FORCES BEHIND FOOD HABITS AND METHODS OF CHANGE (2024)

B. Channel Theory ^†

1.

General considerations.

The question “why people eat what they eat,” is rather complex, involving both cultural and psychological aspects (such as traditional foods and individual preferences caused by childhood experiences), as well as problems of transportation, availability of food in a particular area, and economic considerations. Therefore the first step in a scientific analysis is the treatment of the problem of where and how the psychological and the non-psychological aspects intersect. This question can be answered, at least in part, by a “channel theory.”

Of paramount importance in this theory is the fact that once food is on the table, most of it is eaten by someone in the family. Therefore one would find the main answer to the question “why people eat what they eat,” if one could answer the question, “how food comes to the table and why.”

Food comes to the table through various channels. One is buying in a store. After the food has been bought, it may be stored in a locker to be taken out later, then to be cooked and brought to the table. Another channel is gardening. There are additional channels such as deliveries, buying food in the country, baking at home, and canning.

a.

Food moves step by step through a channel. The number of steps vary for different channels and for different foods within the same channel. The time food can remain in one position varies. Food in the locker or food after canning may remain for considerable time in the same position. Food may stay just a few hours or days in the pantry or in the icebox.

To find out what food comes to the table, we have to know how many food channels exist for the particular family or group. To understand the changes after certain channels are blocked, we have to know what new channels open up or in which old channels traffic is increased. For instance, when preparing meals at home becomes difficult, eating in restaurants may increase.

Food does not move by its own impetus. Entering or not entering a channel and moving from one section of a channel to another is effected by a “gatekeeper.” For instance, in determining the food that enters the channel “buying” we should know whether the husband, the wife, or the maid does the buying. If it is the housewife, then the psychology of the housewife should be studied, especially her attitudes and behavior in the buying situation.

b.

The forces governing channels. It is very important to realize that the psychological forces which influence the movement of the food may be different for the different channels and for the various sections within the same channel. Each channel offers a certain amount of resistance to movement, and certain forces tend to prevent entrance into the channel. For example, if food is expensive, two forces of opposite direction act on the housewife. She is in a conflict. The force away from spending too much money keeps the food from going into that channel. A second force corresponding to the attractiveness of the food tends to bring it into the channel.

Let us assume that the housewife decides to buy an expensive piece of meat : the food passes the gate. Now the housewife will be very eager not to waste it. The forces formerly opposing each other will now both point in the same direction : the high price that tended to keep the expensive food out is now the reason why the housewife makes sure that through all the difficulties the meat gets safely to the table and is eaten.

2.

The use of various channels.

The question used in the interview to obtain information on the different channels used by the housewife was expressed in this form :

“People obtain food in many different ways. They may buy it in the store, or farm it, or can it. We are interested in finding out what these ways are. In what way does the bread you use come to your table ?”

If several channels, such as buying and baking, were named, the interviewee was asked to estimate the proportion of the amount coming through each. Information was obtained for each of the following categories of food: 1) dairy products (eggs, milk, cheese), 2) fish and meat, 3) vegetables, 4) fruits, 5) desserts (cakes, pies), 6) bread (all forms). If different foods in the same category, such as eggs and milk, came through different channels, this was recorded also.

The results show that in the five groups studied, each of the foods, except desserts, is obtained through the buying channel considerably more frequently than through any other channel, as shown in Table 1.

However, there is a difference between groups in shopping habits (Table 2). On the whole there is a tendency to buy less than three times a week. The high income group is the only one which tends to buy more frequently than three times a week. The well-to-do housewife may not be as concerned with economizing on energy and time and is more likely to have a maid.

For all groups together, about a third of the vegetables and fruits are canned at home. There seems to be no relation between income levels and percentage of families who can. However, there is a cultural difference. All of the Czech families do some canning ; the difference between them and every other group is significant with the exception of the low income group (Table 3). This, along with evidence to be presented later, suggests that the Czech group is more self-sufficient than any of the other groups. We find the amount of food canned to be greater in the two lowest income groups and the Czech than in the two highest income groups (Table 4). The most frequently canned vegetable for all the groups is tomatoes. The most frequently canned fruit is peaches. There are also differences in the type of food canned by the various groups : jams and jellies are canned by a significantly greater percentage of families from the middle and high income groups than from other groups. Noodles were canned only by Czechs ; one woman showed the interviewer hundreds of quarts of noodles.

