This is the html version of the file http://baileynorwood.com/rcfp/files/GoodSource3.pdf.
Google automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.

Location via proxy:   [ UP ]   [Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]    No cookies    No scripts    No ads    No referrer    Show this form

Page 1

Appetite, 1996, 26, 247–266

Food Choice: A Conceptual Model of the Process

TANIS FURST, MARGARET CONNORS, CAROLE A. BISOGNI,

JEFFERY SOBAL and LAURA WINTER FALK

Division of Nutritional Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York

Interviews examining the food choice process were conducted with 29 adults,

primarily individuals making grocery store food choice decisions, who were

sampled for their diversity. These people were asked about how they chose foods

when shopping and in other settings, and what influenced their choices. Verbatim

transcripts of the interviews were analysed using qualitative methods that included

constant comparison, concept mapping, and case summaries, and a conceptual

food choice process model was developed. Data from the interviews are presented

to illustrate the structure of this conceptual model. People’s life course experiences

affected major influences on food choice that included ideals, personal factors,

resources, social contexts and the food context. These influences informed the

development of personal systems for making food choices that incorporated

value negotiations and behavioral strategies. Value negotiations weighed sensory

perceptions, monetary considerations, health and nutrition beliefs and concerns,

convenience, social relationships and quality of food choice decisions. Strategies

employed to simplify the food choice process developed over time. The conceptual

food choice process model represents the rich and complex bases of food practices,

and provides a theoretical framework for research and practice in nutrition.

” 1996 Academic Press Limited

Introduction

The choices people make among foods determine which nutrients enter the body,

and influence food production systems through consumer demand. Specific food

choices lay the groundwork for long term food habits. How people consider and

select foods and beverages affects their acquisition, preparation or consumption of

food in a wide variety of settings including grocery stores, restaurants and vending

machines; parties and social events; and meals and snacks at home. The food choice

process incorporates not only decisions based on conscious reflection, but also those

that are automatic, habitual and subconscious.

Many previous studies have explored selected aspects of food choice from a wide

variety of disciplines and perspectives (Booth, 1994; Glanz et al., 1992; Mennell et

al., 1992; Axelson & Brinberg, 1989; Shepherd, 1989, 1990; Thompson, 1988; Murcott,

1983). Pioneering work by Lewin (1943, 1951) proposed that several specific frames

This project was supported by United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Cooperative State

Research Service (CSRS) funds (Contract # 92-34115-8073) provided to the Division of Nutritional

Sciences at Cornell University. The authors thank the participants in the study for their cooperation.

Address correspondence to: Jeffery Sobal, Division of Nutritional Sciences, MVR Hall, Cornell

University, Ithaca, NY 14853, U.S.A.

0195–6663/96/030247+19 $18.00/0

” 1996 Academic Press Limited

248

T. FURST ET AL.

of reference are involved in food choice: taste, health, social status and cost.

Later investigations examined these and other values, focusing on cognitive and

motivational factors involved in food choice (Bell et al., 1981; Betts, 1985; Cosper

& Wakefield, 1975; Krondl & Lau, 1982; Lau et al., 1984; Michela & Contento,

1986; Rappoport et al., 1993). Both individual and social factors are involved in

food choice, and research has considered the influence of norms and relationships

(Shutz, 1988; Worsley et al., 1983). Food habits research has presented several models

that outline factors, influences and eating patterns (Sanjur, 1982), and several attempts

have been made to develop more comprehensive portraits of the food choice process

(Parraga, 1990; Shepherd, 1989). Nonetheless, food choice remains a topic that is

not well understood (Rozin, 1980; Rozin & Fallon, 1980; Stellar et al., 1980). In our

present study of the complex food choice process, we have integrated and built upon

the work of others within a variety of fields and disciplines who have observed and

described factors and processes germane to food choice.

In applying a constructionist orientation and qualitative research methods to

understand the food choice process, this investigation used theory and methods that

differ from those typically chosen in studies examining food choice. We selected a

constructionist approach because the conceptual and analytic techniques it employs

are designed to acknowledge and illuminate the complexities of food choice rather

than reduce information according to the requirements of quantitative methodologies.

A constructionist approach (Berger & Luckman, 1966; Goffman, 1959) allows for a

rich expression of the ways people engage in the food choice process, by incorporating

the meanings and understandings that they create in their food choice negotiations,

including elicitation of the range and strength of the factors affecting food choice.

The research methods used in this study focused on collecting conceptual knowledge

about the food choice process in order to provide new insights into this topic from

the point of view of particular people making food choices (Patton, 1990; Guba &

Lincoln, 1989; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Other researchers have seen this approach

as a powerful way of understanding food practices (Sims, 1987; Achterberg, 1988;

Beardsworth & Keil, 1993; Chapman & Maclean, 1993; Janas et al., 1993).

The goal of this study was to understand more fully the complexity of the food

choice process by describing it and placing it within the framework of a working

model. Our purpose in developing a conceptual model emerging from the perspectives

of the public was to provide a wholistic perspective of the factors influencing the

way people constructed the process of choosing foods. Such a model can illustrate

concepts underlying the food choice process and its components, as well as provide

a tool to facilitate understanding how people make food choices. This model might

be useful to researchers as well as nutrition practitioners and policy makers interested

in nutrition interventions.

Methods

Qualitative methods were used to collect and analyse the data according to an

emergent constant comparative research process (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Miles &

Huberman, 1994; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Qualitative methods are increasingly

being used to examine food and eating (Achterberg, 1988; Beardsworth & Kiel,

1993), and the reliability and validity of qualitative work has been established (Miles

& Huberman, 1994). Analysis was ongoing during the course of the study, and

249

FOOD CHOICE

emerging data were examined according to an iterative process that served both to

inform the interviewing and establish concepts for subsequent analysis.

Members of the research team initially recruited seven adults (six women and

one man) for individual in-depth pilot interviews in the participants’ homes. Four

participants were interviewed once only, and three each participated in one follow-

up interview. The pilot interviews ranged in duration from 30 to 45min. Analysis

of these pilot interviews identified key issues and concepts that were used to develop

an interview guide for the primary phase of the data collection. The interview guide

was pretested and revised before its use in the field. The main data collection involved

20 intercept interviews that were conducted in a local grocery store while shoppers

were engaged in making food choices. Two other interviews with women were

conducted at sites other than the grocery store, for a total of 29 interviews for this

study.

Participants in the intercept interview phase of the study were sampled purposively

(Guba & Lincoln, 1989; Kuzel, 1992; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Maximum variation

was sought by selecting participants serially, with the selection of each participant

contingent upon the characteristics of others already intercepted and interviewed.

