SNEB Webinar 2016 CULTURE AND THE MEANING … Webinar 2016 CULTURE AND THE MEANING OF FOOD Paul Rozin University of Pennsylvania Naomi Arbit Columbia University Late 20th Century developed

SNEB Webinar 2016

CULTURE AND THE

MEANING OF FOOD

Paul Rozin

University of Pennsylvania

Naomi Arbit

Columbia University

Late 20th Century developed

world • Epidemiological revolution: longer life and death

from degenerative diseases: shift to long-term consequences

• food surplus

• extraordinary range of food choices

• development of super-foods (e.g. chocolate)

• no work needed to attain choices

• massive amounts of risk information

• no training in dealing with risks/benefits

Developed versus developing

world

• Developing > 70%

Consumer spending on food 1980s: Economists Book of World Statistics

Country Food (%

total)

Highest

Category

China 51 food

India 52 food

Indonesia 55 food

USSR 43 food

France 20 leisure (20%)

USA 13 leisure (26%)

Malnutrition

• UNITED NATIONS FAO

estimate

• 2010-2012

• 870,000,000 in world are

chronically malnourished

(852,000,000 in developing world)

Learning from other Cultures

Feature Heaven Hell

Love Italians

Banks Swiss

Universities British

Food French

Feature Heaven Hell

Love Italians Swiss

Banks Swiss


Food French

Feature Heaven Hell

Love Italians Swiss

Banks Swiss Italians


Food French

Feature Heaven Hell

Love Italians Swiss


Universities British French

Food French

Feature Heaven Hell

Love Italians Swiss


Universities British French

Food French British

Life expectancy at birth (data from 2008-2010: www.who.int/gho/countries)

rank country years rank country years

1 Japan 83 10 Norway 81

4.5 Australia 82 10 Sweden 81

4.5 Israel 82 14 Austria 80

4.5 Italy 82 14 Belgium 80

4.5 Singapore 82 14 Finland 80

4.5 Spain 82 14 Germany 80

4.5 Switzerland 82 14 Greece 80

10 Canada 81 14 Korea 80

10 France 81 14 U.K. 80

10 Netherland 81 19.5 U.S.A. 79

http://www.who.int/gho/countries

Age-standardized annual mortality from CHD

and related risk factors (males 35-64)

WHO/MONICA Renaud & de Logeril, 1992

Location Mortality /

100,000

Serum chol-

esterol

(mg/dl)

Toulouse, France 78 230

Lille, France 105 252

Stanford, USA 182 209

Obesity:

France vs USA

• % BMI >= 30

• France: 16%

• USA: 32%

• 2008 http://www.who.int/gho/countries

http://www.who.int/gho/countries

Claude Fischler

• Many students

• Free associations to chocolate

Percent of subjects mentioning “fat” words in

first three free associations to “chocolate”

(college students, 1995, Rozin et al.)

Location Females Males

India 00 00

Paris 04 05

USA 27 14

Percent selecting “unhealthy” for choice:

What do you think of when you think of

HEAVY CREAM?:

whipped or unhealthy

Females Males

Paris,

France 28 23

Six USA

college

campuses

68 48

Percent of subjects agreeing that

they eat a “healthy diet”

Females Males

France 76% 72%

USA 28% 38%

Food and medicine are

fundamentally different

%

strongly

agree

France 74

US 16

OCHA-CIDIL Total n = 340

Metaphor: Food and the body

are like:

USA France

Tree 26 66

Car or

factory 43 26

Temple 32 10

Representative national samples

Fischler, Rozin et al., 2004

Restaurant portion size

Restaurant France USA

McDonald’s (7) 189g 256g

Quick/Bking(5) 207g 322g

Chinese (6) 244g 418g

Supermarket modal food portions

(2000)

ITEM Carrefour Acme

Yogurt (modal) 125g 227g

Fresh fruit

(mean,4 types)

431g 553g

Coca cola

(modal)

330ml 500ml

Slide Yogurt portion

Supermarket non-food portions

ITEM Carre-

four

Acme

toothpaste

(modal, ml)

75 170

toilet paper

(mean, sq cm)

121 117

Cat food

(modal, g)

100 85

Government versus Industry

initiation

• Let the free market do it (organic, fat free,

calorie free)

