Accessorizing with Food:
Cooking Shows and Cultural Values
Devon M. Malene
A Capstone Project
Presented to The Faculty of the School of Communication In Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Masters of Arts in
Public Communication
Supervisor: Prof. Lauren Feldman
April 2011
1
COPYRIGHT ©
Devon M. Malene
2011
2
Acknowledgments
* Image: winnond / FreeDigitalPhotos.net
I love food – eating it, cooking it, talking about it, watching it on television – food,
anyway you serve it, is all right with me. As such, this capstone was a dream topic for me.
Granted at times, it was exhausting, mind numbing and hunger inducing, but at the end of the
day, there is nothing else I would have preferred to write about for my master’s thesis. With that
being said, I must thank my capstone professor, Lauren Feldman, who was unfailingly
supportive and enthusiastic about my topic. I so appreciated her guidance, patience and
encouragement. Also, my mom, who was always willing to read my paper and offer critiques,
even when the draft grew to more than 50 pages. Thank you for always supporting me. To
Adam, for enduring countless hours of food television, while I researched and then wrote my
paper, although, I know you love watching these shows as much as I do. To my friends, for
humoring me while I waxed poetically about the meaning of food shows on television. And to
all my friends and family, who so agreeably took my survey and passed it on to others. I would
not have been able to do this without you!
3
Abstract
This article explores the popularity of food programs and whether or not this genre could
be used as a health communication tool to disseminate healthy eating advice. Surprisingly little
academic research has been conducted on the public’s attraction to food programming, what it
says about the role of food in society, and whether or not its viewing audience would be
interested in consuming healthy food recommendations. The study investigates these topics
through a combination of social science theories; a review of popular media; and, a survey of
food show viewers. The results suggest that the more one watches food programs and develops
an affinity for favorite shows and chefs, the more open that individual is to receiving healthy
eating recommendations from those shows and chefs. This has important implications for
promoting wellness and nutrition through popular media content.
4
Introduction
For a growing number of Americans, cooking, an activity that was once an obligation
has become a spectator sport. They consume information about food the way baseball
fans hoard statistics…because it is easier than ever to eat without cooking.
– The New York Times, 1989
Food. It is not just for dinner anymore. There is now food politics, food issues, food
crisis, Food Inc., and the Food Network. One can talk about food, read about food, eat food and
watch food being cooked, all within the span of a single day. Information on food and
restaurants – in some form or another – permeates the airwaves, the Internet and many major
print publications, be it books or magazines or newspapers. Food sells. But, other than the fact
that we all have to eat, why has food become so popular in our collective conversations? Former
New York Times restaurant critic Frank Bruni says, “food is an aspect of culture that, because
everyone necessarily participates in it to some degree, is more egalitarian than, say, ballet, or
opera, or even theater. It's easier and less intimidating to join the fray and weigh in with an
opinion” (Haskell, 2010). Everyone, it seems, has something to say about food.
Terms like, “braise, bake, broil and baste,” which were once only heard in the kitchen,
are now a normal part of water cooler/happy-hour/book club discussions. Cooking is no longer
seen as domestic drudgery; it is now a form of entertainment and a way to connect. Food brings
people together and, at the most basic level, it is a simple and friendly conversation starter.
Whether it is a discussion about what is currently on your plate or where you plan to eat next
week, food is common ground. Moreover, with the selection of food programming boiling over
on television, it is easier than ever to find an appetizing food program. While the Food Network
still dominates the cooking show medium, Bravo, the Travel Channel, the Public Broadcasting
5
Station (PBS), The Learning Channel (TLC), the network television stations, and the recently
launched Cooking Channel (sister station to the Food Network) all fight for viewership. But it is
not just images of delectable dinners that entice us to sit in front of the television instead of at
our kitchen tables; many viewers tune in because they want to see what their favorite celebrity
chef is cooking up for dinner. Chef extraordinaire Emeril Lagasse, along with other celebrity
chefs such as Rachel Ray, Bobby Flay, Giada De Laurentis and Paula Deen, have made a once
maternal obligation an entertaining pastime for millions of Americans.
Yet, even as more and more people equip themselves with food knowledge to share with
friends and family, they also seem caught in a lifestyle quandary. While verbally projecting an
image of culinary hauteur, many Americans are also cooking less and eating processed food
more (Cutler, 2003). Call it a consumer coincidence or a culinary conundrum, but as America’s
gastronomic interest has expanded, so has its waistline. The question is then, what can be done
about it? Can food entertainment also be used as food education and will Americans be open to
health-conscious messages, or are they only interested in food programming if it is a guilt-free,
leisurely pursuit?
The Center for Disease Control and Prevention reports that more than 66 percent of
Americans are overweight or obese, and the prevalence of obesity has more than doubled among
adults and has tripled among children and adolescents from 1980 to 2004 (Office of the United
States Surgeon General (OSG), 2010). The OSG has warned that the number of overweight and
obese citizens in the United States has reached epidemic proportions and if this problem is not
confronted, America’s weight problem could cause as much preventable disease and death as
cigarette smoking (2010). But why have Americans continued to pack on the pounds even as
food information is easier to access than ever before? Some researchers suggest that the battle of
6
the bulge has to do with more people living a sedentary lifestyle, increased caloric intake (which
can be blamed in part on ballooning portion sizes), unhealthy environments with few healthy
food options, the rising cost of food items, confusion about food labels, lack of coherent
messaging about nutrition, and a lack of understanding or concern about weight gain (Prentice
and Jebb, 2003; Unger, 2004; Chandon and Wansink, 2007; Montiero, 2010). In 2003, Harvard
health economist David Cutler conducted a study on why Americans have become more obese.
His research concluded that mass food packaging, which includes vacuum packing, improved
preservatives, deep-freezing, and microwaves, can be blamed for increasing consumer
consumption. Prices on items like frozen foods, soda and potato chips are increasing at half the
rate of fresh fruits and vegetables and their “ready-to-eat” availability means we can eat more of
these foods any time we choose (Cutler, 2003). No longer do we have to cook our own meals or
prepare snacks by hand. We can pick them up from the gas station.
A recent article by Carlos Montiero (2010) in the Journal of the World Public Health
Nutrition Association supports Cutler’s 2003 research by highlighting the “ultraprocessing” of
food as the true culprit. Montiero argues that, “the rapid rise in consumption of ultra-processed
food and drink products is the main dietary cause of the concurrent rapid rise in obesity and
related diseases throughout the world” (p. 243). He goes on to say:
they are formulated to be sensually appealing, hyper-palatable, and habit-forming, by the
use of sophisticated mixtures of cosmetic and other additives, and state-of-the-art-craft
packing and marketing. Further, ultra-processed products are ‘convenient’ – meaning,
ready-to-eat (or drink) or ready-to-heat (p. 245).
The “hyper-palatable” and “habit-forming” effects that Montiero identifies are points
made by other researchers (Prentice and Jebb, 2003; Currie, Della Vigna, Moretti, and Pathania,
2009). They believe humans are unable to self-regulate highly dense foods, like the kind people
7
consume at fast-food restaurants. Regular consumers engage in “passive over-consumption”
because high-energy foods challenge basic human appetite control systems (Montiero, 2003).
This naturally results in weight-gain. So not only do Americans have easier access to high
caloric food, but eating these offerings regularly leads to an addiction-like craving for them.
But how is it that, in a time when we can observe culinary masters such as chefs Eric
Ripert and Lidia Bastianich, both of whom have shows on PBS, and take in cooking advice from
the likes of Tom Colicchio and Anthony Bourdain on Bravo’s Top Chef, and even receive
instruction from Rachel Ray and Ina Garten on the Food Network, American audiences still
prefer to heat up Hamburger Helper rather than make a home-cooked meal for their family?
Food journalist Michael Pollan phrases the question this way,
How are we so eager to watch other people browning beef cubes on screen but so less
eager to brown them ourselves? For the rise of Julia Child as a figure of cultural
consequence – along with Alice Waters and Mario Batali and Martha Stewart and Emeril
Lagasse – has paradoxically coincided with rise of fast food, home-meal replacements
and the decline and fall of everyday home cooking (p. 3)
It seems that the more we have learned about food, the less inclined we are to cook it, and
we have seen this play out, in a very unhealthy manner, around our waistlines. The average
American spends only 27 minutes a day on food preparation, which is less than half the time
most people spend watching a cooking show episode (Pollan, 2009). Then the question
becomes, why do people spend so much time watching other people cook, often more time than
they spend cooking for themselves? Why do people watch food programming at all?
The purpose of this paper was to examine why people watch food programs, to study how
this might affect American’s relationship with food, and to determine if cooking shows are a
viable method to promote healthier eating habits, which could, in turn, help combat obesity. To
accomplish this, I first reviewed existing literature on what affects media choices with regards to
8
cooking programs. There are a number of theories as to why people watch food programming
and this paper attempted to codify and explain those ideas through a discussion of different
social science theories, through a comparison of cooking shows and similar television
programming genres, and through an examination of the existing literature on cooking show
programs. I also discuss how revised media content could positively affect the growing obesity
trend and I highlight certain health communication theories that could be used to support a more
healthful message in the food programming content. Finally, I conducted an online survey to
determine what attracts people to food shows and if they would be open to and/or affected by
health-conscious messages. The overall goal was to further the understanding of society’s
relationship with food and food programs, and how this genre could be used to communicate
more nutritious food messages. To begin, however, it is necessary to know a bit of food
programming’s history in order to determine where it is going.
Watching What We Eat
America’s current fixation on food and food lifestyle is far from new. Food television
actually has its roots in radio broadcasting, and even before the venerable Julia Child graced the
airwaves, cooking luminaries James Beard (who is credited with establishing the gourmet
American food identity) and Dione Lucas (the first female graduate of Le Courdon Bleu) were
the first to test the American appetite for television cooking programs (Collins, 2009). It is
Child, however, who is most credited with upgrading the culture of food in America, and The
French Chef, which began airing on PBS in 1963, is the first cooking show most people recall
when discussing the food media genre (Pollan, 2009). Whereas her predecessors were focused
9
solely on teaching, Child wanted to “popularize” cooking and her impact can still be felt in the
way Americans eat, shop and cook (Collins, 2009, p.79).
