- Email: [email protected]
Determinants of food choice in Irish adolescents
Food Quality and Preference 25 (2012) 57–62
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Food Quality and Preference journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodqual
Determinants of food choice in Irish adolescents Michelle Share a,⇑, Barbara Stewart-Knox b,1 a b
Children’s Research Centre, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland Northern Ireland Centre for Food & Health, University of Ulster, Coleraine BT52 1SA, Northern Ireland, UK
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 30 March 2011 Received in revised form 27 November 2011 Accepted 31 December 2011 Available online 25 January 2012 Keywords: Food choice Adolescents Nutrition
a b s t r a c t This study aimed to determine food choice motivations amongst adolescents using a revised Food Choice Questionnaire (FCQ). The revised FCQ was administered to a sample of 14–17 year olds in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland (n = 397). Socio-demographic measures of gender and age were also collected. Five food choice motivation factors were discerned: health; mood; price/convenience; religion; and animal rights. The study reveals important differences between adults and adolescents in how factors such as health and convenience are construed. To understand adolescent food choice, notions of health should be expanded to include constructs of body weight control and the natural content of food. The convergence of price and convenience items suggests that for adolescents such issues are strongly associated. Sensory items such as taste, texture and smell were shown to be less salient for adolescents than has previously been identified for adult populations. The findings suggest that a revised age-specific FCQ may be appropriate for the study of adolescent food choice motivations. Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction There is extensive research that indicates the persistence of unhealthy dietary practices among youth. Over a decade ago Shepherd and Dennison (1996) drew on UK health data that characterised the adolescent diet by high levels of fat intake, frequent snacking, missed meals and low levels of fibre and micronutrients. Despite population health targets that have recommended the reduction of non-milk extrinsic sugars (from sources such as confectionery, soft drinks, cakes and preserves) adolescent consumption of these has remained stable over a period of twenty years, with soft drinks and confectionery accounting for 61% of such sugars (Rugg-Gunn et al., 2007). The most recent Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children (HBSC) survey for Great Britain and Ireland indicated that this situation persists (Brooks et al., 2009). Although we can point to the accumulation of evidence that points to unhealthy food practices in adolescence, efforts to address this situation are limited by the fact that adolescent food choice motivations remain poorly understood:
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +353 1 8963977; fax: +353 1 8962347. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Share), [email protected] (B. StewartKnox). 1 Tel.: +44 28 70324781. 0950-3293/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.12.005
Few attempts at influencing adolescent diets have been based on any real understanding of the factors that affect young people’s food choice decisions (Shepherd & Dennison, 1996: 346). We therefore need to take a closer look at what motivates adolescents to make the food choices that they do. Such information is important for educators, health promotion, policy makers and food manufacturers that are interested in young people’s present and future nutritional wellbeing. Much of what we do know about adolescent food choice motivation comes from qualitative studies (Contento, Williams, Michaela, & Franklin 2006; Croll, Neumark-Sztainer, & Story, (2001), Neumark-Sztainer, Story, Perry, & Casey, 1999; Stevenson, Doherty, Barnett, Muldoon, & Trew, 2007). These have been important in helping to understand how adolescent food choices might vary in terms of gender, socio-economic group or age, but rarely have these conceptual understandings been tested empirically. Research that has specifically asked young people about why they choose certain foods shows that, as for adults, food choice is multi-dimensional and complex. It may be determined by factors such as: taste; an orientation to the present; knowledge; peer influence; parental influence; and advertising (Contento et al., 2006; Croll, NeumarkSztainer & Story, 2001; Neumark-Sztainer et al., 1999; Stevenson et al., 2007). There has been little attempt to investigate quantitatively what has been learned from qualitative research about adolescents’ food choice motivations. The study reported here makes use of a
58
M. Share, B. Stewart-Knox / Food Quality and Preference 25 (2012) 57–62
quantitative research instrument, the Food Choice Questionnaire (FCQ). This was originally developed by Steptoe, Pollard, and Wardle (1995) in order to construct a multi-dimensional measure of motives related to food choice that would help to address questions of food consumption and to more broadly inform health and consumer psychology. The FCQ discerned nine factors that influenced food choice in adults: health; mood; convenience; sensory appeal; natural content; price; weight control; familiarity; and, ethical concern. Repeated application of the FCQ in adult populations by Steptoe et al. (1995) showed food choice motivations to be associated with gender, income and age. The original FCQ was expanded by Lindeman and Väänänen (2000) to incorporate additional items related to ecological, religious and political dimensions. This resulted in the emergence of two further factors: ‘political values’ and ‘religion’. The study reported here further develops the FCQ in order to reflect two additional concerns that are of major contemporary significance: ‘organic’ food and ‘food miles’. Application of the FCQ to non-adult populations has been limited. For example, Trew et al. (2005) deployed a version of the FCQ to study Irish teenagers’ dietary behaviour. However, they did not conduct factor analysis to specifically determine the suitability of the FCQ constructs of food choice to an adolescent sample. This study sought to investigate the food choice motivations of a sample of Irish adolescents (age 14–17). The revised version of the FCQ was applied to this sample. The application of this revised FCQ questionnaire with an adolescent sample addresses some limitations in existing food choice research undertaken with adolescents. A primary aim was to determine the extent to which the constructs of food choice determined by Steptoe et al. (1995) and Lindeman and Väänänen (2000) are valid in an adolescent sample. A secondary aim was to examine if these food choice motivations were differentiated by age-group and gender. 2. Methods The questionnaire was piloted in two schools, a girls’ secondary and a coeducational secondary (n = 50). The pilot exercise aimed to assess students’ general comprehension of the survey, in terms of their age-group, completion time and applicability, and the relevance of the questions in a school setting. The pilot study revealed some propensity for missing data, particularly in the lengthy series of food choice items, and some comprehension difficulties: e.g. what is organic? what is fibre? As a consequence adjustments were made: more time for completion was allowed; students were asked to take care in their responses to the food choice items and to use a ruler to guide them through these questions; the conditions for administration were altered to allow for the presence of a teacher; and instructions were clarified. 2.1. Ethics Ethical approval was granted by Office of Research Ethics Committees Northern Ireland (ORECNI) to survey attitudes to food and health and factors determining food choice in young people in Ireland.
