| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
RESEARCH AND PRACTICE |
Bradley S. Greenberg, Linda Hofschire, and Ken Lachlan are with the Departments of Communication and Telecommunication, Michigan State University, East Lansing. Matthew Eastin is with the School of Journalism and Communication, Ohio State University, Columbus. Kelly D. Brownell is with the Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Bradley S. Greenberg, PhD, Departments of Communication and Telecommunication, Michigan State University, 477 Communication Arts and Sciences Bldg, East Lansing, MI 48824 (e-mail: bradg{at}msu.edu).
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
Objectives. This study examined the distribution and individual characteristics of body types on prime-time television.
Methods. Five episodes of each of the 10 top-rated prime-time fictional programs on 6 broadcast networks during the 1999–2000 season were quantitatively analyzed.
Results. Of 1018 major television characters, 14% of females and 24% of males were overweight or obese, less than half their percentages in the general population. Overweight and obese females were less likely to be considered attractive, to interact with romantic partners, or to display physical affection. Overweight and obese males were less likely to interact with romantic partners and friends or to talk about dating and were more likely to be shown eating.
Conclusions. Overweight and obese television characters are associated with specific negative characteristics.
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
The damaging consequences of obesity in terms of health and well-being are considerable.4,8,9 They result from the physical effects of the condition but also are influenced by the social ramifications of being overweight.10–13 Negative stereotypes are attached to obese individuals, who are often thought to be undisciplined, dishonest, sloppy, ugly, socially unattractive, sexually unskilled, and less likely to do productive work, among other attributes.14,15 The result is bias and discrimination aimed at overweight persons in important areas of living, including education, employment, and medical care.16
Stigma and discrimination are key social and environmental factors that contribute to health.17 Research shows that poor health, diminished quality of life, lowered access to health services, reluctance to seek health care, and possibly poorer care received from providers are related to discrimination based on race, age, and gender.17–22 Because obese persons may face similar consequences, there is a need to understand how and why negative social attitudes are communicated.
Attitudes regarding various health issues (e.g., substance abuse and youth violence, as well as obesity) are communicated through multiple channels. One central channel has been the popular media, whose treatment of such issues is important because their content communicates social norms and models behaviors.23–26 Just as media portrayals of alcohol or tobacco use may glamorize these activities, media images of various body types may shape viewers’ perceptions of overweight and obese individuals. Social science researchers,27–29 social commentators,30,31 and the popular press32 contend that television in particular may perpetuate negative stereotypes of obese persons because of its idealization of thin characters. Those who make this argument point out that slender characters appear more often on television than do overweight persons and are ascribed a higher number of positive traits, behaviors, and roles than are overweight persons. They also suggest that overweight persons are ridiculed and shown to be undesirable in a variety of ways.28 However, these contentions are speculative, because there has been little systematic analysis to document characteristics and behaviors across a range of body types.
Existing data suggest a bias in favor of thin persons and negative portrayals of obese individuals. A quarter-century ago, Kaufman examined body types portrayed on 10 highly rated television series from the 1977 season.27 She found the following percentages in terms of portrayals of various body types: obese, 5%; overweight, 15%; average weight, 42%; and thin, 38%. Among African American characters, 90% were obese, whereas "neither children nor young adults were ever obese or overweight . . . [and] negative characteristics were more frequently associated with overweight and obesity."27(p44)
Fouts and Burggraf showed that male characters in situation comedies gave more negative feedback to larger than to thinner female characters and that these interactions were often accompanied by audience laughter.28 Jain and Tirodkar found that, during the 1999 television season, 27% of the characters in 4 situation comedies highly rated among African Americans were overweight, as compared with only 2% of the characters in 4 situation comedies highly rated among general audiences.29
To understand better the social factors contributing to ill health and well-being among obese individuals, we undertook a large-scale content analysis of television’s portrayal of characters on popular prime-time shows. Our goal was to provide a detailed analysis of the roles given to overweight and underweight characters and a comprehensive examination of their social interactions.
|
METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
Coder Training
Two teams of 5 coders each were trained to code all demographic variables, including body types. One team then was assigned to code content variables that dealt with individual attributes and interactions, while the other team focused on individual behaviors. After completion of training, 92% of the variables were shown to have intercoder reliabilities of at least .80. Five weeks after the initiation of coding, reliability was retested and averaged .82.