These results may be interpreted to mean that the motive for canning varies among the income groups. The lower income groups seem to be more guided by financial considerations and can essential foods whereas the high income groups can for taste and possibly status.

Table 3 shows that the two lowest income groups and the Czechs do significantly more gardening than the other two groups.

Lockers are used by almost 50% of the high income group, but by no families in any of the other groups.

The above discussion on food channels shows that to some extent financial circ*mstances and cultural values do influence the extent to which various food channels are used and the uses to which they are put. Thus, the lower income groups are able to effect savings by canning more of the essential foods they eat and by having more food gardens. The higher income groups are able to maintain lockers and have milk deliveries. The Czech group, resourceful and strongly motivated toward self-sufficiency, does the most canning and gardening.

3.

Who controls the channel.

It is important to know what members of the family control the various channels, as any changes will have to be effected through those persons. In all our groups the wife definitely controls all the channels except that of gardening, and even there the husband seldom controls this channel alone. Children are never mentioned as controlling any of the channels, although they undoubtedly influence the decisions indirectly through their rejection of food put before them.

C. The Psychology of the Gatekeeper

To understand and influence food habits we have to know in addition to the objective food channels and objective availability, the psychological factors influencing the person who controls the channels.

The psychology of the gatekeeper includes a great variety of factors which we do not intend to cover fully. The factors might be classified under two headings, one pertaining to the cognitive structure, i.e., terms in which people think and speak about food ; and the other pertaining to their motivation, e.g., the system of values behind their choice of food.

1.

The cognitive structure.

See Also

What Is Nutrition? - Modes Of Nutrition In Living OrganismsWhat's on your table? How America's diet has changed over the decadesWe buy healthier food than in previous generationsUnderstanding traditional and modern eating: the TEP10 framework

The cognitive structure deals with what is considered “food,” “food for us,” or food for other members of the family, with meal patterns, and with the significance of the eating situation.

a.

Food outside and within consideration. Physical availability is not the only factor which determines availability of food to the individual. One of the determining factors is “cultural availability.” There are many edible materials which people never even consider for use because they do not think of them as food for themselves.

If we consider as food all that which some human beings actually eat and like to eat, then live grasshoppers would have to be included in the category of food. If, however, we ask what people in the United States consider as food, live grasshoppers would be excluded. In other words, the psychological area of food in our culture is only a small part of the objectively edible food, and could be represented diagrammatically as a small restricted region within the total region of all objectively edible food.

In some parts of our country peanuts or cheese are considered food for animals but not for human beings. A farm girl in Iowa refused to eat cottage cheese because it is something for the pigs. Even within the area of food in our culture, the boundary between food for human beings and food for animals varies.

Even the food that is recognized as that for human beings still may not be accepted as food for one's own family. For example, kidneys or certain viscera are considered by some as food only for poor people, or champagne a drink for the very rich. In other words, only a certain part of the area recognized as “food for human beings” is recognized as “food for us.” To find out what is considered “food for us” by different groups is one of the first objectives of studying food habits.

b.

Food for husbands and children. Within the area of “food for us” one might distinguish “food for the husband” and “food for children” as special subareas. The fact that the housewife controls the channels does not mean that she is not influenced by the preferences of the husband, or what she thinks is good for him and the children. Their indirect influence is shown in answer to the questions:

1.

What things do you cook when your husband is home that you do not cook when he is away ?

2.

What things do you cook specially for your children that you would not cook otherwise ?

The most typical husband's food (Table 5) is meat, which is mentioned by 39 per cent of the families, a significantly ^* greater per cent than those mentioning vegetables. Meat ranks first as a husband's food for all the subgroups except the Negro group where it ranks third, and vegetables and desserts precede it. On the other hand, the most typical children's food is vegetables, mentioned by one-third of the families having children. Vegetables rank first as a children's food for all the groups except the Negro group where it ranks second and desserts come first. Potatoes are served more frequently as a special dish for the husband than for the children.

This indirect control by other members of the family is one of the many aspects of the psychology of the gatekeeper.

c.