gender (single sex versus co-educational). Student participants aged approximately 14 and 17 years were sampled from two non-examination year groups. It was assumed that students aged around 14 would have been in the secondary school system for at least two years and at a stage of developing and gaining more autonomy in their everyday lives; those aged around 17 would have completed the bulk of their schooling and be moving towards adulthood. Some of the latter may be in part-time employment with a disposable income. It was assumed that their decision-making ability and autonomy would be greater than the younger group and this would influence their food choice motivation and practices. The principal teacher in each school selected classes to participate. Whole class groups were recruited apart from in three schools where the older students were in very small groups related to subject choice and so groups were pooled. A total of 455 students in 10 schools were invited to participate (Table 1). 2.3. The Food Choice Questionnaire (FCQ) The FCQ is a validated scale of 36 items that measures food choice motivations on nine factors: health; mood; convenience; sensory appeal; natural content; price; weight control; familiarity; and ethical concern (Steptoe et al., 1995). It has been adapted and used with population groups including university dental students (Crossley & Nazir, 2002), undergraduates at a Taiwanese university (Sun, 2008), Russian consumers (Honkanen & Frewer, 2009) and Finnish university students (Lindeman & Väänänen, 2000). It has been used to determine the generalizability of the items and their underlying constructs across Western urban populations in Belgium, Italy and Canada (Eertmans, Victoir, Notelars, Vansant, & Van den Bergh, 2006). It has been further developed to include ethical food choice motivations for animal rights, religion and political values (Lindeman & Väänänen, 2000). But, apart from Trew et al. (2005) who examined Irish secondary school students’ food choice motivations using a modified version of the FCQ, there appears to be no evidence that either the original FCQ or Lindeman and Väänänen’s modified 11 factor scale have been used to measure adolescent food choice motivations. In the present study we have revised Steptoe et al.’s FCQ. As noted earlier, the revisions to the instrument were made to account for contemporary issues relevant to food choice. The revised instrument includes six of the eight items proposed by Lindeman and Väänänen (2000) that measured ethical food choice motivations for religion, political values and ecological welfare and 35 of the 36 items from the original FCQ. Two new food choice items were added: ‘organic’ and ‘has not been transported an excessive distance’. These reflect contemporary food issues and were drawn from Bissonette & Contento’s survey of US adolescents’ food choice in the context of food environmental issues (Bissonette & Contento, 2001). The revised FCQ resulted in 43 items. In addition to the revised food choice questionnaire the survey included socio-demographic variables (age, gender, school-type, jurisdiction). The survey also examined food risk perception, food consumption and food knowledge and the curricula undertaken by students. Analyses and discussion of these in the context of food choice is ongoing and therefore they do not appear in the following discussion. 2.4. Procedure
2.2. Sampling Sample frames for 233 second-level schools in Northern Ireland (NI) and 750 in the Republic of Ireland (ROI) were developed and used to inform a typology of schools. Each sample frame was stratified to reflect variations by school type (private fee paying versus non-fee paying in ROI; selective versus non-selective in NI) and
The questionnaire was administered to two class groups in each school. Students’ parents were contacted via the school administration and invited to give their consent for their child’s participation in the survey. Students who had received parental consent were given verbal and written information about the study and asked for their consent to participate. The questionnaire was
59
M. Share, B. Stewart-Knox / Food Quality and Preference 25 (2012) 57–62 Table 1 School samples and number of participants. School no. Older
Younger
1 (n = 39)
3 (n = 50)
4 (n = 43)
5 (n = 37)
6 (n = 43)
7 (n = 52)
8 (n = 54)
9 (n = 42)
10 (n = 46)
Total
Total in class
19
24
26
20
17
21
27
27
21
22
224
Nonparticipantsqa
5
0
2
6
2
2
2
4
0
4
27
No. surveyed Total in class Non-participantsa
14 20 3
24 25 1
24 24 1
14 23 2
15 20 1
19 22 6
25 25 4
23 27 6
21 21 0
18 24 7
197 231 31
No. surveyed
17 31
24 48
23 47
21 35
19 34
16 35
21 46
21 44
21 42
17 35
200 397
Total surveyed a
2 (n = 49)
Non-participants comprise those who did not received parental consent or were absent on the day of survey.
administered to the whole class group during a health education or religion class period. On average, the entire questionnaire, which included food consumption, food risk perception, food knowledge and curricula took 25 min to complete. 2.5. Data analysis To determine the applicability of the revised FCQ in an adolescent sample and the extent to which food choice motivations differed by gender and age group, a two-stage data analysis strategy was adopted. All analyses were conducted with SPSS statistical software (version 11) using a statistical significance level of 0.05 or less for all tests. First, the 43 items derived from the revised FCQ were subjected to Principal Components Analysis (PCA). Prior to performing PCA the suitability of the data for factor analysis was assessed. Inspection of the correlation matrix revealed the presence of numerous coefficients of 0.3 and above. The suitability of the correlation matrix for factor analysis was confirmed by the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin value of 0.86 which exceeds the recommended level of 0.6. Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity confirmed a relationship between the variables p < 0.001. The data then underwent factor analysis. Second, independent samples t-tests were employed to explore associations between gender, age-group and the food choice motivation factors derived from the principal components analysis. 3. Results 3.1. Sample description Of the sample of 455 students, 397 completed the survey resulting in an 87% response rate. The sample was almost evenly divided between NI (n = 195) and ROI (n = 202); 47% were male and 53% female, with a mean age of 14.9 years (SD = 1.59). 3.2. Factors determining food choice Principal components analysis indicated 10 components with Eigen values exceeding one that accounted for 20.4 per cent, 12.24 per cent, 5.93 per cent, 4.49%, 4.20%, 3.45%, 3.39%, 2.89%, 2.72%, and 2.57% of the variance, respectively. Parallel analysis of the initial Eigen values showed seven components that exceeded the criterion values for a randomly generated data matrix of the same size (43 variables 397 respondents). To aid in the interpretation of these seven components Varimax rotation was performed using a cut-off value of 0.3. The rotated solution showed strong loadings for 40 of the 43 items with the seven-factor solution accounting for 54 per cent of the variance. Reliability analysis
was then conducted on the each set of subscales that made up the seven-factor solution. Component one ‘health’ contained 13 items, including all six of the health items from the original FCQ, as well as the three items that measure food choice motivations in terms of weight, the three items for natural content and one for ecological motivation (organic). Component two ‘price and convenience’ included eight items, all three that related to price and all five items for convenience. Component three ‘mood’ consisted of all six items that measured food choice motivation in terms of mood. Component four ‘political values’ comprised three items, two that measured motivations in terms of animal rights and one in terms of human rights/political values, all derived from Lindeman and Väänänen’s revised FCQ (Lindeman & Väänänen, 2000). Component five ‘preference’ contained three items, two that measured the construct of familiarity and one sensory food choice motivations (also cross-loaded on component four). Component six ‘environmental’ comprised three items, two measuring political values and a third that measured environmental/ecological motivations (an additional item). Component seven ‘religion’ contained three items, two that measured religious food choice motivations (high factor loadings) and a third derived from Lindeman and Väänänen’s revised FCQ (Lindeman & Väänänen, 2000) that measured political values (also cross-loaded on component six). Four items failed to load on any component: ‘has a pleasant texture’; ‘is familiar’; ‘tastes good’ and ‘packaged in an environmentally friendly way’ (Table 2). Reliability analysis of each factor resulted in five subscales with Cronbach alpha scores of 0.7 or above: the 13 item health scale (a .89); eight item price/convenience scale (a .84); six item mood scale (a .79); two item animal rights scale (a .89); and, the two item religion subscale (a .90). The subscale for familiarity (2 items a .37) and political values (2 items a .55) did not show good internal consistency for the measurement of these constructs and was, therefore, removed from the model. The results of the principal components and reliability analyses indicated that the revised FCQ contained five factors: health; price/ convenience; mood; religion; and animal rights. For each of these mean factor scores were computed. The second stage of the data analysis used independent samples t-tests to determine whether food choice motivations differed by gender and age group. Girls were more likely than boys to place importance on health (t(368) = 2.45, P = 0.014) and animal rights (t(395) = 3.35, P = 0.001) in making food choices. Boys placed greater importance than girls on religion (t(391) = 2.20, P = 0.029) in making food choices (Table 3). When food choice motivation was examined by age, younger students appeared more likely than older students to be motivated by health (t(368) = 2.72, P = 0.007), religion (t(391) = 3.22, P = 0.001) and animal rights (t(395) = 3.99, P < 0.001) (Table 3).
