Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2023 Jun;12(2):183-190.
doi: 10.1007/s13679-023-00504-5. Epub 2023 Jun 7.

Sabotage, Collusion, and Being a Feeder: Towards a New Model of Negative Social Support and Its Impact on Weight Management

Jane Ogden  1 , Sophia Quirke-McFarlane  2
Affiliations
Review

Sabotage, Collusion, and Being a Feeder: Towards a New Model of Negative Social Support and Its Impact on Weight Management

Jane Ogden et al. Curr Obes Rep. 2023 Jun.

Abstract

Purpose of review: Whilst research indicates the positive impact of social support across a number of health domains, including weight management, not all social support is beneficial.

Recent findings: This paper reviews the evidence for both positive and negative social support in the context of behavioural interventions and surgery for obesity. It then presents a new model of negative social support focusing on sabotage ('active and intentional undermining of another person's weight goals'), feeding behaviour ('explicit over feeding of someone when they are not hungry or wishing not to eat'), and collusion ('passive and benign negative social support to avoid conflict') which can be conceptualised within the context of relationships as systems and the mechanisms of homeostasis. There is increasing evidence for the negative impact of social support. This new model could form the basis of further research and the development of interventions for family, friends, and partners to maximise weight loss outcomes.

Keywords: Bariatric surgery; Collusion; Dieting; Feeder behaviour; Obesity management; Sabotage; Social support.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Negative social support: the role of sabotage, collusion, and being a feeder
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Cohen S, Wills TA. Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychol Bull. 1985;98(2):310. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lett HS, Blumenthal JA, Babyak MA, Strauman TJ, Robins C, Sherwood A. Social support and coronary heart disease: epidemiologic evidence and implications for treatment. Psychosom Med. 2005;67(6):869–878. doi: 10.1097/01.psy.0000188393.73571.0a. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sarason IG, Levine HM, Basham RB, et al. Assessing social support: the social support questionnaire. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1983;44:127–139. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.127. - DOI
    1. Wallston BS, Alagna SW, Devellis BM, Devellis RF. Social support and physical illness. Health Psychol. 1983;2:367–391. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.2.4.367. - DOI
    1. •• Bavik YL, Shaw JD, Wang XH. Social support: multidisciplinary review, synthesis, and future agenda. Acad Manag Ann. 2020;14(2):726–58. A thorough and detailed review of social support across a range of domains identifying common ground across disciplines.