Expressing Individuality via Food Choices
Amanda Simpson Weaver and Jayson Lusk*
Abstract
A new means to the end of expressing one’s identity or individuality has grown in popularity in recent
years; food is much more to consumers than the basic physiological needs of food. Consumers have
diversified into a wide range of food personality types with different perceptions of the role food should
play in their lives. This paper uses factor analysis and compares these food personality factors with food
attributes factors consisting of non-price features of food products. Results show that identity is expressed
via food at differing levels and income level does have some influence.
Keywords: identity, food personality, food attributes, hierarchy of needs
*Amanda Simpson Weaver is a doctoral student and Jayson Lusk is a Regents Professor and Willard
Sparks Endowed Chair at Oklahoma State University in the Department of Agricultural Economics.
Introduction
While the general population has become more and more segregated from agriculture, the food market
has rapidly evolved. Food consumed away from home has increased in both calories consumed and total
food expenditures (Stewart et al. 2011; Stewart et al. 2004; Lin, Frazao, and Guthrie 1999), and food
consumed at home has changed its meaning. Home cooked meals are becoming less common, and the
microwave is the new cook of the family offering the meal of choice for each member at the time they
wish. Needless to say, the primary shopper of the household has a totally different cart of food than
before; from choosing foods that everyone will eat to choosing foods individually for each member.
Eating family style where the dishes are passed around the table is being replaced with single-serving,
convenient foods. This could be seen as agribusinesses bringing some of the appeal of restaurants into the
home: variety to please everyone. This allows for individuality in food choice, which uniqueness and
nonconformity has become a social and cultural norm in American society. Therefore, food markets must
continue to adapt to the changing market as consumers use food choices to express their individuality.
How do consumers express individuality through food? Bell et al. (1981) find personal food
beliefs dictate the foods that consumers select when analyzing six subjects with very different “food
habits” such as semi-vegetarian, European diet, average Australian diet, lacto-ovo vegetarian, health food,
and fast food (pg. 22). They preliminarily found that the complex food beliefs between their subjects
could be factored into three variables to explain a majority of the variation. Alternatively, another study
looked at food choice through food motives – health, weight concern, pleasure and identity – among
women using personality variables (Lindeman and Stark 1999). The expression of identity motive was
“best predicted by vegetarianism, magical beliefs about food and health, and personal strivings for
ecological welfare and for understanding self and the world” (pg. 141). Thus, these studies suggest that
beliefs about different types of food and what the food can offer to achieve supplementary goals are
supposedly becoming more important to consumers food decisions.
Over a decade ago, Antle (1999) described in his Presidential Address to the American
Agricultural Economics Association (AAEA) that demand was no longer just a function of own price and
1
prices of other goods, income, and population, but also demographics of that population and other
nonprice attributes of the good. Nonprice attributes he listed are nutrition, convenience, safety, where the
food is grown, naturalness (produced without modern technologies), and environmental impact. In
addition, taste has been cited by many to be the top food quality of interest when choosing food products
(Senauer 2001; Glanz et al. 1998; Demeritt 2002).
The portion of the population who view food as a means to satiate hunger and thirst alone is
declining as society becomes further removed from agriculture; food is now fulfilling much more for
consumers through these nonprice attributes. Considering the original Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, food
is included in the base of the triangle as one of the main physiological needs for survival (Maslow and
Lewis 1987), and moving towards the top of the pyramid are safety, love/belonging, esteem and selfactualization. In 1997, Belonax created a hierarchy of needs in relation to food as can be seen in Figure 1,
which illustrates how consumers express themselves through the food they consume. Senauer (2001)
describes how in the past, demand was almost a linear function of prices, income and a few
demographics. Now, he warns that while low income households will be motivated to meet physical
needs of food, it would be incorrect to assume someone moves or does not move up the hierarchy based
on income alone. Food is a trend that is attracting attention from all ages, and instead of clothing or
traveling, the new way to exhibit trendiness is foodiness or keeping up with the latest food trends. “What
you eat for dinner has become the definitive marker of social status” (Miller 2010, pg. 44).
