Achterberg, Cheryl (author), McCullum, Christine (author), and Penn State Nutrition Center, Penn State University, University Park, PA
Format:
Conference paper
Publication Date:
1994
Published:
USA
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 97 Document Number: C07906
Notes:
James F. Evans Collection, Ham, Mimeographed, 1994. 1 p. Presented at the Society for Nutrition Education, Portland, OR, July 16-20, 1994., Because of the increase in one-parent households and the percent of households that contain two working parents,the number fo teenagers that are doing the family food shopping is also increasing. Whether adolescents read and/or understand food labels while shopping is not known. The purpose of this study was to explore food shopping and label use behavior among adolescents at point-of-purchase. The study group consisted of ninety high school-aged adolescents (n=41 males; n=49 females) stratified by shopping experience (n=44 shoppers; n=46 nonshoppers). Participants were given a list of 20 generic food items to select in an actual grocery store setting. An open-ended questionnaire was administered after shopping to determine the reasons given for each food item selection and to evaluate the use of nutrition information for these items. Scores were computed for total number of times reasons were given to select foods. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the use of shopping strategies and nutrition information. Two tailed t-tests were used for group comparisons. The reasons reported most often for selecting foods were: personal preference/taste, custom/habit, and price/cost. Overall, participants were five times more likely to use front label/nutrition claims than nutrient labels for nutrition information. Fat free/low fat, lite/light, and cholesterol free/low cholesterol were the most commonly used claims. Total fat and calories were the most commonly used constituents on nutrient labels. In terms of reasons given for food item selection, females were significantly more likely than males to use front label/nutrition claims (p<0.001) and nutrient labels (p<0.01); shoppers were significantly more likely than nonshoppers to use nutrient labels (p<0.01). Further research that incorporates adolescents from different backgrounds is needed to understand how young consumers use labels at point-of-purchase. Results should be used to develop nutrition education that teaches food shopping and label reading skills.
Finlay, Karen (author), O'Brien, Carolyn (author), Woolcott, Donna (author), and Division of Applied Human Nutrition, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada
Format:
Conference paper
Publication Date:
1994
Published:
USA
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 97 Document Number: C07902
Notes:
James F. Evans Collection, Ham, Mimeographed, 1994. 1 p. Presented at the Society for Nutrition Education, Portland, OR, July 16-20, 1994., Stages of change theory framed this study of grocery shoppers (n=65 adults, 18-44 yr) which categorized them according to intentions to use nutrition labels in food purchase decisions. A scale and scoring algorithm were developed using Prochaska and Diclemente's framework. Respondents were categorized into four stages of behavior change. Results indicated that the majority of respondents (55%) were in maintenance stage, 25% were in action stage, 6& in contemplation stage and 14% in precontemplation stage. Respondents were also asked to rate the Canadian government Guide to Nutrition Labelling. Differences in the rating of perceived value of the Guide were observed between the action and maintenance stage respondents for the overall usefulness of the Guide in assisting them "to make wise food choices". The action stage respondents rate the Guide 2.80 (on a 9 point scale) on this attribute and the maintenance groups rated it higher (p<.01) at a mean of 6.5. The action group's mean rating of 4.80 for "how easy it was to understand the information" in the Guide differed (p<.05) from the rating of the maintenance group (7.2). Similarly, in response to the question: "how well do you understand the definitions of nutrition terms in this Guide?", the action group rated their understanding fo the definitions (5.0) lower (p<.05) than the maintenance group (7.55) and lower than the precontemplation group (7.2). Although small sample sizes limit interpretation, it appears that different interventions may be needed for people at different stages of change.