60
M. Share, B. Stewart-Knox / Food Quality and Preference 25 (2012) 57–62
Table 2 Principal components analysis of food choice motivations. ‘It is important to me that the food I eat on a typical day’ Note: (a) Lindeman and Väänänen (2000) (b) new items
Component loadings (%) 1
HEL1 contains a lot of vitamins and minerals HEL2 keeps me healthy HEL6 high in fibre HEL3 is nutritious WEIGH 3 low in fat NAT2 contains natural ingredients WEIGH 1 low in calories NAT3 contains no artificial ingredients HEL4 is high in protein HEL5 good for my skin/teeth/hair/nails WEIGH 2 helps me control my weight NAT 1 contains no additives ECOL 4 is organic (b) PRICE 2 is cheap CON1 easy to prepare PRICE1 not expensive CON 2 cooked very simply CON 3 takes no time to prepare PRICE 3 good value for money CON5 easily available in shops and supermarkets CON 4 can be bought in shops close to where I live MOOD 3 helps me relax MOOD 6 makes me feel good MOOD 5 cheers me up MOOD 2 helps me cope with life MOOD 1 helps me cope with stress MOOD 4 keeps me awake/alert SENS 3 has a pleasant texture ECOL 1 has been produced in a way that animals have not experienced pain (a) ECOL 2 has been produced in a way that animals’ rights have been respected (a) POL 2 country in which human rights are not violated (a) FAMIL 1 is what I usually eat FAMIL 3 like the food I ate when I was a child SENS 1 smells nice SENS 4 tastes good POL1 comes from countries that I approve of politically POL 3 country of origin clearly marked ECOL 5 has not been transported an excessive distance (b) REL 1 is not forbidden in my religion (a) REL 2 is in harmony with my religious views (a) POL 4 has been prepared in a way that does not conflict with my political values (a) ECOL 3 packaged in an environmentally friendly way FAMIL 2 familiar
4. Discussion
3
4
5
6
7
.76 .69 .68 .68 .68 .61 .56 .53 .74 .68 .65 .62 .61 .45 .84 .83 .80 .70 .59 .48
.43
.68 .56 .49
.45
.82 .81 .46
Table 3 Food choice motivation (factors) by age group, and gender.
4.1. Application of a revised Food Choice Questionnaire in an adolescent sample The primary aim of this study has been to assess the application of a revised FCQ with an adolescent sample. A secondary aim was to examine the extent to which adolescents’ reasons for choosing food are differentiated by gender and age group. Although clear and strong factor loadings emerged on seven components, reliability analysis of the revised FCQ indicated that just five components were relevant in an adolescent sample. When compared to the original FCQ with its nine-factor solution (in adults) (Steptoe et al., 1995), the biggest difference in this five-factor solution (in adolescents) is evident in the construct of the component ‘health’. Where six items were used in the original FCQ, in this study 13 items have loaded onto ‘health’ including items that measure food choice motivation in terms of body weight and natural content of food. This suggests that food choice motivations relating to health, for this group of adolescents, may represent a significantly broader construct than that defined in the original FCQ. Such findings resonate with Eertmans et al. (2006) who also found, in a sample of Italian university students, natural content items to load onto the health motivation factor. Furthermore, the authors of the original
2
.78 .71 .71 .71 .70 .66 .63 .63 .63 .60 .57 .55 .53
Age group
Health Price/convenience Mood Religion Animal rights
Gender
Older Mean (SD)
Younger Mean (SD)
Male Mean (SD)
Female Mean (SD)
2.54 (0.51) 2.55 (0.53) 2.43 (0.54) 1.96 (0.80) 2.43 (0.86)
2.69c (0.53) 2.47 (0.60) 2.43 (0.63) 2.23c (0.86) 2.76c (0.79)
2.54 (0.55) 2.48 (0.57) 2.40 (0.58) 2.20b (0.90) 2.45 (0.88)
2.68a (0.50) 2.54 (0.56) 2.46 (0.60) 2.01 (0.78) 2.73a (0.79)
a Mean value was significantly different compared with males (independent samples t-test: P < 0.05). b Mean value was significantly different compared with females (independent samples t-test: P < 0.05). c Mean value was significantly different compared with older students (independent samples t-test: P < 0.05).
FCQ noted that the item ‘low in fat’ loaded onto the weight control factor rather than the health factor and concluded that this may have been a consequence of the high proportion of young adults
M. Share, B. Stewart-Knox / Food Quality and Preference 25 (2012) 57–62
in the sample (Steptoe et al., 1995). This may suggest that to understand adolescent food choice, notions of health should be expanded to include constructs of body weight control and the natural content of food. The convergence of price and convenience items on component two suggests that for adolescents such issues are strongly associated. Cross-loading occurred with items from the expanded FCQ for constructs of ecological welfare, political values and religion. Taken together these items could be considered representative of broadbased food rights issues. Lindeman and Väänänen suggested that the animal rights sub-scale could be used independently (Lindeman & Väänänen, 2000). It is notable that items that measure the sensory aspects of food did not emerge as a coherent factor in the analysis. This is interesting when considering the evidence that points to the importance of the sensory dimension of food choice in adults (Crossley & Nazir, 2002; Furst et al.,1996; Honkanen & Frewer, 2009). There are some possible explanations for this outcome. The cross-loading of ‘smells nice’ on both the sensory and mood factors supports the research that shows that the olfactory senses are tied to emotional feelings about food (Rouby, Schaal, Dubois, Gervais, & Holley, 2002; Shepherd, 2006). It is also surprising that the taste item failed to load on any factor although qualitative studies emphasise the importance of taste in adolescents’ food choice motivations (Contento et al., 2006; Neumark-Sztainer et al., 1999; Stevenson et al., 2007). It may also suggest a stage in adolescence where the sensory dimensions of food become more important. Ton Nu, MacLeod, and Barthelemy (1996) in a study of French adolescents aged 10 to 20 years found that while adolescents’ food choices were strongly determined by sensory motivations they had difficulty in expressing why they liked a particular food. They appeared to lack a repertoire for defining taste. Furthermore, they found that food choices changed for adolescents over time. Some foods previously disliked at around the age of 10 changed to being liked foods in later adolescence. Overall the findings related to the sensory dimensions of adolescent food choice suggest that the sensory items in the original FCQ appear not to be valid in an adolescent sample. The original FCQ has been applied to young adult populations, based on the assumption that it is relevant and reliable with younger people (Crossley & Nazir, 2002; Piggford, Raciti, Harker, & Harker, 2008; Trew et al., 2005). On the basis of the findings reported above such an approach may need revision. Based on this Irish adolescent sample, and through a rigorous process of factor analysis, we have shown that the original FCQ in its entirety may not be relevant for an adolescent sample. A second aim was to identify how food choice motivation factors are linked to certain demographic characteristics. We have found that food choice motivation is distinguished by gender and age. When compared to the results of other research that has used the FCQ there may be some areas of similarity between adolescent and adult populations, particularly with regard to gender differences. As in the original Steptoe et al. (1995) application of the FCQ, females in our study placed higher ratings upon health than males. This finding has also been echoed in recent research that has used the original FCQ with young Australian adults (Piggford, 2008). The present study adds to the qualitative research on adolescent food choice by showing that stage of adolescence is important to food choice motivation and food practices (Currie, Samdal, Boyce, & Smith, 2001; Fitzgerald, Heary, Nixon, & Kelly, 2010). When compared to the younger group, older adolescents were less likely to be motivated by health, religion or animal rights. The age differences may suggest a sensitive period between the age of 14 and 17 during which unhealthy habits have greater potential to develop and that nutrition education may be best tailored to the emerging adult and targeted at 15 year olds.