Content Variables
The analysis was based on coding of "major" characters. We established this criterion by measuring "speaking turns." A speaking turn occurs any time a character speaks, ending when another character begins his or her speaking turn. In the case of half-hour episodes, any character with 7 or more speaking turns was classified as a major character. On hour-long shows, major characters had 12 or more speaking turns. We determined these criteria by empirically testing alternative standards. Children younger than 13 years and nonhuman characters were not analyzed.
We coded, for each major character, a measure of body type adapted from Thompson and Gray’s (1995) Body Image Assessment Scale.33 This instrument consists of a verbal scale in which responses range from 1 (very underweight) to 6 (extremely overweight), and it includes silhouette images as visual references. We also coded gender, age, marital status, and race.
Interactions
We examined the number of interactions each character had with individuals who were family members, romantic or dating partners, coworkers, nonromantic friends, and strangers. We also evaluated types of interactions within scenes, coded as positive interactions, negative interactions, or leadership interactions.
Attributes
We also examined qualitative attributes of the major characters. The first subset of variables included the number of scenes in which characters were displayed being jolly, loud, respected, ridiculed, charming, or annoying. The second subset was coded at the episode level and included the following attributes: sloppy, attractive, smart, happy with self, and sickly. We coded the presence of these attributes on a 3-point scale ranging from "not at all" to "very much."
General Behaviors
These character behavior variables addressed the number of times each character either engaged in or talked about eating, drinking alcohol, drinking a beverage other than alcohol, exercising, and smoking and the number of times each character was alone and doing nothing that required physical effort. Three variables concerned dating: the number of times the character went on a date, the number of times he or she was turned down for a date, and the number of times he or she expressed an inability to have a long-term relationship.
Sexual Behaviors
For variables addressing sexual behavior, we counted the number of times the character originated or was the recipient of sexual innuendo, showed physical affection, was rejected in efforts to engage in sexual activity, talked about having sex, talked about someone else having sex, and engaged in visually implied sexual intercourse.
Role Behaviors
We assessed the different roles played by each major character. Included were the number of times the character (1) was portrayed as providing emotional support, (2) behaved in ways that emotionally injured another character, (3) helped or hindered the efforts of another character in achieving a task, (4) was the object or originator of humor, and (5) was the victim or perpetrator of a violent act.
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
and 2 compare the television and real-world distributions of male and female body types.
|
|
Demographic Characteristics
The findings presented in Table 1 yield several significant differences. Men on television had larger body types than women (P < .001). African American characters had larger body types than Whites (P < .03), and African American females had larger body types than White females (P < .001); 23% of African American females and 9% of White females had body type scores larger than 3.5 (the midpoint of the scale). Married television characters had larger body types than unmarried characters (P < .06), with married men being significantly larger than unmarried ones (P < .01). Unemployed men were larger than employed men (P < .02).
|
Program Characteristics
Table 1
also shows that (nonrecurring) guest characters were larger than regular (recurring) characters (P < .004). This was especially the case among males (P < .01); 26% of guest male characters and 15% of recurring male characters had larger body types. Television characters in 30-minute shows were larger than characters in 60-minute shows (P < .04). When the difference in body size by length of show was examined further by gender, a significant difference was found for female (P < .05) but not male characters.
When findings were analyzed according to program genre, characters in situation comedies were shown to be larger than characters in dramas (P < .05). In terms of prevalence rates of body types portrayed (from largest to smallest) on the different networks, CBS, Fox, and UPN exhibited the same prevalence and ranked first, followed in order by NBC, ABC, and WB (P < .04). The largest male characters were portrayed on Fox, CBS, and UPN, and the smallest were portrayed on WB and ABC (P < .05). As an example, 24% of the male characters portrayed on CBS had larger body types, as compared with 12% of the male characters portrayed on WB.