Child is accredited with, among other things, making French food accessible to American
housewives by making it seem normal to cook a quiche or beef bourguignon for dinner. Child
invited her audience into the kitchen and expected them to replicate what she was doing in their
own home. She was a “transitional figure, a woman and a misfit…she would become the
epitome of the TV chef” (Ray, 2007). Child’s shows, which were instructional, were also
incredibly entertaining and she emphasized that to learn, people must also be having fun (Ray,
2007). It was this dual devotion to proper instruction and entertainment that made her show
different from what is currently aired on cable television, which critics contend is
disproportionately oriented toward entertainment.
This simple recasting of food programming from straight instruction to spectator-like
entertainment is, however, what helped make the Food Network such a success. The Food
Network, which was launched in 1993, struggled before it shifted its programming emphasis
from people who love to cook to people who love to eat (Collins, 2009; Pollan 2009). The refocusing in the late 1990s cast a wider net over potential audiences and enabled it to establish a
dedicated audience. The Food Network is now seen in over 100 million homes across the United
States and it can be found in over 150 countries, including regions in India, Africa, Asia and the
United Kingdom (Foodnetwork.com, 2010). The Food Network’s boilerplate language says it
“is a unique lifestyle network…that strives to be way more than cooking. [It] is committed to
exploring new and different ways to approach food – through pop culture, competition,
adventure, and travel – while also expanding its repertoire of technique-based information”
(Foodnetwork.com, 2010). The Food Network has made it possible to watch food television all
10
day, every day (de Solier, 2005) and many Americans are doing just that (Harris Interactive,
2010). De Solier (2005) offers up the explanation that while food television is part of the
broader trend toward lifestyle programming, “contemporary culinary television can be thought of
as a generically hybrid and diverse field” that “challenge the traditional distinction between
factual and entertainment programming” (p.466). The field of food television includes straight
cooking shows (ex: 30 Minute Meals with Rachel Ray); lifestyle shows (ex: Sandra Lee’s SemiHomemade); docu-soaps (ex: Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution); travel shows (ex: No
Reservations); reality cooking shows (ex: Top Chef); renovation shows (ex: Restaurant
Impossible); game shows (ex: The Next Food Network Stars); and melodramas (ex: DC
Cupcakes) (De Solier, 2005).
The increase in food programming also contributed to an increase in food writers who
discuss and hypothesize what attracts so many viewers to cooking shows (Poniewozik, 2001;
Buford, 2006; Pollan, 2009). These articles provide useful commentary on the evolving nature
of food programming and their continuing attraction to viewers; however, it is first necessary to
begin with a review of relevant social science theories to establish a theoretical basis for
understanding the popularity of the food medium.
Uses and Gratifications Theory
The uses and gratifications theory was developed around the idea that an object is best
defined by its use. Rubin (2009) believes that individual behavior is purposive and that people,
by and large, selectively choose the media they wish to participate in, based on their expectations
and desires. Therefore, uses and gratifications, at its simplest, is a theory of how people use the
media to fulfill specific gratifications. Scholars have argued that the uses and gratifications
11
theory is one of the best ways to study why certain new media genres – be it a pop culture
phenomena (like reality television) or a technological mass media break-through – resonate with
the public (Ruggiero, 2000).
Katz (1973) laid the groundwork in favor of employing uses and gratification for the
study of consumer mass communication choices. Using a representative sample of some 1500
Israeli adults, he created a list of needs that could be satisfied by some form of mass
communication – radio listening, TV viewing, newspaper reading, book reading and movie
going. Katz’s article explains a functional approach to mass communication, citing early
communications research by Cantril (1942) that developed the “gratifications” method to explain
what attracts audiences to certain media content. Namely, individuals use certain media to
satisfy their social and psychological needs and this “uses and gratifications” model can be
further used to understand “media effects.” Katz goes on to explain that people “bend the
media” for their own particular uses and that the needs the media satisfy are influenced by an
individual’s social role and psychological predisposition (Katz, 1973). This study was
significant because it established that the media does not overpower the audience; rather, people
use the media for their own specific purposes.
The modern view of uses and gratification is built on five assumptions that underscore
the role and initiative of the audience. The first is that individuals’ communication behavior is
“goal-directed, purposive and motivated.” This means that people take an active role in choosing
their media. The second assumption is that an individual selects media to satisfy particular
needs. This could mean that a person is looking for information, answers to questions, a
diversion or any host of desires. Third, “social and psychological factors guide, filter or mediate
behavior,” which implies that individual mood and disposition affect media choices and how the
12
message is processed. The fourth assumption points out that the media has to compete with
varied forms of communication or practical alternatives to gratify individual needs. Last, the
fifth assumption is the notion that although interpersonal communication is often more
influential than the media, this is not always the case. The media may affect individual
characteristics and that person’s reliance on certain media channels (Rubin, 2009).
Papachrissi and Mendelson (2007) employed the uses and gratification theory to examine
why individuals choose to watch reality television. Papacharissi and Mendelson’s results
indicated the most common motives for watching reality shows were that they are a habitual way
to pass the time and that certain aspects of reality entertainment were appealing. This result was
consistent with other findings that state viewers are intrigued by the entertainment and novelty
value of the programs as compared to fictional story lines. Given that many cooking shows are
characteristic of reality television as defined by Nabi (2003), in that the chefs represent
themselves and the programs are often filmed in their living or working environment for the
primary purpose of viewer entertainment, this research provides insight into what individual
pleasures or needs are met by watching cooking shows.
Nabi (2006) conducted two studies designed to compare predictors of enjoyment of
reality-based and fictional television programming. These studies were designed to elaborate on
uses and gratifications by linking it to the concept of enjoyment. In these studies, Nabi laid out
six subgenres of reality television programming, three of which can be readily applied to cooking
shows – game show/competition, talent and informational. By looking at the survey results for
these three subgenres, it is possible to derive potential uses and gratifications. Nabi reported that
game show/competition (examples could be Hell’s Kitchen or the Iron Chef) offered gratification
in “judging others” and were rated high in dramatic challenge, negative results and suspense. All
13
evoked positive emotions. Talent shows (an example could be Food Network Challenge)
promoted judgment of others, parasocial relationships and were rated as dramatic and
suspenseful. Finally, informational programs (examples could be Good Eats or the Barefoot
Contessa) provided several gratifications including parasocial relationships, voyeurism, selfawareness, judging others, and learning.
Nabi’s 2006 results were consistent with the study she conducted in 2003, in which she
concluded that “voyeurism or curiosity about others may be an important gratification by
viewing some reality programs” in comparison to fictional programs (p. 443). This is an
important contrast to Papacharissi and Mendelson’s study of reality television viewing habits
among college students (2006), which did not find strong results for voyeurism. The authors
theorized, however, that these answers might have been less popular because respondents feared
they were not socially acceptable or because they were concerned it made them sound socially
deviant. While these studies demonstrate the usefulness in using reality television to derive
conclusions about viewers’ decisions to watch cooking shows, specific studies that examine uses
and gratification of the food genre would go much further in explaining specific motivations and
needs.
How Cooking Shows Facilitate Culinary & Consumer Culture
Another lens through which to view the food medium is through “lifestyle television,” a
subgenre of reality television. Lifestyle programming includes “do-it-yourself” or “makeover”
shows that are “linked to the personal development movement that contributes to [a]
preoccupation with style, and outlets for styling life, home and garden” (Palmer, 2004, p.174).
What all lifestyle programs have in common is the “reveal” moment or, more simply, the
14
moment in which the viewer can see the transformation. Depending on the type of food
programming one is viewing, that reveal moment can take a variety of different forms.
As such, the point of these programs is not just to teach its viewers how to cook, but also
how to live. According to De Solier (2005), TV cooking can be a way to diffuse cultural and
social knowledge, through, most obviously, culinary knowledge: “It informs viewers in matters
of taste, and how to use their taste in food in projects of social distinction” (p.470). De Solier
goes on to suggest that viewers accumulate two interconnected forms of capital by watching the
various types of food programming, which she calls “culinary cultural capital” (p.471). They
learn the practical acquisition of cooking skills as well as the “aesthetics” of culinary capital,
with the end result being the improvement of self through an acquisition of food knowledge.
Others suggest that the food medium has less to do with an improvement of oneself and
more to do with “perpetuating social inequalities” between classes (Powell and Prasad, 2010,
p.112). Indeed, many shows underscore the idea that the lifestyle the celebrity chefs portray is
attainable, if viewers simply purchase the necessary accoutrements. The Food Network web site
provides ample reminders that the company sells “cookware, small appliances, cutlery, kitchen
tools, bake ware, tableware, barware and storage products,” all of which are promoted by a
celebrity chef (Foodnetwork.com). In 2004, 12 of the top 25 cookbooks of the year were by
Food Network chefs (Danford, 2005). A celebrity cookbook or cooking tool has a known and
recognized personality behind it and it is the “affirmation of lifestyles through an engagement
with market-based consumption practices” (Spittle, 2002, p. 58). Going further, it is the sign of
the shift of “cookery programs teaching us how to cook towards the value of food as a marker of
distinction” (Spittle, 2002, p. 58). The implicit conclusion being that viewers will eat up
15
whatever their favorite celebrity chef is serving – be it food, life or kitchen utensil advice – and
then they will share that special recipe for success with their friends.
Vicarious Consumption
Adema (2000) highlights various theories behind the appeal of celebrity-chefs to food
programming viewers that other food and television critics have proffered, which is that the
genre’s expansion is due to the “vicarious pleasure” people derive from watching someone else
cook and eat; the shuffling of established gender roles; the mixing of leisure and labor; and, the
audience’s seeming disregard for nutrition in favor of consumption (Adema, 2000, p.113; Ray,
2007; Kauffman, 2005; Ketchum, 2005). Adema believes food television emulsifies social
expectations and sexual innuendo in an arena conventionally related to family and home, and
that perpetuation of these ideas intrigues the audience. Overall, the ambiguity among gender
roles, comfort versus playful intimation, traditions and expectations, makes for entertaining
television.
Ketchum (2005) outlined four central categories of food programming to highlight the
different techniques used by the Food Network to develop a food-as-pleasure affect. These
techniques include: traditional domestic instructional cooking; personality-driven domestic
cooking shows; food travel programs, and avant-garde programming. Through a discussion of
each of these categories, Ketchum shows how the Food Network has taken something that was
previously ordinary – food – and created a social and sensual world around it. Ketchum uses the
avant-garde category to exemplify the vicarious offerings of the food genre. She contends that
it’s unusual aesthetics, which include suggestive remarks, intense camera angles, and “flirtatious
eye contact” promotes sexual undertones, intimacy and voyeuristic feelings (p. 229). The
16
camera angles give the impression that the audience is “spying” while the chefs create their
dishes and enjoy their meal, heightening that voyeuristic appeal (2005, p.230).