61
Research has shown that, as a broad group, young people tend to be less concerned than older respondents about long-term health issues such as heart disease. They see themselves as ‘invincible’; associate diet with appearance; and do not take much account of media health messages (MacIntyre, Reilly, Miller, & Eldridge, 1998). They tend to be ‘present-oriented’, so future diet-related health problems may be of little concern. Research on environmental and food safety issues indicates that young people hold ambivalent attitudes towards, and lack knowledge of, food environmental issues (Bissonette & Contento, 2001). The findings reported here similarly showed that young people did not appear to be motivated in their food choices by food environmental issues. Research that has examined adolescents’ views of food environmental issues and their associated food practices reveals that those that valued locally grown, organic, non-processed food and non-genetically modified food were more likely to have healthier diets than peers who did not support such practices (Robinson-O’Brien et al., 2009). Such research supports our view that there may be benefits in expanding nutrition education so that it incorporates food environmental issues. While the present study did not specifically examine young people’s understandings of food environmental issues a separate examination of their food and nutrition curriculum reported elsewhere (Share, 2007) indicated that food and nutrition education tended to be aligned to functional aspects of nutrition rather than social or environmental concerns. The study has some limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results. These include the inaccuracy of self-report data and the fact that the final sample of students largely comprised class-groups selected by school principals from amongst a number of potential classes. It was not possible to know if the groups selected were any different to the ones that were not. The data presented here are cross-sectional and, while we have shown associations between food choice motivations among adolescents at one point in time, there would be merit in applying the same research instrument with another sample of adolescents with a similar demographic profile. 4.2. Conclusions The application of a revised food choice questionnaire in an adolescent sample shows some similarity between adult and adolescent populations in terms of food choice motivations, but suggests important differences in how factors such as health and convenience are construed. This supports a changed perspective on what constitutes health motivation in food choice, through considering body weight control issues, the naturalness of food and organic foods. For adolescents, price and convenience are closely aligned food choice motivators. The application of a revised FCQ in an adolescent sample suggests a need for an age-specific FCQ with fewer discrete factors. There is also a need to consider items related to sensory appeal and how far the current items have sufficient construct validity in an adolescent sample. Further research is thus required into adolescent food choice to explore the associations found within the present study. Future studies should include a more comprehensive set of indicators to assess food choice motivations than found in the original FCQ. Furthermore, this study reveals a need for qualitative exploration of how adolescents associate sensory aspects of food with food choice and how they speak about this. This may be useful for the development of more valid constructs of the sensory dimensions of food choice in adolescents. Acknowledgments This study was funded by Safefood (Ireland), the Food Safety Promotion Board. The authors also wish to acknowledge the
62
M. Share, B. Stewart-Knox / Food Quality and Preference 25 (2012) 57–62
students and schools for giving of their time to participate in the study. We gratefully acknowledge the comments and advice of two independent reviewers that have been used to strengthen the paper. References Bissonette, M., & Contento, I. (2001). Adolescents’ perspectives and food choice behaviours in terms of the environmental impacts of food production practices: Application of a psychosocial model. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 33(2), 72–82. Brooks, F., Van der Sluijs, W., Klemera, E., Morgan, A., Magnusson, J., & NicGabhainn, S. (2009). Young people’s health in Great Britain and Ireland: Findings from the Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children Survey (HBSC) 2006. Edinburgh: HBSC International Coordinating Centre Child and Adolescent Health Research Unit (CAHRU). Contento, I., Williams, S., Michaela, J., & Franklin, A. (2006). Understanding the food choice process of adolescents in the context of family and friends. Journal of Adolescent Health, 38, 575–582. Crossley, M., & Nazir, M. (2002). Motives underlying food choice: An investigation of dental students. Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences, 1(1), 27–33. Croll, J., Neumark-Sztainer, D., & Story, M. (2001). Healthy eating: What does it mean to adolescents? Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 33(4), 193–198. Currie, C., Samdal, O., Boyce, W., & Smith, B. (2001). Health Behaviour in school-aged children: A World Health Organisation Cross-National Study. Research Protocol for the 2001/2002 Survey. Edinburgh: Child and Adolescent Health Research Unit University of Edinburgh. Eertmans, A., Victoir, A., Notelars, G., Vansant, G., & Van den Bergh, O. (2006). The Food Choice Questionnaire: Factorial invariant over western urban populations? Food Quality and Preference, 17, 344–352. Fitzgerald, A., Heary, C., Nixon, E., & Kelly, C. (2010). Factors influencing the food choices of Irish children and adolescents: A qualitative investigation. Health Promotion International, 25(3), 289–298. Furst, T., Connors, M., Bisogni, C., Sobal, J., & Winter Falk, L. (1996). Food choice: A conceptual model of the process. Appetite, 26, 247–266. Honkanen, P., & Frewer, L. (2009). Russian consumers’ motives for food choice. Appetite, 52, 363–371.
Lindeman, M., & Väänänen, M. (2000). Measurement of ethical food choice motives. Appetite, 34, 55–59. MacIntyre, S., Reilly, J., Miller, D., & Eldridge, J. (1998). Food choice, food scares and health: The role of the media. In A. Murcott (Ed.), The nation’s diet: The social science of food choice (pp. 228–249). London: Longman. Neumark-Sztainer, D., Story, M., Perry, C., & Casey, M. (1999). Factors influencing food choices of adolescents: Findings from focus group discussions with adolescents. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 99(8), 929–934. 937. Piggford, T., Raciti, M., Harker, D., & Harker, M. (2008). Young adults’ food motives: An Australian social marketing perspective. Young Consumers, 9(1), 17–28. Robinson-O’Brien, R., Larson, N., Neumark-Sztainer, D., Hannan & Story, M. (2009). Characteristics and dietary patterns of adolescents who value eating locally grown, organic, nongenetically engineered, and nonprocessed food. Journal of Nutrition, Education and Behavior, 41(1), 11–18. Rouby, C., Schaal, B., Dubois, D., Gervais, R., & Holley, A. (Eds.). (2002). Olfaction Taste and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rugg-Gunn, A., Fletcher, E., Matthews, J., Hackett, A., Moynihan, P., Kelly, S., et al. (2007). Changes in consumption of sugars by English adolescents over 20 years. Public Health Nutrition, 10, 354–363. Share, M. (2007). Risk, responsibility and choice: Food and eating in Irish secondlevel school. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Ulster, Coleraine. Shepherd, G. (2006). Smell images and flavour system in the human brain. Nature, 444, 316–321. Shepherd, R., & Dennison, C. (1996). Influences on adolescent food choice. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 55, 345–357. Steptoe, A., Pollard, T., & Wardle, J. (1995). Development of a measure of the motives underlying the selection of food: The Food Choice Questionnaire. Appetite, 25, 267–284. Stevenson, C., Doherty, G., Barnett, J., Muldoon, O., & Trew, K. (2007). Adolescents views of food and eating: Identifying barriers to healthy eating. Journal of Adolescence, 30, 417–434. Sun, Y. (2008). Health concern, food choice motives, and attitudes toward healthy eating: The mediating role of food choice motives. Appetite, 51, 42–49. Ton Nu, C., MacLeod, C., & Barthelemy, J. (1996). Effects of age and gender on adolescents’ food habits and preferences. Food Quality and Preference, 7(3/4), 251–262. Trew, K., Barnett, J., Stevenson, C., Muldoon, O., Breakwell, G., Brown, K., et al. (2005). Young people and food: Adolescent dietary beliefs and understanding. Dublin: Safefood, The Food Safety Promotion Board.