Our aim was to interview adult men and women of different ages with different

household situations and having varying eating patterns.

We chose primarily middle-income Caucasian participants because this is the

largest socioeconomic group in the geographic region where we did our work, and

sought variety in this sample along the dimensions of age, gender, economic status,

family situation and role in their household food system (for example, usual vs.

occasional food procurer). Because most meals are consumed in the home, we

decided to approach people in a grocery store setting because that is where many

of people’s food choices for provisioning for home and family occur. We also expected

that greater diversity within the selection criteria would be found among grocery

store shoppers than would be available among people in most other accessible

settings where food choices occur, such as homes or restaurants.

Of the 20 grocery interviews 18 were with people shopping alone (11 women and

seven men), one was with two women shopping together, and another was with a

married couple. The interviewer intercepted shoppers in the grocery store, introducing

herself and explaining to them that she was interviewing shoppers for a study on

how people choose the foods they buy, and asking if they would consent to be

interviewed while they shopped. Having obtained their permission, she then proceeded

with the interviews. Less than five of the people whom the interviewer approached

declined to be interviewed. Participants ranged in age from their twenties to their

seventies, and lived in one community in central New York State in the U.S.A. All

participants signed consent forms approved by the University Committee on Human

Subjects.

All intercept interviews, including the two conducted away from the grocery

store, were one-time interviews ranging from 20 to 30min each. By using semi-

structured guides to questioning, the interviewer was able to keep the conversation

focused upon food choice while encouraging participants to elaborate upon the

themes that were salient to them, such as shopping strategies, food adventurousness,

food preferences and changes in eating habits, as well as allowing themes to develop

during the interview. This depth interviewing approach allowed people to focus, for

example: on a particular product and the factors considered in choosing such an

item; on foods they eat or do not eat at home or when eating out; or on specific

250

T. FURST ET AL.

situations such as choosing “treats” or foods for special occasions. In addition,

participants were invited to talk freely about other food choices they may have made

in the past. While the setting for the interview was the grocery store, the interview

itself was intentionally broad-ranging, and included discussions of food choices in

a variety of home, restaurant and other environments. The interviewer used probes

to elicit additional information on topics of interest that emerged. No interview was

identical to another because each conversation was in large part directed by the

participant, and themes for different individuals varied. During the course of the

interviews, member checks (“My understanding of what you’ve said is. . . . Is that

right?”) and peer debriefing (“Some people have said. . . . How does that sound to

you?”) were used to establish the credibility of the research data (Guba & Lincoln,

1989).

All interviews were conducted by research team members trained and experienced

in qualitative interviewing techniques, and were audio taped and transcribed verbatim

for analysis. Members of the research team first analysed the transcripts individually,

and then again in a group setting, where categories, concepts, codes and emergent

themes were identified and discussed. Using the constant comparative method to

implement a grounded theoretical approach to data analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967;

Miles & Huberman, 1994; Strauss & Corbin, 1990), original categories arising from

the interviews were applied to the cumulative data and revised multiple times until

there was group consensus about their fit. The research group members also used

introspection to draw from and reflect upon their own food choice experiences, and

their personal insights contributed to interpreting data from this study.

Once members of the research team agreed upon the categories developed from

analysing the interview data, they examined relationships among categories in order

to develop a model of the food choice process. Case summaries and concept maps

(Novak & Gowin, 1984) were constructed from each interview transcript to isolate

concepts, themes, patterns, and associations characteristic of individual participants,

and these factors contributed to the development of the final food choice model.

Once a preliminary model was developed, it was applied to the data and revised

repeatedly until the current version was agreed upon by the research team.

Results

Figure 1 presents a conceptual model of the food choice process that emerged

from the data analysis. The model represents the types of factors and the process

involved in a single choice event. Factors involved in food choice were grouped into

three major components: (1) life course, (2) influences and (3) personal system. The

relationship of these components to one another generates the process or pathway

(indicated by arrows) leading to the point of choice.

The life course includes the personal roles and the social, cultural and physical

environments to which a person has been and is exposed. A person’s life course

generates a set of influences: ideals, personal factors, resources, social framework

and food context. These influences inform and shape people’s personal systems,

including conscious value negotiations and unconsciously operationalized strategies

that may occur in a food-related choice situation.

The model’s funnel shape illustrates several attributes of the food choice process.

First, a single food choice event results from the mixing and separating of the diverse

251

FOOD CHOICE

Ideals

Personal

factors

Resources

Social

framework

Food

context

Influences

Personal system

Value

Negotiations

Sensory

perceptions

Monetary

consider-

ations

Quality

Managing

relation-

ships

Conven-

ience

Health and

nutrition

Strategies

Choice

Life course

Figure 1. A conceptual model of the components in the food choice process.

set of personal and environmental inputs. The life course, a major ingredient in the

process, gives rise to and shapes the influences that emerge in a food choice situation

as well as the manner and extent to which the social and physical settings affect how

people construct and execute personal systems of food choice. The value negotiation

process within such a personal system is very dynamic, while strategies are more

routine. Finally, the boundaries between components and processes are highly

permeable, and much mutual shaping occurs between and within components.

The model outlines the general nature of the food choice process. However,

certain influences may be more salient than others for particular people in specific

food choice situations. The model represents a process that may be either more

deliberate or more automatic. The components of the model and their interaction

are described in the following sections using examples from the data.

252

T. FURST ET AL.

Life course

A basic and universal factor that provided the groundwork for food choices was

the life course, which included past influences of personal experiences and historical

eras, current involvement in trends and transitions and anticipations of future events.

Several participants referred to ways their upbringing, as members of a given culture

during a particular historic period and as participants in a family life course, exerted

an influence upon how they made food choices. One woman described how her

father “liked to eat all this traditional German food, which is very greasy”, and

after he died her mother “started getting into this health thing”, which had an impact

on how her own food choice patterns developed. Another person commented, “I’m

Italian, so I guess you could say that [food is a very important part of my life]”.

Characteristics of a given age cohort or generation affected the way people

regarded and used food, and people’s past life roles affected their relationship to

food. An elderly man said, “I was in the army years ago. When you ate in the army,

you were really hungry and you barely looked sometimes at the food. You just

took some of everything”. A woman, reflecting on her current shopping practices,

explained, “when I was younger. ... I always had to be careful when I shopped.

And it’s just a carry-over”. A man whose economic status had improved since his

childhood noted, “I grew up in a family of five kids, and very low income . . . we

ate . . . anything that’d make the meal stretch. We don’t have to eat like that [now].

I can go out and buy a nice cut of meat now”.

