Description

Review of Experimental Research - In conjunction with the Information Literacy lecture, you will find a peer-reviewed journal article on negative body talk (aka ‘fat talk’) and ethnicity. You will write a 2 to 3-page paper explaining the methodology that was used in the article. THIS IS NOT A PAPER ABOUT FAT TALK. THIS IS A PAPER DEMONSTRATING THAT YOU UNDERSTAND EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH as a way to engage the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. You will introduce the scientific method and experimental research, noting that it is the only type of research method that allows scientists to make causal statements (i.e., this caused that). Make clear that the fat talk article will serve as an example of the elements of an experiment. At a minimum, you must briefly explain the following concepts (citing King) and providing examples from the fat talk article (citing the authors): hypothesis (the fat talk article has 3 hypotheses - pick ONE to discuss) independent variable – IV dependent variable - DV (for the hypothesis you chose) operational definition of the IV and DV (the DV you picked – not all three) experimental group control group (and why it's necessary) random assignment (and why it’s necessary) ethical considerations in research (this is the only element that does not require examples from the fat talk article). publication in a peer-reviewed journal           Explain each of these concepts using your own words and citing King. And, explain how these concepts were implemented in the fat talk study, citing the fat talk authors. Do not use any direct quotes. Include correct APA citations of the article and the book (King) in text and on a references page. Here is the King citation: King, L. (2019). Experience psychology (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.  Here is the APA citation for the Negative Fat talk article: Katrevich, A. V., Register, J. D., & Aruguete, M. S. (2014). The effects of negative body talk in an ethnically diverse sample of college students. North American Journal of Psychology, 16(1), 43–52.

---

Author info: Correspondence should be sent to: Dr. Mara S. Aruguete, Dept. of
Social and Behavioral Sciences, Lincoln University of Missouri, 820 Chestnut St.
110 MLK, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0029, aruguetem@lincolnu.edu
North American Journal of Psychology, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 1, 43-52.
 NAJP
The Effects of Negative Body Talk in an
Ethnically Diverse Sample of College Students
Alina V. Katrevich
Joshua D. Register
Mara S. Aruguete
Lincoln University of Missouri
Our study experimentally examined the effects of negative body talk on
college students at a Historically Black University. Participants were
randomly assigned to read a vignette that contained dialogue between
friends while shopping. In the experimental condition, the dialogue
contained negative body talk, while the control condition contained a
neutral subject. After exposure to negative body talk, African American
participants and White men showed greater self-reported eating
pathology than those in the control group. Both men and women reported
frequent engagement in negative body talk, although women reported
more positive reasons for engaging in negative body talk than men did.
Our study contributes to a small body of literature on negative body talk
in ethnically diverse samples.
In the United States, the ideal appearance for both men and women is
simply defined as young, fit, and thin (Becker, Diedrichs, Jankowski, &
Werchan, 2013). Focus on the value of the idealized body is associated
with habitual concern over one’s appearance (Fredrickson & Roberts,
1997). One manifestation of such concern is “negative body talk,” a
general term encompassing discussion about one’s physical appearance
(Engeln, Sladek, & Waldron, 2013). Body talk which focuses on weight
(“fat talk”) is common, especially among White women, and may have
both positive and negative consequences (Britton, Martz, Bazzini, Curtin,
& LeaShomb, 2006). Although it has been less commonly studied,
negative body talk has been identified in men (Engeln, et al, 2013) and
may vary by ethnicity (Nichter, 2000). Our study experimentally
examines the effects of negative body talk, specifically fat talk, on
college men and women at a Historically Black University.
Both men and women frequently engage in negative body talk
(Engeln, et al, 2013). Women tend to display fat talk as a type of negative
body talk (Nichter, 2000). Fat talk typically follows a rigid script in
which one woman makes a self-depreciating comment about her weight
44 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY
(e.g, “I look so fat in these jeans”). A second woman then denies that
comment’s truth, usually followed by making her own self-depreciating
comment (“No, your butt’s not big. Check out my muffin-top”). Among
men, negative body talk also occurs, but tends to be less ritualized, less
fat-focused, and more muscle-focused. Men also tend to make more
positive comments about their bodies than women (Engeln, et al, 2013).
