Skip to main content
. 2017 Dec 21;4(1):29–40. doi: 10.1002/osp4.143

Table 4.

The effect of experimental exposure condition on norm judgements and underestimation in Study 3

Normal weight exposure Obese exposure Test results
Female (N = 142) (N = 68) (N = 74)
Upper norm boundary 4.66 (2.28) 5.28 (1.97) t(140) = −2.31, p = 0.022, d = 0.37
Lower norm boundary 2.18 (1.01) 2.31 (1.38) t(140) = −0.08, p = 0.935, d = 0.01
Average 3.60 (1.07) 4.32 (1.29) t(140) = −3.36, p = 0.001, d = 0.52
Norm width 3.47 (2.72) 3.91 (2.17) t(140) = −1.92, p = 0.057, d = 0.33
Underestimation of weight status 9 (13%) 32 (43%) χ 2(1, N = 142) = 15.54, p < 0.001, V = 0.33
Male (N = 148) (N = 75) (N = 73)
Upper norm boundary 4.56 (1.50) 5.52 (1.98) t(146) = −3.27, p = 0.001, d = 0.50
Lower norm boundary 2.67 (0.88) 2.74 (1.01) t(146) = −0.048, p = 0.962, d = 0.01
Average 4.18 (1.10) 4.78 (1.19) t(146) = −3.20, p = 0.002, d = 0.50
Norm width 2.88 (1.82) 3.78 (2.42) t(146) = −2.12, p = 0.036, d = 0.35
Underestimation of weight status 62 (83%) 67 (92%) χ 2(1, N = 148) = 2.75, p = 0.097, V = 0.14

For upper norm boundary, lower norm boundary and average, values refer to body sizes selected using body size guide scales and are M (SD). Norm width refers to number of body sizes selected using body size guide scales are M (SD). Underestimated refers to number of participants underestimating the weight status of the overweight model (frequency [%]).