Cutting Calories or Cutting Corners? How Anti-Obesity Medication Use Sparks Effort-Based Sanctions and Social Penalties

Obesity is one of the most widespread public health risks with more than 1 billion affected individuals worldwide. It is associated with several million deaths per year and will cause economic costs of US$ 3 trillion by 2030. In the past years, a new treatment line of ‘anti-obesity’ medication, based on glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, has emerged as a promising intervention. While the treatment proved effective, a public and online backlash gained traction, accusing patients of ‘cutting corners’. Given the positive health effects of the treatment, we assume a bias in social judgment against these patients, potentially based on effort perceptions and moral judgment. Across four studies in three countries (N = 1,205, Belgium, US, UK) we tested, whether this negative perception could be attributed to effort moralization: perceiving effortful behavior as indicative of moral character. We found robust and strong evidence that the use of medication was associated with negative moral judgment when compared to weight loss without medication (d = 1.17). The effect was a function of perceived effort differences, i.e. the larger the perceived difference in effort, the larger the differences in moral judgment. Further, negative downstream consequences were observed: medication users were perceived as less deserving of the weight loss outcomes and as less preferable as cooperation partners. These findings highlight the adverse consequences of effort-based biases experienced by patients using anti-obesity medication. Consequently, we advocate for an effort-based reframing of public narratives to reduce the stigma surrounding anti-obesity medications and promote more equitable healthcare outcomes.