How do looking patterns, anti-fat bias, and causal weight attributions relate to adults’ judgements of child weight?

Elizabeth H. Evans*, Martin J. Tovée, Peter J.B. Hancock, Piers L. Cornelissen

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)
17 Downloads (Pure)


Prevailing weight-normative approaches to health pressure adults to visually categorise children’s weight, despite little understanding of how such judgements are made. There is no evidence this strategy improves child health, and it may harm children with higher weights. To understand decision-making processes and identify potential mechanisms of harm we examined perceptual and attitudinal factors involved in adults’ child weight category judgements. Eye movements of 42 adults were tracked while categorizing the weight of 40 computer-generated images of children (aged 4–5 & 10–11 years) varying in size. Questionnaires assessed child-focused weight bias and causal attributions for child weight. Participants’ eye movement patterns resembled those previously reported for adult bodies. Categorisation data showed a perceptual bias towards the ‘mid-range’ category. For higher weight stimuli, participants whose category judgements most closely matched the stimulus’s objective weight had higher child-focused anti-fat bias and weaker genetic attributions for child weight – i.e,. adults who ‘label’ higher weight in children in line with BMI categories report more stigmatising beliefs about such children, suggesting a possible mechanism of harm. Overall, adults’ judgements reflect both unalterable perceptual biases and potentially harmful attitudinal factors, calling into question the feasibility and appropriateness of public health efforts to promote visual child weight categorisation.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)9-23
Number of pages15
JournalBody Image
Early online date19 Nov 2022
Publication statusPublished - 1 Mar 2023


Dive into the research topics of 'How do looking patterns, anti-fat bias, and causal weight attributions relate to adults’ judgements of child weight?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this