Kaufmann (2005) takes this idea of sexual innuendo one step further by specifically (and
graphically) comparing cooking shows to pornographic films, saying they generate “insatiable
desire” and that “gastroporn” addresses fundamental human needs and functions. The colorful
selection of seductive food and flavors, matched by a soundtrack of “oohs and aahs,” make the
comparison an easy one (Bruni, 2010), but another opposing argument, which is that the
viewers’ attraction to cooking shows is less pornographic and more comfort, is also compelling.
Perhaps audiences are identifying with the shows on a level that invokes familiarity and comfort
(Pollan, 2009; Bruni, 2010), rather than sexuality. Both lead to audience gratification, but with
very different connotations and desires. In the latter, viewers tune in because it is a nostalgic
experience that reminds them of home, family, friends and comfort.
Parasocial Relationships
Horton and Wohl’s (1956) article "Mass Communication and Parasocial Interaction:
Observations on Intimacy at a Distance,” was written for the burgeoning home entertainment
medium, but it is perceptibly contemporary and is a useful medium to discuss audience attraction
to celebrity chefs. Horton and Wohl highlight a number of interactions that occur between the
celebrities they call the “personae” and the audience, calling “this seeming face-to-face
relationship between spectator and performer a parasocial relationship” (p. 215). The personae
engage in direct conversation with the viewers by facing the audience and talking as if they are
in a private and personal conversation with their viewing audience (p. 218). What makes the
interaction parasocial, however, is not just that the personae develop an observable intimacy with
17
their audience; it is reliant upon the viewer to accept this construct as a face-to-face exchange in
which they feel they really know the personae.
Alperstein (1991) explored television audiences’ perceived social relationships with
celebrities appearing in television commercials and their perception of a continuing and
deepening relationship with the star. Alperstein conducted ethnographic research with some 60
participants, and the safety and predictability people felt, as an extension of celebrity
appearances, was a common response. One woman said of former Good Morning America cohost Joan Lunden: “I regard [her] as a trusted friend. I choose to watch Good Morning America
instead of other news shows primarily because I like her style. When she happens to be sick or
on vacation I miss her” (p.48).
Moyer-Guse (2008) echoes that trust is a necessary element in parasocial relations.
Repeated exposure to celebrities heightens the meaning that viewers apply to these parasocial
relationships, as predictability about the persona and their personal preferences and behavior
increases. The celebrity is seen as reliable and this perception enhances viewer loyalty. As
Horton and Wohl (1956) explained, "they 'know' such a persona in somewhat the same way they
know their chosen friends: through direct observation and interpretation of his appearance, his
gestures and voice, his conversation and conduct in a variety of situations" (p. 216). Caughey
(1984) continues this explanation by positing the idea that, “people characterize unmet media
figures as if they were intimately involved with them, and in a sense they are” (p. 33).
Television executives actively promote parasocial relationships, and it is obligatory for
on-screen celebrities to use a conversational style when engaging their audiences (Ashe and
McCutcheon, 2001). Television talk show hosts encourage guests to over-share personal details
about their lives and create a pseudo-intimate environment in which everyone calls each other by
18
their first name (Abt and Seesholtz, 1994). These program devices – sincerity, warmth and
values – are necessary for parasocial development (Horton and Wohl, 1956) and viewers have
come to expect easy affability and friendship with their hosts. This is something network chefs
are very capable of providing (Pollan, 2009), as personality-driven shows are what the Food
Network excels at (Associated Press, Apr. 2010). In 2004, the network was rated first “in terms
of having well-liked hosts and personalities” among all broadcast, cable and satellite television
networks (Collins, p. 175). General Manager of the Food Network, Bob Tuschman, says the
network looks for hosts “who people can really relate to and who people feel like they know
intimately. They know everything about them. They want to spend time with them. Everybody
in the audience wants to go sit and have a beer with Emeril and talk to him” (p. 176). The hosts
of the Food Network shows understand this phenomenon very well. As celebrity chef Paula
Deen told contestants on The Next Food Network Star in 2006, “Look into that camera and
picture it as if it’s one of your dearest friends” (p.176).
The Potential of Cooking Shows to Influence Dietary Behavior
The popularity of many on-screen celebrity chefs suggests that their personal preferences
and tastes can influence audience impressions and predilections. The Social Cognitive Theory
(SCT) expands upon this idea by positing that the mass media can influence audience behaviors
and motivations. Bandura (2001) states that the SCT involves the acquisition of knowledge
and/or direct learning through the observation of “models”. These models can be observed
through interpersonal contact or through the media, and can influence the viewers. Because the
media has such a persuasive role in society, it is important to consider whether the SCT could be
19
incorporated into an overall strategy in which cooking shows are used to positively affect food
consumption decisions.
Called an “agentic perspective,” SCT states that people are self-organizing, proactive,
self-reflecting and self-regulating, and not just reactive to or shaped by environmental forces; it
also includes the premise that individuals can rapidly expand their knowledge and skills through
“vicarious” learning (Bandura, 1986, 2001). Bandura first tested his theory in 1961 and 1963
through the “Bobo Doll Experiments” in which he measured children’s propensity to mimic
aggressive behavior observed in the media (Bandura, 1961; 1965). Bandura further refined his
theory in 1977 to include the idea of “self-efficacy,” which means people need to feel confident
that their actions will lead to certain outcomes (Bandura, 1977). While much social learning
occurs in one’s individual environment, both by design and involuntarily, a “vast amount of
information about human values, styles of thinking, and behavior patterns is gained from the
extensive modeling in the symbolic environment of the mass media” (Bandura, 2001, p.271). By
replicating everyday life, the media can serve as a model for how people should behave in their
daily lives. Observing “real-life” on television does not just result in plain mimicry, however.
Through repeated exposure to an action and, in viewing the positive feedback that behavior
elicits, the television viewer can actually acquire enduring attitudes, emotions and behavioral
preferences toward actions, places or things (Bandura, 1986). These observations can also serve
as “social prompts,” a tool that the advertising world, particularly in fashion and food, has
successfully utilized for a number of years (Bandura, 2001).
However, in the same way that a viewer may acquire information that positively affects
his or her health and behavior, there is no methodology for filtering out negative nutritional
behavioral models. Some celebrity chefs promote self-indulgence and food as a reward. Food
20
Network star Paula Deen has been criticized most often for her high-caloric recipes and
enthusiasm for all things buttered and fried. Another Food Network regular, Nigella Lawson,
also promotes sweet treats as a way to provide self-comfort and self-compensation after a long
day. Messages that exalt over-consumption of unhealthy meals can stymie the effects of positive
nutrition messaging.
Entertainment education (E-E), “in which health-related storylines are incorporated into
popular TV sitcoms, dramas or soap operas,” is one way in which the SCT theory has been used
in popular culture to overcome viewer resistance to acquiring new knowledge or behavior
patterns (Kaiser Foundation, 2004, pg. 1). E-E can be used as a method to inform the public
about a “social issue or concern by…incorporating an educational message into popular
entertainment content in order to raise awareness, increase knowledge, create favorable attitudes,
and ultimately motivate people to take socially responsible action in their own lives” (pg. 1).
While E-E is most prevalent in sitcoms or day/night time dramas, it is not implausible to
consider its utility in a reality-based context. Part of the attraction of E-E is that it is an organic
incorporation of a health message, meaning it is not overtly forced upon the viewer in a public
service announcement-like (PSA) format. The focus is on the show’s entertainment qualities,
which helps lower viewer resistance to health-related messages. If the focus of the cookery
program remains on entertainment, while also seamlessly incorporating nutritious messages,
viewers may, by natural extension, desire healthier entrée options.
The media’s reach and prevalence in every day life makes it a natural expansion of
people’s interpersonal network. This means that the media influences and encourages
conversation topics among friends and family that further shape individual perspectives
(Bandura, 2001). The propensity for this to occur is heightened by the popularity of a topic and,
21
as a recent Harris Interactive Poll indicated, cooking shows are a very popular topic (Harris
Interactive, 2010). The Harris Poll found that at least 50 percent of Americans say they watch
TV shows about cooking “very often” or “occasionally.” Food Network cook Rachael Ray was
deemed the survey participants’ favorite. Food Network executive Bob Tuschman has credited
her lasting popularity to her ability to really connect with her audience. “What makes Rachael
Ray so exciting to people,” Tuschman stated in a 2006 interview, “is that she speaks their
language, shops at the same places they shop, and uses the same ingredients” (Buford, 2006).
Ray, it appears, is just like us. This sense of familiarity is very important in the SCT as
successful transference of behavioral patterns is reliant, in part, on the perception that the
“model” is similar enough to the viewer that they can, in effect, “see” themselves doing that
same action. This also increases an individual’s self-efficacy to perform a similar action, another
vital component of SCT.
The SCT was used in a 2009 study to determine if a series of four 15-minute, cooking
shows designed to reach off-campus college students, improved cooking self-efficacy,
knowledge, attitudes and behaviors regarding fruit and vegetable consumption (Clifford,
Anderson, Auld & Champ, 2009). Previous research has shown that college students tend to
prefer getting their nutrition information from the media, specifically television (Novascone,
1986; Clifford, Anderson and Auld, 2004). This study marked the first attempt in the U.S. to
evaluate television cooking shows to determine if they are a viable method to deliver nutritious
information (Clifford, Anderson, Auld & Champ, 2009). Good Grubbin’ focused on weightloss, cooking vegetarian, grilling, and storing fruits and vegetables. All of the Good Grubbin’
production aspects were designed to strengthen social cognitive learning behavior: producers
filmed in locations known to the students, the participants were students who modeled the
22
desired cooking behavior, these student guests demonstrated that the cooking tasks were
uncomplicated and easy, and they received encouraging feedback from the instructors (Clifford,
Anderson, Auld & Champ, 2009). The observed behavior was then reinforced through the Good
Grubbin’ website. Overall, there were significant improvements in the participants’ knowledge
of fruits and vegetable intake recommendations in the intervention group versus the control
group. However, the show seemed to have little impact in the long-term over dietary behavior,
although many of the students expressed positive reviews for the program. The authors
determined that four 15-minute programs were inadequate to affect behavior change; however, a
longer and more consistent helping of televised nutrition/cooking information may result in
permanent behavior change (2009).