People coordinated the demands of current life roles and activities. Roles they

envisioned for themselves in the future were part of their expected life course and

also impelled the food choices they made. Future hopes, fears, and expectations had

an impact on food choices. One woman described how eating a mango recalled “a

situation . . . I want again. I want that feeling again”.

Ideas and information acquired through past experiences, such as in “situations

where I’ve . . . had to try different foods”, also affected people’s approach toward

food. The life course provides orientations for food choices through past, present,

and future roles and experiences. Thus, the life course is the underlying source of

many factors that shape food choice.

Influences

The model includes the five major categories of influences upon food choice that

emerged consistently during the course of interviewing participants: ideals, personal

factors, resources, social framework and food context (Fig. 1). These influences on

food choice mutually shaped one another, and also served to reinforce, interact

and compete with one another. Boundaries between influences often were fuzzy.

Nonetheless, the central themes of each influence were clearly distinguishable. Each

influence appeared to affect the choice process to the degree that it was salient to a

given food choice event. Influences also affected the paradigms people brought to food

situations, as evidenced by the uniqueness of participants’ food choice perceptions to

their individual situations, different food settings, social situations and life stages.

Ideals

Perhaps the most pervasive influence was that of ideals: expectations, standards,

hopes and beliefs that provided points of reference and comparison by which people

253

FOOD CHOICE

judged and evaluated their food choices. Ideals were rooted in and derived from

cultural and symbolic factors. When alluding to ideals, participants referred to

abstractions such as “the right way”, or “a proper meal”, or “what I should be

eating”, and often felt the need to explain why they were not meeting ideal standards.

For example: “This isn’t ideal. This isn’t what we want to do. If it was ideal, we’d

shop ahead”.

Ideals incorporated symbolic meanings people associate with food, such as social

status, and food choices reflected these meanings. One participant described being

better off economically than his parents were in terms of no longer having his food

choices restricted to what he called the “poor food” he grew up eating. Symbolic

demands prevailed in some settings and food events. Holiday traditions, special

occasion meals, or ritual observances involving food called for particular foods, for

example “cakes for birthdays”. Interviews indicated that ideals may be formed and

established within the context of the life course, with expectations and standards for

food choice internalized and imprinted on people’s consciousness: “how beans should

be”, or “potatoes, you put sour cream and butter on”. Foodways that were learned

as people were growing up appeared to provide cultural traditions and images of

how things “should be”.

Some people’s expressions of ideals or standards reflected tacitly understood,

unexamined cultural criteria for food choice; for example, eating “well”, or selecting

food that seems “normal” or “decent”. Others’ comments demonstrated that ideals

were subject to reflection and evaluation: “ice cream, in our family, is a luxury ’cause

I buy frozen yogurt. So when I come home with the ‘real stuff’, you know, everybody’s

excited”. This person perceived the traditional ideal in her culture to be ice cream

and saw frozen yogurt as a substitute. The ideal was used as a standard for judging

other options.

Ideals underlay the scripts individuals developed to describe how things should

be or could be, and reflected aspirations, values and sense of identity. People’s

responses indicated that ideals changed with reflection and re-evaluation, particularly

during times of life transition. Ideals also conflicted with day-to-day realities, such

as unconventional work and meal schedules. One woman described her attempts to

resolve such a conflict: “because I work nights . . . I find that I’m not . . . ready for

dinner at five o’clock at night . . . I’m trying to just commit to having that one meal

. . . and not picking on other things during the night . . . it’s not ideal for me, because

of my night shift schedule . . . so I’m moving toward something that would be more

acceptable in my mind for me”.

Ideals were expressed clearly when participants described certain types of situ-

ations such as times of stress or impulse: “donuts . . . that I’m not supposed to eat”;

particular times associated with “a nice big family meal . . . on . . . a Sunday afternoon

. . . a roast, mashed potatoes, gravy . . .”; on special occasions such as holidays; and

in connection with important life milestones, when “something happened that’s

wonderful and you get something special”.

The influence of ideals in the model included people’s expectations, as well as

their conscious or tacit assumptions about food. These assumptions were rooted in

and derived from cultural and symbolic factors that linked ideals to food.

Personal factors

Personal factors was another influence to emerge as central to food choice, and

reflected what was salient and meaningful to individuals based on needs and

254

T. FURST ET AL.

preferences derived from psychological and physiological traits. Personal factors

shaped the boundaries of food choices that a person was willing to make, and

included likes/dislikes, individual foodstyles, food centeredness and emotions; as

well as characteristics like gender, age, health status, sensory preferences (or taste

sensitivities) and state of hunger.

Personal factors incorporated cravings, preferences for particular foods or types

of foods, and aversions. For example, in describing his food preferences, one person

noted, “I like Italian food. I like most anything but . . . for some reason, I can’t get

much into that Chinese food”.

Individuals’ personal interests or traits played a role in establishing personal

food choice parameters. For example, people appeared to have different foodstyles

that often expressed themselves as food adventurousness or pickiness. One woman

contrasted herself with her daughter, commenting, “I’m just an impulse person.

Sometimes it’s by the fact that something’s new. I’ve never seen it before. . . . how

are you gonna know if you don’t like something if you don’t try it? ... [But my

daughter]. ... certain things she won’t eat. ... She’s just real fussy ... [but] my

husband and I eat just about anything”.

Some people seemed more food centered than others. Factors such as pleasure,

health, safety or symbolism contributed to the level of food salience people ex-

perienced. One participant said, “I don’t make an issue out of having a sit down

meal or whatever. . . . I don’t think that you have to make like an all out . . . effort

to make dinner every day. It doesn’t have to be like a main function of your life”.

Physiological factors such as allergic response and hunger also affected the food

choice process. Emphasizing the effects of heavy physical work, one woman spoke

of “starving”, saying, “we’re starving at twelve, we’re starving at two. And we’re

starving again at dinnertime, you know ... all of a sudden your stomach starts

rumbling. . . . and all of a sudden your energy’s gone”.

Certain foods were chosen because of emotional cues, moods and feelings that

induced a variety of responses to food. For example, a woman attempting to maintain

healthy eating habits described how mood swings affected her resolution: “ninety

percent of the time I’m pretty good. And then ten percent of the time I just say

‘who cares?’”

Resources

The resources available to people making food choices were an influential

component of the decision process. Resources were tangible, such as money, equip-

ment and space, as well as intangible, in the form of skills, knowledge and time.

Resources were perceived as available or unavailable depending on individual

outlooks and situations, and these perceptions demarcated the boundaries in food

choice situations.

