Fat Talk: Objectification Theory By Fredrickson And Roberts

Theories of ‘fat talk’;
The theory that has received the most empirical attention is known as the Objectification Theory by Fredrickson & Roberts (1997). This is based on the idea that women are socialised and consorted to view themselves as objects that are in turn, viewed and evaluated by others on the basis of their appearance. Manz, Petroff, Curtin & Bazzini (2009) claimed that fat talk is a “social extension of body objectification”. By engaging in fat talk, Arroyo (2014) proposes that women are not only maintaining society’s objectification theories of their bodies, but they are also re-creating and socially fabricating their own occurrence in weight deviation, social comparison and objectification. This perspective of oneself can lead
to perpetual body observation, which can later lead to the effect of one’s well-being due to appearance related anxiety. Objectification theory suggests that comments about one’s weight/body may aid toward the mitigation of guilt and chagrin, the feeling that not having a perfect body is something to be acknowledged.
Despite the vast framework of evidence, the current pertinent of theories are toward particular social identifications and demographic groups Calogero (2012). Along with this, it seems that objectification theory is virtually unavoidable for women. It seems that fat talk can be seen as a result of body objectification that women frequently experience (Festinger, 1957).
By comparing oneself to cultural ideals presented in the media, such as thinspiration and beauty images, Festinger (1954) argues that this leads women to rate their own appearance as a result. These are most likely to be upward comparisons, which leads to discontent with their own appearance and body (Strahan, Wilson-Cressman& Buote, 2006; Want, 2009), in some cases this may lead to further action such as pathogenic weight control methods (Ridolfi, Myers, Crowther & Ciesla, 2011). Supporting this, Heinberg & Thompson (1995) found that those who self-evaluate due to Social Comparison Theory are more likely to make comparisons with those who are similar as opposed to those who are dissimilar to themselves. As social comparison theory has seen to be self-executed (Botta, 2000) comparisons are most likely habitual, leading to the conclusion that women use fat talk to demonstrate discontent and portray such beliefs that they do not adequately meet the standards of beauty.
Another theory that may be able to explain some of the negative effects of fat talk would be cognitive dissonance.
This occurs when an individual says or does something that is incompatible with their self-concept. Unpleasant psychological states are experienced which is caused by incongruity. This helps give reason for the negative influence of the corresponding procedure of fat talk on one’s self-concept. Bem (1967) proposed the Self-perception theory as an alternate version of this theory however, it hypothesises that ‘behaviour causes attitudes’ opposing the standard inclination that attitudes shape behaviour. Another theory is known as pluralistic ignorance Miller + McFarland (1987). These theories best elucidate how fat talk utilizes its negative impacts and why women part take in fat talk despite the consequences. Shannon & Mills (2015). Suggested however, that to better these theories, individual differences should be taken into account as this may subside the impact the influence of fat talk of any given
individual.
These theories explain the cognitive process by which women make sense of their bodies amongst sociocultural pressures, and provide proficient theoretical methods for why women engage in such behaviours. Current research employs specific theories to uncover body dissatisfaction as a motivation to participate in fat talk. Social Comparison theory, and Objectification theory are associated with fat talk through body dissatisfaction however (Arroyo, 2014). Objectification theory has the most research to date, nevertheless it forsakes the dyadic nature of fat talk Shannon & Mills (2015).
Measures of fat talk;
Whilst reviewing multiple journal articles, it was clear to see that measures of fat talk are critical for understanding the investigation of fat talk, and each have been empirically validated to do so.
Clarke, Murnen & Smolak (2010) developed 9 vignettes which included a young woman engaging in fat talk. This is known as the Fat Talk Scale. The subjects then complete a questionnaire on similarities between the woman in the vignettes and themselves. This scale is found to have high internal consistency, test-retest reliability and discriminant validity (Clarke et al. 2010).
Another measure that exhibits high test-retest reliability, internal consistency, convergent validity and divergent validity (Engeln-Maddox et al. 2012), is the Negative Body Talk Scale by Engeln-Maddox, Salk & Miller (2012). This measures how frequently the participant forms specific statements in social situations, regarding fat talk. However it is noted that this measure has yet to be used over an extensive population of those with vast demographics.
The final measure that is frequently used in studies based around fat talk, is the Fat Talk Questionnaire by Royal, McDonald & Dionne (2013) which is a Likert scale that inquires about the respondents own behaviour, therefore it does not analyse the corresponding attributes towards fat
talk.
Developing measurements for fat talk allows for testing of prognosis about the ties between fat talk and body dissatisfaction. MacDonald–Clarke, Murnen, & Slomak, (2010) suggest that predictability towards attitudes and performance that’s correlated with body dissatisfaction can add to one’s predictability of behaviours by developing quantitative and psychometric scales. Typically it is viewed that the use of these measurements grant reliable detection of behaviour. Nevertheless, studies that did not contain these self-report measures tended to create their own, that was derived from Nichter & Vuckovic’s (1994) bona fide definition of fat talk.