The United States, though, is not the only country concerned with the diets of its citizens,
and researchers here are not alone in their study of food programs as a medium for nutrition
advice. Cooking shows are a popular television programming option around the world. The
Food Network exports it’s programming to over 150 countries (Foodnetwork.com, 2010) and
many countries have their own homegrown food celebrity culture (De Solier, 2005; Powell and
Prasad, 2010). Hong Kong, for example, has its own foodie culture and, in 2010, researchers at
the Hong Kong Institute of Education analyzed TV cooking shows in Hong Kong to determine if
food shows are a medium to broadcast healthy eating habits (LAI-YEUNG and SO, 2010). They
determined that the best methodology for transmitting health-related information in a food
program medium was the “food knowledge program,” which focused less on practical hands-on
cooking skills and more on the science of food and the rational behind certain food practices
(2010). It was aimed at increasing viewer knowledge about food, which can arguably lead to
increased self-efficacy, an important SCT component. The description of the program as
23
“documentary,” does lead one to imagine a PSA-type line up, which other researchers have
found to be unpopular (Caraher, Lange and Dixon, 2000).
Caraher, Lange and Dixon (2000) studied the role and place of cooking shows in shaping
cooking and health behaviors within the English population and whether or not cooking shows
should be used to promote a healthier lifestyle. The results of their quantitative and qualitative
research methods posit that most viewers watch cooking shows for aesthetic reasons and see the
programs as entertainment; however, nineteen percent of the respondents stated that cooking
shows were a useful way to learn about cooking later in life. This was second only to
cookbooks. Additionally, thirty percent replied that they would turn to television to learn more
about cooking in the future. This supports the idea that viewers do acquire some cooking and
food preparation knowledge from food programs and it is not just a form of culinary
entertainment.
In all, though, the surveys reported high resistance to a PSA format that would minimize
the entertainment aspect of cooking shows to highlight healthy cooking and eating behavior.
Study participants acknowledged that nutrition information would be acceptable in “bite-size”
servings, but not to the degree that it would take away the diversionary pleasure of watching
cooking shows (Caraher, Lange and Dixon, 2000). The United Kingdom’s Consumer’s
Association, however, argued for the power of the celebrity chef in positively affecting consumer
food choices saying if a popular personality (in this case, British super-chef Delia Smith, who is,
for the most part, unknown in the United States) “wrote a book of healthy recipes, overnight she
could have more impact on the national diet that any government campaign” (Caraher, Lange
and Dixon, 2000). It leads one back to the idea that if powerful celebrity chefs actively modeled
healthy eating and cooking behavior, they could greatly encourage their viewers’ self-efficacy to
24
perform similar culinary feats and positively affect the nutritional value of current food
television.
Jamie Oliver & the British Public School System
One such celebrity chef who has taken on this challenge is British chef extraordinaire,
Jamie Oliver. Oliver was first introduced to the public as The Naked Chef in 1999 when he
“broke the mold of the traditional cookery show format by positioning food at the center of his
lifestyle construction and placing family and friends at the heart of program content” (Powell and
Prasad, 2010, p. 118). Oliver successfully positioned himself as a food and cooking authority as
well as his own celebrity brand. He attracted a dedicated audience through his enthusiastic
approach, youthful appearance and masculine appeal (2010). His proven ability to charm the
masses thus made him an ideal candidate to lead a health offensive on the growing obesity
problem.
Jamie's School Dinners, which aired in the UK in 2004, was Oliver’s first foray into what
would become his healthy food mission. Shot in documentary style, Oliver sought to expose the
inadequacy of school lunches. Oliver returned two years later with a follow-up series titled,
Return to School Dinners. Oliver's overall goals were to persuade schools to serve healthier
lunches and to entice the students to actually eat them; one could also argue that another was to
keep “stubborn mothers” from “stuffing chips and pies” through the school railings, as was
captured on film in South Yorkshire, England (Powell and Prasad, 2010; Harford, 2009). That
mothers resulted to sneaking fat-laden but familiar foods to their children through the schoolyard
railings, demonstrates how challenging it is to change ingrained food habits. In fact, after Oliver
and the government teamed up to introduce healthy food initiatives in schools, they found most
25
students were not choosing to participate in the program and Oliver was increasingly scrutinized
for his efforts. “Oliver,” as an article in the Financial Times surmised, “is viewed either as a
cheeky, lovable saint who has saved the nation's children from a fate worse than death, or as a
corpulent hypocrite in love with his supermarket advertising contracts” (Harford, 2009).
However, research conducted since the program began confirms that Oliver’s social
experiment was quite successful. Researchers concluded, “Feeding primary school kids less fat,
sugar and salt, and more fruit and vegetables, has a surprisingly large effect” (Harford, 2009).
Authorized absences fell in the intervention schools and the proportion of children achieving
higher testing levels rose as much as 20 percent in some subjects (2009). Teachers have also
reported that the students are calmer, behavior problems have decreased, and children exhibit
greater focus and concentration (The Times Educational Supplement, 2008). One school
principal was quoted as saying, “Successfully improving a school's food culture helps to improve
a school's effectiveness as a whole.”
It is important to remember that this was set in motion by a popular television chef, who
chose to broadcast his efforts on national television. Oliver was not in every school, teaching
and/or arguing with every lunch lady; but he was still able to successfully promote a healthy
lunch initiative by using the mass media to garner government support and to amend people’s
views about the ease and benefits of eating healthy foods.
Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution
The American Broadcasting Company (ABC) agreed to import the popular British chef in
2010 to see if he could replicate his recipe for success in America’s kitchens and television sets.
This time, he extended his program to include all the residents, rather than just the school
26
children, in Huntington, West Virginia, which was erroneously deemed “America's fattest and
unhealthiest city” (Barber, 2010). Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution aimed to show that obesity is
a perpetuating – but solvable – problem and that providing basic education on nutrition and
healthy cooking options can alleviate many peoples’ resistance to fully committing to a healthier
lifestyle. While he faced harsh skepticism when he first arrived, by the end of the season, his
most ardent critics had become committed to eating a more nutritious menu. Oliver is coming
back for season two in the Los Angeles school district, where he has already faced a major
stumbling block in that he is not allowed to film in the schools (Scattergood, 2011). He has
characteristically found ways around this by organizing events that bring students and families
together to ensure he can still spread his healthy message in this community. What is also
interesting is that major American associations are now aligning themselves with Oliver and his
mission. Oliver partnered with the American Heart Association to open “Food Revolution
Kitchens” that will offer free cooking classes in underserved neighborhoods with the goal "to
have at least five kitchen centers within the next 18 months, with plans underway for New York,
Los Angeles, Cleveland, Baltimore and Dallas" (PRNewsWire, 2011). Oliver is using his
$100,000 in prize money from the 2010 TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) "One Wish
to Change the World” award to launch a Food Revolution truck, or a “mobile kitchen
classroom,” which is intended to “travel to communities to teach kids, parents and professionals
about food and cooking” (Brion, March 2011).
Oliver’s methods are unconventional, but arguably effective in that, at the very least, he
casts a light on America’s obesity problem. His bottom line is that by providing individuals with
nutrition knowledge and basic cooking skills, families can combat obesity and live a healthier
27
lifestyle. Oliver demonstrates that it is possible to combine entertainment and education to teach
a viewing public how to eat better and lose weight.
Study of Food Programming
The ubiquity of food programming on television makes the genre an interesting topic for
study; however, there has been surprisingly little research conducted on the tremendous
popularity of food shows. While many food bloggers and cultural commentators have opined
personal theories as to why the public is so attracted to these shows, serious academic
consideration is quite limited. The aforementioned Good Grubbin’ experiment demonstrates that
these shows could be used to enhance the public’s knowledge about healthy eating practices as
well as a way to increase individual self-efficacy with regards to cooking fresh and easy meals.
Similarly, the Hong Kong-focused study also confirmed that food programs might be a
constructive way to transmit healthy eating recommendations. Additionally, the results of the
Caraher, Lange and Dixon (2000) study support the notion that viewers actually gain some
cooking and food preparation knowledge from food programs, thus it is not just simply culinary
entertainment.
Entertainment education (E-E), by way of the Social Cognitive Theory, is one way in
which health-related messages have been successfully transmitted to the viewing public. While
E-E has largely been used in sitcoms or day/night dramas, it is not improbable to think the format
could be utilized in more reality-based television, like a food program. Jamie Oliver’s Food
Revolution shows that people will watch a show committed to entertainment and education.
What could assist this transmission, though, is the high degree of parasocial interaction that
exists among popular celebrity chefs and their audiences.
28
The Food Network readily acknowledges that this perception of friendship between hosts
and viewers is what has helped cement their phenomenal success. The Network invests in food
personalities it feels will ultimately develop into a brand. The continued success of celebrity
chefs like Bobby Flay and Guy Fieri – each of whom now also star on shows on other networks,
like NBC – exemplify how the Food Network develops its talent. These stars are able to
crossover to other stations and entertainment genres because they have a huge following and
their fans enjoy watching them. This has important implications with regards to their ability to
encourage audiences to revamp their eating habits. However, there are a variety of motivating
factors behind an individual’s attraction to watching food programs and a Network’s willingness
to tinker with a winning format may be quite limited. It may be true that only certain styles of
food shows lend themselves to education messages. It is also true, though, that shows might be
open to incorporating some PSA-like messages – in an entertaining fashion, of course – during
their program.
The literature review highlights that, for all the press and popularity surrounding food
programming, very little rigorous study has been done on the genre. This study, therefore,
attempted to answer the following research questions:
R1: What motivates people to watch food programs?
R2: Are cooking shows a viable method through which to relay health-related messages?
The hope was that by proffering possible theories behind each of these questions, the academic
community might be inclined to conduct further studies with greater generalizability.
Additionally, the food program genre is a very profitable business and it would likely be
advantageous to the industry as a whole to examine why it has such a strong following. Finally,
with the increase in popularity of food shows coming at the same time as a rise in the obesity
29
levels in the U.S., research should be conducted to investigate whether viewers are interested in
learning about healthier food options through cooking shows and if this would be a viable means
to transmit healthy eating ideas.