Money was an important tangible resource because its degree of availability

affected the scope and nature of food choice decisions. For example, one woman,

describing her “gourmet” food preferences, noted that sufficient financial resources

enabled her to indulge her food tastes freely: “we have the income ... I spend a

fortune”. Another, by contrast, concluded, “the wallet comes in real hard. . . . I guess

the wallet for us is the big thing”. Other tangible resources affecting food choice

included equipment such as “a big freezer”, or “a bread-making machine”. The

quality and availability of space also was important, with storage facilities affecting

food choice strategies. Having “a real small pantry”, versus being able to store

255

FOOD CHOICE

home-grown potatoes “down in the cellar ... [on] racks”, influenced the quantity

and type of food that was brought into the home.

One intangible resource that came into play in making food choices was skill: “I

bake all my apple pies in the fall. 35 or 40 of ’em. . . . I bake them and freeze them”.

Knowledge was another intangible resource: “I know that these dinner rolls are low

[in cholesterol]. I’ve got so I read. ... I know that this is only $0·75 and a lot of

those are $1·19. They [higher-priced dinner rolls] have more fat and cholesterol in

’em than the cheaper ones”. Time was also mentioned: “whenever you get time [you]

do whatever you can do”.

Some resources, money and time in particular, were regarded as commodities to

be exchanged, negotiated, or weighed against one another. Resources were subject

to fluctuation over the life course, depending upon people’s changing life roles,

capabilities, income level, state of health and independence. One woman, citing “the

difference in our budget. . . . [since] we retired”, had become more careful in making

food choices because “our budget is so much more limited”.

Social framework

When making food choices, people were influenced by the composition and

dynamics of their social framework, which often raised issues of conflicting priorities,

including power issues. The data indicated that important dimensions of the social

framework were the nature of interpersonal relationships, social roles and meaning.

Families and households provided one of the most important sets of interpersonal

relationships influencing food choice. People reported enacting or being assigned

particular household food roles. For example, one or more persons were usually

responsible for providing food to a household. The provisioner’s role was to interact

and negotiate with the larger food system to acquire food that would meet the needs

and desires of the other members of the household. One mother trying to provide

food for her fussy daughter described the dilemmas she faced: “[there are] certain

things she won’t eat . . . I notice the difference when I try to [buy a substitute]. Like

if I buy something that’s on sale and if I try, I just end up throwing it out. So I

don’t usually do that”.

Another household food role involved trying to shape the food choices of others.

One woman attempting to control her family’s eating habits explained, “I’m trying

to incorporate it [low fat] into the entire family”. Often, but not always, this role

was enacted by the person who was also the provisioner. A man trying to restock

family food provisions without direction from his partner admitted, “she’ll probably

decide that whatever I get isn’t quite right anyways. . . . She usually makes the list”.

Household food roles often involved accommodation and negotiating compromise

among competing priorities.

Participants expressed different levels of accommodation to household situations

in providing foods. One woman reported, “ ’cause my one son doesn’t eat meat . . .

we usually have a couple of meals going”. In contrast, another woman held a much

different perspective: “I don’t cook for her [daughter]. I make a meal and if she

doesn’t want to eat it, then she can make whatever she wants ... but I refuse to

make two meals”.

Some participants reported a willingness to discount their own preferences. For

example, one woman indicated that she sacrificed her own priorities to meet her

family’s needs, remarking, “if it wasn’t for them I probably wouldn’t [cook], probably

just have apples or something. . . . I’d probably just be eating one thing . . . I love

256

T. FURST ET AL.

doing it [preparing food], but yeah, for them it’s . . . fun to do and I do it for them,

but it’s not a priority for me”. And a young man living with his girlfriend commented,

“if she doesn’t want to eat red meat, fine. I’ll eat something else”.

Other types of interpersonal relationships important to food choice occurred

when entertaining, being entertained or in the workplace. Entertaining often called

for patterns of food choice different from everyday practices. For example, one man

commented, “if I’m going over to someone’s house for dinner, or if some people are

coming over, I might want to [buy a cake]”.

Food context

Closely related to the concept of social framework was the food context, which

provided the environment for food choices that occur in specific behavior settings

to which food is supplied by the larger societal food system. The food context

encompassed the physical surroundings and social climate of the choice setting, and

specific food supply factors in the environment such as types of food, food sources

and availability of foods in the food system, including seasonal or market factors.

A given food context could offer expanded or constrained choice possibilities, or

establish a tone or ambiance that became part of the food choice process. Some

people allowed the food context to be a very important influence on their food

choices, being sensitive to issues of availability or price reductions, while others were

less influenced in their food choices by these contextual factors.

One older man, assessing the influence of the physical surroundings and climate

of a food store upon his shopping, said, “I think the type of store and the service

. . . goes a long way with old people . . . and the way the store is laid out”. Another

woman defined particular food choices in terms of a specific meal setting, explaining

she was buying “picnic stuff today . . . [because we’ll be] outside eating”. Two other

participants alluded to ways environmental factors impacted on their food choices:

one woman stated, “I never had to pack my lunch before . . . [when] I went to college

. . . [and was] eating in the cafeteria . . .”

People noted that the availability of certain foods varied according to the season

or from one market source to another, and commented on how availability affected

their food choices. One woman spoke of craving certain out-of-season foods,

especially at “this time of year, when you’re sick of winter”. People also described

feeling constrained when their local market did not have particular foods they wanted

to buy. One woman, who appeared frustrated in her attempts to shop for a dinner

party, complained, “we got here . . . and the list of ingredients we had, we can’t find

half of ’em here”.

Within the influence of the food context, what was available in the market

delineated the boundaries that constrained the operation of people’s personal food

systems. For example, one woman’s family frequently liked to eat lobster tails for

dinner. Because her local store did not carry these, she bought frozen lobster tails

by the case at a store farther from home, and kept her freezer stocked so that she

could have access to this food when she wanted to choose it.

Personal system

The recurring experience of making food choices over the life course led to

people’s developing personal systems for food choice. Personal systems had two

major components: (1) value negotiations that involved weighing of different con-

257

FOOD CHOICE

siderations in making food choices; and (2) strategies that involved choice patterns

based on previously resolved deliberations that had become habitual.

Value negotiations

A central component of people’s personal systems was the weighing and ac-

commodation of values salient to a person in a particular situation. In reflecting on

their food choices, people in this investigation referred most frequently to six

values: sensory perceptions, monetary considerations, convenience, health/nutrition,

managing relationships and quality. Additional values such as ethics, tradition and

familiarity also emerged but were discussed much less frequently than the six other

more salient values. Values were weighed and accommodated with varying degrees

of conscious reflection during specific food choice events.

