Trial reportClinical obesity2025
Cognitive dissonance for weight stigma reduction: The development and effect of a counter-attitudinal advocacy intervention.
Trial report in Clinical obesity, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Weight stigmatization is persistent and pervasive, leading to numerous negative consequences. This study developed a weight stigma reduction intervention rooted in Cognitive Dissonance Theory aimed at reducing stigma towards individuals living in larger bodies. Undergraduate students (N = 325) were randomized to one of three conditions: Cognitive Dissonance (i.e., Written Advocacy or Written + Vocalized Advocacy) or Control. Participants in both Cognitive Dissonance conditions provided a written statement advocating for a proposal benefiting individuals living in larger bodies that would be somewhat costly to participants. Those in the Written + Vocalized Advocacy condition also vocalized their arguments to further enhance dissonance. It was hypothesized that compared to Controls, participants in both Cognitive Dissonance conditions would report reduced weight stigma and greater commitment to a prosocial action, with the strongest effects for the Written + Vocalized Advocacy condition. There was a significant reduction in weight stigma across all conditions, but minimal support for significant differences between conditions. Participants in the Cognitive Dissonance conditions did not commit significantly more hours towards the prosocial action compared to Controls. There was limited support that cognitive dissonance was induced. Future studies should pre-screen participants endorsing stronger weight stigma to help ensure they are advocating for a counter-attitudinal cause.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.