Negative body talk is a common topic of conversation, especially
among women (Martz, Petroff, Curtin, & Bazzini, 2009; Salk & EngelnMaddox, 2011). In an age-diverse sample of women, 81% reported at
least occasional fat talk, with 33% reporting frequent engagement in fat
talk. Negative body talk is so socially normal that it can be considered
unacceptable not to engage in it (Britton et al., 2006; Nichter, 2000).
Nichter (2000) suggested that fat talk has the positive function of
enhancing social cohesion, especially among White women and girls.
Abiding by the social norms of engaging in fat talk helps women and
girls to fit in, and provides inter-connectedness between them. Britton et
al. (2006) showed that women responding to vignettes rated other women
who self-deprecate as more likable than those who did not, showing that
self-deprecation may be expressed as a way to appear humble and
likeable. Nichter (2000) hypothesized that involvement in fat talk can be
compelling since it is considered rude or conceited to fail to respond to
fat talk.
Researchers have emphasized the need to examine ethnic
comparisons in body talk research (Clarke, Murnen, & Smolak, 2010;
Engeln, et al, 2013). Nichter (2000) explored the role of ethnicity in
frequency of fat talk in a series of interviews with middle and high school
girls. African American girls reported less concern over weight and lower
frequency of fat talk. Nichter (2000) reported that the African American
concept of beauty encompassed more than simple physical appearance,
and included exhibiting a positive attitude and confidence. However,
Engeln-Maddox, Salk, and Miller (2012) found no ethnic differences in
frequency of fat talk or body concerns among White, African American,
Asian, and Latina college women. Given the inconsistent findings in the
literature, more research with ethnically diverse samples is warranted.
Although consequences of negative body talk may sometimes be
positive in promoting social cohesion, research has suggested harmful
effects with respect to body attitudes and eating pathology. Correlational
studies have shown that fat talk is reliably associated with eating
pathology in college (Engeln-Maddox et al., 2012; Clarke et al., 2010)
and non-college (Becker et al., 2013) populations. Moreover, students
diagnosed with an eating disorder are more likely to engage in fat talk
than those who have not been diagnosed (Ousley, Cordero, & White,
2008). Fat talk has also shown positive associations with body
Katrevich, Register, & Aruguete NEGATIVE BODY TALK 45
dissatisfaction (Arroyo & Harwood, 2012; Warren, Holland, Billings, &
Parker, 2012) and the internalization of the thin ideal (Becker et al.,
2013). The correlations of negative body talk among men are similar to
those among women. Negative body talk is associated with eating
disordered attitudes and behaviors (Engeln et al., 2013). While
correlational studies are useful in establishing the existence of
relationships between fat talk and presumed consequences, experimental
research is needed to determine cause and effect.
Experimental research has manipulated body talk using a variety of
methods, including vignettes that varied in body talk (Britton et al., 2006;
Tompkins, Martz, Rocheleau, & Bazzini, 2009) and confederates who
engaged in scripts containing negative body talk or a neutral subject
(Salk & Engeln-Maddox, 2012, Stice, Maxfield & Wells, 2003). In one
study, women exposed to fat-talking confederates experienced higher
body dissatisfaction and were more likely to engage in fat talk
themselves. Women who were higher in body dissatisfaction prior to the
experiment were more likely to engage in fat talk overall (Salk &
Engeln-Maddox, 2012). These results suggest that body dissatisfaction
can be considered both a cause and consequence of negative body talk in
women (Arroyo & Harwood, 2012). A similar experimental study
(Engeln et al., 2013) has provided evidence for the existence of negative
body talk’s harmful effects on men. Male participants who were exposed
to fat-talking and muscle-talking (“That guy’s pretty jacked. I gotta get to
the gym”) confederates reported higher eating pathology and lower
appearance self-esteem (Engeln et al., 2013) than those not exposed to
negative body talk. These results suggest that negative body talk can
cause both men and women to experience greater body dissatisfaction
and eating pathology.
The present study experimentally varies vignettes to measure the
effects of negative body talk on male and female college students.