The model portrays the interconnectedness of the values in the negotiation

process, with the spiral pattern at the center of the value negotiation configuration

depicting the process’ highly dynamic nature. Values are contrasted with each other

and juggled according to their significance for a particular food choice. Data indicated

that any value has the potential to be the deciding factor in a given situation and

that sometimes values are in harmony. When conflicts among values occur, however,

one value typically emerges as dominant.

Sensory perceptions

Often the dominant value, sensory perceptions were driven mostly by taste, and

varied widely among individuals. In describing why they chose a particular food,

people would often say “taste” and “flavor” with no further explanation or elab-

oration, apparently expecting that their first priority would be understood by anyone.

Sensory perceptions often served as the limiting factor in food choice, and tended

to be less negotiable than other values; this value also encompassed dimensions

(referred to both directly and obliquely) other than taste, such as texture, odor or

appearance: “I don’t like the other kind [of cheese]. They’re too rubbery”; “the kids

don’t . . . like spinach . . . liver . . . you know, all the gross stuff”.

The ability of sensory perceptions to dominate a food choice characterized the

value negotiation process. Sensory perceptions, particularly taste, and monetary

considerations were frequently in conflict. For example, one person on a limited

budget tried a store brand because it was cheaper, and rejected it because it “had

an awful taste. . . . [and added] such an awful flavor to everything. . . . [so] I threw

it out. ’Cause I didn’t like the taste”.

Taste was also often weighed against convenience. One woman arranged the time

to bake cakes and pies, explaining that she never bought them “because they don’t

taste anything like home-made”. People also were willing to experiment with taste

as they tried to accommodate other values. One woman switched to “fat free [salad

dressing]” once she discovered that “[though] I thought it would taste terrible . . . I

can’t tell the difference”.

Taste preferences changed over the life course, and the range of taste acceptability

expanded in different circumstances. One person noted “[Spinach] was the one thing

that I just couldn’t eat. But over the years I’ve gotten so I can eat a little”. Tolerance

for food aversions and willingness to accept particular foods were influenced by the

foods available and the social setting. One woman said, “I would eat it”, if a food

she disliked were served to her in someone’s home. Another person noted, “as I’ve

258

T. FURST ET AL.

gotten older, I’ve gotten into situations where I’ve . . . had to try different foods . . .

from that, it turned out that they weren’t so bad”.

Monetary considerations

Monetary considerations, consisting of price and the perceived worth of food to

be bought, comprised another very salient value for many people, and often dominated

food choices. One woman was unequivocal in noting that her prime consideration

in buying food was “the price”, and another woman emphasized that she always

“bought the cheapest stuff I could”.

People’s perceptions of the cost and price of foods underlay the role of price in

many food choice situations. An elderly woman noted, “people have to be very

careful of what they buy and get the most for their money”, and went on to assert

that though she wasn’t short of money, her prime concern in shopping for food was

“cost. . . . people think I’m tight”. The worth of something was seen as very important.

Some people spoke of “a good deal”, or “a good value” when weighing price in

their food choices, judging the worth of a product in terms of its cost relative to

quality as value received.

Price often conflicted with and accommodated other values, particularly taste

and quality, and was an especially important factor in selecting certain types of

foods. One person liked the taste of grapes, but only bought them when price

accommodated, noting, “we get ... grapes, when they’re reasonably priced. They

can be pretty expensive”. Price also could be exempted in particular situations, as

in the choice of treats, such as “. . . the more costly seafoods . . . [which] I normally

wouldn’t buy for cost reasons”.

Convenience

Time was an important component of convenience, and people often spoke in

terms of time as a commodity to be spent or saved, weighing the value of convenience

in terms of time in negotiation with other values: “. . . less than an hour [to prepare

food] is really what it has to be . . . since we both work, . . . time is a commodity”.

People’s remarks demonstrated a distinction between long-term and immediate

convenience. One man indicated he “would like to buy things in bigger quantities.

. . . For convenience. . . .”, while another person described “a couple nights when I

was really busy . . . and I’d grab a sandwich . . . at the convenience store”.

In addition to time, other components of the convenience value also appeared,

such as ease of access or preparation. For example, two students preparing lunch

noted that “an orange is easy”. An older man cited the importance of convenience

in choosing particular food items while shopping: “I think what’ll turn people off

. . . [is] . . . when you go in the store and they’ve moved it. . . . moved the whole thing

somewhere else. . . . [and] you’ve gotta run all over the store . . .”.

Health and nutrition

The health and nutrition value incorporated factors relating to disease avoidance

or control (for example, heart disease, cancer or hypertension), weight control

(motivated by health or aesthetics), and bodily well-being (energy and optimal

health).

While people often alluded to health in terms of avoiding certain foods, they

tended to mention nutrition in more positive terms, referring to it expressly in terms

of “value”. For example, discussing why he tried to learn to eat spinach, a man

259

FOOD CHOICE

noted, “. . . there’s a lot of food value in it”, and a woman remarked that she “heard

[fresh leaf lettuce] has more nutritional value than just regular head lettuce”. One

person cited nutrition as a rationale for buying fresh produce, commenting, “I guess

freshness and nutrition go together”. Two people alluded to the concept of nutritional

balance, one rather specifically—“we throw an orange in ’cause we ... want the

vitamins and . . . we try to balance . . . our lunch”—and the other by implication in

referring to “a good vegetables and meat and carbohydrate dinner”.

In reflecting upon health as an outcome or effect of food, sometimes people

spoke generally of making prescriptive choices they regarded as “healthy stuff”.

More often, however, people’s choices were proscriptive for specific foods they

wanted to avoid. A number of participants were concerned about their fat intake; for

example, one woman described her family’s growing awareness of fat in commercially-

prepared foods, stating, “we try not to eat a lot of processed foods. . . . We’ve become

... real conscious of fat intake ... a lot more aware of labels”. Another woman,

who was trying to educate herself after having had a cancer scare, noted, “I try to

keep up to date with the fat and the cancer-related [foods]”. Some people linked the

concepts of nutrition and health in deliberating about their food choices. Salt was

one substance people chose to avoid for health reasons; one woman emphasized

that she would “very rarely buy canned vegetables ’cause of the salt content”. People

also were wary of other specific food components, such as “starches . . . [that are]

not good for you”.

M anaging relationships

The value of managing relationships often emerged as predominant for people

faced with making food choices in situations where others’ preferences and needs

were factors to be considered. This value was particularly influenced by personal

and cultural ideals. Managing relationships appeared to be an important value for

people concerned with maintaining harmony in their households by anticipating,

addressing and accommodating conflicts over issues of food choice. Participants

tended not to articulate explicitly the value of managing relationships. Rather, they

would allude to it, generally linking it closely to other food choice values like taste

or health.

