Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28392930›Full record

ArticleObesity science & practice2017

Overweight or about right? A norm comparison explanation of perceived weight status.

E Robinson, I Kersbergen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Obesity science & practice, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Shape of You: Eye-Tracking and Social Perceptions of the Human Body.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. The Real Ideal: Misestimation of Body Mass Index.Frontiers in global women's health · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Overweight but unseen: a review of the underestimation of weight status and a visual normalization theory.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2017
    Review
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

E RobinsonPsychological Sciences University of Liverpool Liverpool UK.
I KersbergenPsychological Sciences University of Liverpool Liverpool UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/N000218/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesBody-weight norms may explain why personal evaluations of weight status are often inaccurate. Here, we tested a 'norm comparison' explanation of weight status perceptions, whereby personal evaluations of weight status are biased by perceived body-weight norms.

methodsStudy 1 examined whether perceptions of how one's own body weight compares to an average person predict personal evaluations of weight status. Study 2 examined whether manipulating perceptions of how one's own body weight compares to an average person influences whether or not a person identifies their own weight status as being overweight.

resultsIn Study 1, if participants rated their body weight as being similar to the body weight of an average person, they were less likely to identify their weight status as being overweight. In Study 2, participants that were led to believe that their body weight was heavier than the average person were more likely to perceive their own weight status as being overweight.

conclusionsPersonal perceptions of weight status are likely to be shaped by a 'norm comparison' process. As overweight becomes more normal, underestimation of weight status amongst individuals with overweight and obesity will be more common.

Indexed as

Body imagenormsperceived weightweight status misperceptions

Identifiers

PMID28392930
PMCPMC5358078

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.