Interactions, Attributes, and Behaviors
In the analysis of social interactions, attributes, and behaviors according to body type classification, the original 6 body type categories were reduced to 3 to avoid small cell sizes. Average body types with rating scores of 2.5 or less (on the 6-point scale) were labeled as "thinner," those with scores between 2.6 and 3.5 were labeled as "middle," and those with scores above 3.5 were labeled as "larger" (see Table 2).
|
Larger male and female characters were less likely to have positive interactions. Among females, 32% of the larger characters had positive interactions with others, in comparison with 44% of the middle group and 51% of the thinner group (P < .05). For men, 25% of the larger characters had positive interactions, as opposed to 36% of the characters in each of the other 2 groups (P < .03). Leadership interactions were least frequent among larger males (13%; P < .06).
Physical attributes. Larger characters were less likely to be judged as attractive. Forty-nine percent of larger females were judged to be attractive, as compared with 92% of females in the other body type groups (P < .001).
Personality attributes. Of the larger male television characters, 15% were judged as charming, as compared with 24% of the male characters in the other 2 groups (P < .04). Respect ratings for larger females exceeded those for females in the other body type categories (larger group, 28%; middle group, 16%; thinner group, 25%) (P < .04). Our results indicated that ridicule occurred less frequently among larger males (32%) than among thin males (49%; P < .04). However, fewer larger males (86%) than males in the other body type groups were rated as smart (P < .001). In addition, fewer large males (21%) than males in the middle group (47%) and the thinner group (61%) were judged to be loud (P < .08).
Role behaviors. Larger television characters were less helpful in task-oriented situations. Fewer larger females (21%) and females in the middle group (18%) than thinner females (30%) helped others with tasks (P < .03). In addition, only 12% of larger male characters helped others with tasks, as compared with 21% of male characters in the middle group and 18% in the thinner group (P < .07).
Larger females were almost twice as often the objects of humor as females in the middle or thinner group (P < .03). Larger (14%) and thinner (13%) males were less likely to commit violent acts than were those in the middle body type group (P < .02).
Eating, drinking, and smoking. Fewer large females (8%) than females in the middle (17%) or thinner (27%) group were portrayed consuming beverages other than alcohol (P < .01). Larger males were seen eating more often than males in the middle body type group, who ate more often than the thinner characters (P < .03).
Dating behaviors and sexual activity. Fewer large males (only 8%) than males in the other body type groups (25%) talked about dating (P < .001). On average, females in the larger and middle body type groups showed physical affection less often than did females in the thinner group (P < .05).
Secondary analyses of behaviors. Behavior patterns among males suggested that the characters in the middle group were more favored than either the thinner or the larger characters. Contrasting the largest characters with all other characters yielded the following additional results: larger male characters were less likely to date (P < .05) and less likely to have sex (P < .06).
Regression Analyses
Multiple regression was used to determine the relative strength and independence of the large set of univariate correlates of body type. Executed separately for male and female characters, these analyses included only variables that had been significant at P < .10 or greater to avoid type I errors.
The variables used in the multiple regression analysis for the male television characters were age, marital status, employment, network on which series aired, recurring characters, romantic interactions, friendship, leadership and positive interactions, particular character attributes (e.g., charming, smart), helping with tasks, committing violent acts, eating, talking about dating, dating, and having sex. This set of variables yielded a multiple R value of .382 (P < .001). Five individual variables had significant beta coefficients: age (P < .001), employment (P < .04), recurring characters (P < .05), talking about dating (P < .04), and eating (P < .01). Larger male television characters were older, less likely to be employed, more likely to be guests on shows, less likely to talk about dating, and more likely to be portrayed as eating.
Variables included in the parallel analysis for female characters were race, age, length of show, genre of show, romantic and positive interactions, attractiveness, respect, helping with tasks, being objects of humor, consuming beverages other than alcohol, and showing physical affection. This smaller set of predictors yielded a substantially larger multiple R value of .498 (P < .001). Five individual variables had significant beta coefficients: age (P < .001), race (P < .03), length of show (P < .05), romantic interactions (P < .002), and attractiveness (P < .001). Larger females were more likely to be older, more likely to be members of minority groups, more likely to be on 30-minute shows (situation comedies), less likely to have romantic interactions, and less likely to be deemed attractive.