Methodology
The literature review provided an overall look at the centrality of food programming in
the media and introduced concepts related to both health messaging and obesity concerns. To
more fully investigate public perception of the food genre, a survey was conducted between 17
March and 4 April 2011. This quantitative research can help further the public understanding of
society’s relationship with food and how food communicates certain cultural values. It is also a
useful methodology to investigate the proposed research questions.
Recruitment
Survey participants were recruited using purposive and snowball sampling strategies. An
initial email was sent to over 150 friends, family members and associates inviting them to
participate in the survey. The email explained that the survey was a part of the researcher’s final
project for graduate school and that the survey was on audience perceptions of food programs. A
link to the survey was provided in the email. The survey link was then posted on the researcher’s
Facebook page as well as on the pages of a few other friends, who wanted to share the survey
with their personal network, as well. The message invited individuals to participate and to pass
along the survey to other friends. Those who elected to participate were asked to complete a
series of 41 questions using Qualtrics Survey Software (see Appendix for the complete survey).
30
Participants
In order to qualify for the survey, respondents were required to be at least 18 years of age
and had to indicate that they watch food programming at least once per week. Of the 302
individuals who agreed to complete the survey, only 200 (65%) met these qualifications. The
data analysis is thus based on these responses.
The average age of the final sample was 38.1. Females comprised 72.5% of the sample.
The majority of the participants, 90%, were White/Caucasian, and the median income level was
between $66,000 and $90,000. With regards to the education level of the participants, 3% had a
high school diploma or equivalent; 9% had some college, but no degree; 5% had an associate’s
degree; 38% had a bachelor’s degree; 32% had a master’s; and 13 % had a professional or
doctorate degree. Sixty-nine percent had a full-time job, which was defined as working more
than 35 hours per week. Forty-seven percent of the sample was currently married, and 40 % had
never married (the remaining 13% were either separated, divorced, widowed or living with a
domestic partner).
Survey
The survey asked a variety of questions about food programs, healthy eating practices,
cooking behavior, buying habits (related to food products) and demographics. It attempted to
discern the reasons why people watched cooking shows; what they felt they learned from food
programs; how viewing food programs affected what they bought, what they talked about, how
much they cooked and their overall affinity for celebrity chefs; and, whether or not food
programs could be a viable method to disseminate healthy eating and cooking practices. Some
questions included examples of food program shows to help the participants differentiate among
the various food show genres provided in the question. Likert scales were also used to assess
31
participant agreement with various statements on the previously listed topics. The Likert scales
ranged from a high degree of agreement, “1,” to a low degree of agreement, “5.”
Results
Although numerous variables were available for analysis, for the sake of parsimony, the
reported results are confined to the findings that were most relevant to answering the research
questions. This section first reports general descriptive findings regarding respondents’ viewing
habits, motivations for viewing, perceptions of cooking shows, and behavior related to cooking
and food. Next, the relationships between several of these variables are reported.
Descriptive Findings Almost 60% of respondents claimed to watch cooking shows 1-4 hours each week
(Figure 1).
32
Survey participants deemed Top Chef the most popular show, with 32.5% ranking it as
their favorite program; Everyday Italian with Giada de Laurentiis was a distant second at 12.5%
(Figure 2).
33
The majority of respondents felt they learned either “new recipes” by watching food
programs (36.5%) or “quick and practical cooking tips” (27.5%). Only a few responded they
learned “tips for healthy eating” (6%) (Figure 3).
When asked how often they talk about food, be it recently cooked or eaten, 50%
responded that they discuss food “relatively often” with family and friends and only 10% replied
that they discuss it either “rarely” or “never” (Figure 4).
34
An overwhelming number of individuals – 72% – said they were “somewhat likely” or
“very likely” to continue watching food programs if the programs stressed education, in addition
to entertainment, with only 2% saying they were “very unlikely” (Figure 5).
35
On an average day, 51% of the respondents replied that they personally spend time
cooking between 31 and 60 minutes. Thirty eight percent spend between 5 and 30 minutes
cooking and 9% spend over 60 minutes preparing meals. Only 2% responded that they prefer to
eat in/order out or only make microwave meals (Figure 6).
Although 42% are indifferent about their ability to identify with a favorite chef, 29%
agreed with the statement “I feel that I can identify with my favorite chef(s).” Twenty four
percent disagreed with this statement (Figure 7).
36
With regards to the question, “How likely would you be to listen to a celebrity chef if
they provided instructions on how to cook a healthier meal,” 86% responded that they would be
“very likely” or “somewhat likely” (Figure 8).
37
In response to a general question about what best describes their personal motivations for
watching food programs, most participants responded that they watch because food shows “teach
me new things” (49%) or “they entertain me” (44%) (Figure 9).
Bivariate Relationships
In testing the association between the amount of time spent cooking and the amount of
time spent watching food programs, the analysis revealed that there is a positive relationship, γ =
.267, p < .05, and it is statistically significant. This shows that the more time people spend
watching cooking shows, the more time they spend cooking. A positive relationship also exists
between the time spent watching food programs and the belief that talking about food is an easy
way to connect with people, γ = .420, p < .001. This, too, is statistically significant.
Table 1 shows the relationship between time spent watching cooking shows and the
factor respondents consider most important when considering what to eat (i.e., “nutrition,”
38
“taste” and “other,” which in this case included price and convenience). The relationship
between these two variables is not statistically significant, γ = 4.1, p > .05. However, it is
interesting to note what people consider to be most important when determining their food
choices. A majority of respondents (50.3%) viewed taste as the most important consideration
when choosing what to eat. Moreover, while the pattern was not statistically reliable, it does
suggest that heavy viewers of cooking shows are more likely than light viewers to prioritize taste
when making dining decisions, whereas light viewers are more likely to consider nutrition when
choosing what to eat.
Table 1: Cross tabulation of time spent watching cooking shows
and the importance of taste and nutrition
Time spent watching cooking shows
< 1 hour
Most important
1-4 hours
> 5 hours
Total
Nutrition
44.4%
31.9%
33.3%
35.1%
Taste
37.8%
53.4%
56.7%
50.3%
Other
17.8%
14.7%
10%
14.7%
Total percent
100
100
100
100
N
45
116
30
191
consideration when
choosing what to eat
Additionally, there is a positive relationship between the time spent watching food
programming and the likelihood that the respondent would trust the food and nutrition advice
provided by a celebrity chef, γ = .254, p < .05. This is statistically significant and means the
more time one spends watching cooking shows, the more likely that individual is to trust a
favorite chef’s healthy food advice.
39
When examining the association between a person’s ability to identify with a favorite
chef and his/her willingness to listen to a celebrity chef provide instructions on cooking a
healthier meal, there is a positive relationship, γ = .312, p < .001. As such, the stronger the
connection the viewer perceives with a favorite chef, the more likely he/she will pay attention to
a celebrity chef’s healthy cooking recommendations.
A significant association was found between gender and disagreement with the statement
“Food programs introduced me to many of the basic skills needed to cook a meal.” A t-test
demonstrated that the mean level of disagreement was higher for males (M= 2.94, SD = 1.123)
than for females (M = 2.45, SD = 1.066, t (193) = 2.83, p < .05). Thus, women are more likely
than men to report that they learned basic cooking skills from watching food programs.
Discussion
While the Food Network is the most obvious destination for food entertainment, this
survey established Bravo’s Top Chef as the most popular food program among this particular
group of respondents. The question wording and choices were derived from the previously
mentioned Harris Interactive Poll, which had determined that Rachael Ray and her 30 Minute
Meals was America’s favorite dish. In this instance, 30 Minute Meals was only ranked by 11
percent as their favorite show compared to Top Chef’s 32 percent. So why is there a difference?
Well, there could be a few reasons. This survey and the Harris Poll were given approximately 10
months apart, which is plenty of time for food show aficionados to find a new favorite. The
participant pool was also quite different – this survey had a much smaller participant rate with
only 200 people. Harris Interactive polled 2,503 people and weighted the results to ensure
participant demographics aligned with that of the general population. However, the results could
40
be due to an even less scientific reason in that the 2010 season in Washington D.C., which was
airing when the Harris Poll was given, was the least popular season of the Top Chef series.
Season Eight or “Top Chef: All-Stars,” which brought back fan favorites from previous seasons
for a chef showdown, was much more popular and aired during the dissemination of this survey.
That Top Chef was voted so highly is also interesting because the vast majority of
respondents felt they learned “new recipes” and “quick and practical cooking tips” from food
programs. Top Chef weighs much more heavily toward pure entertainment than cooking
instruction. However, as shown in Figure 9, survey participants were closely divided when
asked about their motivations for watching food programs as 44 percent responded that they
watched for entertainment reasons and 49 percent replied they watch to learn new things.
Moreover, while it was deemed the most “favorite” show, it probably is not the only show the
participants watch. So while individuals may enjoy Top Chef, many people are also watching
straight cooking shows, which provide new ideas for dinner and practical tips for cost and time
saving meals. It is telling, though, that only six percent felt they received suggestions for healthy
eating, since one of the goals of this project was to determine how much healthy eating advice
viewers feel they receive through food programs. While “chef” and “nutritionist” are not
synonymous, most chefs are arguably aware of the caloric intake in the meals they serve. As
nutritional information can be so confusing for the general population, it might be worthwhile for
a celebrity chef to point out that this meal or that dessert should be eaten in moderation and then
explain why. Or, conversely, they could provide a suggestion for substituting a particularly
dense ingredient for another ingredient that lowers the overall calories of a recipe. Seventy two
percent of respondents stated that they would be “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to continue
watching food programs if education was stressed in addition to entertainment. This signifies
41
that there is interest in and a place for additional healthy cooking advice in the food program
genre.
Granted some shows, like Paula’s Home Cooking for example, have built a reputation
around fatty ingredients and fried food. Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives is also not known for its
healthy food offerings and it may be confusing for the audience to be watching a show that
emphasizes indulgence, while simultaneously being encouraged to eat more healthily. As such,
food shows would have to find an appropriate balance between entertainment and education.
This may involve Paula Deen decreasing the amount of times she tells her viewers to use butter
or Guy Fieri emphasizing that individuals should not eat burgers every day, but instead enjoy one
only on occasion. Other shows, such as Everyday Italian or Tyler’s Ultimate, which generally do
not have any negative health views associated with them, may be more conducive for
emphasizing healthful eating.