One man described the role of managing relationships in accommodating family

tastes when planning meals and choosing from a variety of foods: “I know . . . what

range to operate within. What they [children] will all eat. . . . I do make a point . . .

of everyone gets a favorite once in a while. That’s important”. Another person took

a different approach to accommodating diverse family needs: “a little something for

him and whatever for the rest of us”.

People sometimes were willing to change their own habits to accommodate

others. One woman who characterized her husband as “very finicky” said, “I’ll do

what he enjoys and I’ll do what I enjoy ... [but] ... what’s important to me, is

making him happy”.

Quality

Our respondents frequently used the idea of quality in considering food choices.

In some situations, quality was the most salient value: “... the quality! You just

can’t argue with the quality”; and, “I’m going more for the quality . . . the quality

of it”. People’s understanding of this concept appeared to hinge upon their feelings

about, or visions of, some standard of excellence.

260

T. FURST ET AL.

Quality had different meanings for different individuals and was usually mentioned

in reference to food purchase situations in which various products within a category

were being compared, for example, meats and produce. People indicated clear

distinctions between the levels of quality in the products they referred to. Comments

about quality were often made in the context of what was not acceptable; as one

man said, “I don’t like low quality meats ... [like] cheap hamburger ... low

grade—junk mixed in with it”.

Quality was associated with levels of excellence, though the criteria for this

judgment were not always articulated. Related to meats, “fatty”, “grainy”, and

“marbly” were frequently-mentioned negative quality attributes. For fruits and

vegetables, high quality was commonly associated with freshness and absence of

bruises. Quality was sometimes cited as a consideration related to taste and health.

One person emphasized, “I usually prepare my own food . . . I don’t buy quick stuff

for my family”.

Some people did not mention quality directly but alluded to it, citing, “what

looks good”; stating, “I like to eat well ... [i.e.] the best brand of steak”; and

preferring to choose “a good [brand] name”. Better quality was usually associated

with higher price. When price and quality conflicts were mentioned by respondents,

quality was indicated as the more salient value for that situation.

Strategies

People developed strategies for making food choices, which became heuristics

that guided many food choices that tended to recur and to be relatively routine.

These strategies were shaped according to principles and established procedures used

in negotiating with the larger societal food system and the factors perceived as

dominant for a particular food choice event. While individuals’ personal strategies

should be considered unique for each food choice event, they generally incorporated

similar patterns and rules for making food selections. Strategies tended to be generally

stable while allowing for flexibility.

Most personal systems incorporated well-established habits or rules that involved

making precommitments for future choices. These rules were derived from previous

value negotiations and were used to simplify or expedite the food choice process to

minimize time needed to make choices. One woman described her system for using

eggs: “I’ve tried the [egg substitute], which I’m not too fond of. I use them in baking,

but not in eating”. Another person’s rules for buying soy sauce reflected his ideals:

“what I need is the light soy sauce and that’s what I’m gonna buy. . . . Whatever’s

a good name. I’m not gonna buy a [store] brand or something like that, as long as

there’s like a [brand name soy sauce] or something like that”. A man talked about

how he changed one habit to accommodate his limited budget: “say for instance

you’re used to getting dry cereal and you notice some cooking cereal like oatmeal

. . . is cheaper than dry cereal. That’s why I switched from dry cereal”. And a woman

trying to avoid wasting food described a rather inflexible system for choosing yogurt:

“. . . there’s [a] certain brand of yogurt that my daughter likes . . . I will automatically

buy that brand. Because I know if I buy the other brand [cheaper] it will just sit in

the refrigerator and rot”.

Participants employed strategies to simplify the task of making food choices in

different settings. One of the most common strategies people used was to limit a

particular food on most occasions and then choose to eat that food on less frequent

special occasions: “If it’s the holidays I tend to think less about the nutrients. . . .

261

FOOD CHOICE

This is a holiday and . . . I wanna enjoy myself”; and, “Another treat I might get

might be some of that really fattening ice cream . . . that normally I just try to avoid

for the health side of it”.

People in families where preferences often conflicted developed strategies like

eating certain foods only when eating alone or eating in a restaurant, where everyone’s

preferences can be more easily accommodated: “a lot of times I’ll get something

that I like and my husband doesn’t. So that . . . I can eat what I like and he . . . can

eat whatever he likes. That’s how I usually, what I usually, how I usually decide.

Actually we just went out and I got eggplant parmigiana just for that reason. Because

he hates it and I love it and that’s when I can eat it and enjoy it . . . in a restaurant”.

Strategies were inclined to vary for different contexts and tasks involving food

choices, such as shopping, food preparation, recreational dining, coping with health

problems, packing lunches, responding to food cravings, allocating resources, and

accommodating others’ food preferences. Another context people mentioned was

travel: for example, one man indicated that he had developed a different set of

personal rules for making food choices when traveling overseas. “I know there are

things you’re supposed to stay away from. Fresh fruits and vegetables . . . there’s no

problem eating those”.

Life course influences were important factors in the development of strategies in

participants’ personal food systems. An example of social framework is one man’s

role of provisioner and his need to account for family members’ conflicting schedules:

“I buy frozen things, . . . for snacks for my kids. Because of my schedule and their

work schedule, I always make sure that there’s something in the freezer or something

that they can just . . . heat, and eat when they get home”.

Discussion

This project examined food choice from the perspectives of the people themselves,

and the constructionist approach was useful in understanding what is salient in

people’s minds in different food-related situations. The resulting food choice process

model seeks to portray broadly people’s conceptualizations underlying their food

choices. Whereas some of the influences and values that emerged in the data were

not new findings (such as the roles of personal factors, price, taste, convenience and

quality), we gained new insights into the food choice process by taking a wholistic

approach. In addition, this study suggests possibilities for exploring how value

hierarchies change, what familiar patterns of value negotiation might occur, what

values people associate with food categories they identify and name, and how food

categorizations might change and in what way such change might influence the

outcome of value negotiations.

The data indicate that the role of the life course must be explicitly considered

when conceptualizing food choice. Over the life course a variety of experiences,

including those associated with the aging process, contribute to a person’s choice

preferences and patterns (Elder, 1987, 1991; Hagestad & Neugarten, 1985; Clausen,

1986). People’s attitudes towards food may form according to the impact of their

particular historical era, the cultural and social settings to which they are exposed

throughout their lives, and the timing and trajectories of their individual experiences

of past and current events (Bourdieu, 1986; Fischler, 1988; Devine & Olson, 1991).