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
Our results show the comparative neglect of overweight individuals on television and the imbalance toward thinner men and, especially, thinner women. The emphasis on thin body types is not a new finding; it also has been documented in mass media advertising.37 Television, of course, has no mandate to represent the population accurately in its fictional series. Other patterns of misrepresentation on entertainment television have been well identified; for example, males typically outnumber females by about 2 to 1 in prime-time programming,38 Hispanics are underrepresented,39 and unmarried individuals are overrepresented.38 If the mass media omit or ignore a particular group, it is assumed, with some supportive evidence, that such groups are deemed of lesser value and importance.40 A prevalent and consistent focus on thinness may have a powerful effect on self-esteem, employment concerns, and interpersonal relationships among individuals who are overweight.
Important differences exist in portrayals of weight among men and women. Thinner women are portrayed more positively and larger ones more negatively, whereas both of these deviations from "normal" weight may serve to stigmatize men. The sought-after weight for men appears to be neither large nor thin, although largeness may be more negative than thinness. Thus, research on the relationship between media portrayals and attributional or behavioral outcomes must consider that males and females may respond similarly (and negatively) to large images of their own gender but differently to thin images.
The present analysis of the demography of the population of television fiction implies that the category of large characters encompasses a roster of "out-group" characteristics. Larger characters are more likely to be members of ethnic minority groups, older, married, and unemployed; also, they are more likely to be guests on shows and to be portrayed in comedies as opposed to dramas. Even before consideration of their behaviors, attributes, and interactions, there are 2 strikes against overweight individuals: they are less frequently present and more likely to be cast in roles outside the mainstream of television fiction.
The third strike is the comparative "inactivity" or passivity in terms of their roles. For example, the larger characters observed in this study consistently had fewer interactions with friends or romantic partners and were involved in fewer behaviorally oriented tasks (e.g., leadership interactions). Larger characters were less likely to help with tasks, to demonstrate physical affection, to date, and to have sex. In addition, they were more likely to be seen eating and to be the objects of humor, 2 elements that can be considered stronger indicators of inertia than of energy.
However, there were a few positive findings in terms of portrayals of overweight characters. One was evidence that larger female characters receive more respect and larger male characters receive less ridicule; it is notable that the greatest amount of ridicule was aimed toward the thinnest male characters. No significant differences were found for a number of content variables, many of which represent stereotypical attributes associated with weight. Being jolly, sloppy, sickly, annoying, and happy were not attributes that made a difference. Exercise, consumption of alcohol, and several components of sexual activity also did not yield character differences. Without trend data, we cannot assess whether the lack of differences in these areas has been consistent over time or reflects an improving trend.
Two approaches in mass communication research suggest the probable impact of portrayals of large (or thin) characters. The first is that such images accumulate over time and eventually result in real-world expectations that correspond to media presentations.41 Some evidence supports the argument that viewing television is related to holding stereotypes about obese individuals. In a study of elementary school children, Harrison42 found that the more television boys watched, the more likely they were to assign negative stereotypes to an overweight female.
According to the second approach, not all images are equivalent, and audience members will orient themselves to characters they favor.43 For example, some viewers of Camryn Manheim, an overweight character on the ABC television series The Practice, may be most impressed with her professional success, whereas others may be most impressed by her decision to be a single mother. For such viewers, this individual character portrayal may be more important than more tepid portrayals of overweight women in other shows.