The effects of parasocial interaction are notable, as a number of people feel they identify
with their favorite celebrity chefs (Figure 7). They trust them to provide meal options to serve
their families, they look to them for general cooking recommendations, and, as this survey
determined, the more strongly a viewer feels they identify with a chef, the more likely they are to
listen to healthy cooking advice. Of course, affinity for a celebrity chef is affected by the
amount of time one spends watching food programs, but this does confirm food shows may be a
rather effective way to disseminate advice on health and nutrition. Celebrity chefs have reached
a status similar to those in other high-profile media positions and that means their actions and
opinions hold sway. Food shows could use this influence in a way that benefits their audience.
This does have implications, though, for the previously mentioned concerns about an
over-emphasis on unhealthy ingredients. If a person is more inclined to calorie count if
42
encouraged to do so by their favorite chef, it is probable that the opposite is true; he or she may
be more likely to ignore health deficiencies if that same chef emphasized self-indulgence and
self-compensation.
While food programs overall appear to be a popular way to learn about new recipes and
cooking tips, there is a split between men and women as to whether or not they feel food
programs introduced them to many of the basic skills needed to cook a meal. More males than
females disagreed with that statement. This response is interesting for several reasons. For
multiple generations, the kitchen was the women’s domain. Whether she was a domestic
goddess or servile to maternal duties, the female tended to be responsible for putting meals on
the table. Furthermore, most daughters used to be co-committed to kitchen duty, where they
would learn their culinary capabilities from their mother. As more and more women have joined
the workforce, though, men have started to share some of the responsibility for household chores
and this dynamic has become less absolute. The responses to this question suggest, then, that
food programs may be more responsible than mom for teaching young women basic cooking
skills. It could also be true that they feel both – food shows and family – provided basic skills;
however, that was not asked by this survey. Either way, it is an interesting reflection on
traditional societal expectations about where women learn to cook. It is also worth pointing out
that this response reinforces another stereotype about the differences between men and women in
that so many more women then men were willing to admit that someone else had instructed them
on improving a basic skill. Thus, the observed difference between men and women might be an
artifact of men’s relative reluctance to report learning basic cooking skills rather than their
actual lower level of learning.
43
Food, in general, appears to be a popular topic of conversation as 90 percent of those
polled stated they talk about food they have recently cooked or eaten “relatively often” or
“sometimes.” Additionally, a positive association between those who regularly watch food
programs and those who feel food is an easy way to connect with people indicates many people
use food and food programs as conversation topics. Should food programs begin incorporating
healthy cooking ideas, such discussions could become an organic way to disseminate nutritional
information even further.
That people enjoy talking about cooking and eating lends to the idea that food, more so
than anything else, can act as a great conversation equalizer. Everybody has to eat and one does
not need to be an epicurean to engage in a lively discussion about what restaurant has the best
food or which grilling technique yields the most flavorful results. Additionally, since food has
become somewhat of a leisure activity for many people, it is a way to share one’s interests and
background, while providing an excuse to invite friends over to share in a new recipe. Food is a
natural accompaniment to many of life’s celebrations and is a way to mark special occasions
among family and friends. Family recipes, favorite food shows and adventures in the kitchen all
communicate important details about our individual selves to those around us.
One of the most interesting findings is that there is a positive relationship between those
who watch cooking shows and those who cook. A large number of food bloggers and
commentators alike have bemoaned the loss of at-home gourmets and have opined that the
increase in food shows has led more Americans to watch gastronomic feats rather than try to
create one themselves. This survey, however, determined that the more one watches food
programs, the more one is inclined to also be a cook. So why is there a discrepancy? Are food
writers propagating a logical fallacy? Probably not. This survey demonstrates that not all
44
Americans have lost their appetite for cooking and that is a very good thing. However, this
survey relied on convenience sampling, meaning it polled a readily available population rather
than a random sample, so it is not generalizable to the entire population. So, while this may be
indicative of the type of demographic polled for this survey, it may not hold true for society as a
whole. It does strongly indicate, however, that more research should be done, since most
commentators are giving their personal opinion based on their own observations. It is also true,
though, that food commentators are lamenting how easy it is for individuals to consume high
dense, pre-packaged, processed foods; not just highlighting concerns about people “watching”
instead of “doing.” The two combined is what they feel has contributed to the increasing
problems with obesity in this country and while the former may not be wholly proven, it is
certainly true that most Americans have easy access to highly caloric food. Overall, though, it
shows that the popularity of food programs may be able to positively affect people’s meal
choices. If this population is watching and cooking together, it holds that other segments in
society may be doing the same.
Survey Limitations
There were a few survey limitations that are worth highlighting. The participants were
not contacted by means of random sampling, but rather were invited to self-select into the
survey. Additionally, the number that participated was much smaller than what is needed to
provide a representative sample. This means that the results are not generalizable to the
population as whole, but rather are most useful as a way to verify that this area of study deserves
greater academic and scientific attention. There may have also been some social desirability
reflected in the results, as a number of the participants are friends with or related to the
researcher. Last, the survey is a cross-sectional survey, which means it provides insight into a
45
defined period of time, but one cannot make conclusions regarding the direction of causal
influence. This means, for example, that the researcher is unable to determine whether watching
cooking shows causes people to spend more time cooking or discussing food, only that these
variables are related to one another. That does not take away from the positivity of these results;
it only means that they have to be viewed with a caveat.
Conclusion
It would be easy to dismiss food programs as another pop culture trend, likely to go stale
in the next few years, if they had not already proven their long-term staying power. Most people
forget that food programs were around even before Julia Child went on the air. This latest
sampling is simply the most recent interpretation of a favorite recipe. While the survey
demonstrated a positive association between viewing food shows and time spent cooking in the
kitchen, a number of food writers, most notably New York Times bestselling author Michael
Pollan, have written profusely about how Americans are cooking less, but watching food
television more. The literature review explored why individuals watch food programs by
highlighting a number of communication theories – uses and gratification, parasocial interaction,
social cognitive theory – that have contributed to their success, as well as variety of other more
socialized theories – vicarious consumption, consumerism, trends in taste, and social appeal –
that could be used to explain their popularity. Most people, though, would likely have a hard
time articulating their affinity for these shows.
The survey results also demonstrated that many people enjoy watching food programs,
feel they learn cooking skills and techniques through these shows, and enjoy talking about
favorite foods and food shows with family and friends. Moreover, it indicated that food
programs may be a way to disseminate healthy eating recommendations as the results showed the
46
more one watches, the more likely he or she is to trust the nutrition advice provided by the
celebrity chefs. This has important implications for the way in which health standards are
currently disseminated and could be a powerful tool in the fight against obesity. For this reason
alone, increased academic research should be conducted on the food program genre.
The popularity of food as a societal trend has continued to increase. Many recognized
celebrity chefs are crossing over into other entertainment television to include talk shows and
game shows. Rachael Ray already hosts a morning talk show on ABC and, in April 2011, ABC
announced plans to cancel a long-running, afternoon soap opera in favor of a show called “The
Chew,” which will feature a cast of rotating celebrity chefs. Explained ABC, “As food has
become the center of everyone's life, "The Chew" will focus on food from EVERY angle -- as a
source of joy, health, family ritual, friendship, breaking news, dating, fitness, weight loss, travel
adventures and life's moments” (Brion, April 2011). While Julia Child remains a much-beloved
public figure, not many other chefs have achieved her status as a culinary icon to the general
public. However, new shows like, “The Chew,” exemplify just how far the foodie craze has
come. Knowledge of great food no longer separates the culinary elites from the rest of society;
now anyone can peddle their gastronomic gossip to friends and family alike. It remains to be
seen, though, if this food craze will eventually encourage its audience to spend more time
cooking up and cooking light or, simply, tuning in and ordering out.
References
Abt, Vicki and Mel Seesholtz. (1994). The Shameless World of Phil, Sally and Oprah:
Television Talk Shows and the Deconstruction of Society. Journal of Popular
Culture, 171-191.
About. (2010). www.FoodNetwork.com.
47
Adema, Paulina. (2000). Vicarious Consumption: Food, Television and the Ambiguity of
Modernity. Journal of American & Comparative Cultures, 113-124.
Alperstein, N.M. (1991). Imaginary Social Relationships with Celebrities Appearing in
Television Commercials. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 43-60. Vol. 35.
Issue 1.
Ashe, D. D. and McCutcheon, L. E. (2001). Shyness, loneliness, and attitude toward celebrities.
Current Research in Social Psychology, 124–133.
Associated Press. (2010). Food Network spawns edgy, young Cooking Channel. Associated
Press. April 2010. http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/apr/26/food-network-spawnsedgy-young-cooking-channel/.
Bandura, A. Ross, Dorothea; Ross, Sheila A. (1961). Transmission of Aggression Through
Imitation of Aggressive Models. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 575582. Vol 63(3).
Bandura, Albert. (1965). Influence of Model’s Reinforcement Contingencies on the Acquisition
of Imitative Responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 589-595. Vol. 1
No. 6
Bandura, Albert. (1977). Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change.
Psychological Review, 191-215. Vol. 84, Number 2.
Bandura, Albert. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bandura, Albert. (2001). Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 1-26. Vol. 52.
Barber, Jennifer Ward. (2010). 'Food Revolution': When Jamie Met Huntington. The Atlantic
Monthly.http://www.theatlantic.com/life/archive/2010/04/food-revolution-when-jamiemet-huntington/38087/.
Baruh, Lemi. (2009). Publicizied Intimacies on Reality Television: An Analysis of Voyeuristic
Content and its Contribution to the Appeal of Reality Programming. Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 190-210.
Brion, Raphael. (March 2011). Jamie Oliver Launching a Big-Ass Food Truck. Eater.com.
http://eater.com/archives/2011/03/03/jamie-olivers-food-truck-is-a-bigass-truck.php
Brion, Raphael. (April 2011). ABC's The Chew, a New Daytime Talk Show With Mario Batali,
Carla Hall, Michael Symon, and More! Eater.com.
http://eater.com/archives/2011/04/14/abc-announces-the-chew-a-new-talk-show-withmario-batali-carla-hall-michael-symon-and-more.php
48
Bruni, Frank. (2010). An Expert's Theory of Food Television's Appeal. The Atlantic Monthly.