The emergence of ideals as an important influence, and the identification of

managing relationships as an important value, are noteworthy issues that are not

262

T. FURST ET AL.

emphasized in prior studies. The intertwining of ideals and managing relationships

indicated by the data is especially intriguing, and points to the possibility of exploring

in greater depth how individuals apply value criteria to negotiating food choices in

situations where harmonious relationships with others and personal values may

conflict. In addition, participants often expressed ideals when they were discussing

personal factors; nonetheless, personal factors and ideals, despite being closely

intertwined, emerged as two distinct influences in people’s reflections on their food

choices.

The conceptual model developed here contributes to theory about food choice

expressly because it is grounded in people’s experiences, while presenting a com-

prehensive and integrated perspective on the food choice process that is intended to

be applied in different contexts. The model is broader in its scope than most

earlier work because it attempts to integrate many social science concepts in a

multidisciplinary manner (Sobal & LaChaussee, 1993). The model represents the

rich and complex origins of food-related actions and emphasizes the importance of

diverse influences that mutually shape each other and may be more or less salient

in a variety of settings. The model allows for both inter- and intraindividual variation

and reflects a choice process that can be highly reflective or habitual and automatic.

In developing the conceptual model, depth of understanding was accorded a

higher priority than breadth in sampling, and to this end a group of people in a

particular food choice setting were invited to articulate their own thoughts and

reflections on food choice. The sample was not designed to be representative, but

was used to examine the range of factors involved in food choice among a group of

diverse people. The components and processes represented by the model acknowledge

and illuminate considerable variation in many dimensions, such as personal life

course, extent of personal system, social setting and food context, even within a

relatively small group of people operating within a specific context. In future work

the model needs to be further examined in studies with participants who are diverse

in geography, socioeconomic levels, ethnicity and life course stage.

Some components of the model presented here have clear linkages with other

works. Janas et al. (1993) found that a key strategy for people on cholesterol-

lowering diets was the development and use of a “game plan”, which is not unlike

the set of rules often operating within the personal system component of the model

developed here. The concept of a personal system that emerged in this project

was not necessarily conscious or explicitly goal-driven. However, the concept of

individually developed strategies to deal with different food situations is a com-

monality. Because established game plans or personal systems appear to be important

determinants of food choice, they should be studied in greater detail to learn how

they are formed and changed.

The value negotiation process in the current model shares a great deal with the

hierarchy of values examined in many other studies (Bell et al., 1981; Betts, 1985;

Cosper & Wakefield, 1975; Rozin & Cines, 1982). While each food choice event is

unique, people often negotiate values in food choice according to relatively consistent

patterns, although in some circumstances exceptions to such patterns also may occur.

The strengths of given values being negotiated during specific food choice events

vary according to particular social contexts—for example, at home versus as a guest

in someone’s house, or choosing from a buffet versus from an á la carte menu. In

value negotiations people weigh the benefits of particular choices against the potential

risks of bad choices. This weighing and examining of values may or may not derive

263

FOOD CHOICE

from complex thinking; that is, value negotiation may be either a rapid or an

extensive process. Most choices involve decisions that pass through value negotiations,

with varying intensity of consideration of these values, and having passed through

value negotiations in the past become routine or automatic. Negotiation of values

was a very important part of the food choice process that emerged from the data in

this study. The operation of a hierarchy of values needs more study from the

perspective of the individual.

We identified six values that predominated among the value negotiations of

people interviewed in our study, plus other values that were less frequent and less

salient. While the values we identified were similar to those of many other studies

(Bell et al., 1981; Betts 1985; Cosper & Wakefield, 1975), most other studies of values

involved in food choice do not specifically consider quality, though some investigations

do show that quality is an important concept for food choice (Bisogni, et al., 1986;

Schutz & Judge, 1984). Quality is one of the predominant values articulated by

participants in our study sample; thus, although the concept of quality is difficult to

understand, and the term slippery to define, we could neither ignore it nor subsume

it under some other value. Other populations may emphasize other values, and these

differences deserve further investigation.

The model attempts to portray conceptually the determinants of a single food

choice event. It neither indicates explicitly the relationship of one food choice to

another, nor presents categorically any feedback mechanisms. Nonetheless, the model

assumes that any food choice provides information and experience that becomes

input through the life course for future food choices. This assumption needs to be

investigated through studies of a series of food choices over time.

A conceptual model of the food choice process has several potential applications.

Conceptualizing food choice as a complex process with a range of influences and

values that are negotiated differently by diverse people in a variety of settings will

help policy makers, educators and clinicians be wholistic in their view of food

practices and efforts to improve dietary behaviors. The model developed in this

study is a heuristic—a picture of a process, an aid to understanding the components

of a process and conceptualizing and reflecting upon it—both useful to practitioners

and shared with clients to aid in bringing into consciousness tacit assumptions about

food choice. Such a model can be used to evaluate the appropriateness of different

interventions, identify barriers and enabling factors to a specific intervention, set

realistic expectations for the impact of an intervention, and develop measures for

evaluating outcomes. For example, a practitioner who becomes aware of a client’s

dominant value can work from within that value to find avenues for change in

managing that client’s food practices.

Greater understanding of the interplay of their clients’ life course influences,

values, and personal systems during food choice can improve practitioners’ diagnoses

of problems in implementing dietary recommendations and suggest ways to resolve

these difficulties (Janas et al., 1993). This model might also be useful to individuals

seeking greater understanding of their own food choices, as such insights can facilitate

behavior change (Bell et al., 1981).

Conclusions

Developing conceptual models of food choice contributes to the understanding

of food practices and the interaction between individual food-related acts and the

264

T. FURST ET AL.

larger food system. Such models have implications for theories about food choice

as well as policies and interventions for changing food choices to influence health

and the environment. As evidenced in this study, a broad view of food choice and

a constructionist approach can yield insights about factors influencing food choice

as well as the process. The model proposed in this paper is one step toward an

improved understanding of food choice, and should be examined further through

similar studies with a variety of participants in different settings.

References

Achterberg, C. (1988) Qualitative methods in nutrition education evaluation research. Journal

of Nutrition Education, 20, 244–50.

Axelson, M. L. & Brinberg, D. (1989) A social-psychological perspective on food-related

behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Beardsworth, A. D. & Keil, E T. (1993) Contemporary vegetarianism in the U.K. Challenge

and incorporation? Appetite, 20, 229–34.

Bell, A. C., Stewart, A. M., Radford, A. J. & Cairney, P. T. (1981) A method for describing

food beliefs which may predict personal food choice. Journal of Nutrition Education, 13,

22–6.