Research could determine whether overweight female viewers will respond to a strong, positive portrayal of an overweight woman in a way that parallels the responses of female viewers in the case of other body types or whether their greater identification results in more intense responses. A related research issue is whether infrequent but strong, positive portrayals can compensate for the larger number of stigmatized portrayals. Finally, possibilities for future research in this area include the following: (1) content studies focusing on other forms of mass media that reach large numbers of adults and young people, such as movies and magazines; (2) survey research designed to determine the relationship between what is seen, read, or heard about different body types and the resulting attitudes and beliefs that are formed; and (3) experimental research aimed at examining message components that would reduce biases associated with individuals who are overweight.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
Human Participant Protection
No human participants were involved in this project, and it was exempt from the institutional review board process.
|
Footnotes |
|---|
B. S. Greenberg contributed to the conception, design, and methods of the study and to the writing of the article. M. Eastin contributed to the design, methodology, and analysis of the study. L. Hofschire contributed to the conception, methods, and analysis of the study and to the writing of the article. K. Lachlan contributed to the methodology of the study and to the data analysis. K. D. Brownell contributed to the conception and methodology of the study and to the writing of the article.
Accepted for publication May 24, 2002.
|
References |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
2. Lewis CE, Jacobs DR Jr, McCreath H, et al. Weight gain continues in the 1990s: 10-year trends in weight and overweight from the CARDIA study. Am J Epidemiol.2000;151:1172–1181.
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. US obesity trends in adults. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/obesitymaps.ppt. Accessed March 2002.
4. Obesity: Preventing and Managing the Global Epidemic: Report of a WHO Consultation on Obesity. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1998.
5. Bundred P, Kitchiner D, Buchan I. Prevalence of overweight and obese children between 1989 and 1998: population based series of cross sectional studies. BMJ.2001;322:326–328.
6. Dietz WH. The obesity epidemic in young children: reduce television viewing and promote playing. BMJ.2001;322:313–314.
7. McGinnis JM, Foege WH. Annual causes of death in the United States. J Am Med Assoc.1993;270:2207–2222.
8. Sturm R, Wells KB. Does obesity contribute as much to morbidity as poverty or smoking? Public Health.2001;115:229–235.[Web of Science][Medline]
9. Pi-Sunyer FX. Medical complications of obesity. In: Fairburn CG, Brownell KD, eds. Eating Disorders and Obesity: A Comprehensive Textbook. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Guilford Press. 2002;467–472.
10. Gortmaker A, Must A, Perrin JM, Sobol AM, Dietz WH. Social and economic consequences of overweight in adolescence and young adulthood. N Engl J Med.1993;329:1008–1012.
11. Friedman MA, Brownell KD. Psychological correlates of obesity: moving to the next research generation. Psychol Bull.1995;117:195–212.
12. Falkner NH, French SA, Jeffery RW, Neumark-Sztainer D, Sherwood NE, Morton N. Mistreatment due to weight: prevalence and sources of perceived mistreatment in women and men. Obes Res.1999;7:572–576.[Web of Science][Medline]
13. Solovay S. Tipping the Scales of Injustice: Fighting Weight-Based Discrimination. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books; 2000.
14. Clayson DE, Klassen ML. Perception of attractiveness by obesity and hair color. Percept Mot Skills.1989;68:199–202.[Web of Science][Medline]
15. Harris MB, Walters LC, Waschull S. Gender and ethnic differences in obesity-related behaviors and attitudes in a college sample. J Appl Soc Psychol.1991;21:1545–1566.[Web of Science]
16. Teachman BA, Brownell KD. Implicit anti-fat bias among health professionals: is anyone immune? Int J Obes.2001;25:1525–1531.[Web of Science]
17. Krieger N. Embodying inequality: a review of concepts, measures, and methods for studying health consequences of discrimination. Int J Health Serv.1999;29:295–352.[Web of Science][Medline]
18. Forster P. The forty something barrier: medicine and age discrimination. BMJ.1993;306:637–639.
19. Mays VM, Coleman LM, Jackson JS. Perceived race-based discrimination, employment status, and job stress in a national sample of black women: implications for health outcomes. J Occup Health Psychol.1996;1:319–329.[Medline]
20. Ren XS, Amick BC, Williams DR. Racial/ethnic disparities in health: the interplay between discrimination and socioeconomic status. Ethn Dis.1999;9:151–165.[Medline]
21. Shrier DK. Sexual harassment and discrimination: impact on physical and mental health. N J Med.1990;87:105–107.[Medline]
22. Williams DR. Race, socioeconomic status, and health: the added effects of racism and discrimination. Ann N Y Acad Sci.1999;896:173–188.[Web of Science][Medline]
23. DuRant RH, Rome ES, Rich M, et al. Tobacco and alcohol use behaviors portrayed in music videos: a content analysis. Am J Public Health.1997;87:1131–1135.