Participants were randomly assigned to receive a vignette that contained
dialogue between friends while shopping. In the experimental condition,
the dialogue contained fat talk while the control condition contained a
neutral subject. After exposure to fat talk or the control condition, we
measured eating pathology. We additionally measured frequency and
social acceptability of fat talk. We examined gender and ethnic
differences in response to fat talk. Our hypotheses were as follows.
H1: Participants exposed to fat talk would show greater eating
pathology than those in the control condition.
H2: Women would report higher engagement in fat talk and more
positive consequences of fat talk than men.
H3: Women would perceive fat talk to be more socially acceptable
than men.
46 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY
METHOD
Participants
Our convenience sample consisted of 132 college students (65
women & 67 men; M age = 21.36 yrs; SD = 4.92; 46 Caucasians and 86
African Americans) who were surveyed in classes and other sites around
campus (e.g., the cafeteria) at a public Historically Black University in
Missouri. Participants’ average BMI was in the overweight range (M =
26.61; SD = 5.97). We excluded data from 23 participants because of
inconsistencies in their responses which indicated that they were not
reading the questions. Specifically, one question asked participants how
often they engaged in fat talk and a subsequent question asked reasons
why they engage in fat talk. If participants claimed to never engage in fat
talk, then checked reasons for engaging, we excluded their data from
analysis. The resulting sample consisted of 109 college students (59
women & 50 men; M age = 21.25 yrs; SD = 4.44; 38 Caucasians & 71
African Americans; M BMI = 26.84, SD = 6.19). Power analysis
indicated that minimum sample size per group should be 21 (calculated
with Cohen’s d = .80).
Design
Participants were randomly assigned to either an experimental (n =
54) or control group (n = 55). The survey included the experimental
manipulation in the form of a written vignette featuring dialogue between
friends in the context of shopping. The experimental group received
dialogue that contained “fat talk” (“Looking in the mirror you say, ‘I'm
so fat, I can’t find anything that fits. Maybe I shouldn't go.’ Friend 1
says, ‘You’re not fat’ …”) and the control group received dialogue about
shoes (“Looking in the mirror you say, ‘This isn’t right. They just don’t
make the right color or style. Maybe I shouldn't go.’ Friend 1 says, ‘I like
that color’…). We asked the participants to do their best to imagine that
they were a character in the vignette.
Measures
After reading the assigned conversation (fat talk or control),
participants completed a demographic measure (age, gender, height,
weight, and ethnicity). Additionally, participants completed measures of
eating pathology, frequency of fat talk, reasons for fat talk, and social
acceptability of the conversation.
Eating pathology was measured using the Drive for Thinness (DT)
subscale the Eating Disorder Inventory-2 (EDI-2; Garner, 1991). This 7-
item, 6-point subscale measures the core symptoms of anorexia and
bulimia pathology (Cronbach’s alpha on our sample = .86). Participant
Katrevich, Register, & Aruguete NEGATIVE BODY TALK 47
means were calculated for all questions combined such that the minimum
score possible was a one, and the maximum score possible was a six.
To measure participants’ self-reported frequency of fat talk, we
adapted a procedure by Salk and Engeln-Maddox (2011). We first
provided a definition of fat talk (“Fat talk describes negative body-related
talk that frequently occurs in peer groups.”), and then measured how
often participants engaged in fat talk with an open-ended question (“How
often do you engage in fat talk?”) measuring number of times per week.
We additionally asked participants about their reasons for ‘fat talk.’
The Positive Reasons for Fat Talk Scale (adapted from Salk & EngelnMaddox, 2011) contained four positive statements about fat talk (e.g., “It
makes us feel like a more tightly-knit group”). Participants were
instructed to check any reasons why they personally engage in fat talk.
The total possible score was four if a participant checked all four options.
Finally, Social Acceptability was measured by how much participants
approved of the conversation in the vignette (10-items, 5-point Likerttype scale; e.g., “I am bothered by conversations like the one above” –
reverse scored; Cronbach’s alpha = .87). Participant means were
calculated for all questions combined such that the minimum score was
one, and the maximum score was five.
