information increased sharing intentions, b = .33, 95% CI [.21, .46], p < .001, and perceived competence, b = .37, 95% CI [.26, .48], p < .001, but did not significantly increase the positivity of affective responses, b = .06, 95% CI [-.05, .16], p = .29, (see Fig. 2A, B, and C). There was an interaction of model body size and the norm intervention condition for both sharing intentions, b = -.31, 95% CI [-.56, -.07], p = .01, and perceived competence, b = -.31, 95% CI [-.52, -.10], p = .004, such that the intervention was more effective for smaller-sized targets for both sharing intentions, b = .49, 95% CI [.32, .66], p < .001, and changing competence perceptions, b = .52, 95% CI [.37, .67], p < .001. However, for larger-sized models, the intervention also significantly increased sharing intentions, b = .18, 95% CI [.02, .33], p = .03, and perceived competence, b = .21, 95% CI [.07, .35], p = .002, indicating the intervention’s effectiveness across different body sizes. Further, a serial mediation model provided support for our hypothesized mechanism, such that the effect of the competence norm manipulation on sharing intentions was serially mediated by perceptions of competence and more positive affective responses, indirect effect = .06, 95% CI [.02, .09], p = .001 (see Fig. 2D). Finally, the mediation by competence and affective responses held when additionally controlling for ratings of warmth, indirect effect = .02, 95% CI [.01, .04], p = .006. This suggests that, like the effect of model body size itself, the effect of the competence norm intervention on sharing is also mediated by perceptions of competence, beyond any effects on perceived warmth.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Competence norm information shaped (A) sharing intentions, (B) perceived competence, and (C) positive affect for images of both large-sized and smaller-sized individuals. (D) The effect of the competence norm intervention is serially mediated by perceived competence and affective responses

In summary, the direct manipulation of competence information used in Study 5a underscores the causal impact of competence stereotypes on social transmission of social media imagery featuring larger bodies and provides insight into the psychological mechanism underlying this effect. Content that affirms the competence of people with larger body sizes increased sharing intentions, driven by higher perceived competence and more positive affective responses.

Study 5b: Targeting Warmth Perceptions

Building on Study 5a, we conducted a follow-up study to examine the impact of social information about warmth on sharing. Since warmth is a key dimension of social perception, this study investigates whether warmth-related social information can influence sharing, as an alternative to competence-based endorsements.

Method

We used a within-subject, 2 (Model body size: larger-sized vs. smaller-sized) by 2 (Displayed warmth norm: high vs. low) design. The procedure, stimuli, and measures mirrored those used in Study 5a, differing only in that the normative information described the model’s friendliness. We recruited 226 male participants via Prolific and 174 remained in the final sample (mean age = 28.71).

Results

Main Effects of Model Body Size

When collapsing across the intervention conditions, participants on average reported lower sharing intentions, b = -.25, 95% CI [-.38, -.11], p < .001, and less positive affective responses, b = -.14, 95% CI [-.24, -.04], p = .005, when exposed to images featuring larger-sized (vs. smaller-sized) models.

The Warmth Intervention Also Influenced Sharing Intentions Via Positive Affect

The warmth intervention significantly increased sharing intentions, b = .48, 95% CI [.35, .61], p < .001, perceived warmth, b = .59, 95% CI [.45, .74], p < .001, and positive affect, b = .19, 95% CI [.10, .29], p < .001. Serial mediation analysis showed that increased perceptions of warmth and increased positive affect serially mediate the effect of the intervention on sharing intentions, indirect effect = .03, 95% CI [.01, .04], p = .009, when controlling for perceived competence (see Supplementary Fig. 5).

Studies 5a and 5b together demonstrate that altering perceptions via social norms – whether by challenging negative stereotypes of competence or by reinforcing perceptions of warmth – can shape subsequent social media sharing behaviors. However, these norms impact sharing through distinct psychological mechanisms: competence norms affect sharing by changing perceived competence, whereas warmth norms do so by changing perceived warmth. In both cases, affective responses mediate the effect of these altered perceptions on downstream intentions to share. These findings suggest that social norms highlighting peer perceptions, even those countering prevalent body-related stereotypes, can shape social media sharing behavior.