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Food Quality and Preference journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodqual
Determinants of food choice in Irish adolescents Michelle Share a,⇑, Barbara Stewart-Knox b,1 a b
Children’s Research Centre, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland Northern Ireland Centre for Food & Health, University of Ulster, Coleraine BT52 1SA, Northern Ireland, UK
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 30 March 2011 Received in revised form 27 November 2011 Accepted 31 December 2011 Available online 25 January 2012 Keywords: Food choice Adolescents Nutrition
a b s t r a c t This study aimed to determine food choice motivations amongst adolescents using a revised Food Choice Questionnaire (FCQ). The revised FCQ was administered to a sample of 14–17 year olds in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland (n = 397). Socio-demographic measures of gender and age were also collected. Five food choice motivation factors were discerned: health; mood; price/convenience; religion; and animal rights. The study reveals important differences between adults and adolescents in how factors such as health and convenience are construed. To understand adolescent food choice, notions of health should be expanded to include constructs of body weight control and the natural content of food. The convergence of price and convenience items suggests that for adolescents such issues are strongly associated. Sensory items such as taste, texture and smell were shown to be less salient for adolescents than has previously been identified for adult populations. The findings suggest that a revised age-specific FCQ may be appropriate for the study of adolescent food choice motivations. Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction There is extensive research that indicates the persistence of unhealthy dietary practices among youth. Over a decade ago Shepherd and Dennison (1996) drew on UK health data that characterised the adolescent diet by high levels of fat intake, frequent snacking, missed meals and low levels of fibre and micronutrients. Despite population health targets that have recommended the reduction of non-milk extrinsic sugars (from sources such as confectionery, soft drinks, cakes and preserves) adolescent consumption of these has remained stable over a period of twenty years, with soft drinks and confectionery accounting for 61% of such sugars (Rugg-Gunn et al., 2007). The most recent Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children (HBSC) survey for Great Britain and Ireland indicated that this situation persists (Brooks et al., 2009). Although we can point to the accumulation of evidence that points to unhealthy food practices in adolescence, efforts to address this situation are limited by the fact that adolescent food choice motivations remain poorly understood:
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +353 1 8963977; fax: +353 1 8962347. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Share), [email protected] (B. StewartKnox). 1 Tel.: +44 28 70324781. 0950-3293/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.12.005
Few attempts at influencing adolescent diets have been based on any real understanding of the factors that affect young people’s food choice decisions (Shepherd & Dennison, 1996: 346). We therefore need to take a closer look at what motivates adolescents to make the food choices that they do. Such information is important for educators, health promotion, policy makers and food manufacturers that are interested in young people’s present and future nutritional wellbeing. Much of what we do know about adolescent food choice motivation comes from qualitative studies (Contento, Williams, Michaela, & Franklin 2006; Croll, Neumark-Sztainer, & Story, (2001), Neumark-Sztainer, Story, Perry, & Casey, 1999; Stevenson, Doherty, Barnett, Muldoon, & Trew, 2007). These have been important in helping to understand how adolescent food choices might vary in terms of gender, socio-economic group or age, but rarely have these conceptual understandings been tested empirically. Research that has specifically asked young people about why they choose certain foods shows that, as for adults, food choice is multi-dimensional and complex. It may be determined by factors such as: taste; an orientation to the present; knowledge; peer influence; parental influence; and advertising (Contento et al., 2006; Croll, NeumarkSztainer & Story, 2001; Neumark-Sztainer et al., 1999; Stevenson et al., 2007). There has been little attempt to investigate quantitatively what has been learned from qualitative research about adolescents’ food choice motivations. The study reported here makes use of a
58
M. Share, B. Stewart-Knox / Food Quality and Preference 25 (2012) 57–62
quantitative research instrument, the Food Choice Questionnaire (FCQ). This was originally developed by Steptoe, Pollard, and Wardle (1995) in order to construct a multi-dimensional measure of motives related to food choice that would help to address questions of food consumption and to more broadly inform health and consumer psychology. The FCQ discerned nine factors that influenced food choice in adults: health; mood; convenience; sensory appeal; natural content; price; weight control; familiarity; and, ethical concern. Repeated application of the FCQ in adult populations by Steptoe et al. (1995) showed food choice motivations to be associated with gender, income and age. The original FCQ was expanded by Lindeman and Väänänen (2000) to incorporate additional items related to ecological, religious and political dimensions. This resulted in the emergence of two further factors: ‘political values’ and ‘religion’. The study reported here further develops the FCQ in order to reflect two additional concerns that are of major contemporary significance: ‘organic’ food and ‘food miles’. Application of the FCQ to non-adult populations has been limited. For example, Trew et al. (2005) deployed a version of the FCQ to study Irish teenagers’ dietary behaviour. However, they did not conduct factor analysis to specifically determine the suitability of the FCQ constructs of food choice to an adolescent sample. This study sought to investigate the food choice motivations of a sample of Irish adolescents (age 14–17). The revised version of the FCQ was applied to this sample. The application of this revised FCQ questionnaire with an adolescent sample addresses some limitations in existing food choice research undertaken with adolescents. A primary aim was to determine the extent to which the constructs of food choice determined by Steptoe et al. (1995) and Lindeman and Väänänen (2000) are valid in an adolescent sample. A secondary aim was to examine if these food choice motivations were differentiated by age-group and gender. 2. Methods The questionnaire was piloted in two schools, a girls’ secondary and a coeducational secondary (n = 50). The pilot exercise aimed to assess students’ general comprehension of the survey, in terms of their age-group, completion time and applicability, and the relevance of the questions in a school setting. The pilot study revealed some propensity for missing data, particularly in the lengthy series of food choice items, and some comprehension difficulties: e.g. what is organic? what is fibre? As a consequence adjustments were made: more time for completion was allowed; students were asked to take care in their responses to the food choice items and to use a ruler to guide them through these questions; the conditions for administration were altered to allow for the presence of a teacher; and instructions were clarified. 2.1. Ethics Ethical approval was granted by Office of Research Ethics Committees Northern Ireland (ORECNI) to survey attitudes to food and health and factors determining food choice in young people in Ireland.