The way people consume food is widely varied for a potentially endless number of reasons or
combinations of reasons and will continue to change and branch off. Senauer (2001, pg. 5) states that
“demand has shifted toward high-quality, processed and prepared foods that provide convenience and
other desired attributes,” but the trend in food consumption more than ten years later, is pushing
consumers to steer away from the center aisles of the supermarket or the supermarket altogether. Some
use social pressure to influence people to steer away from the fast food lifestyle and promote consumers
to spend more time on food planning, shopping, preparing, cooking and consuming or enjoying food. One
example of the trendy food movement is a TEDx event in Manhattan on February 16th, 2013 (Changing
2
the Way We Eat 2013). It is titled “Changing the Way We Eat,” and they advocate ten steps to change
food habits: getting educated about the food industry where they cite books like The Omnivore’s
Dilemma by Michael Pollan, shopping sustainable, asking questions, eating less meat, eating seasonal
foods, growing your own food, cooking, drinking local water, getting involved in campaigns, and
enjoying meals together. Here the antagonist is the retailer and big agribusiness; they claim to be a
proponent of the farmer. Then, there is the Slow Food Movement, which is a direct response to the
convenient fast food lifestyle. They promote that slow food is not just about food; it is a lifestyle that
links food consumption to social, ethical, political, environmental and spiritual elements (Andrews 2008).
The current back to the roots movement may or may not decrease the overall level of time spent on food
decisions. Nevertheless, some consumers are not only changing the types of food they eat, but they are
also devoting much more time and energy towards what they eat. However, it is worth noting that while
some consumers continue to follow the new trends, others may pick and choose which trends adhere to
their beliefs.
Since food is commonly given the role of expressing identity, none have looked at how particular
food attributes increase the probability that an individual has a particular set of what we call food
personality. This paper aims to define and cluster food personalities and find the impact of food qualities
on each personality type. It is important for food manufacturers and agribusinesses to know what
attributes are desired by their target market and for research to continue to study the evolving food
consumer.
Theory
Antle (1999) describes that estimating consumer demand is no longer a simple function of income and
price of the good, where price is a function of the quality. Consumer food demand now incorporates other
nonprice attributes as a result of the opportunity cost of time involved with food consumption. Thus, our
consumer demand model resembles that of Antle’s new economic model for the demand-side:
𝑋𝐷 = 𝐷(𝑷, 𝐼, 𝑁, 𝐶, 𝑄)
3
where 𝑋𝐷 represents the demand for good 𝑥 and is a function of 𝑃 or a vector of prices of all goods, 𝐼
income, 𝑁 the population of interest, 𝐶 or characteristics of the consumer population, and 𝑄 or the
nonprice attributes of the good. In our study, the population of interest is the United States and
characteristics of this population, which could incorporate a number of issues that influence preferences,
but we included food related habits such as the number of times eating fast food per week, hours
exercised per week, etc. Nonprice attributes corresponds several nonprice attributes demanded in the food
market today, and in nutritional content, convenience, safety, where and how good is produced,
environmental attributes in production process, and the process or inputs of production. This corresponds
with seven out of nine price and nonprice attributes chosen to include in our study: price, nutrition,
convenience, safety, where the food is grown, naturalness (produced without modern technologies), and
environmental impact. Taste and appearance were included as well, which could also be considered as
hedonic attributes.
Considering the Maslow’s hierarchy of needs in relation to food, we aim to sort these nonprice
attributes into a similar pyramid of food needs. Senauer (2001) states that income levels motivates the
level that individuals sit on this hierarchy, and that as income increases, society tends to use food to fill
needs higher up in the pyramid. We hypothesize that income will not be the only variable that effects the
desirability of upper hierarchy levels. Valuation of food attributes can also reveal how important it may
be to individuals to fulfill needs other than physiological needs. Also, if an individual highly ranks upper
levels in the hierarchy, we still expect they value the bottom tier or physiological needs. However, when
choosing a high level over the bottom level, they may assume that meeting physiological needs is given
and not an issue.
Data
Given our interest in food perceptions and food attribute rankings, an internet survey was chosen to
collect primary data. A random sample of the United States population was sought through Qualtrics, an
online research survey manager. The site solicits self-registered participants who meet the qualifications
of the targeted population via email, usually with a monetary incentive. Here, they were given a $1.50
4
payment into their account that can be used for gift certificates or a prepaid debit card, and the individuals
can only fill out a survey every 10 days, which reduces problems with professional respondents. This
study acquired 774 observations in March 2011. While the exact response rate could be higher due to a
number of reasons including spam filters keeping the survey from getting to potential panelists or
minimal usage of the email account, the rate available to report is 13.5% completing the survey. While
this may be a lower response rate and a high response rate would be preferred to reduce the chance of
sample selection bias, the means of demographics are compared to the US population via the Current
Population Survey in Table 1. As can be observed, the sample is similar to the US population, which
provides assurance of a random sample. Even so, a weight was employed using iterative proportional
fitting techniques (Izrael, Hoaglin, and Battaglia 2004, 2000), which made the sample means equal to the
US Census data in terms of age, education, gender, ethnicity, US Census region, and income level.
