Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:41:20.621Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MOTIVES UNDERLYING HEALTHY EATING: USING THE FOOD CHOICE QUESTIONNAIRE TO EXPLAIN VARIATION IN DIETARY INTAKE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 1998

TESSA M. POLLARD ,
ANDREW STEPTOE  and
JANE WARDLE
TESSA M. POLLARD
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, St George's Hospital Medical School, University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London SW17 0RE
ANDREW STEPTOE
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, St George's Hospital Medical School, University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London SW17 0RE
JANE WARDLE
Affiliation:
Imperial Cancer Research Fund Health Behaviour Unit, Institute of Psychiatry, University of London, De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Food Choice Questionnaire (FCQ), which measures the reported importance to a given individual of nine factors underlying food choice, and a food frequency questionnaire, were administered to 241 participants, who were also required to classify their diet as either 'standard', 'low in red meat' or 'vegetarian'. Respondents describing their diet as low in red meat attributed greater importance to health, natural content, weight control and ethical concern in their food choice than did those who described their diets as standard, whereas vegetarians differed significantly from those with a standard diet only on the score for ethical concern. Differences between men and women and between students and non-students in the frequency of consumption of a number of foods were shown to be mediated by differences in the importance attached to FCQ factors. Thus the generally healthier diets of women compared to men appeared to be accounted for by the greater importance attributed by women to weight control, natural content and ethical concerns.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Biosocial Science , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , April 1998 , pp. 165 - 179
Copyright
© 1998 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)