General Discussion

In a series of five studies, we found that male audiences show lower sharing intentions for social media imagery featuring people with larger body sizes, and this sharing gap is mediated by perceptions of low competence coupled with less positive affective responses. This decreased tendency to share is consistent across both male and female social targets and is also observed in contexts where body size is not a central factor. Importantly, we found that this sharing gap can be targeted with interventions communicating peers’ perceptions of competence or warmth.

Stereotypes, Affective Responses, and Social Sharing

Our findings contribute to the literature on weight-based stereotypes and social transmission by identifying an important outcome triggered by competence stereotypes: the exclusion of larger-sized bodies from online conversations through reduced social sharing, limiting diversity in body size representation. Previous research has identified drivers of social sharing, such as emotional arousal, moral language, and practical utility (Berger, 2014; Brady et al., 2020; Chen & Berger, 2013; Scholz et al., 2020). Our results add to this literature by demonstrating how affective responses, influenced by stereotypic perceptions, can limit social sharing. Additionally, our findings highlight the impact of competence stereotypes on media representation, aligning with insights from media studies that emphasize social media’s role in raising awareness about weight-based inequality (Puhl, 2022). Consistent with prior work suggesting that groups perceived as low in competence evoke negative emotions and passive harm behaviors like exclusion and neglect (Ayduk et al., 2003; Cuddy et al., 2007; Fiske et al., 2002), our findings illustrate that affective responses mediate the relationship between stereotypes and social behaviors. This highlights the pivotal role of affect in driving or limiting social sharing behaviors.

Our results align with studies suggesting that stereotypes are partly shaped by perceptions of others’ stereotypic beliefs (Puhl et al., 2005; Stangor et al., 2001; Tankard & Paluck, 2016). Findings from our intervention studies indicate that social norm information can effectively target the body size sharing gap by shaping perceptions of competence and warmth. These studies provide further insight into mechanisms, suggesting that affect mediates behavioral effects driven by change in both warmth and competence. This supports the promise of norm-based interventions for shaping body-related social perceptions to ultimately influence social media sharing behaviors. Related, while the competence norm intervention was particularly effective for the smaller-sized condition, it was also effective for the larger-sized condition. This suggests that even though altering competence perceptions of people with larger bodies with social norm information may be more challenging, it remains an attainable goal, with implications for affective responses and downstream social behaviors.

Limitations and Future Directions

Our study is limited by its sample: adults 18 to 35 years old, with about 60% being White. The literature we reference also predominantly focuses on White individuals living in North America. An important direction for future research is to explore how variations in ethnicity, age, and cultural background can influence disparities in social media sharing behavior, like the one we identify here. Another limitation of our study derives from the controlled experimental setting. Future work may ask if the observed sharing gap shown by men generalizes to real-world settings in terms of its magnitude and direction. To better understand these dynamics, subsequent research could incorporate observational data to capture more naturally occurring behaviors and interactions.

Revealing competence stereotypes held by men as a major barrier to spreading messages featuring larger bodies suggests possible avenues for future research. Future work might focus on developing interventions that can be seamlessly integrated into existing message campaigns. Since affective responses play a crucial mediating role, it may also be possible to target these responses through means other than social perceptions to influence sharing. Additionally, while our study focused on the mechanisms behind the sharing gap among men, future work should investigate responses in female audiences more closely. Studies indicate that women’s interaction with body-positive content can lead to negative outcomes like self-objectification (Clark et al., 2021; Cohen et al., 2019a), which may influence how they share. Follow-up work could explore the mechanisms driving sharing for women to better understand these effects.

Conclusion

We identified a male-specific gap in sharing behavior targeting larger-sized individuals, which is mediated by stereotypes related to competence and less positive affective responses. This gap is consistent across both male and female targets and in contexts where body size is not a central factor. Our research sheds light on mechanisms that affect the dissemination of content featuring larger bodies, providing insights for enhancing societal focus on underrepresented groups and promoting more inclusive representation of body image on social media. Overall, this work extends the existing literature on sharing, stereotype content, and weight bias, identifying critical roles of stereotypes and affective responses in social transmission.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 604 KB) (604.2KB, docx)

Additional Information

Funding

NSERC Discovery Grant (RGPIN-2021-03438) and SSHRC Insight Grant 435-2021-0511).