The questionnaire first lists a series of statements on “Food Personality,” which is in Figure 2,
and they are asked to state their level of agreement on a Likert scale coded from 1 through 5, or strongly
agree to strongly disagree. The second question of interest asks the respondent to place the nine food
attributes into three categories: most important, somewhat important, and least important. The survey
forced the respondent to place just three attributes per category. This eliminates respondents from being
able to deem all categories as important, though future research could allow for more flexibility or only
require at least one per category. Finally, a number of questions were asked that relate to food
consumption like if the respondent is the primary shopper of the household, how often they eat fast food,
if they have ever received food stamps, number of hours spent exercising per week, etc. The question on
food stamps is comparable to a question in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
(NHANES), which asks if the participant has ever received food stamp benefits. The average in 20072008 was approximately 25%, which is close to the 29% average found in the survey. The means of food
personality values, average food attribute rank, factors of both, food stamp participation, and percent who
have a college degree are found in Table 2.
5
Procedures
Before setting up a regression model, combining some of the variables into common factors was utilized
by factor analysis for both food personality variables and food attribute variables. Tables 3 and 4,
respectively, show the results of the factor analysis in SAS. For the food personality variables, the factors
are meant to signify the same sort of increasing order as Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs with food
personality types. So the “Bottom Tier” is represented by factor 2 which contains necessity and fuel. Then
factor 3 contains comforting and enemy, which we will consider to be the “Middle Tier” needs. They are
beyond the physical needs, but still physically related. Factor 1 contains the “Top Tier” needs or symbol,
passion, social and sacred – none of which meet physiological or physical needs, but needs of selfactualization or expression of identity.
The food attribute variables are factored into three categories as well, where Factor 3 contains
price and safety. We will call this factor “Necessity” attributes because those two factors meet two of the
most basic or necessary food needs. Then, factor 2 contains nutrition, convenience, and appearance which
we will call “Value-Added” because these all contribute to the individuals benefit in health and time.
Finally, Factor 1 contains naturalness, grown, environment, and taste which we give the name “Luxury”
in that the first three do not contribute to the food consumption experience directly, which explains the
inverse relationship of the three with taste. So within each factor, the respondent likely ranked the positive
(negative) attributes in a higher/lower importance level. Thus, if taste was highly rated, the other three
were not as highly rated and vice versa.
Now that the factors are defined, they can be created by taking the average of the variables
involved in each factor of food personality variables and food attribute variables. For example, the food
personality factor “Bottom Tier” was created by taking the average of both “food is fuel” and “food is
necessity” ratings. The same process of finding the average of the variables involved in each factor was
executed for the food attribute variables, though the inverse relationship was taken into account as well.
For example, to find the Necessity factor, safety was subtracted from price to find the average. Without
subtracting, the inverse relationship between each factor is not taken into account.
6
Discussing the difference between the food personality and food attribute factors, one is a
characteristic of the person’s perception of the importance of an attribute and the other is the person’s
perception of themselves as it relates to food. Thus, we hypothesize that in a grocery aisle, consumers in
the necessity category are likely to base their choice on the lower price tag or the brand they trust to be
safer; they are inversely correlated so giving one high importance means the other is not as important.
This consumer could be someone with low income or any income level if they do not wish to fulfill other
needs beyond food consumption. They potentially spend more time on food by not spending more money
on convenient products and fast food; they prepare more meals at home, spend more time searching for
cheaper item like calculating cost per unit, etc.
The value-added attributes are likely to be chosen by consumers who base their choice on their
needs being met on the nutrition panel or the way the food or packaging of the food looks, which could
enhance the perceived taste. However, there is a negative connection between nutrition and appearance
and the convenience of the food or the time required to prepare/level of difficulty to prepare. Thus, if an
individual highly rates convenience and appearance, they are likely to rate nutrition lower. With a high
ranking of convenience, they could be indirectly demanding more time available or less time spent
preparing food or exercising to burn excess calories could be some deeper reasoning. They likely spend
the least amount of time on food, i.e. more meals away from home or brought home and more packaged
food from the store. Considering the positive correlation with appearance, food packaging could be an
interpretation of appearance, and an appealing package or trendy logo could be associated with a newer
product that is easy to prepare. With a negative relationship between nutrition and convenience, this could
be from a mostly true observation that nutritious foods are not convenient foods, though there are always
exceptions.