“Meal patterns.” Other aspects of the cognitive structure of food are the difference between breakfast food, food for lunch, and for dinner; the distinction between main dish and dessert; the concept of balanced meal and of “leftover.”

The housewife was asked: “In what terms do you think of a meal: what goes into a breakfast ? lunch ? dinner ?” As an answer she might say, “At dinner we have some kind of meat, a vegetable, salad, and a dessert,” or “For lunch we either warm up leftovers, or try to have some other hot dish, as soup, with sandwiches and milk.”

Because of the limitations of space, the lists of foods mentioned by each group will not be given, but some outstanding differences between the groups will be described. Cereal, caffeins (coffee, tea), eggs, and bread or toast are the most generally accepted breakfast foods by all the groups. Fruits are mentioned by three-fourths of the high and middle groups, but by only one-fourth of the Czech, Negro, and low groups.

As lunch foods, fruits and milk are mentioned more frequently by the high group, and soups more often by the low group. Salads, sandwiches, and fruits are much more characteristic of the high and middle income groups than of the others. Leftovers are used by more than half the Czech group, by about one-third of the high, low, and Negro groups, and one-sixth of the middle group.

Lunch is apparently a “pick-up” meal more than either of the other meals. Whereas approximately 75% of the high and middle groups claimed to plan their lunches, only 22 to 29% of the other three groups did. The others said they ate whatever happened to be in the house.

Meat, vegetables, potatoes, and dessert are commonly accepted by all groups as foods for dinner. Salads are mentioned much more frequently by the two highest income groups (69% as compared with 29%) while bread is listed less often, and butter not at all ; 25% of the three lower groups name butter, and 33% name bread. It is likely that bread and butter are considered a real part of the dinner in these three groups, and only accessories by the two higher income groups.

One outstanding dimension of a culture is the degree of hom*ogeneity of the individuals within it. A quantitative measure was developed which describes the degree of hom*ogeneity in respect to food habits. Obviously, the more divergent the responses to a given question, the more heterogeneous the culture since more leeway for individual preference is permitted. When a culture is exceedingly strong in its dictates individual differences will be minimized. An index which ranges from 1/N to 1.00 (N being the number of people in the group) was thus devised to reflect these relationships.^*

Table 6 shows the hom*ogeneity indices (H.I.) for the three meals. The larger the H.I., the greater the similarity among the foods mentioned by the members of one group. This in turn can be interpreted as meaning that the culture defines the “meal pattern” more precisely than in those cases when the H.I.'s are smaller. There is considerably less agreement about the pattern for lunch than for either breakfast or dinner in all except the high group. This indicates that the families of the high group agree more than do the families of the other two groups as to what foods characterize lunch. In regard to dinner, there is considerably greater agreement among the members of the middle group than among the others.

The degree of hom*ogeneity of meal patterns may be of particular importance in regard to changes in food habits. There are indications that, regardless of working hours, people eat according to the clock.⁴ A worker waking at noon to go to work will eat a lunch meal rather than a breakfast, and nutritional elements which he ordinarily obtained through breakfast foods may be deficient in his diet. Moreover, since the results indicate that the lunches of all but the high group are the least “structured” of the three meals, it would follow that other foods might be fitted most easily into the lunch pattern.

d.

The meaning of the eating situation. One important point is the feeling of group belongingness created by eating in the company of others. At a banquet, eating means something very different from eating after a long period of starvation, and may be classified as a social function rather than as a means of survival. On the whole, eating is usually a more complicated function than just taking nourishment.

The psychological meaning of eating is closely related to group situations. Eating with fellow-workers in a factory is something different from eating at the family table or eating in a restaurant. The “eating group” influences greatly the eating conduct and the eating ideology of the individual. One can say that every eating group has a specific eating culture.

2.

Motivation.

We will discuss the various factors in motivation under three major headings ; namely, a) values (motives, ideologies) behind food selection, b) food needs, and c) obstacles to be overcome.

a.

Values behind food selection. There is more than one value which acts as a frame of reference for the individual choosing foods. These values have not always the same weight for the individual ; they may change, as during wartime, and in addition may be different in the restaurant and at home.