Conflict of Interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available in the Open Science Framework repository https://osf.io/mjypa/?view_only=e95e64e3ac4b4120be4bce46b0d032c4.

Code availability

Code is available at the Open Science Framework repository https://osf.io/mjypa/?view_only=e95e64e3ac4b4120be4bce46b0d032c4.

Authors' contributions

Both authors designed the research, executed the research, analysed the data, and wrote and revised the paper.

Ethics approval

The study was approved by the McGill University.

Consent to participate

Consent was obtained from all participants.

Consent for publication

Consent was obtained from all participants.

References

  1. Al-Rawi, A. (2019). Viral news on social media. Digital Journalism, 7(1), 63–79. 10.1080/21670811.2017.1387062 [Google Scholar]
  2. American Psychological Association. (2008). Report of the APA Task Force on the sexualization of girls. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Retrieved May 16, 2024, from https://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/girls/report
  3. Ayduk, O., May, D., Downey, G., & Higgins, E. T. (2003). Tactical differences in coping with rejection sensitivity: The role of prevention pride. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(4), 435–448. 10.1177/0146167202250911 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bailey, C. (2010). Supersizing America: Fatness and post-9/11 cultural anxieties. The Journal of Popular Culture, 43(3), 441–462. 10.1111/j.1540-5931.2010.00752.x [Google Scholar]
  5. Baker, A., & Florack, A. (2021). Uncovering men’s stereotype content (warmth and competence) associated with a representative range of male body size categories. Body Image, 37, 148–161. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software,67(1). 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
  7. Berger, J. (2014). Word of mouth and interpersonal communication: A review and directions for future research. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(4), 586–607. 10.1016/j.jcps.2014.05.002 [Google Scholar]
  8. Berger, J., & Milkman, K. L. (2012). What makes online content viral? Journal of Marketing Research, 49(2), 192–205. 10.1509/jmr.10.0353 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bergstrom, R. L., & Neighbors, C. (2006). Body image disturbance and the social norms approach: An integrative review of the literature. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25(9), 975–1000. 10.1521/jscp.2006.25.9.975 [Google Scholar]
  10. Berkowitz, A. D. (2005). An overview of the social norms approach. Changing the culture of college drinking: A socially situated health communication campaign, 1, 193–214. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bessenoff, G. R. (2006). Can the media affect us? Social comparison, self-discrepancy, and the thin ideal. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30(3), 239–251. [Google Scholar]
  12. Bograd, S., Chen, B., & Kavuluru, R. (2022). Tracking sentiments toward fat acceptance over a decade on Twitter. Health Informatics Journal, 28(1), 14604582211065702. 10.1177/14604582211065702 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Brady, W. J., Gantman, A. P., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2020). Attentional capture helps explain why moral and emotional content go viral. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(4), 746. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Bryksina, O., Wang, L., & Mai-McManus, T. (2021). How body size cues judgments on person perception dimensions. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(6), 1092–1102. [Google Scholar]
  15. Cassiano, G. S., Carvalho-Ferreira, J. P., Buckland, N. J., Ulian, M. D., & da Cunha, D. T. (2022). Are dietitians with obesity perceived as competent and warm? Applying the stereotype content model to weight stigma in Brazil. Frontiers in Nutrition, 9, 813344. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Chen, E. Y., & Brown, M. (2005). Obesity stigma in sexual relationships. Obesity Research, 13(8), 1393–1397. 10.1038/oby.2005.168 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Chen, Z., & Berger, J. (2013). When, why, and how controversy causes conversation. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 580–593. [Google Scholar]
  18. Choukas-Bradley, S., Roberts, S. R., Maheux, A. J., & Nesi, J. (2022). The perfect storm: A developmental-sociocultural framework for the role of social media in adolescent girls’ body image concerns and mental health. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 25(4), 681–701. 10.1007/s10567-022-00404-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Clark, O., Lee, M. M., Jingree, M. L., O’Dwyer, E., Yue, Y., Marrero, A., Tamez, M., Bhupathiraju, S. N., & Mattei, J. (2021). Weight stigma and social media: Evidence and public health solutions. Frontiers in Nutrition, 8, 739056. 10.3389/fnut.2021.739056 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Cohen, R., Fardouly, J., Newton-John, T., & Slater, A. (2019a). # BoPo on Instagram: An experimental investigation of the effects of viewing body positive content on young women’s mood and body image. New Media & Society, 21(7), 1546–1564. [Google Scholar]