• Smaller portion sizes

Energy

Intake

Energy

Expenditure Energy

Storage

car

The French Garage

street

apt

French dinner

Some basic French-American

differences

• Moderation vs abundance ideology

• Focus on quality vs quantity

• Collective vs Individual food values

• Centrality of Food: Rituals, collective

• Pleasure vs worry orientation to food

Preadaptation

Ernst Mayr

• The mouth for eating and for speech

Preadaptation and Food

nutrition pleasure nutrition pleasure

Social

marker Social

marker Art

form

Meta-

phor

Moral

entity

Meat and meaning

• The meanings of meat

• Taste and nutrition

• Long term health issues

• Masculinity (of muscle)

• Status

• Sharing

• Metaphor

• Efficiency and environmental implications

• Compassion for animals

Scaling up

• Germany, France, USA about 7% of world

• U. Konstanz-U. Penn Study

• 10 countries, > 50% of world

• Includes Naomi Arbit

The Meaning of Food in Life

Questionnaire

Naomi Arbit, Matthew Ruby, Paul

Rozin

Background Confluence of factors:

• Extensive qualitative and ethnographic evidence for the

multiple meanings that food holds for people.

• Historically, our relationship to food was laden with

meanings that figure importantly in our moral, symbolic,

social, and ecological worlds.

• Even in the current global food system, there are stable

cross-country differences in how people relate to their food,

oft tied to the worldview and value system of a unique

culture.

• In the health behavior and nutrition literatures, these

meanings have not been operationalized for empirical

investigation

• Typically use rational, cost/benefit analyses and expectancy

value theories that have only moderate explanatory power

• These theories, such as the Theory of Planned Behavior,

have now started to measure constructs such as moral norms

• The mechanisms wherein these norms take hold, become

internalized, and spread are poorly understood

Background

Rationale

• The current food environment is undergoing

change

• Similarly to what happened with tobacco

smoking, we are seeing broad scale changes in

awareness and moralizing of food issues

• Tobacco smoking declined following

moralization, rather than following

interventions based on health risk information

Rationale • Food is coming to take on different meanings to a degree

unseen in prior generations

• People are focused on:

- clean/pure foods

- green/natural foods

- ethical and artisanal foods

• The new omnivores dilemma & spheres of moral concern

expanding to encompass environmental, animal welfare

and humanitarian concerns

• How to measure?

MFL Project

Burgeoning field of positive

psychology

Poor explanatory

power of existing health

behavior theories

Shifting food landscape

Research Aims

• To operationalize the meaning of food in life for empirical

investigation

• To develop and validate a comprehensive measure to assess

the different domains of meaning that food holds for people

• To understand a new determinant of health behavior, and

investigate its association with:

• Dietary intake patterns

• Local and organic purchasing decisions

• Willingness to Pay to ensure socially responsible

outcomes

Theoretical Background: Meaning

• Stable, higher-order, abstract construct that involves

making connections between and integrating events and

experiences into a larger and coherent sense of order.

• Involves an understanding of one’s self + one’s world

(lifeworld), as well as one’s role in the world.

• Also encompasses a motivational drive towards

purposive activities congruent with this larger cognitive

framework.

• Criterion for meaning classification: “If an action is meaningful, it is included into the meaning web and thus finds a place in the whole person’s life-world, rather than in the demands of the situation.” (Leontiev, 2013)

• To what degree are people making food decisions from the perspective of their life-world?

From Meaning to the Meaning of

Food in Life (MFL)

The Meaning of Food in Life (MFL)

• The meaning of food in life represents the degree to which people see

their food/eating experiences as having significance beyond the

immediate demands of the situation and as connected to their larger

life-world.

• Explicitly involves a cognitive connection made between people’s

food intake and non-immediate aspects of the eating situation –

contrast with immediate and hedonic orientations to food.

• More than the satisfaction of momentary preferences. Can be

connected to larger life goals. In most cases, will involve a connection

between food intake and non-food related aspects of life.

