Weight Loss Surgery Patients’ Gender-Differentiated Experiences of Vanity Stigma

Abstract

Purpose

This study examines weight loss surgery patients’ experiences with vanity stigma. First, the research explores if and how vanity stigma occurrences differ for female and male surgery patients. Second, the research interrogates the role of this stigma in shaping patients’ feelings about their bodies.

Methodology/approach

The data stems from qualitative interviews (n = 44) and surveys (n = 55) with pre-operative and post-operative weight loss surgery patients. The author used narrative interview analysis to inductively identify and analyze prevalent themes.

Findings

Participants’ stigma experiences are differentiated by gender. Approximately half of female participants reported perceiving vanity stigma. Women who faced negative accusations were likely to distance themselves from such claims by citing personal disinterest in their bodies, whereas women who did not perceive vanity accusations were likely to express approval and pleasure in their post-weight loss bodies. Men, in contrast, were not accused of vanity. Men frequently characterized their post-surgical, post-weight loss bodies as having utilitarian value.

Research limitations/implications

The study concludes that gender norms play a role in shaping bariatric surgery patients’ experiences with vanity stigma and body-related feelings. Limitations include the small number (n = 9) of male participants and the lack of a representative sampling frame for bariatric surgery patients.

Originality/value

Previous studies have not explored how gender shapes bariatric surgery patients’ experiences with appearance-related social scrutiny. This chapter adds to existing research on gendered body norms and reveals gendered dimensions of vanity stigma.

Citation

Drew, P. (2018), "Weight Loss Surgery Patients’ Gender-Differentiated Experiences of Vanity Stigma", Gender, Women’s Health Care Concerns and Other Social Factors in Health and Health Care (Research in the Sociology of Health Care, Vol. 36), Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 175-189. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0275-495920180000036010