Finally, consumers who highly rate the luxury attributes are likely to base their choice on the taste
of the food or labels claiming natural, where the food is grown and its environmental impact. Thus, if
taste is preferred, naturalness, where the food is grown, and environmental impact are not as highly
ranked and vice versa. They are likely to spend more time on food preparation and/or consumption via
7
purchasing or eating foods they know appease their taste buds or seeking foods with more labels. We
hypothesize that the top tier food personality variables – passion, social, symbol, sacred – would increase
with this factor.
Using the common factors, we will run a regression to find the effect of the food attribute levels
and other demographics on the food personality factors:
(1)
𝑃𝑖𝑗𝑘 = 𝛼0 + 𝛼1𝑗 𝑨𝒊𝒋 + 𝛼2 𝑷𝒊 + 𝛼3 𝑭𝒊 + 𝛼4 𝑬𝑿𝒊 + 𝛼5 𝑆𝑖 + 𝛼6 𝐺𝑖 + 𝛼7 𝑰𝒊𝒌 + 𝛼8 𝐸𝑖 + 𝜀𝑖𝑗𝑘
where 𝑃 is the food personality factor i where 𝑖 = 1, 2, 3 tiers or bottom, middle, and top tiers of the
hierarchy, 𝐴 is a vector of food attribute factors where 𝑗 = necessity, value-added, and luxury food
attributes, 𝑷𝒊 is a vector for primary shopper in the household where 𝑃𝑖 = 0%, 50%, or 100%, 𝑭𝒊 is a
vector for how many times the individual consumed fast food in a week where 𝑭𝒊 = 0, 1.5, 3.5 or 5, 𝑬𝑿𝒊
is a vector for how many hours the individual exercised per week where 𝑬𝑿𝒊 = 0, 1.5, 3.5, 5.5, or 7, 𝑆𝑖 is
an indicator variable for if ever being a participant of the food stamp program, 𝐺𝑖 is an indicator variable
for if female, 𝐼𝑖𝑘 is a vector of annual household incomes where 𝑘 = less than $20,000, $20,000-$39,999,
$40,000-$59,999, $60,000-$79,999, $80,000-$99,999, and $100,000 or more, 𝐸𝑖 is an indicator variable
for an individual having a Bachelor’s degree or not, and 𝜀𝑖𝑗𝑘 is an assumed independent error term which
is 𝜀𝑖𝑗𝑘 ~𝑁(𝜇, 𝜎𝜀2 ).
Results
Some interesting results, first of all, were found just in comparing means overall and between groups. For
the most part, the survey respondents follow previous research by placing taste as the number one overall
attribute as shown in Table 5, although those who said they have an immediate family member who farms
or ranches placed nutrition and price over taste. Then in Table 6, the averages of the traits are listed in
ranking order of the highest rating of importance for each personality statement. These averages are
interesting to note when considering that the traits are factored into tiers that resemble Maslow’s
Hierarchy of Needs. “Social” was the top rated food personality trait which is also a part of the top tier of
8
the hierarchy. The inclination that food is a means towards other ends rather than just physiological needs
is affirmed in these results.
There is a significant difference in the means for two of the attributes and two personality
statements between two groups concerning food stamps as can be observed in Table 7: convenience, taste,
necessity and sacred. If an individual was ever on food stamps, they value convenience and taste less, and
they tend to agree more with statements that food is a necessity and food is sacred. Why an individual
would agree more with the statement that “food is sacred: I eat the way nature intended” is unknown other
than interpretation of the statement. Nevertheless, ever having been enrolled in the food stamp program
did leave an impression on certain food perceptions and the desirability of a couple food attributes.
The regression results in Table 8 provided an interesting picture of what variables will increase or
decrease the level of agreement with our food personality groups. As preference for Value-Added
attributes increases, the rating of the top level food personality traits decreases, which tells us that those
who believe food is their passion, social, sacred or a symbol do not care as much about nutrition,
convenience, or appearance of the food. There are a few variables that do increase the agreement level
with this top level including if the individual is the primary shopper in the household and how often they
exercise, both of which as positively associated. Variables that have a positive influence on the top tier
could mean that these individuals spend more time on food choices or compensating for food choices. But
then, as they eat more fast food per week, this also increases the agreement level for the top tier, which
contradicts their lower ranking of Value-Added attributes. This may be an indicator that these individuals
prefer to avoid convenient, fast food, but in reality, they still consume it due to other factors like income.