RESULTS
Analyses were performed using 2 (Ethnicity) x 2 (Gender) x 2
(Condition) ANOVAS for each dependent variable. As an initial test for
equivalence in BMI between subgroups, we performed an ANOVA on
BMI. Results showed no significant main effects for gender (F1,107 = .49,
p = .49), ethnicity (F1,107 = 3.06, p = .08), or condition (F1,107 = 2.06, p =
.15), nor any significant interactions. These results indicate that our
subgroups had comparable body sizes.
Our first hypothesis predicted that participants in the fat talk
condition would show greater eating pathology than those in the control
condition. ANOVA on Eating Pathology scores showed a significant
ethnicity x gender x condition interaction (F1,100 = 4.22, p = .04, partial η
2
= .04). African American women (Control M = 2.87, SD = 1.23; Fat Talk
M = 3.15, SD = 1.16), African American men (Control M = 1.85, SD =
.88; Fat Talk M = 2.21, SD = 1.91), and White men (Control M = 1.91,
SD = .51; Fat Talk M = 3.43, SD = 1.24) exposed to fat talk showed
increases in eating pathology scores compared with the control condition.
White women, surprisingly, showed lower eating pathology scores in the
fat talk (M = 2.63, SD = 1.27) than in the control (M = 3.14, SD = .60)
condition.
Our second hypothesis predicted that women would be more likely to
engage in fat talk and to report positive consequences of fat talk than
48 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY
men. We found no difference in the self-reported frequency of fat talk
among women and men (Mean times per week = 2.03, SD = 2.58), F1,103
= .01, p = .92, partial η
2
= .00. However, women (M = 1.76, SD = 1.48)
reported more positive reasons for fat talk than men (M = .78, SD = 1.18)
did, F1,108 = 15.36, p = .00, partial η
2
= .13.
Our third hypothesis predicted that women would perceive the fat talk
vignette to be more socially acceptable than men. A main effect of
gender in social acceptability scores showed that women also perceived
social acceptability of both conditions differently than men, F1,108 = 6.31,
p = .01, partial η
2
= .06. In both the control and fat talk conditions,
women (M = 4.26, SD = 1.39) found the dialogue to be less socially
acceptable than men (M = 4.71, SD = 1.09). An additional main effect of
condition showed that participants in the fat talk condition (M = 4.14, SD
= 1.36) found the dialogue to be less acceptable than those in the control
condition (M = 4.79, SD = 1.13), F1,108 = 7.73, p = .01, partial η
2
= .07.
DISCUSSION
Our study examined the positive and negative effects of negative
body talk (specifically, fat talk) on college students at a Historically
Black University. Although both men and women reported similar
frequency of engaging in fat talk, women perceived more positive
reasons for doing so than men did. African American men, African
American women, and White men exposed to fat talk showed an increase
in self-reported eating pathology when compared with the control group,
while White women showed the opposite effect. We found no ethnic
differences in response to fat talk or frequency of engaging in fat talk.
Despite some limitations, this study contributes to the small body of
literature on the effects of fat talk in men, women, and ethnic minorities.
Fat talk was common in our sample, occurring on average, about
twice a week. Frequency of fat talk was similar in men and women. The
lack of gender difference was curious given that the vast majority of fat
talk research has focused on women. Although the frequency of fat talk
might be similar among men and women, research suggests that it varies
in content. Martz et al. (2009) examined male and female pressure to
engage in positive, self-accepting, and negative body talk in a large
sample of men and women recruited from the Internet. Men reported
greater pressure to engage in positive and self-accepting body talk while
women felt greater pressure to engage in negative body talk. Engeln et al.
(2013) further suggests that negative body talk may vary in content
among women and men, with women showing more concern about fat
and men showing more concern about muscle. When comparing their
actual with ideal bodies, men indicated far greater dissatisfaction with
their musculature than their weight (Pope, Gruber, Mangweth, Bureau,
Katrevich, Register, & Aruguete NEGATIVE BODY TALK 49
deCol, Jouvent, & Hudson, 2000). Further research on content of men’s
and women’s body talk is needed to explore gender differences in various
forms of body talk.