The Meaning of Food in Life

Questionnaire (MFLQ)

• Our research team generated a final set of

22 items based on:

– Analysis of qualitative responses in 2 pilot

studies

– Four iterative rounds of data collection with

exploratory factor analyses

MFL Data Collection Process

Exploratory Study

• Initial N = 151

• Final N = 142

Empirical Study 1

• Initial N = 254

• Final N = 228

Empirical Study 2

• Initial N = 252

• Final N = 221

Empirical Study 3 + Retest

• Initial N = 226

• Final N = 197

Study participants recruited via Mechanical Turk in USA

MFLQ Results

• The results of the exploratory factor

analyses showed a 5-factor structure which

cohered consistently across all 4 empirical

studies

MFL Factors & Sample Items

Moral

• When I eat food I think about where it came

from

• I eat in a way that expresses care for the

world

• My food choices reflect my connection to

nature

Social

• Food is closely tied to my relationships with

others

• When I eat I feel connected to the people I am

eating with

• Food is a way for me to connect with my

cultural traditions


Aesthetic

• Preparing a good meal is like making a work of

art

• Eating a good meal is an aesthetic experience

like going to a good concert or reading a good

novel

• I can appreciate the beauty of a dish even if I

do not like it


Sacred

• What I eat is a reflection of my spiritual beliefs

• From a spiritual perspective some foods are

better than others

• My food choices are a way for me to connect

with the sacred


Health

• I get satisfaction from knowing that the

food I eat is good for my health

• I feel that nourishing my body is a

meaningful activity

• I eat in a way that expresses care for my

body


MFLQ Results

• Test retest reliability (measure of stability

of score over time) was high (r > .8)

• Displayed consistently significant

associations with patterns of dietary intake,

purchasing habits and willingness to pay

(WTP)

• Dietary intake measured w. validated questions from

NHANES dietary screener questionnaire (DSQ;

Thompson et al, 2004.)

• Participants asked how frequently they consumed the

following foods in the past 30 days: fruit, vegetables, red

meat, processed snacks and junk food.

• They responded using a 10-point scale ranging from

‘never’ to ‘4+ times per day’.

• Participants also asked self-reported behavior: “I limit

my intake of fast food” and “I substitute meat with meat

substitutes when possible”

Dietary Intake & Behavior

Correlations between MFL factors and intake of soda,

processed snacks/junk food, and fast food (N = 254)

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Moral Social Sacred Aesthetic Health

Dietary Intake:

Soda -.18** -0.08 -0.1 -0.11 -.27**

Dietary Intake:

Processed

snacks and

junk food -.14* -0.07 -0.06 -0.11 -.29**

I limit my

intake of fast

food .30** .18** 0.084 .27** .55**




Dietary

Intake:

Vegetables .22** .28** .13* .22** .34**Dietary

Intake: Fruits .14* .16* .14* 0.081 .22**

Correlations between MFL factors and fruit and

vegetable Intake (N = 254)



Moral Social Sacred AestheticHealth

Dietary

Intake: Red

Meat -.30** 0.06 -.15* -0.058 -.14*

I substitute

meat w/ meat

substitutes

when

possible .40** 0.02 .34** 0.07 0.11

Correlations between MFL factors, red meat intake, and

substituting meat with meat substitutes (N = 254)




WTP increased

food prices in

order to protect

the environment .59** .17* .26** .37** .37**

WTP increased

food prices in

order to ensure a

standard of

animal welfare .51** .22** .25** .27** .31**

Correlations between MFL factors and willingness to

pay (WTP) (N = 254)



Correlations between MFL factors and organic

and local food purchasing (N = 254)


I buy organic

when possible .47** .37** .29** .33** .37**

I buy local

foods when

possible .43** .43** .23** .41** .39**

Summary & Conclusions

• The MFL is a valid and new construct for

assessing the meaning of food in people’s lives

• The different domains of the MFL are health,

moral, sacred, aesthetic and social

• These domains display different associations

with dietary intake patterns, organic and local

food purchasing behavior, and willingness to

pay higher prices for socially responsible

outcomes

Next Steps

• Explore identity as a possible 6th factor

• Ten country study

India MFL

Goeka, Rozin and Ruby

Eating as social: Sharing food enhances the

experience; It is important for me to sit down and

enjoy a meal with family and friends

Role of religion: Eating is a religious experience;

My diet must adhere to strict moral/religious

principles

Concern about weight:

dieting, feel overweight, hold back

Thank you!

Documents

SNEB Webinar 2016 CULTURE AND THE MEANING … Webinar 2016 CULTURE AND THE MEANING OF FOOD Paul Rozin University of Pennsylvania Naomi Arbit Columbia University Late 20th Century developed