The earlier, exploratory phase of the study indicated that at least four frames of reference are used in evaluating foods ; namely, expense, health, taste, and status. It is important to know the relative strengths of these different frames of reference for various groups of people and also how they vary for different foods.

In regard to the system of values, three questions may be asked: 1) What are the values for this group? 2) What is the relative weight of each value? 3) How are specific foods linked with certain values?

1.

What are the values? The usual informant is often unable to define the values which govern him because they are not thought of explicitly, but are part of a non-verbal implicit system of reference. Therefore we used two indirect methods for uncovering the value scales of the interviewee. The first consisted of watching carefully for all offhand comments to one of the following frames of reference:

a.

Money, e.g., “Our family loves oranges, but we have stopped buying them. They are too expensive.”

b.

Health, e.g., “My children have to have a quart of milk a day for their teeth.”

c.

Taste, e.g., “I don't serve desserts at lunch time. We're not very fond of desserts.”

d.

Status, e.g., “We have our meats sent from Chicago.”

Health considerations might be subdivided into the general idea of “good for you” or the more specific ideas of “good for teeth” or “vitamins.” The values might be considered relative to the person himself or to other members of the family.

The interviewer noted such side remarks with a code letter in her running account of the interview, and wherever possible recorded the exact statement.

This method has recognized limitations in that an interviewee may take a value so for granted that she may not mention it or may be unable to mention it in the particular interviewing situation. For instance, the status factors are probably much stronger than they appear to be. However, the results obtained by this method show clear differences between the subgroups and present a coherent picture.

2.

Relative weight of different frames of reference. There are significant differences in the frequency with which various frames of reference are mentioned both between the groups and within each group (Table 7).

Money and health came up significantly more often than other values for the group as a whole and for each subgroup except the high income group, whose taste plays an important role. Money is mentioned less frequently by the high group than by the middle, low, Negro (significant below the 5% level), and the Czech groups (significant at the 8% level). It is more frequently mentioned by the middle than by the Czech group (significant at the 2% level) despite the fact that they are at approximately the same income level.

Health is mentioned significantly more often by the high and the Czech groups than by the low and Negro groups ; significantly more frequently by the middle group than by the Negro group ; there is no significant difference between the middle and the low group.

Within the groups the following differences can be observed. In the high income group, health is the predominant value, with money and taste at a lower, approximately equal level. In the middle group money is the predominant frame, with health considerably lower, and taste a great deal lower. This is also true of the low income group except that the differential between money and health is even greater, money being by far the most important consideration. This picture is in general the same for the Negro group. The Czech group falls between the high and middle groups, in that their mention of money and health are approximately equal, with taste a great deal lower.

3.

Values and specific foods. In order to know which food will be chosen one has to know, in addition to the general value system and the relative weight of each frame of reference, exactly where each of the foods in question stands on each of the value scales. The following questions (asked at the end of the interview) were designed to bring out the relationship between value frames and certain foods :

a.

What dishes would you be sure to serve if you were very short on money?

b.

What dishes would you be sure to serve if your only consideration was health?

c.

What dishes would you be sure to serve if your only consideration was taste?

d.

What dishes would you be sure to serve if your only consideration was to put on a “fuss” and have a company dinner?

e.

What foods would you be sure to serve if your only consideration was to fill up some people.

Table 8 shows the results for the total group in regard to their mention of meat dishes. Figure 1 gives the profiles for three specific meats.

Fowl is almost never mentioned as a dish to have when short on money, or as a most healthful, or most filling food, but is mentioned by 40% of the group as a dish to have for a company dinner. This can be interpreted as meaning that in May and June, 1942 the housewife was not likely to buy fowl if she considered only money or health, but was likely to do so when buying for a company dinner. At the present time these considerations seem to have changed as a result of fowls not being rationed.

The position of the various foods on the taste scale was investigated, in addition, by asking the housewife, “What dishes are your family especially fond of ?” This form was chosen because foods that are considered favorite by the entire family are more apt to reflect the effect of the general culture than the foods favored by an individual.

The average number of favorite dishes per family was approximately six in each group. As Table 9 shows, meats, desserts, and vegetables are the most frequent favorites in all groups except the Czechs who name bread significantly more often than desserts. That this category, bread, is so high for the Czechs is probably due to their large consumption of kolatches, a Czech dish made of dough similar to bread and stuffed with meat or fruit.