  21. Cohen, R., Irwin, L., Newton-John, T., & Slater, A. (2019b). #bodypositivity: A content analysis of body positive accounts on Instagram. Body Image, 29, 47–57. 10.1016/j.bodyim.2019.02.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Crandall, C. S. (1994). Prejudice against fat people: Ideology and self-interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(5), 882–894. 10.1037/0022-3514.66.5.882 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Crandall, C. S., & Martinez, R. (1996). Culture, ideology, and antifat attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(11), 1165–1176. 10.1177/01461672962211007 [Google Scholar]
  24. Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(4), 631–648. 10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.631 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Davies, B., Turner, M., & Udell, J. (2020). Add a comment… How fitspiration and body positive captions attached to social media images influence the mood and body esteem of young female Instagram users. Body Image, 33, 101–105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Dubois, D., Bonezzi, A., & De Angelis, M. (2016). Sharing with friends versus strangers: How interpersonal closeness influences word-of-mouth valence. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(5), 712–727. 10.1509/jmr.13.0312 [Google Scholar]
  27. Durante, F., Fasolo, M., Mari, S., & Mazzola, A. F. (2014). Children’s attitudes and stereotype content toward thin, average-weight, and overweight peers. SAGE Open, 4(2), 2158244014534697. [Google Scholar]
  28. Fikkan, J. L., & Rothblum, E. D. (2012). Is fat a feminist issue? Exploring the gendered nature of weight bias. Sex Roles, 66(9), 575–592. 10.1007/s11199-011-0022-5 [Google Scholar]
  29. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 77–83. 10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878–902. 10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T.-A. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(2), 173–206. 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x [Google Scholar]
  32. Gervais, S. J., Holland, A. M., & Dodd, M. D. (2013). My eyes are up here: The nature of the objectifying gaze toward women. Sex Roles, 69(11), 557–570. 10.1007/s11199-013-0316-x [Google Scholar]
  33. Harper, B., & Tiggemann, M. (2008). The effect of thin ideal media images on women’s self-objectification, mood, and body image. Sex Roles, 58(9), 649–657. 10.1007/s11199-007-9379-x [Google Scholar]
  34. Harris, L. T., Cikara, M., & Fiske, S. T. (2008). Envy as predicted by the stereotype content model: Volatile ambivalence (pp. 133–147). Theory and Research. [Google Scholar]
  35. Hawkins, N., Richards, P. S., Granley, H. M., & Stein, D. M. (2004). The impact of exposure to the thin-ideal media image on women. Eating Disorders, 12(1), 35–50. 10.1080/10640260490267751 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Heflick, N. A., & Goldenberg, J. L. (2009). Objectifying Sarah Palin: Evidence that objectification causes women to be perceived as less competent and less fully human. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(3), 598–601. 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.02.008 [Google Scholar]
  37. Joo, B. R., & Wu, J. (2021). The impact of inclusive fashion advertising with plus-size models on female consumers: The mediating role of brand warmth. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, 12(3), 260–273. 10.1080/20932685.2021.1905021 [Google Scholar]
  38. Kashima, Y., Bain, P. G., & Perfors, A. (2019). The psychology of cultural dynamics: What is it, what do we know, and what is yet to be known? Annual Review of Psychology, 70(1), 499–529. 10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103112 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Kranz, D. (2023). Ambivalent associations between competence, warmth, and body size: A person perception approach. Stigma and Health.10.1037/sah0000436
  40. Kron, A., Goldstein, A., Lee, D. H.-J., Gardhouse, K., & Anderson, A. K. (2013). How are you feeling? Revisiting the quantification of emotional qualia. Psychological Science, 24(8), 1503–1511. 10.1177/0956797613475456 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Leach, C. W., Ellemers, N., & Barreto, M. (2007). Group virtue: The importance of morality (vs. competence and sociability) in the positive evaluation of in-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(2), 234. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Lenth, R. (2023). Emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans
  43. Levitt, D. H. (2003). Drive for thinness and fear of fat: Separate yet related constructs? Eating Disorders, 11(3), 221–234. 10.1080/10640260390218729 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Lin, L., & McFerran, B. (2016). The (ironic) dove effect: Use of acceptance cues for larger body types increases unhealthy behaviors. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 35(1), 76–90. 10.1509/jppm.14.020 [Google Scholar]
  45. Lydecker, J. A., Cotter, E. W., Palmberg, A. A., Simpson, C., Kwitowski, M., White, K., & Mazzeo, S. E. (2016). Does this tweet make me look fat? A content analysis of weight stigma on Twitter. Eating and Weight Disorders - Studies on Anorexia, Bulimia and Obesity, 21(2), 229–235. 10.1007/s40519-016-0272-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Mavrodieva, A. V., Rachman, O. K., Harahap, V. B., & Shaw, R. (2019). Role of social media as a soft power tool in raising public awareness and engagement in addressing climate change. Climate, 7(10), 10. 10.3390/cli7100122 [Google Scholar]
  47. Moors, A., Ellsworth, P. C., Scherer, K. R., & Frijda, N. H. (2013). Appraisal theories of emotion: State of the art and future development. Emotion Review, 5(2), 119–124. 10.1177/1754073912468165 [Google Scholar]
  48. Pearl, R. L., Puhl, R. M., & Brownell, K. D. (2012). Positive media portrayals of obese persons: Impact on attitudes and image preferences. Health Psychology, 31(6), 821. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Perloff, R. M. (2014). Social media effects on young women’s body image concerns: Theoretical perspectives and an agenda for research. Sex Roles, 71(11), 363–377. 10.1007/s11199-014-0384-6 [Google Scholar]
  50. Prnjak, K., Pemberton, S., Helms, E., & Phillips, J. G. (2020). Reactions to ideal body shapes. The Journal of General Psychology, 147(4), 361–380. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Puhl, R. M. (2022). Weight stigma, policy initiatives, and harnessing social media to elevate activism. Body Image, 40, 131–137. 10.1016/j.bodyim.2021.12.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Puhl, R. M., & Heuer, C. A. (2009). The stigma of obesity: A review and update. Obesity, 17(5), 941–964. 10.1038/oby.2008.636 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Puhl, R. M., & Heuer, C. A. (2010). Obesity stigma: Important considerations for public health. American Journal of Public Health, 100(6), 1019–1028. 10.2105/AJPH.2009.159491 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Puhl, R. M., Schwartz, M. B., & Brownell, K. D. (2005). Impact of perceived consensus on stereotypes about obese people: A new approach for reducing bias. Health Psychology, 24(5), 517–525. 10.1037/0278-6133.24.5.517 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–36. [Google Scholar]
  56. Santoniccolo, F., Trombetta, T., Paradiso, M. N., & Rollè, L. (2023). Gender and media representations: A review of the literature on gender stereotypes, objectification and sexualization. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(10), 10. 10.3390/ijerph20105770 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Scholz, C., Jovanova, M., Baek, E. C., & Falk, E. B. (2020). Media content sharing as a value-based decision. Current Opinion in Psychology, 31, 83–88. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2007). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science, 18(5), 429–434. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01917.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Stangor, C., Sechrist, G. B., & Jost, J. T. (2001). Changing racial beliefs by providing consensus information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(4), 486–496. 10.1177/0146167201274009 [Google Scholar]
  60. Tankard, M. E., & Paluck, E. L. (2016). Norm perception as a vehicle for social change. Social Issues and Policy Review, 10(1), 181–211. [Google Scholar]
  61. Taylor, D. G., Strutton, D., & Thompson, K. (2012). Self-enhancement as a motivation for sharing online advertising. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 12(2), 13–28. 10.1080/15252019.2012.10722193 [Google Scholar]
  62. Vandenbosch, L., Fardouly, J., & Tiggemann, M. (2022). Social media and body image: Recent trends and future directions. Current Opinion in Psychology, 45, 101289. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.12.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Wanniarachchi, V. U., Scogings, C., Susnjak, T., & Mathrani, A. (2022). Fat stigma and body objectification: A text analysis approach using social media content. Digital Health, 8, 20552076221117404. 10.1177/20552076221117404 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 604 KB) (604.2KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available in the Open Science Framework repository https://osf.io/mjypa/?view_only=e95e64e3ac4b4120be4bce46b0d032c4.

Articles from Affective Science are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES