Matching Items (2)
151522-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Health knowledge alone does not appear to lead to sustained healthy behavior, suggesting the need for alternative methods for improving diet. Recent research shows a possible role of moral contexts of food production on diet related behaviors; however no studies have been conducted to specifically explore the relationship between moral

Health knowledge alone does not appear to lead to sustained healthy behavior, suggesting the need for alternative methods for improving diet. Recent research shows a possible role of moral contexts of food production on diet related behaviors; however no studies have been conducted to specifically explore the relationship between moral constructs and food consumption. This study examined the relationship between fast food consumption and two measures of morality, Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ), specifically harm/care and purity/sanctity foundations, and the Ethical Concern in food choice (EC) questionnaire, which includes animal welfare, environment protection, political values, and religion subscales. The study also examined the association between the measures of morality. 739 participants, primarily female (71.4%) and non-Hispanic Whites (76.5%), completed an online survey that included the MFQ, the EC questionnaire, and a brief fast food screener. Participant's morality scores in relation to their fast food consumption were examined first using bivariate ANOVA analysis and then using logistic regression to control for covariates. The MFQ foundations were compared with the EC subscales using Pearson correlation coefficient. Significant bivariate relationships were seen between fast food consumption and the MFQ's purity/sanctity foundation and EC's religion subscales (p<0.05). However these significant bivariate relationships did not hold after controlling for gender, race, university education, and religion in the logistic regression analysis. The foundations of the MFQ were positively correlated with the subscales for the EC questionnaire (r values ranging from .233-.613 (p<0.01). MFQ's purity/sanctity foundation and EC's religion subscale were the two most highly correlated (r=.613, p<0.01) showing that moral intuitions may be associated with eating decision making. The study did not find significant associations between MFQ or EC scores and fast food consumption.
ContributorsMartinelli, Sarah (Author) / Ohri-Vachaspati, Punam (Thesis advisor) / Hekler, Eric B. (Committee member) / Wharton, Christopher (Christopher Mack), 1977- (Committee member) / Johnston, Carol (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013
154701-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
This dissertation explores conditions under which food messages backfire among consumers leading them to engage in behaviors that are opposite to what was intended by the messages. The first essay shows when and how food-related warnings can backfire by putting consumers in a state of reactance. Across three studies, I

This dissertation explores conditions under which food messages backfire among consumers leading them to engage in behaviors that are opposite to what was intended by the messages. The first essay shows when and how food-related warnings can backfire by putting consumers in a state of reactance. Across three studies, I demonstrate that dieters (but not nondieters) who see a one-sided message focusing on the negative aspects of unhealthy food (vs. a one-sided positive or neutral message) increase their desire for and consumption of unhealthy foods. In contrast, dieters who see a two-sided message (focusing on both the negative and positive aspects of unhealthy food) are more likely to comply with the message, thereby choosing fewer unhealthy foods. My research suggests that negatively-worded food warnings (such as PSAs) are unlikely to work – nondieters ignore them, and dieters do the opposite. Although preliminary, the findings also suggest that two-sided messages may offer a better solution. The second essay shows how certain messages advocating for genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can backfire by activating consumers’ thoughts about risk of GMOs. Across four studies, I demonstrate that strong anti-GMO (but not weak anti-GMO) consumers who see a pro-GMO message claiming that GMOs are safe for human consumption (vs. a neutral message) perceive higher risk from GMOs, resulting in more unfavorable attitudes toward GMOs and lower intentions to consume GMOs. My research also suggests that a pro-GMO message claiming that GMOs are beneficial will be more effective in persuading both strong and weak anti-GMO consumers.
ContributorsPham, Nguyen (Author) / Mandel, Naomi (Thesis advisor) / Ketcham, Andrea M (Thesis advisor) / Samper, Adriana (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2016