Meat tends to be less mentioned as a favorite dish with decreasing income level. Vegetable dishes show the opposite trend and are mentioned significantly more often by the low and Negro group than by the high income group. This may be interpreted as supporting the hypothesis that people like what they eat rather than eat what they like. Our data do not give support to the widely prevalent idea that favorites are generally those foods which are difficult to obtain.

The housewife was asked, “What foods do you think are essential to a daily diet?” This question was introduced to obtain an over-all reaction of the housewife to the importance of foods within the diet. The degree to which a food is considered essential might be of particular importance in planning changes of food habits.

As shown in Table 10, vegetables and milk are the most frequently mentioned essential foods in all groups. Bread is considered essential by significantly more families from the low income group, the Czechs, and the Negroes, than from the high income group. Fruits are regarded as essential by four-fifths of the high and middle groups and by less than half of the three other groups ; eggs by two-thirds of the high and middle groups and by about one-third of the others.

b.

Food needs. It is important to recognize that the relative weight of the various frames of reference changes from day to day in line with the changing needs. These needs might change because of satiation, of variation in the situation, or because of cultural forces toward diet variations.

It is in line with the basic phenomena of all needs that continued consumption of the same type of food leads to a decrease in the attractiveness of that particular food. This is a powerful force toward daily and seasonal cycles in food choice. It affects different foods in different degrees; for instance, it is smaller for bread than for meat. Willerman's study ⁶ indicates, however, that even in the case of bread, which is something like a “background” food, the desire for variety can be noticeable.

The general level of food satisfaction, too, affects the attractiveness of food and changes the relative weight of the various value scales. If less food is within reach of a person the relative weight of the taste scale tends to diminish in favor of the “essential” aspects of food. If the food basket is pretty well filled the housewife can afford to be more discriminating in her choices than when it is empty.

The situational factors are fairly obvious: when the housewife is short on money at the end of the month or when she is preparing a meal for guests, the corresponding frames of reference will increase in weight.

The continued advocation of a “rich and varied diet” during the last decade has strengthened cultural forces toward day to day variations in foods.

c.

Obstacles to be overcome. The interview did not approach the problem of obstacles along the various channels in a specific way, although these problems must be taken into account in planning changes of food habits. Canned foods, for instance, are frequently preferred because of the little time necessary for preparation. The extent to which such obstacles as difficulty in transportation, lack of domestic help, time necessary for preparing and cooking influence the choice of the gatekeeper depends on his particular circ*mstances.

3.

Conflict.

a.

Buying as a decision situation. We have discussed a number of forces which act toward or away from choosing a given food. Their simultaneous presence in the actual choice situation creates conflict.

In general a conflict situation arises when there is, on the one hand, a drive to engage in a certain activity (as buying food) and on the other hand, a force opposing that activity. An increase in prices, acting as a resistance to buying the foods which people have grown accustomed to, enhances the conflict in the food area for all groups. Families of low income are likely to experience more conflict in buying food than those of high income since their freedom in buying the foods they want is restricted by their limited finances. Members from the middle income group, however, may experience greater conflict than those from the low income group in so far as they are psychologically a marginal group. They strive to achieve the social status of the financially more able and at the same time fear dropping back to the level of poor people.

The degree to which a proposed change of food habits happens to touch a food area of high or low conflict is one of the factors determining the degree of emotionality with which people will react.

b.

Conflict in a situation of rising food prices.

1.

Situation at time of study. At the time of this study in the Iowa town, sugar rationing was just beginning ; there were very few shortages in other commodities. However, prices of foodstuffs had gone up without a comparable rise in income and people were especially conscious of the rising cost of food.

Three questions concerning food retrenchment were asked: “1) Which foods are you already cutting because of the increase in the price of food ? 2) If prices continue to rise, which foods might you cut? 3) Even if prices continue to rise, which foods are you particularly anxious not to cut?”

As might be expected (Table 11) the high income group has cut fewer foods than any other group. The next in line are the Czechs. Both groups have cut significantly less than the middle, low, and Negro groups. The middle group has cut almost the same number as the low group, both rather heavily, namely, almost 2 1/2 foods per person.