Berger, P. & Luckman, T. (1966) The social construction of reality. Garden City: Doubleday.

Betts, N. M. (1985) A method to measure perceptions of food among the elderly. Journal of

Nutrition for the Elderly, 4, 15–21.

Bisogni, C. A., Ryan, G. J. & Regenstein, J. M. (1986). What is fish quality? Can we

incorporate consumer perceptions? In: D. E. Kramer & J. Liston (eds.), Seafood quality

determination, Proceeding of an International Symposium Coordinated by the University

of Alaska Sea Grant College Program, Anchorage, Alaska, U.S.A. 10–14 November

1986. Pp. 547–63. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.

Booth, D. (1994) The psychology of nutrition. Bristol: Taylor & Francis.

Bordieu, P. (1986) Distinction: a social critique of the judgement of taste. London: Routledge

& Kegan Paul.

Chapman, G. & Maclean, H. (1993) “Junk food” and “healthy food”: meanings of food in

adolescent women’s culture. Journal of Nutrition Education, 25, 108–13.

Clausen, J. A. (1986) The life course: a sociological perspective. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice

Hall.

Cosper, B. A. & Wakefield, L. M. (1975) Food choices of women: personal, attitudinal, and

motivational factors. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 66, 152–5.

Devine, C. & Olson, C. M. (1991) Women’s dietary prevention motives: life stage influences.

Journal of Nutrition Education, 23, 269–74.

Elder, G. H. (1987) Families and lives: some developments in life-course studies. Journal of

Family History, 12, 179–99.

Elder, G. H. (1991) Lives and social change. In W. R. Heinz (Ed.), Theoretical advances in

life course research. New York: Verlag Weinhelm.

Fischler, C. (1988) Food, self, and identity. Social Science Information, 27, 275–92.

Glanz, K., Hewitt, A. M. & Rudd, J. (1992) Consumer behavior and nutrition education: an

integrative review. Journal of Nutrition Education, 24, 267–77.

Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967) The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.

Goffman, E. (1959) The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City: Anchor.

Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989) Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage

Publications.

Hagestad, G. O. & Neugarten, B. L. (1985) Age and the life course. In R. Binstock & E.

Shanas (Eds.) Handbook of aging and the social sciences. Second edition. Pp. 35–61. New

York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Janas, B. G., Bisogni, C. A & Campbell, C. C. (1993) A conceptual model for dietary change

to lower serum cholesterol. Journal of Nutrition Education, 25, 186–92.

Krondl, M. & Lau, D. (1982) Social determinants in human food selection. In L. M. Barker

(Ed.) The psychobiology of human food selection. Pp. 139–51. Westport: AVI Publishing.

265

FOOD CHOICE

Kuzel, A. J. (1992) Sampling in qualitative inquiry. In B. F. Crabtree & W. L. Miller (Eds)

Doing qualitative research. Pp. 31–44. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Lau, D, Krondl, M. & Coleman, P. (1984) Psychological factors affecting food selection. In

J. R. Galler (Ed.), Nutrition and behavior. Pp. 397–415. New York: Plenum Press.

Lewin, K. (1943) Forces behind food habits and methods of change. In The problem of

changing food habits. Washington: National Academy of Sciences, Bulletin 108.

Lewin, K. (1951) (D. Cartwright, Ed.), Field theory in social science: selected theoretical papers.

Pp. 170–87. New York: Harper Torchbooks.

Mennell, S., Murcott, A. & Otterloo, A. H. (1992) The sociology of food: eating, diet, and

culture. London: Sage.

Michela, J. & Contento, I. (1986) Cognitive, motivational, social, and environmental factors

on food choices. Health Psychology, 5, 209–30.

Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994) Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook.

Second edition. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Murcott, A. (1983) The sociology of food and eating. Aldershot: Gower.

Novak, J. D. & Gowin, D. B. (1984) Learning how to learn. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Parraga, I. M. (1990) Determinants of food consumption. Journal of the American Dietetic

Association, 90, 661–3.

Patton, M. Q. (1990) Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park: Sage

Publications.

Rappoport, L. H., Peters, G. R., Huff-Corzine, L. & Downey, R. G. (1992) Reasons for

eating: an exploratory cognitive analysis. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 28, 171–89.

Rappoport, L., Peters, G. R., Downey, R., McCann, T. & Huff-Corzine, L. (1993) Gender

and age difference in food cognition. Appetite, 20, 33–52.

Rozin, P. (1980) Human food selection: why do we know so little, and what can we do about

it? International Journal of Obesity, 4, 333–7.

Rozin, P. & Cines, B. M. (1982) Ethnic differences in coffee use and attitudes to coffee.

Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 12, 79–88.

Rozin, T. & Fallon, A. (1980) The psychological categorization of foods and non-foods: a

preliminary taxonomy of food rejections. Appetite, 1, 193–201.

Sanjur, D. (1982) Social and cultural perspectives in nutrition. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Shepherd, R. (Ed.) (1989) Handbook of the psychophysiology of human eating. Chichester:

Wiley.

Shepherd, R. (1990) Overview of factors influencing food choice. In: M. Ashwell (Ed.), W hy

we eat what we eat. Pp. 12–30. London: British Nutrition Foundation.

Sims, L. (1987) Nutrition education research: Reaching toward the leading edge. Journal of

Nutrition Education, 20, S10–18.

Schutz, H. G. & Judge, D. S. (1984) Consumer perceptions of food quality. In: J. V.

McLoughlin & B. M. McKenna (eds.), Research in food science and nutrition. Volume 4:

Food science and human welfare. Pp. 229–42. Dublin: Boole Press.

Schutz, H. G. (1988) Beyond preference: appropriateness as a measure of contextual acceptance

of food. In D. M. H. Thompson (Ed.), Food acceptability. Pp. 115–34. New York: Elsevier

Applied Science.

Sobal, J. & LaChaussee, J. (1993) Social science perspectives in nutrition. Appetite, 21, 304.

Stellar, E., Henning, S. J., Rodin, J., Rozin, P. & Wilson, G. T. (1980) Nutrition, behavior

and the life cycle (of humans and animals). Appetite, 1, 321–31.

Strauss, A. L. & Corbin, J. (1990) Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures

and research. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Thompson, D. M. H. (Ed.) (1988) Food acceptability. New York: Elsevier.

Worsley, A., Coonan, W. & Baghurst, P. A. (1983) Nice, good food and us: a study of

children’s food beliefs. Journal of Food and Nutrition, 40, 35–41.

Received 19 July 1994, revision 2 May 1995