Comparative study of images related to plump and fat in Japan TARESAWA Yumiko, TAKEUCHI Misaki and TSUJIMOTO Yui Abstract : Ever since a fashion magazine for plump women was first published in March 2013, a plump boom has occurred in Japan. Although the word plump connotes the meaning of little, most models that appeared in this magazine are big built. This study explored images related to plumpness and fatness that are held by female university students in Japan. In Study 1, university students N 38, all women freely described the images they held of plumpness and fatness. We selected 3 items for each concept selected from images described by most students. In Study 2, 103 female university students indicated the extent to which they considered that the 70 selected items applied to their own images of plumpness and fatness. Factor analysis of the items regarding images of plumpness extracted four factorssociable, Harmonious,Chubby, and Lacking self controlcumulative contribution ratio.13, whereas, factor analysis of items about images of fatness extracted two factorsvulgar and Cheerfulcumulative contribution ratio 4.18. In Study 3, verbal images were compared using several factors obtained in Study 2, and pictorial images were compared using nine pictures, in which the degree of fat on a woman s body was progressively increased. Results of comparing verbal images indicated that plumpness, compared to fatness, was more Sociable, Harmonious, and Cheerful, and less Vulgar. In addition, plumpness was equated with Chubby and Lacking self control similar to fatness. Results of comparing pictorial images indicated that the degree of obesity associated with fatness was higher than for plumpness, whereas an ambiguous range of obesity was common to plumpness and fatness. Moreover, the range of fatness to be considered fat was wider than the range of fatness to be considered plump. The results of this study are discussed in relation to the current plump boom in Japan. Key Words : plumpness, fatness, a plump boom, stereotype BMI ; Body mass 2 3 2013
2 201 3 index BMI 2 2000 2000 2000 e.g., Puhl & Heuer, 2009 Puhl & Heuer, 2009 2010 Puhl & Heuer, 2009 Puhl & Heuer, 2009 2013, 2014 BMI 2 WHOBMI 30 2000 2011 2012 2009 2010 BMI 2 30.4 21.1 BMI 2 8.8 20102011 2013 BMI BMI 2013 ; 2014 2014 2013 la farfa 2013 3 2 11 4 7, 80 kg 100 cm la farfa 201201 10 31 1987 10 23
11 cm, 81 kg BMI 31.2 2 2014 2014 2002 L 10 L 14 cm smile Land2009 201 10 10 3 1 201 Can Cam 20 1 Can Cam 2013 7 Can Cam 2013 avex Chubbiness 10 chunbbiness Chubbiness HAPPY Chubbiness 10 kg 17 cm 201 BMI 22.7 2 BMI 21.9 200022.7 Chubbiness 200 200 200 200 200 la farfa la farfa 200 1 2013 9 38
2 201 3 1 1 182 174 1 2 1 23 17 11 8 7 7 7 2 2 3 4 4 3 2 1 3 3 4 3 1 2 3 4 2 13 12 10 10 8 8 7
3 4 112 73 2 4 1 3 30 24 23 22 22 1 1 14 11 10 8 7 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 2 47 4 43 43 40 34 29 2 24 19 18 1 14 14 12 12 11 9 9 8 8 8 7 7 4 4 4 3 2 1 2 2 14 1 29 3 11 24 4 7 47 9 4 12 23 2 11 9 73 14 12 24 43 3 1 1 1 1 4 2 2 2
2 201 3 112 3 43 4 11 8 2 1 2013 10 103 1 3 4 1 2 3 4 3 3 3 4 1 9 90 8 74 1 2 4 4 8 7 2 9 9 8
1 2
2 201 3 4 4 12 7 7 7 28 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1.3 24 1 4.13 4.772.79.71.740.728.714.703.81.47.419.223.420.220.147.9.22.101.21.111.004.071.199.037.104.499 22.913 22.913.177.23.347.181.327.241.233.247.10.3.772.709.79..48.28.490.48.198.200.282.010.08.042 4.109 17.122 40.03.02.028.03.191.032.148.02.001.174.0.03.277.12.122.0.077.124.409.910.747.32.1.190.204 2.423 10.094 0.129.191.123.029.04.110.033.003.014.027.033.01.043.097.199.03.201.23.040.079.298.410.32..1 1.441.004.133.4.3.702.19.49.91.0.2.28.313.0.77.4.07.740.492.321.40.88.87.3.437.48.433 12 17 18 1 2 4.18 18 1
.839.839.838.824.804.798.771.7.728.724.73.4.43.41.11.049.17.014 8.404 44.233 44.233.091.14.119.0.00.07.13.082.080.273.08.203.09.388.009.834.7.13 1.890 9.94 4.179.712.727.717.83.4.42.12.91.3.99.4.47.419.1.373.98.01.23 3 2 1 2 2 2 4 2 201 4 8
2 201 3 30 4 7 2 7 9 2013 30 2 2013 1 2013 2 198 2 3
Fisk & Taylor 2008 12 17 2 1 4 2 24 17 2 3 3 1 2 3 1999 Fallon & Rozin 198 9 2013 12 9 28 31 2 4 2 2 7 1 1 1 2 3 4 1999 Fallon & Rozin 198 3
2 201 3 3 9 1999 1 2 α α.80 α.87 α.72 α.31 7 α α.809 4 2 1 4 F 1,8 3.733, p.10 F 1,82.824, p.10 F 1,8.000, ns ; F 1,81.173, ns 4 *p.0, p.10 F 1,87.73, p.0 2 F 1,3.3, p.0 3 t 3 t 272.738, p.0 ; t 2713.737, p.0 ; t 27.2, p.0 3
**p.01 t 301.012, p.0 ; t 30.723, p.0 ; t 30 4.239, p.0 9 χ 2 1 3 4 2 2 χ 10.011, 2 ns 21 10 χ 110.779, 2 p.01 23 1 χ 11.909, 2 ns 7 21 χ 112.714, 2 p.01 8 24 1 χ 1 2 32.87, p.01 9 21 0 χ 2 129.40, p.01 7 9 3 7 9
2 201 3 U 2 2013 2013 2013 BMI 10 40 7 2013 2 1999 9 4.0 201 la farfa 7, 8, 9 la farfa la farfa
3 1 2 4 2013 mini 2013 24 https : //kotobank.jp/word/%e3%81%b7%e3%81% AB%E%AD%90-191038201 10 29 201 Chubbiness Profile http : //avex.jp/chubbiness/profile.php201 10 29 Fisk,S.T.&Taylor,S.E. 2008 Social cognition : From brains to culture. 3 rd ed. McGraw-Hill. S. T. S. E. 2013 3 2010 2012 47 48, 48-8. 1999 23, 1-1. 201 la farfa http : //lafarfa.jp/ pip/10201/index.html201 10 29 201 SHOP http : //www.nissen.co.jp/cate007/omise/list/ 201 10 29 200 10 2000, 18-28. 2011 100, 897-902. 2014 12 2 28 2014 33, 1-9. 201 201 10 Puhl,R.M.&Heuer,C.A. 2009 The stigma of obesity : A review and update. Obesity, 17, 941-94. 2013 4 p.12. 2014 1, 47-. 2013, 7-1.