gender (single sex versus co-educational). Student participants aged approximately 14 and 17 years were sampled from two non-examination year groups. It was assumed that students aged around 14 would have been in the secondary school system for at least two years and at a stage of developing and gaining more autonomy in their everyday lives; those aged around 17 would have completed the bulk of their schooling and be moving towards adulthood. Some of the latter may be in part-time employment with a disposable income. It was assumed that their decision-making ability and autonomy would be greater than the younger group and this would influence their food choice motivation and practices. The principal teacher in each school selected classes to participate. Whole class groups were recruited apart from in three schools where the older students were in very small groups related to subject choice and so groups were pooled. A total of 455 students in 10 schools were invited to participate (Table 1). 2.3. The Food Choice Questionnaire (FCQ) The FCQ is a validated scale of 36 items that measures food choice motivations on nine factors: health; mood; convenience; sensory appeal; natural content; price; weight control; familiarity; and ethical concern (Steptoe et al., 1995). It has been adapted and used with population groups including university dental students (Crossley & Nazir, 2002), undergraduates at a Taiwanese university (Sun, 2008), Russian consumers (Honkanen & Frewer, 2009) and Finnish university students (Lindeman & Väänänen, 2000). It has been used to determine the generalizability of the items and their underlying constructs across Western urban populations in Belgium, Italy and Canada (Eertmans, Victoir, Notelars, Vansant, & Van den Bergh, 2006). It has been further developed to include ethical food choice motivations for animal rights, religion and political values (Lindeman & Väänänen, 2000). But, apart from Trew et al. (2005) who examined Irish secondary school students’ food choice motivations using a modified version of the FCQ, there appears to be no evidence that either the original FCQ or Lindeman and Väänänen’s modified 11 factor scale have been used to measure adolescent food choice motivations. In the present study we have revised Steptoe et al.’s FCQ. As noted earlier, the revisions to the instrument were made to account for contemporary issues relevant to food choice. The revised instrument includes six of the eight items proposed by Lindeman and Väänänen (2000) that measured ethical food choice motivations for religion, political values and ecological welfare and 35 of the 36 items from the original FCQ. Two new food choice items were added: ‘organic’ and ‘has not been transported an excessive distance’. These reflect contemporary food issues and were drawn from Bissonette & Contento’s survey of US adolescents’ food choice in the context of food environmental issues (Bissonette & Contento, 2001). The revised FCQ resulted in 43 items. In addition to the revised food choice questionnaire the survey included socio-demographic variables (age, gender, school-type, jurisdiction). The survey also examined food risk perception, food consumption and food knowledge and the curricula undertaken by students. Analyses and discussion of these in the context of food choice is ongoing and therefore they do not appear in the following discussion. 2.4. Procedure
2.2. Sampling Sample frames for 233 second-level schools in Northern Ireland (NI) and 750 in the Republic of Ireland (ROI) were developed and used to inform a typology of schools. Each sample frame was stratified to reflect variations by school type (private fee paying versus non-fee paying in ROI; selective versus non-selective in NI) and
The questionnaire was administered to two class groups in each school. Students’ parents were contacted via the school administration and invited to give their consent for their child’s participation in the survey. Students who had received parental consent were given verbal and written information about the study and asked for their consent to participate. The questionnaire was
59
M. Share, B. Stewart-Knox / Food Quality and Preference 25 (2012) 57–62 Table 1 School samples and number of participants. School no. Older
Younger
1 (n = 39)
3 (n = 50)
4 (n = 43)
5 (n = 37)
6 (n = 43)
7 (n = 52)
8 (n = 54)
9 (n = 42)
10 (n = 46)
Total
Total in class
19
24
26
20
17
21
27
27
21
22
224
Nonparticipantsqa
5
0
2
6
2
2
2
4
0
4
27
No. surveyed Total in class Non-participantsa
14 20 3
24 25 1
24 24 1
14 23 2
15 20 1
19 22 6
25 25 4
23 27 6
21 21 0
18 24 7
197 231 31
No. surveyed
17 31
24 48
23 47
21 35
19 34
16 35
21 46
21 44
21 42
17 35
200 397
Total surveyed a
2 (n = 49)
Non-participants comprise those who did not received parental consent or were absent on the day of survey.
administered to the whole class group during a health education or religion class period. On average, the entire questionnaire, which included food consumption, food risk perception, food knowledge and curricula took 25 min to complete. 2.5. Data analysis To determine the applicability of the revised FCQ in an adolescent sample and the extent to which food choice motivations differed by gender and age group, a two-stage data analysis strategy was adopted. All analyses were conducted with SPSS statistical software (version 11) using a statistical significance level of 0.05 or less for all tests. First, the 43 items derived from the revised FCQ were subjected to Principal Components Analysis (PCA). Prior to performing PCA the suitability of the data for factor analysis was assessed. Inspection of the correlation matrix revealed the presence of numerous coefficients of 0.3 and above. The suitability of the correlation matrix for factor analysis was confirmed by the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin value of 0.86 which exceeds the recommended level of 0.6. Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity confirmed a relationship between the variables p < 0.001. The data then underwent factor analysis. Second, independent samples t-tests were employed to explore associations between gender, age-group and the food choice motivation factors derived from the principal components analysis. 3. Results 3.1. Sample description Of the sample of 455 students, 397 completed the survey resulting in an 87% response rate. The sample was almost evenly divided between NI (n = 195) and ROI (n = 202); 47% were male and 53% female, with a mean age of 14.9 years (SD = 1.59). 3.2. Factors determining food choice Principal components analysis indicated 10 components with Eigen values exceeding one that accounted for 20.4 per cent, 12.24 per cent, 5.93 per cent, 4.49%, 4.20%, 3.45%, 3.39%, 2.89%, 2.72%, and 2.57% of the variance, respectively. Parallel analysis of the initial Eigen values showed seven components that exceeded the criterion values for a randomly generated data matrix of the same size (43 variables 397 respondents). To aid in the interpretation of these seven components Varimax rotation was performed using a cut-off value of 0.3. The rotated solution showed strong loadings for 40 of the 43 items with the seven-factor solution accounting for 54 per cent of the variance. Reliability analysis
was then conducted on the each set of subscales that made up the seven-factor solution. Component one ‘health’ contained 13 items, including all six of the health items from the original FCQ, as well as the three items that measure food choice motivations in terms of weight, the three items for natural content and one for ecological motivation (organic). Component two ‘price and convenience’ included eight items, all three that related to price and all five items for convenience. Component three ‘mood’ consisted of all six items that measured food choice motivation in terms of mood. Component four ‘political values’ comprised three items, two that measured motivations in terms of animal rights and one in terms of human rights/political values, all derived from Lindeman and Väänänen’s revised FCQ (Lindeman & Väänänen, 2000). Component five ‘preference’ contained three items, two that measured the construct of familiarity and one sensory food choice motivations (also cross-loaded on component four). Component six ‘environmental’ comprised three items, two measuring political values and a third that measured environmental/ecological motivations (an additional item). Component seven ‘religion’ contained three items, two that measured religious food choice motivations (high factor loadings) and a third derived from Lindeman and Väänänen’s revised FCQ (Lindeman & Väänänen, 2000) that measured political values (also cross-loaded on component six). Four items failed to load on any component: ‘has a pleasant texture’; ‘is familiar’; ‘tastes good’ and ‘packaged in an environmentally friendly way’ (Table 2). Reliability analysis of each factor resulted in five subscales with Cronbach alpha scores of 0.7 or above: the 13 item health scale (a .89); eight item price/convenience scale (a .84); six item mood scale (a .79); two item animal rights scale (a .89); and, the two item religion subscale (a .90). The subscale for familiarity (2 items a .37) and political values (2 items a .55) did not show good internal consistency for the measurement of these constructs and was, therefore, removed from the model. The results of the principal components and reliability analyses indicated that the revised FCQ contained five factors: health; price/ convenience; mood; religion; and animal rights. For each of these mean factor scores were computed. The second stage of the data analysis used independent samples t-tests to determine whether food choice motivations differed by gender and age group. Girls were more likely than boys to place importance on health (t(368) = 2.45, P = 0.014) and animal rights (t(395) = 3.35, P = 0.001) in making food choices. Boys placed greater importance than girls on religion (t(391) = 2.20, P = 0.029) in making food choices (Table 3). When food choice motivation was examined by age, younger students appeared more likely than older students to be motivated by health (t(368) = 2.72, P = 0.007), religion (t(391) = 3.22, P = 0.001) and animal rights (t(395) = 3.99, P < 0.001) (Table 3).
