Shared Norms and Their Explanation for the Social Clustering of Obesity

A critique of Shared Norms and Their Explanation for the Social Clustering of Obesity
Name:
Institution:
Introduction
Hruschka, in his study, Shared Norms and Their Explanation for the Social Clustering of Obesity by, sought to investigate the effects of shared norms on social clustering of Obesity. There existed theoretical knowledge that social ties serve as mediums of spread of ill health. There was no research conducted to explain the mechanisms by which such infections could spread through sociocultural interactions (Hruschka, 2009). Using shared body size as the basis of their research, Hruschka et al tested the role it plays in social contagion of the body size as well as obesity (Hruschka, 2011). The researchers used data collected from 101 women with social ties in Phoenix and Arizona in 2009. They measured in 3 different ways to evaluate the indirect effect that social norms have on the body mass index (BMI).
Their results confirmed Christakis and Flower’s finding that BMI and obesity cluster socially (Christakis, 2007). However, they found that body size norms have very small portion of the effects (20 percent) in 1 of the 3 measurement pathways. People may share the norm for body size that influences their behaviors that are related to the BMI. For example, people may share ideals of the appropriate body size and hence affect their exercise and eating habits. This measure, they called pathway 1. The second pathway hypothesized that people may fail to internalize their friend’s norms for body size, but feel the pressure to fit in their friends norms related to BMI. For example, heavier people may feel obliged to lose weight in order to fit their friends because of little comments or shaming by their friends. This became pathway 2. The pathway 3, purports that people do not share their friend’s ideal body size. However, their friend’s ideal body size may shape how they exercise or eat in an attempt to guess the ideal body size. This, they called it pathway 3.
In the past studies, there was little to prove that norms, beliefs and ideals influenced behavior in such a direct manner (Allison 1991: Cancian 1975: Farmer 2006). The researcher identified three measurable variables of body size-related norms among 101 women. They confirmed clustering of obesity BMI within 821 social ties of Arizona and Phoenix after which they investigated clustering of BMI though indirect different norms about the ideal body size.
Methods
The study was carried in two phases. In the first phase, 112 women between 18 and 45 years from both Phoenix and Arizona which they referred to as "Ego". They conducted a purposive sampling in order to ensure that half of the women in this phase were obese. Each woman was interviewed face-to-face and asked to reveal names of about 20 people they contacted in 2009. These people were called "alters", who were above 18 years. In the second phase, they interviewed alter with respect to their closeness to the "ego". Two methods of assessing social ties involved evaluating 5 members closest to the ego and assessing all the 20 recruits. The average rating for alters recruited per ego was 7.25 or 77.7% for the 5 alter participants and 66.0 for 20 participants as alters. There was a 71.2% participation of those recruited. Data for at least one alter available for 101 egos hence providing a sample of 812 ego-alter pairs as the basis of analysis of the research. The interviewers were experienced Arizona State University, who were adequately trained before carrying out the interviews. Data was re-examined by 2 senior assistants to check collection of data entry points.
Compared to the methodology used by Christakis and Fowler, their method was different in that it was cross-sectional rather than longitudinal. Cross-sectional pattern is adequate to show social norms are unlikely to account for the observed pattern of obesity clustering. The researchers would have to explore confounding variables had they found a strong evidence that social norms accounted for social BMI. Such would include neighborhood, the environment and working conditions. This study investigated female egos since it is deemed that females are more sensitive to their weight matters (Carryer, 1997). The feminist focus also raised the power of the tests since they did not have to control ego’s gender. There was also a small size of the siblings in the sample.
Measurement of Social ties measure
Every ego was elicited to describe their relationship with the Alters. Friends, family members, and spouses were differentiated since they exert different set of influence (Aron 1992). For example, family members may have a different reaction towards obese member and may be teased by their spouses (Aron1992). They sought to identify the mutuality of the ego and alter since the closer the distance, the more the mutuality of their relationship. They defined 4 to 7 more close relationship as mutual.
Measurement of social norms
The researcher based their argument on the fact that the acceptability of obesity can account for the clustering of obese people over time. In this measurement, social norms are defined as a shared standards of behavior Cialdini (1998). Such standards are on the basis of shaming, subtle slights, discrimination or learned personal preferences. The constructed pathways are, therefore, a measure of social interaction. The researcher used 3 different measures to rate acceptable body size, obesity in comparison with socially devalued conditions and how the stigmatization of obesity.
The ideal body
The ideal body size was assessed using a figure rating scale, Stunkard et al (1983) which has 9 lines drawn to show the region of desired body size. The higher the score, the large the body size (Damarest 2000: Perry 2004).
Antiobesity Preference
Antiobesity Preference was measured depending on the stigmatization or acceptability of the condition. Obesity was compared to alcoholism and herpes on a scale of 0-12. High scores showed that people preferred the stigmatized conditions to obesity (Schwartz et al 2006). The scale created a good reliability of (Cronbach’s a=.80).
Antifat stigma.