In regard to foods they might cut the Czechs list more than any other group. At the same time they list fewer foods which they do not want to cut than any other group. Their willingness to get along on fewer foods may be partially due to their past experience. Their attitudes were expressed succinctly in the comments of several of the housewives : “In the old country we were used to getting along on much less. It takes more time to fix it, but we can do it.” “I'd make everything go farther. I always had to do that in the old country—stretch things as far as they could go and do without meat except once a week.” “In the last war we cut down on sugar, mixed butter with oleo, and stretched meat by using gravies and soups, and we could do it again.”

The low income groups can be assumed to be using a smaller variety of foods and consequently would realistically mention fewer foods which they might cut. The high group, on the other hand, in spite of their greater variety of foods, does not expect to cut much, probably because of their wider margin of financial security.

2.

General intensity of conflict. The following scale of conflict ratings was used in determining the total conflict rating for each individual. The term “food” refers to one of the 25 food categories used in classifying foods throughout this study.^*

1.

Given to foods mentioned in answer to only one of the three questions.

2.

Given to foods mentioned in answer to both questions 1 and 2.

3.

Given to foods mentioned in answer to both questions 2 and 3.

4.

Given to foods mentioned in answer to both questions 1 and 3.

The reasoning behind this arbitrarily established rating “scale” was that there is some conflict associated with a given food if it is mentioned in answer to any one of the questions, but that the conflict shows a progressive increase 1) if the food has already been cut and may be cut still further, 2) if the food might be cut but is one which the individual does not want to cut, and still more 3) if the food is one which has already been cut but is one which the individual does not want to cut. There may be some differences in the conflict expressed by an answer to any one of the three questions (rating of 1), but such a distinction would involve a finer scale than was thought necessary for the purpose of this analysis.

The maximum conflict rating that could be obtained by any one individual would be 100, that is, all 25 foods with a conflict rating of 4. Such a score is practically unattainable, however, since no individual has cut every type of food. The scores of the group studied ranged from 0 to 13 and are shown in Table 12.

The average conflict rating (Table 12) for the middle group is significantly higher than that for the high group and for the Czech group. The high income group, being the most secure financially, would be expected to feel the effects of the rise in prices the least and to have made the least changes because of them. The middle group feels the rise in prices most for several reasons : 1) they are in a marginal position ; the future holds more of a threat for the middle class ; in the effort to resist lowering their social status they might economize first in those areas which are socially least prominent, such as food, thus keeping up appearances ; 2) they are accustomed to depending less upon home canning and other economizing measures than are the lower income groups ; 3) their dominant frame of reference is money (see Table 7) which is mentioned spontaneously by them almost as frequently as by the lower income groups. At the same time they emphasize health almost as much as the high group and much more than the lower group. Therefore, a rise in prices can more easily bring about a rise of conflict for this group than for the others.

3.

Conflict in regard to special foods. The relationship of the conflict rating to specific food categories is shown in Table 13.

For the total grcoup, meat has a significantly higher conflict rating than that of any other food. Its conflict rating, however, varies considerably among the groups, being lowest for the high group and highest for the Czechs and middle group. Although the Czechs are relatively willing to cut meat consumption, they show strong conflict in this area. The position of meat in the rank orders of conflict foods increases from third place in the high group to first place in the low group.

Vegetables and milk are second and third highest in the total group. The change in the position of potatoes from seventh in the middle group to second in the low group can be considered an indication of their position in the diet of these two groups. The great importance of potatoes to the low income group is substantiated by such comments as : “Have to have potatoes at least once a day,” or “If I cooked three meals a day without potatoes (at each meal), there would be quite a fuss.”

Table 14 gives the conflict ratings for the total group and the frequency of the various food categories in answer to each of the three questions regarding food retrenchment.

The three foods which produce the greatest conflict, namely, meat, vegetables, and milk, are also those which are considered most essential. Meat has been by far the most frequently cut food. Although it is considered an essential food, it is one of the most expensive, and cutting it could produce a greater saving than cutting any other food.

Only those foods which are considered to be essential are among those which the people say they do not wish to cut. Those which are not considered essential, such as desserts and sweets, are mentioned by very few in answer to this question.