60
M. Share, B. Stewart-Knox / Food Quality and Preference 25 (2012) 57–62
Table 2 Principal components analysis of food choice motivations. ‘It is important to me that the food I eat on a typical day’ Note: (a) Lindeman and Väänänen (2000) (b) new items
Component loadings (%) 1
HEL1 contains a lot of vitamins and minerals HEL2 keeps me healthy HEL6 high in fibre HEL3 is nutritious WEIGH 3 low in fat NAT2 contains natural ingredients WEIGH 1 low in calories NAT3 contains no artificial ingredients HEL4 is high in protein HEL5 good for my skin/teeth/hair/nails WEIGH 2 helps me control my weight NAT 1 contains no additives ECOL 4 is organic (b) PRICE 2 is cheap CON1 easy to prepare PRICE1 not expensive CON 2 cooked very simply CON 3 takes no time to prepare PRICE 3 good value for money CON5 easily available in shops and supermarkets CON 4 can be bought in shops close to where I live MOOD 3 helps me relax MOOD 6 makes me feel good MOOD 5 cheers me up MOOD 2 helps me cope with life MOOD 1 helps me cope with stress MOOD 4 keeps me awake/alert SENS 3 has a pleasant texture ECOL 1 has been produced in a way that animals have not experienced pain (a) ECOL 2 has been produced in a way that animals’ rights have been respected (a) POL 2 country in which human rights are not violated (a) FAMIL 1 is what I usually eat FAMIL 3 like the food I ate when I was a child SENS 1 smells nice SENS 4 tastes good POL1 comes from countries that I approve of politically POL 3 country of origin clearly marked ECOL 5 has not been transported an excessive distance (b) REL 1 is not forbidden in my religion (a) REL 2 is in harmony with my religious views (a) POL 4 has been prepared in a way that does not conflict with my political values (a) ECOL 3 packaged in an environmentally friendly way FAMIL 2 familiar
4. Discussion
3
4
5
6
7
.76 .69 .68 .68 .68 .61 .56 .53 .74 .68 .65 .62 .61 .45 .84 .83 .80 .70 .59 .48
.43
.68 .56 .49
.45
.82 .81 .46
Table 3 Food choice motivation (factors) by age group, and gender.
4.1. Application of a revised Food Choice Questionnaire in an adolescent sample The primary aim of this study has been to assess the application of a revised FCQ with an adolescent sample. A secondary aim was to examine the extent to which adolescents’ reasons for choosing food are differentiated by gender and age group. Although clear and strong factor loadings emerged on seven components, reliability analysis of the revised FCQ indicated that just five components were relevant in an adolescent sample. When compared to the original FCQ with its nine-factor solution (in adults) (Steptoe et al., 1995), the biggest difference in this five-factor solution (in adolescents) is evident in the construct of the component ‘health’. Where six items were used in the original FCQ, in this study 13 items have loaded onto ‘health’ including items that measure food choice motivation in terms of body weight and natural content of food. This suggests that food choice motivations relating to health, for this group of adolescents, may represent a significantly broader construct than that defined in the original FCQ. Such findings resonate with Eertmans et al. (2006) who also found, in a sample of Italian university students, natural content items to load onto the health motivation factor. Furthermore, the authors of the original
2
.78 .71 .71 .71 .70 .66 .63 .63 .63 .60 .57 .55 .53
Age group
Health Price/convenience Mood Religion Animal rights
Gender
Older Mean (SD)
Younger Mean (SD)
Male Mean (SD)
Female Mean (SD)
2.54 (0.51) 2.55 (0.53) 2.43 (0.54) 1.96 (0.80) 2.43 (0.86)
2.69c (0.53) 2.47 (0.60) 2.43 (0.63) 2.23c (0.86) 2.76c (0.79)
2.54 (0.55) 2.48 (0.57) 2.40 (0.58) 2.20b (0.90) 2.45 (0.88)
2.68a (0.50) 2.54 (0.56) 2.46 (0.60) 2.01 (0.78) 2.73a (0.79)
a Mean value was significantly different compared with males (independent samples t-test: P < 0.05). b Mean value was significantly different compared with females (independent samples t-test: P < 0.05). c Mean value was significantly different compared with older students (independent samples t-test: P < 0.05).
FCQ noted that the item ‘low in fat’ loaded onto the weight control factor rather than the health factor and concluded that this may have been a consequence of the high proportion of young adults
M. Share, B. Stewart-Knox / Food Quality and Preference 25 (2012) 57–62
in the sample (Steptoe et al., 1995). This may suggest that to understand adolescent food choice, notions of health should be expanded to include constructs of body weight control and the natural content of food. The convergence of price and convenience items on component two suggests that for adolescents such issues are strongly associated. Cross-loading occurred with items from the expanded FCQ for constructs of ecological welfare, political values and religion. Taken together these items could be considered representative of broadbased food rights issues. Lindeman and Väänänen suggested that the animal rights sub-scale could be used independently (Lindeman & Väänänen, 2000). It is notable that items that measure the sensory aspects of food did not emerge as a coherent factor in the analysis. This is interesting when considering the evidence that points to the importance of the sensory dimension of food choice in adults (Crossley & Nazir, 2002; Furst et al.,1996; Honkanen & Frewer, 2009). There are some possible explanations for this outcome. The cross-loading of ‘smells nice’ on both the sensory and mood factors supports the research that shows that the olfactory senses are tied to emotional feelings about food (Rouby, Schaal, Dubois, Gervais, & Holley, 2002; Shepherd, 2006). It is also surprising that the taste item failed to load on any factor although qualitative studies emphasise the importance of taste in adolescents’ food choice motivations (Contento et al., 2006; Neumark-Sztainer et al., 1999; Stevenson et al., 2007). It may also suggest a stage in adolescence where the sensory dimensions of food become more important. Ton Nu, MacLeod, and Barthelemy (1996) in a study of French adolescents aged 10 to 20 years found that while adolescents’ food choices were strongly determined by sensory motivations they had difficulty in expressing why they liked a particular food. They appeared to lack a repertoire for defining taste. Furthermore, they found that food choices changed for adolescents over time. Some foods previously disliked at around the age of 10 changed to being liked foods in later adolescence. Overall the findings related to the sensory dimensions of adolescent food choice suggest that the sensory items in the original FCQ appear not to be valid in an adolescent sample. The original FCQ has been applied to young adult populations, based on the assumption that it is relevant and reliable with younger people (Crossley & Nazir, 2002; Piggford, Raciti, Harker, & Harker, 2008; Trew et al., 2005). On the basis of the findings reported above such an approach may need revision. Based on this Irish adolescent sample, and through a rigorous process of factor analysis, we have shown that the original FCQ in its entirety may not be relevant for an adolescent sample. A second aim was to identify how food choice motivation factors are linked to certain demographic characteristics. We have found that food choice motivation is distinguished by gender and age. When compared to the results of other research that has used the FCQ there may be some areas of similarity between adolescent and adult populations, particularly with regard to gender differences. As in the original Steptoe et al. (1995) application of the FCQ, females in our study placed higher ratings upon health than males. This finding has also been echoed in recent research that has used the original FCQ with young Australian adults (Piggford, 2008). The present study adds to the qualitative research on adolescent food choice by showing that stage of adolescence is important to food choice motivation and food practices (Currie, Samdal, Boyce, & Smith, 2001; Fitzgerald, Heary, Nixon, & Kelly, 2010). When compared to the younger group, older adolescents were less likely to be motivated by health, religion or animal rights. The age differences may suggest a sensitive period between the age of 14 and 17 during which unhealthy habits have greater potential to develop and that nutrition education may be best tailored to the emerging adult and targeted at 15 year olds.