In our sample, women reported more positive reasons for engaging in
fat talk than men did. This finding supports the notion that negative body
talk results in benefits that may help to sustain conversations, despite
possible costs. Nichter (2000) reports that these benefits for women
include appearing more likeable. Evidence suggests that people who
make both self-deprecating and self-enhancing statements about
themselves are better liked than those who solely self-deprecate or selfenhance (Robinson, Johnson, & Shields, 1995). Our results support
Nichter’s (2000) notion that negative body talk is one method of using
self-deprecation to enhance likeability and camaraderie among women.
Despite the self-reported positive outcomes for women, both men and
women found the fat talk vignette to be less socially acceptable than the
control vignette. This additional result suggests that there is some
ambivalence over the social consequences of negative body talk.
African American men, African American women, and White men
showed a similar response in eating pathology to our experimental
manipulation. Each group showed greater eating pathology after
exposure to fat talk when compared with the control condition. White
women, by contrast, showed the opposite effect, with exposure to fat talk
resulting in lower eating pathology when compared to the control
condition. The consistent effects among men concur with Engeln et al.
(2013), who found that men exposed to fat-talking confederates showed
an increase in eating pathology. These results suggest, even though the
content of the dialogue may differ from that seen in women, the harmful
effects of negative body talk persist among men. The unexpected effects
among White women contrast with previous research (Salk & EngelnMaddox, 2012), and could have been an artifact of an unnatural
experimental situation, a small sample of White women (n = 20), or a
sampling bias. White women choosing to attend a Historically Black
University may not be representative of White women in other contexts.
Further research examining larger samples of White women in a variety
of contexts is necessary to gauge the external validity of the result.
We found no effect of ethnicity on response to fat talk or frequency of
self-reported fat talk. Our results concur with other research showing no
ethnic differences in frequency of fat talk or body concerns among
college women (Engeln-Maddox et al., 2012). In contrast, Nichter (2000)
reported ethnic differences, with African American girls talking less
about weight concerns than their White counterparts. This discrepancy in
findings may be due to a sociocultural shift over the last decade. Rogers,
Wood, and Petrie (2010) reported that early research showed that eating
50 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY
disorders were largely the domain of White women, while being
relatively uncommon among African American women. More recent
research has shown that African American women do experience eating
disorders, body image concerns, and internalization of the thin ideal
(Rogers, et al., 2010). Ethnic differences in body talk may have similarly
become smaller and more difficult to detect over time. Another
possibility is that African American susceptibility to body shame and
appearance anxiety may vary by racial identity or the salience of race in
the context of the study (Watson, Ancis, White, & Nazari, 2013). Future
research on multiethnic samples should include measures of ethnic
identity in an effort to understand these associations.
Our study had several limitations. Our manipulation of fat talk
consisted of brief, fictional dialogues, in which participants were to
imagine being involved. We do not know the extent to which reading a
transcript simulates actual involvement in a conversation involving fat
talk. Furthermore, our data are based on self-report. Participants'
estimates of fat talk frequency may be inaccurate. Our effect sizes were
in the medium to small range, indicating we accounted for only a modest
proportion of the variance in our dependent measures. Finally, our
sample was small. The White sample was particularly small (38
Caucasians; 20 women, 18 men). A larger sample might have given us
the statistical power to detect more subtle ethnic and gender differences.
Despite these limitations, it is important to note that reading a short
dialogue involving fat talk had a significant effect on eating pathology
among several groups. Our participants reported frequent involvement in
fat talk. If the effect is cumulative, repeated exposure might result in
more serious eating pathology. Broad impacts of frequent fat talk might
include increased rates of eating disorders. Our study and the results of
previous research support programs aimed at reducing fat talk, such as
Fat Talk Free Week (Berthou, 2012), a campus initiative intended to raise
awareness of the negative impact of fat talk.
REFERENCES
Arroyo, A., & Harwood, J. (2012). Exploring the causes and consequences of
engaging in fat talk. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 40, 167-

187. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2012.654500
     Becker, C.B., Diedrichs, P.C., Jankowski, G., & Werchan, C. (2013). I'm not just
     fat, I'm old: Has the study of body image overlooked "old talk?" Journal of
     Eating Disorders, 1(6). doi: 10.1186/2050-2974-1-6
     Berthou, K. (2012). Fat Talk Free Week. Retrieved from
     http://www.succeedfoundation.org/work/fat_talk_free_week
     Britton, L., Martz, D., Bazzini, D., Curtin, L., & LeaShomb, A. (2006). Fat talk
     and self-presentation of body image: Is there a social norm for women to selfdegrade? Body Image: An International Journal of Research, 3, 244-250. doi:
     http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2006.05.006
     Katrevich, Register, & Aruguete NEGATIVE BODY TALK 51
     Clark, P. M., Murnen, S. K., & Smolak, L. (2010). Development and
     psychometric evaluation of a quantitative measure of ‘‘fat talk.’’ Body Image,
     7, 1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.bodyim.2009.09.006
     Engeln-Maddox, R., Salk, R. H., & Miller, S.A. (2012). Assessing women’s
     negative commentary on their own bodies: A psychometric investigation of
     the Negative Body Talk Scale. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36, 162-178.
     doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0361684312441593
     Engeln, R., Sladek, M., & Waldron, H. (2013). Body talk among college men:
     Contexts, correlates, and effects. Body Image, 10, 300-308. doi:
     http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2013.02.001
     Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward
     understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks.
     Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173-206. doi:
     http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x
     Garner, D.M. (1991). Eating Disorder Inventory–2 manual. Odessa, FL:
     Psychological Assessment Resources.
     Martz, D. M., Petroff, A.G., Curtin, L.A., & Bazzini, D.G. (2009). Gender
     differences in fat talk among American adults: Results from the Psychology
     of Size Survey. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 61, 34-41. doi:
     http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9587-7
     Nichter, M. (2000). Fat talk. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     Ousley, L., Cordero, E. D., & White, S. (2008). Fat talk among college students:
     How undergraduates communicate regarding food and body weight, shape
     and appearance. Eating Disorders, 16, 73–84. doi: http://dx.doi.org/
     10.1080/10640260701773546
     Pope, H.G., Gruber, A.J., Mangweth, B., Bureau, B. deCol, C., Jouvent, R., &
     Hudson, J.I. (2000). Body image perception among men in three countries.
     American Journal of Psychiatry, 157, 1297-1301. doi:
     http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.157.8.1297
     Robinson, M. D., Johnson, J. T., & Shields (1995). On the advantages of
     modesty: The benefits of a balanced self-characterization. Communication
     Research, 22, 575-591.
     Rogers Wood, N. A., & Petrie, T. A. (2010). Body dissatisfaction, ethnic identity,
     and disordered eating among African American women. Journal of
     Counseling Psychology, 57, 141-153. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
     a0018922
     Salk, R. & Engeln-Maddox, R. (2012). Fat talk among college women is both
     contagious and harmful. Sex Roles, 66, 636-645. doi: http://dx.doi.org/
     10.1007/s11199-011-0050-1
     Salk, R., & Engeln-Maddox, R. (2011). “If you’re fat then I’m humongous!”:
     Content and impact of fat talk among college women. Psychology of Women
     Quarterly, 35, 8-28. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0361684310384107
     Stice, E. Maxfield, J. & Wells, T. (2003). Adverse effects of social pressure to be
     thin on young women: An experimental investigation of the effects of “fat
     talk”. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 34, 108–117. doi:
     http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eat.10171
     Tompkins, K.B., Martz, D., Rocheleau, C., & Bazzini, D. (2009). Social
     likeability, conformity, and body talk: Does fat talk have a normative rival in
     52 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY
     female body image conversations? Body Image: An International Journal of
     Research, 6, 292-298. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2009.07.005
     Watson, L. B., Ancis, J. R., White, D. N., Nazari, N. (2013). Racial identity
     buffers African American women from body image problems and disordered
     eating. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37, 337-350. doi:
     10.1177/0361684312474799
     Warren, C. S., Holland, S., Billings, H., & Parker, A. (2012). The relationships
     between fat talk, body dissatisfaction, and drive for thinness: Perceived stress
     as a moderator. Body Image, 9, 358-364. doi: 10.1016/j.bodyim.2012.03.008
     Copyright of North American Journal of Psychology is the property of North American
     Journal of Psychology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted
     to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may
     print, download, or email articles for individual use.