Buford, Bill. Notes of a Gastronome. New Yorker. October 2006. Vol. 82 Issue 31, 42-47.
Caraher, Martin and Tim Lange and Paul Dixon. (2000). The Influence of TV and Celebrity
Chefs on Public Attitudes and Behavior Among the English Public. Journal for the Study
of Food and Society. 27-46. Vol 4, No. 1. Spring.
Caughey, John L. (1984). Imaginary Social Worlds A Cultural Approach. University of
Nebraska Press, Lincoln and London.
Cavender G. and Fishman M. (1998). Television reality crime programs: Context and History.
Entertaining crime: Television reality programs, 3-15.
Chandon, Pierre and Brian Wansink. (2007). The Biasing Health Halos of Fast Food Restaurant
Health Claims: Lower Calorie Estimates and Higher Side Dish Consumption Intentions.
The Journal of Consumer Research, 301-314. Vol. 34, No. 3.
Click, Melissa Ann. (2009). It's 'a good thing': The commodification of femininity, affluence,
and whiteness in the Martha Stewart phenomenon. Open Access Dissertations. Paper 7.
http://scholarworks.umass.edu/open_access_dissertations/7
Clifford, Dawn and Jennifer Anderson and Garry Auld. (2004). The Use of Mass Media
Channels on a College Campus to Disseminate Nutrition Information. Department of
Food Science and Human Nutrition. Colorado State University.
Clifford, Dawn and Jennifer Anderson and Gary Auld and Joseph Champ. (2009). Good
Grubbin’: Impact of a TV Cooking Show for College Students Living Off Campus.
Journal of Nutrition and Behavior, 194 -200. Vol. 41. Number 3.
Collins, Kathleen. (2009). Watching What We Eat: The Evolution of Television Cooking Shows.
The Continuum International Publishing Group Inc. New York, New York.
Currie, Janet and Stefano DellaVigna and Enrico Moretti and Vikram Pathania. (2009). The
Effect of Fast Food Restaurants on Obesity and Weight Gain. American Economic
Journal: Economic Policy, 32-63. American Economic Association, vol. 2(3).
Cutler, David M., Edward, Glaeser and Jesse M. Shapiro (2003). Why Have Americans
Become More Obese? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 93 – 118, Vol. 17. Issue
3. Retrieved on 4 December 2010.
Danford, Natalie. (2005). Video Made the Cookbook Star. Publishers Weekly. March. Vol. 252,
Issue 12.
De Solier. Isabella. (2005). TV Dinners: Culinary Television, Education and Distinction.
49
Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, 465-81. 19(4).
Deery, June. (2004). Reality TV as Advertainment. Popular Communications, 1-20.
Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health. (2010). World Health Organization.
http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/publications/facts/obesity/en/
Katz, Elihu and Michael Gurevitch. (1973). On the Use of Mass Media for Important Things.
American Sociological Review. 164-181. Vol. 38. April.
Kaufman, Frederick. Debbie does salad: The Food Network at the frontiers of
Pornography. Harper’s. October, 2005.
Harford, Tim. (2009). How a celebrity chef turned into a social scientist. Finacncial Times.
FT.com. November.
Harris Interactive. (2010). EVOO and Yummo! 30 Minute Meals is America's Favorite Cooking
Show. Harris Interactive. July 2010.
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/mid/1508/articleId/4
46/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/Default.aspx
Haskell, Arlo. (2010). Subtle Big Things: talking with Frank Bruni. Key West Literary Seminar.
July 2010. http://www.kwls.org/littoral/frank_bruni_interview/
Horton, D. & Wohl, R. (1956). Mass Communication and Para-Social Interaction:
Observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry, 215-229. Vol. 19. 1956.
Kaiser Family Foundation. (2004). Entertainment Education and Health in the United States.
Kaiser Family Foundation, Issue Brief. Spring.
http://www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/Entertainment-Education-and-Health-in-the-UnitedStates-Issue-Brief.pdf
Ketchum, Cheri. (2005). The Essence of Cooking Shows: How the Food Network Constructs
Consumer Fantasies. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 217-234.
LAI-YEUNG, Theresa Wai Ling and SO, Simon Wing Wah. (2010). TV as Multimedia
Synchronous Communication for Cooking and Eating Activities: Analysis of TV
Cooking Shows in Hong Kong. IEEE International Symposium on Multimedia, 302-307.
Lowry, Tom. (2010). Scripps Earning Sour in Third Quarter. Variety.com. November.
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118026905
Mason, Anne and Marian Meyers. (2001). Living with Martha Stewart Media: Chosen
Domesticity in the Experience of Fans. International Communication Association, 801823.
50
Meister, Mark. (2001). Cultural Feeding, Good Life Science, and the TV Food Network.
Mass Communication & Society, 165-182.
Montiero, Carlos, (2010). The Big Issue is Ultra-Processing. Journal of the World Public
Health Nutrition Association, 237 – 269. Vol. 1, No. 6. Retrieved on 6 December
2010.
Moyer-Guse, Emily. (2008). Toward a Theory of Entertainment Persuasion: Explaining the
Persuasive Effects of Entertainment-Education Messages. Communication Theory, 407–
425, ISSN 1050-3293.. International Communication Association.
Nabi, R. L., Biely, E. N., Morgan, S. J., & Stitt, C. (2003). Reality-based television programming
and the psychology of its appeal. Media Psychology, 303-330. Issue 5.
Nabi, R. L., Carmen R. Stitt, Jeff Halford & Keli L. Finnerty. (2006). Emotional and Cognitive
Predictors of the Enjoyment of Reality-Based and Fictional Television
Programming: An Elaboration of the Uses and Gratifications Perspective.
Media Psychology, 421-447. Issue 8.
Nabi, R. L. (2007). Determining Dimensions of Reality: A Concept Mapping of the Reality TV
Landscape. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 371-390.
Novascone, M. Hertler A. (1986). Perception of Nutrition Density and Information Links of
College Students. American Diet Association, 94-95.
Office of the United States Surgeon General, (2001). The Surgeon General's Call to
Action to Prevent and Decrease Overweight and Obesity. U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services. http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/topics/obesity/
Retrieved on 9 December 2010.
Palmer, Gareth. (2004). ‘The New You’: Class and Transformation in Lifestyle Television.
Understanding Reality Television, 173-192. Ed. Sue Holmes and Deborah
Jermyn. Routledge. New York, New York.
Papacharissi, Zizi and Andrew L. Mendelson. (2007). An Exploratory Study of Reality
Appeal:Uses and Gratifications of Reality TV Shows. Journal of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media, 355-370.
Park, Alice. (2010). What if You Ate Only What Was Advertised on TV? Time Magazine.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1993220,00.html.
Pew Research Center. (2006). Americans See Weight Problems Everywhere But In the
Mirror. Pew Research Center. http://pewsocialtrends.org/files/2010/10/Obesity.pdf.
Retrieved on 21 November 2010.
Pollan, Michael. (2009). Out of the Kitchen, Onto the Coach. The New York Times. 2 August.
51
Poniewozik, James. (2001). Selling the Sizzle, Not the Steak. Time. Vol. 157, Issue 2.
Powell, Helen and Sylvie Prasad. (2010). “As Seen on TV.” The Celebrity Expert: How Taste is
Shaped by Lifestyle Media. Cultural Politics, 111-124. Vol. 6, Issue 1.
PRNewswire. (2011). TED2010 Prize Winner Jamie Oliver: One Year Later, Five Major
Announcements. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ted2010-prize-winnerjamie-oliver-one-year-later-five-major-announcements-117286188.html
Prentice, A.M. and Jebb, S.A. (2003). Fast Foods, Energy Density and Obesity: A Possible
Mechanistic Link. Obesity Reviews, 187-195. Vol. 4 Issue 4.
Ray, Krishnendu. (2007). Domesticating Cuisine: Food and Aesthetics on American
Television. Gastronomica: The Journal of Food and Culture, 50-63. Vol. 7, No 1.
Rubin, Alan M. (1984). Ritualized and instrumental television viewing. Journal of
Communication, 67-77.
Rubin, Alan M. (2009). Uses and Gratifications Perspective on Media Effects. in Byrant
Jennings, Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research (3rd Edition), 165-184.
Florence, KY, USA: Routledge.
Rubin, Rebecca B. and Michael P. McHugh. (1987). Development of Parasocial Interaction
Relationships. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 279-292. Vol. 31, No. 3.
Ruggiero, Thomas E. (2000). Uses and Gratification Theory in the 21st Century. Mass
Communication & Society, 3-37.
Sands, Sarah. (2006). I don't want to be some kitchen blow-up sex doll. The Daily Mail.
www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-420003/I-dont-want-kitchen-blow-sex-doll.html
Scattergood, Amy. (2011). Jamie Oliver's L.A. Food Revolution: The First Episode + Reality TV
As Work-In-Progress. LAWeekly.com.
http://blogs.laweekly.com/squidink/2011/04/jamie_oliver_los_angeles.php
Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (forthcoming). Fanning the flames of fan behavior: Celebrity
worship, entertainment needs, and obsessive relational intrusion toward celebrities. in R.
Meloy & L. Sheridan (Eds.), Stalking, threatening, and attacking public figures. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Stetler, Brian. (2010). Another Cable Helping for Food Lovers. The New York Times.
The Times Educational Supplement. (2008). The Issue: School meals - Two years on from
Jamie, good health drive begins to bite. TSL Education Ltd.
52
Unger, Jennifer B. et al. (2004). Acculturation, Physical Activity, and Fast Food
Consumption Among Asian-American and Hispanic Adolescents. Journal of
Community Health, 467 – 481. Vol. 29, No. 6. Retrieved on 4 December 2010.
Appendix
FOOD PROGRAM ONLINE SURVEY CONSENT FORM
PURPOSE: This study is being conducted by an American University graduate student in
Washington, DC. The purpose of the study is to learn more about audience perceptions of food
programs. The results of the survey will be analyzed and submitted as part of the graduate student’s
final senior project.
53
PROCEDURE: All participants will be asked to answer a variety of survey questions. If at any
time during the survey you feel uncomfortable or do not wish to answer a question, you can stop
the study or move forward to another question. The survey should take no longer than 15 minutes
to complete.