61
Research has shown that, as a broad group, young people tend to be less concerned than older respondents about long-term health issues such as heart disease. They see themselves as ‘invincible’; associate diet with appearance; and do not take much account of media health messages (MacIntyre, Reilly, Miller, & Eldridge, 1998). They tend to be ‘present-oriented’, so future diet-related health problems may be of little concern. Research on environmental and food safety issues indicates that young people hold ambivalent attitudes towards, and lack knowledge of, food environmental issues (Bissonette & Contento, 2001). The findings reported here similarly showed that young people did not appear to be motivated in their food choices by food environmental issues. Research that has examined adolescents’ views of food environmental issues and their associated food practices reveals that those that valued locally grown, organic, non-processed food and non-genetically modified food were more likely to have healthier diets than peers who did not support such practices (Robinson-O’Brien et al., 2009). Such research supports our view that there may be benefits in expanding nutrition education so that it incorporates food environmental issues. While the present study did not specifically examine young people’s understandings of food environmental issues a separate examination of their food and nutrition curriculum reported elsewhere (Share, 2007) indicated that food and nutrition education tended to be aligned to functional aspects of nutrition rather than social or environmental concerns. The study has some limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results. These include the inaccuracy of self-report data and the fact that the final sample of students largely comprised class-groups selected by school principals from amongst a number of potential classes. It was not possible to know if the groups selected were any different to the ones that were not. The data presented here are cross-sectional and, while we have shown associations between food choice motivations among adolescents at one point in time, there would be merit in applying the same research instrument with another sample of adolescents with a similar demographic profile. 4.2. Conclusions The application of a revised food choice questionnaire in an adolescent sample shows some similarity between adult and adolescent populations in terms of food choice motivations, but suggests important differences in how factors such as health and convenience are construed. This supports a changed perspective on what constitutes health motivation in food choice, through considering body weight control issues, the naturalness of food and organic foods. For adolescents, price and convenience are closely aligned food choice motivators. The application of a revised FCQ in an adolescent sample suggests a need for an age-specific FCQ with fewer discrete factors. There is also a need to consider items related to sensory appeal and how far the current items have sufficient construct validity in an adolescent sample. Further research is thus required into adolescent food choice to explore the associations found within the present study. Future studies should include a more comprehensive set of indicators to assess food choice motivations than found in the original FCQ. Furthermore, this study reveals a need for qualitative exploration of how adolescents associate sensory aspects of food with food choice and how they speak about this. This may be useful for the development of more valid constructs of the sensory dimensions of food choice in adolescents. Acknowledgments This study was funded by Safefood (Ireland), the Food Safety Promotion Board. The authors also wish to acknowledge the
62
M. Share, B. Stewart-Knox / Food Quality and Preference 25 (2012) 57–62
students and schools for giving of their time to participate in the study. We gratefully acknowledge the comments and advice of two independent reviewers that have been used to strengthen the paper. References Bissonette, M., & Contento, I. (2001). Adolescents’ perspectives and food choice behaviours in terms of the environmental impacts of food production practices: Application of a psychosocial model. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 33(2), 72–82. Brooks, F., Van der Sluijs, W., Klemera, E., Morgan, A., Magnusson, J., & NicGabhainn, S. (2009). Young people’s health in Great Britain and Ireland: Findings from the Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children Survey (HBSC) 2006. Edinburgh: HBSC International Coordinating Centre Child and Adolescent Health Research Unit (CAHRU). Contento, I., Williams, S., Michaela, J., & Franklin, A. (2006). Understanding the food choice process of adolescents in the context of family and friends. Journal of Adolescent Health, 38, 575–582. Crossley, M., & Nazir, M. (2002). Motives underlying food choice: An investigation of dental students. Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences, 1(1), 27–33. Croll, J., Neumark-Sztainer, D., & Story, M. (2001). Healthy eating: What does it mean to adolescents? Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 33(4), 193–198. Currie, C., Samdal, O., Boyce, W., & Smith, B. (2001). Health Behaviour in school-aged children: A World Health Organisation Cross-National Study. Research Protocol for the 2001/2002 Survey. Edinburgh: Child and Adolescent Health Research Unit University of Edinburgh. Eertmans, A., Victoir, A., Notelars, G., Vansant, G., & Van den Bergh, O. (2006). The Food Choice Questionnaire: Factorial invariant over western urban populations? Food Quality and Preference, 17, 344–352. Fitzgerald, A., Heary, C., Nixon, E., & Kelly, C. (2010). Factors influencing the food choices of Irish children and adolescents: A qualitative investigation. Health Promotion International, 25(3), 289–298. Furst, T., Connors, M., Bisogni, C., Sobal, J., & Winter Falk, L. (1996). Food choice: A conceptual model of the process. Appetite, 26, 247–266. Honkanen, P., & Frewer, L. (2009). Russian consumers’ motives for food choice. Appetite, 52, 363–371.
Lindeman, M., & Väänänen, M. (2000). Measurement of ethical food choice motives. Appetite, 34, 55–59. MacIntyre, S., Reilly, J., Miller, D., & Eldridge, J. (1998). Food choice, food scares and health: The role of the media. In A. Murcott (Ed.), The nation’s diet: The social science of food choice (pp. 228–249). London: Longman. Neumark-Sztainer, D., Story, M., Perry, C., & Casey, M. (1999). Factors influencing food choices of adolescents: Findings from focus group discussions with adolescents. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 99(8), 929–934. 937. Piggford, T., Raciti, M., Harker, D., & Harker, M. (2008). Young adults’ food motives: An Australian social marketing perspective. Young Consumers, 9(1), 17–28. Robinson-O’Brien, R., Larson, N., Neumark-Sztainer, D., Hannan & Story, M. (2009). Characteristics and dietary patterns of adolescents who value eating locally grown, organic, nongenetically engineered, and nonprocessed food. Journal of Nutrition, Education and Behavior, 41(1), 11–18. Rouby, C., Schaal, B., Dubois, D., Gervais, R., & Holley, A. (Eds.). (2002). Olfaction Taste and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rugg-Gunn, A., Fletcher, E., Matthews, J., Hackett, A., Moynihan, P., Kelly, S., et al. (2007). Changes in consumption of sugars by English adolescents over 20 years. Public Health Nutrition, 10, 354–363. Share, M. (2007). Risk, responsibility and choice: Food and eating in Irish secondlevel school. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Ulster, Coleraine. Shepherd, G. (2006). Smell images and flavour system in the human brain. Nature, 444, 316–321. Shepherd, R., & Dennison, C. (1996). Influences on adolescent food choice. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 55, 345–357. Steptoe, A., Pollard, T., & Wardle, J. (1995). Development of a measure of the motives underlying the selection of food: The Food Choice Questionnaire. Appetite, 25, 267–284. Stevenson, C., Doherty, G., Barnett, J., Muldoon, O., & Trew, K. (2007). Adolescents views of food and eating: Identifying barriers to healthy eating. Journal of Adolescence, 30, 417–434. Sun, Y. (2008). Health concern, food choice motives, and attitudes toward healthy eating: The mediating role of food choice motives. Appetite, 51, 42–49. Ton Nu, C., MacLeod, C., & Barthelemy, J. (1996). Effects of age and gender on adolescents’ food habits and preferences. Food Quality and Preference, 7(3/4), 251–262. Trew, K., Barnett, J., Stevenson, C., Muldoon, O., Breakwell, G., Brown, K., et al. (2005). Young people and food: Adolescent dietary beliefs and understanding. Dublin: Safefood, The Food Safety Promotion Board.