OBESITY | VOLUME 16 SUPPLEMENT 2 | NOVEMBER 2008 S1 nature publishing group INTRODUCTION Weight Bias: New Science on an Significant Social Problem Rebecca Puhl and Janet Latner he social consequences of obesity are signiicant, with weight-based stigmatization and prejudiced common outcomes. Research has documented evidence of negative stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination toward obese individuals in areas of employment, education, health care, the media, and interpersonal relationships (1–3). his stig- matization is pervasive and harmful, with serious consequences for psychological (4–6) and physical health (7,8). Given the prevalence of overweight and obesity in the United States, the number of children and adults potentially faced with stigma- tization is immense. To improve the quality of life for obese individuals, we must understand and prevent the social disadvantages associated with obesity and its stigmatization. his supplement presents a series of articles examining the nature and extent of weight bias, as well as its negative impact on obese adults and youth. Children and adolescents are especially vul- nerable to weight bias and its harmful efects (9). With recent research suggesting that weight bias is worsening among youth (10), there is a clear incentive for additional studies to better under- stand the nature, extent, and impact of this prob- lem in children. Six articles in this supplement are devoted to weight bias in youth. hese studies address important research questions regarding the prevalence of weight bias across race and eth- nicity (van den Berg et al.), correlates of body stig- matization endorsed by preschoolers (Rich et al.), and longitudinal patterns of weight-based teasing during adolescence (Haines et al.). Several articles also examine how weight bias afects overweight and obese youth, including the consequences of weight bias for psychological functioning and eat- ing behaviors (Libbey et al.), the negative impact of internalizing weight bias (Davison et al.), and how weight stigmatization inluences peer rela- tionships (Griiths and Page). Each of these stud- ies contributes new knowledge and reinforces the complexity of this problem among youth. Understanding the nature of antifat attitudes requires examination of weight bias among diverse samples. To date, research has primarily examined weight-based perceptions that young people have toward individuals in their same age group. Studies assessing perceptions of obe- sity across the lifespan are scarce. An article by Hebl et al. begins to address this gap by examin- ing the extent to which college-aged individuals stigmatize obesity in 20-, 40-, and 60-year-old targets, demonstrating the importance of con- sidering a life span perspective in understanding weight stigmatization. Greenleaf et al. also address this issue, but instead examine perceptions about obese children among young adults training to become physical educators, with speciic attention to how weight stereotypes inluence their beliefs about physical education. Another article by Carr et al. examines data from a diverse, nationally representative sample of Americans to determine how body weight afects speciic types of inter- personal mistreatment, and whether these pat- terns vary by race, social class, and gender. heir indings provide new insight about the ways that social identities may inluence stigmatizing treat- ment of obese individuals. It is important to examine weight bias experi- enced by individuals at extreme levels of obesity, who may be at heightened vulnerability to stigma and its consequences (5,11,12). Two papers in this supplement examine stigmatization expe- riences among bariatric surgery candidates (Friedman et al. and Sarwer et al.). Both studies demonstrate that experiences of weight bias are associated with deleterious outcomes, but the ind- ings raise questions about how common weight bias is reported among surgery candidates. Both studies used the Stigmatizing Situations Inventory to assess experiences of weight bias, although Sarwer et al. used the original version of this measure and found weight bias to be less com- mon than indings reported by Friedman et al.