24. Dorfman L, Woodruff K, Chavez V, Wallack L. Youth and violence on local television news in California. Am J Public Health.1997;87:1311–1316.
25. Goldstein AO, Sobel RA, Newman GR. Tobacco and alcohol use in G-rated children’s animated films. JAMA.1999;281:1131–1136.
26. Yokota F, Thompson KM. Violence in G-rated animated films. JAMA.2000;283:2716–2720.
27. Kaufman L. Prime-time nutrition. J Communication.1980;30(3):37–46.[Web of Science][Medline]
28. Fouts G, Burggraf K. Television situation comedies: female weight, male negative comments, and audience reactions. Sex Roles.2000;42:925–932.[Web of Science]
29. Jain A, Tirodkar M. Food messages on African-American television shows. Paper presented at: Annual Meeting of the Ambulatory Pediatric Association/Society for Pediatrics Research, April 2001, Baltimore, Md.
30. Currie DH. Decoding femininity: advertisements and their teenage readers. Gender Soc.1997;11:453–477.[Abstract]
31. Orenstein P. Schoolgirls: Young Women, Self-Esteem, and the Confidence Gap. New York, NY: Doubleday; 1994.
32. Hubbard K, O’Neill AM, Cheakalos C. Out of control: weight-obsessed, stressed-out coeds are increasingly falling prey to eating disorders. People. April 12, 1999:52–69.
33. Thompson MA, Gray JJ. Development and validation of a new body-image assessment scale. J Pers Assess.1995;64:258–269.[Web of Science][Medline]
34. National Institutes of Health. Statistics related to overweight and obesity. Available at: http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health/nutrit/pubs/statobes.htm. Accessed March 2002.
35. The ratings. Entertainment Weekly. June 1, 2001:73.
36. Flegal KM, Carroll MD, Ogden CL, Johnson CL. Prevalence and trends in obesity among US adults, 1999–2000. JAMA.2002;288:1723–1727.
37. Lin CA. Use of sex appeals in prime-time television commercials. Sex Roles.1998;38:461–475.
38. Heintz-Knowles K. Fall Colors: 2000–2001 Primetime Diversity Report. Oakland, Calif: Children Now; 2001.
39. Mastro D, Greenberg BS. The portrayal of racial minorities on prime time television. J Broadcasting Electronic Media.2000;44:690–703.
40. Greenberg BS, Mastro D, Brand J. Minorities and the mass media: television into the 21st century. In: Bryant J, Zillmann D, eds. Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research. 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate. 2002;333–351.
41. Gerbner G, Gross L, Morgan M, Signorielli N. Growing up with television: the cultivation perspective. In: Bryant J, Zillmann D, eds. Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1994:17–42.
42. Harrison K. Television viewing, fat stereotyping, body shape standards, and eating disordered symptomatology in grade school children. Communication Res.2000;27:617–640.
43. Greenberg BS. Some uncommon television images and the drench hypothesis. In: Oskamp S, ed. Applied Social Psychology Annual: Television as a Social Issue. Newbury Park, Calif: Sage Publications; 1988:88–102.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  B. A. Primack, B. Swanier, A. M. Georgiopoulos, S. R. Land, and M. J. Fine Association Between Media Use in Adolescence and Depression in Young Adulthood: A Longitudinal Study Arch Gen Psychiatry, February 1, 2009; 66(2): 181 - 188. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. N Bleich Public perception of overweight BMJ, July 10, 2008; 337(jul10_1): a347 - a347. [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H. A. Wilkin and S. J. Ball-Rokeach Reaching at risk groups: The importance of health storytelling in Los Angeles Latino media Journalism, August 1, 2006; 7(3): 299 - 320. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minerva BMJ, November 22, 2003; 327(7425): E258 - 258. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minerva BMJ, August 16, 2003; 327(7411): 402 - 402. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