CONFIDENTIALITY: Every attempt will be made by the investigators to maintain strict
confidentiality of information collected in this study. To maintain confidentiality, your responses
will in no way be linked to you personally. Each research participant will be assigned a numeric
study code. The study code will not contain identifying information and at no time will the study
database contain personally identifying information. All study databases are password-protected.
RISKS: There is minimal risk to participating in this study. The primary risk associated with this
study is the potential discomfort in answering the survey questions.
BENEFITS: There is no direct benefit to you. However, your participation could help the
graduate student better understand how people respond to different types of food programs,
which could benefit you indirectly.
SUBJECT RIGHTS: If you wish further information regarding your rights as a research subject,
you may contact the Institutional Review Board at American University by telephoning (202) 8853447.
ALTERNATIVES/WITHDRAWAL: Participation in this study is completely voluntary. You
can withdraw from the study at any time.
CONTACT PERSON: If you have any questions at any time about the survey, feel free to
contact Devon Malene at American University. (email: dm5718a@american.edu, telephone:
513-255-7763).
CONCLUSION: By selecting the button, “I agree,” you indicate that you have read the
description of the study and agree to participate.
I agree
I do not agree
[If respondents select “I do not agree,” they will be taken to a terminal thank you page, which
says: Thank you for your interest in our study. Your participation is not needed at this time. If
you have any questions, please contact dm5718a@american.edu.]
Food Programs Survey:
2. Please indicate your gender:
1. Male
2. Female
3. Not willing to provide this information
54
3. Please indicate your age:
4. How many children under the age of 18 live at home:
5. Do you watch food program at least once a week? (Food programs include shows that feature
cooking instruction, such as those that appear on the Food Network, and programs that
prominently feature food as the objective of travel, business, a lifestyle, or competition; food
programs exclude shows that feature cooking segments, such as morning news shows and/or talk
shows.)
1. Yes
2. No (End survey)
6. How many hours of food programming do you watch per week?
1. Less than 1 hour per week
2. 1-4 hours per week
3. 5-8 hours per week
4. 9-12 hours per week
5. More than 12 hours a week
7. Which type of food programs appeal to you most? Please mark your top 3 choices in order of
preference with “1” as your top choice.
1. Cooking instruction (ex: 30 Minute Meals, Everyday Italian, Everyday Food on PBS)
2. Travel (ex: Bizarre Foods with Andrew Zimmern, No Reservations)
3. Competition (ex: Top Chef, Iron Chef, Chopped)
4. Lifestyle (ex: The Martha Stewart Show)
5. Reality/drama (ex: DC Cupcakes, Ace of Cakes)
6. Renovation (ex: Restaurant Impossible, Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares)
8. Which of the following best describes why you watch food programs?
1. They teach me new things
2. They entertain me
3. They relax me
4. They are the only things on
5. Other [fill in blank]
9. Which of the following are you most likely to learn about when watching food programs?
1. New recipes
2. Information about new cultures
3. Tips for eating healthy
4. Quick and practical cooking tips
5. Ideas for products to buy
6. Other [fill in blank]
10. How much attention do you typically pay when you watch food programs?
55
1. Always pay attention
2. Mostly pay attention
3. Occasionally pay attention
4. Rarely pay attention – it’s just background noise
11. How often do you and your friends/family talk about food programs?
1. Relatively often
2. Sometimes
3. Hardly ever
4. Never
12. How often do you and your friends/family talk about meals you have recently cooked or
eaten?
1. Relatively often
2. Sometimes
3. Hardly ever
4. Never
13. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements:
Strongly
Agree
Talking about food is an easy
way to connect with people
Food programs introduced me
to many of the basic skills
needed to cook a meal
I learn new things from food
programs
I feel that I can identify with
my favorite chef(s)
Neither Agree nor
Agree Disagree
Disagree Strongly Disagree
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
14. Have you ever looked up recipes after watching a food program?
1. Yes
2. No
15. Have you purchased cooking utensils that were recommended by a chef you enjoy watching?
1. Yes
2. No
16. Have you purchased a cookbook that was written by a chef you enjoy watching?
1. Yes
56
2. No
17. A 2010 Harris Poll Interactive reported that the following programs were voted America’s
Top 10 favorite cooking shows. Please indicate which 3 of these 10 shows are your favorite
shows, with “1” being your most favorite. If your favorite shows are not listed, please write the
titles in under “Other.”
1. 30 Minute Meals (Rachael Ray)
2. Paula's Home Cooking (Paula Deen)
3. Emeril Live (Emeril Lagasse)
4. Iron Chef
5. Good Eats (Alton Brown)
6. Diners, Drive-ins and Dives (Guy Fieri)
7. Top Chef
8. Barefoot Contessa (Ina Garten)
9. Martha Stewart
10. Everyday Italian (Giada de Laurentiis)
11. Other
18. Do you look forward to watching your favorite food programs?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Sometimes, depends which show it is
19. Please read the responses below and mark how strongly you agree with each of these
statements:
Strongly
Neither Agree
Agree
Agree
nor Disagree
Disagree
I enjoy watching the chefs.
They are friendly and provide
1
2
3
4
useful information.
Food programs are relaxing.
They require little to no thought
and give me a chance to unwind
Food programs are comforting.
They invoke feelings of my
childhood and I find them
soothing.
I watch food programs because
the chefs can do something I
can’t do. I am impressed with
their skills.
Strongly Disagr
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
57
I like watching someone else
put a meal together. It’s
interesting to have a peak into
someone else’s world.
I like to learn about new dishes
and recipes. They offer
interesting advice and I have
used some of the chef’s tips.
I like the chef's creativity with
their culinary presentations and
it gives me ideas as to how I
can do it in my home too.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20. How many nights per week do you eat a home cooked meal, either prepared by you or
someone else in your household?
21. How many nights per week do you personally prepare that home cooked meal?
22. On an average day, how much time do you personally spend preparing and cooking meals?
1. I only eat out/order in or eat microwave meals
2. 5-30 minutes
3. 31-60 minutes
4. More than 60 minutes
23. In general, approximately how many servings of fruits and vegetables do you eat per day? (A
serving is one medium piece of fruit or one cup of vegetables, which fits into the size of a
woman's hand).
1. 0
2. 1-2
3. 3-5
4. 6-8
5. 9 or more
24. In general, how would you rate the overall healthfulness of your diet? (“Diet” includes
everything you consume, including foods; beverages; and vitamin, mineral, and other dietary
supplements.).
1. Very healthy
2. Somewhat healthy
3. Neither healthy nor unhealthy
4. Somewhat unhealthy
5. Very unhealthy
25. What is your most important consideration when it comes to choosing what to eat?
58
1. Nutrition
2. Taste
3. Convenience
4. Price
5. Other [please specify]
26. Do you think food programs should provide more nutritional information than they do now,
less nutritional information, or is the amount they currently provide just right?
1. They should provide more
2. They currently provide the right amount
3. They should provide less
27. To what extent do you trust the food and nutrition advice given to you by the chefs you
watch on television?
1. Trust very much
2. Trust somewhat
3. Neither trust nor distrust
4. Distrust somewhat
5. Distrust very much
28. Please provide a short statement as to why you feel that way:
29. Are you aware of “Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution,” an ABC show that documents celebrity
chef Jamie Oliver’s efforts to change unhealthy eating habits and encourage healthy eating in
towns in the U.S. (previously an effort he headed up in Great Britain)?
1. Yes, I have watched it
2. Yes, I have heard of it, but never watched it
3. No, I have never heard of it
30. How much do you agree or disagree that celebrity chefs have a positive effect on American
eating habits?
1. Very much agree
2. Somewhat agree
3. Neither agree nor disagree
4. Somewhat disagree
5. Very much disagree
31. How likely would you be to listen to a celebrity chef if they provided instructions on how to
cook a healthier meal?
1. Very likely
2. Somewhat likely
3. Neither more or less likely
4. Somewhat unlikely
5. Very unlikely
32. Please provide a short explanation as to why you answered above:
59
33. How likely would you be to continue watching cooking shows if they were educational and
not just entertainment?
1. Very likely
2. Somewhat likely
3. Neither more or less likely
4. Somewhat unlikely
5. Very unlikely
34. The following question is intended to establish the demographics of the survey respondents,
but it in no way can be used to identify survey participants:
Are you now married, widowed, divorced, separated, never married or living with a partner?
1. Married
2. Widowed
3. Divorced
4. Separated
5. Never married
6. Living with a Domestic Partner
35. The following question is intended to establish the demographics of the survey respondents,
but it in no way can be used to identify survey participants:
What was your household’s annual income in 2010?
1. Less than $30,000 a year
2. Between $31,000 and $45,000 a year
3. Between $46,000 and $65,000 a year
4. Between $66,000 and $90,000 a year
5. Between $91,000 and $120,000 a year
6. Greater than $120,000 a year
7. Prefer not to answer this question
36. The following question is intended to establish the demographics of the survey respondents,
but it in no way can be used to identify survey participants:
How are you faring financially this year as opposed to last year?
1. Better than last year
2. Same as last year
3. Worse than last year
37. The following question is intended to establish the demographics of the survey respondents,
but it in no way can be used to identify survey participants:
60
What is the highest level of school you have completed?
1. Grade 8 or lower
2. Some high school, no diploma
3. High school diploma or equivalent
4. Some college, no degree
5. Associate degree or 2 year college degree
6. Bachelor’s degree
7. Master’s degree
8. Professional or doctorate degree
38. The following question is intended to establish the demographics of the survey respondents,
but it in no way can be used to identify survey participants:
Are you of Spanish, Hispanic or Latino descent?
1. Yes
2. No
39. The following question is intended to establish the demographics of the survey respondents,
but it in no way can be used to identify survey participants:
Which race/ethnicity do you identify with most?
1. White or Caucasian
2. Black or African American
3. Asian American
4. American Indian or Alaskan Native
5. Other [Please specify]
6. Prefer not to answer
40. The following question is intended to establish the demographics of the survey respondents,
but it in no way can be used to identify survey participants:
Which of the following best describes your employment status?
1. Working full time paid employment (35 or more hours per week)
2. Working part time paid employment (less than 35 hours per week)
3. Self employed
4. Other form of paid employment
5. Not currently in paid employment
41. The following question is intended to establish the demographics of the survey respondents,
but it in no way can be used to identify survey participants:
Are you currently a student?
1. Yes, full time
2. Yes, part time
3. No, I am not currently undertaking formal study
61
62