At the other extreme, the bottom tier of the hierarchy is positively influenced by necessity food
attributes and low income levels as hypothesized. This suggests that a preference for price and safety
increases the agreement level of the bottom tier personality which is the combination of food is fuel and
food is a necessity statements. Females and a preference for luxury food items negatively effects the
agreement level of the bottom tier as well, meaning females look for more out of food than the basic
physiological needs more than males and luxury foods are not desired by those who utilize food for the
9
physiological needs alone. Finally, the middle level is most effected by low income levels as well.
Interestingly, necessity food attributes increases the rating of the middle tier, indicating that price or
safety are important to this tier who believe food is comforting and my enemy. Could this be an effect of
cheap (comforting) junk food? Fast food consumers are also more likely to agree with the statements that
food is comforting and food is my enemy, which is somewhat of an expected response.
Conclusion
The results in this study are quite revealing for the food industry and should provide valuable marketing
insight for agribusinesses. For food retailers their primary shoppers are individuals who value foods role
in their social lives, believe food is a symbol of who they are, and food is their passion and sacred to
them. These factors are much more relevant to primary shoppers than diet or comfort foods that are
associated with the middle tier, as well as the most economical and basic food choices associated with the
bottom tier. For companies appealing to lower income levels, the top priorities for those individuals is
price and safety, and they especially do not like what is considered to be a comfort or diet food. For fast
food restaurants, their consumers are more likely to agree with the middle tier or prefer comfort food as
well as healthier options, but they also agree with top tier personality traits, thus their choice of food or
even restaurant tells something about their identity. With a high rating of food is my passion, their
consumers may prefer variety. The sacred trait may lead them to prefer seasonal food items. For
agribusinesses targeting consumers who want comfort food and diet foods, also targeting low income
areas may not be successful.
Over 77% of respondents claimed to be the primary shopper in their household, and this group is
especially important not to overlook for food retail markets. These individuals are choosing and
purchasing food items that satisfy their luxury tastes. Therefore, for these shoppers to buy something for
their family that does not reflect their status or needs in the upper tiers, it would take direct requests from
their loved ones for the specific item or be a frequent, expected purchase. Thus, appealing to the primary
shopper as well must be taken into account when targeting other groups. Considering that females account
for 57% of the primary shopper group in the survey, items for men and children need to have those
10
attributes that women would be willing to purchase. One thing is certain about all primary shoppers
though; they describe food as their passion significantly more than non-primary shoppers. This is the one
variable we found to be significantly different between the two groups, so food items that make the
shopper feel like a food connoisseur would be a step in the right direction.
With the increasing number of options that consumers have at the supermarket and in restaurant
selection, types of consumers are branching off as well. Further research could look at the personality
traits for each food industry entity closer to identify types of restaurants that appeal to the different
personality traits. Also, including more possible personality variables could be insightful in breaking
down food personality classification further, and including more specific explanation for each could be
important to ensure interpretation is the same across individuals. Food personality types are becoming
more apparent and will continue to evolve over time.
11
References
Andrews, G. 2008. The Slow Food Story: Politics and Pleasure: McGill Queens University Press.
Antle, John M. 1999. "The New Economics of Agriculture." American Journal of Agricultural Economics
81 (5):993-1010.
Bell, A Chris, A. M. Stewart, A. J. Radford, and P. T. Cairney. 1981. "A Method for Describing Food
Beliefs Which May Predict Personal Food Choice." Journal of Nutrition Education 13 (1):22-26.
Belonax, Joseph J. 1997. Food Marketing. Needham Heights, Massachuesetts: Simon & Schuster Custom
Publishing.
Changing the Way We Eat. February 16 2013. Available from http://tedxmanhattan.org/change-the-wayyou-eat/.
Demeritt, L. 2002. All Things Organic 2002: A Look at the Organic Consumer. Bellevue, WA: The
Hartman Group.
Glanz, Karen, M. Basil, E. Maibach, J. Goldberg, and D. Snyder. 1998. "Why Americans Eat What They
Do: Taste, Nutrition, Cost, Convenience, and Weight Control Concerns as Influences on Food
Consumption." Journal of the American Dietetic Association 98 (10):1118-1126.
Izrael, David, David C Hoaglin, and Michael P Battaglia. 2000. A SAS Macro for Balancing a Weighted
Sample. Paper presented at Twenty-Fifth Annual SAS Users Group International Conference.
———. 2004. To Rake or Not to Rake is Not the Question Anymore with the Enhanced Raking Macro.
Paper presented at SUGI Conference, May 2004, at Montreal, Canada.
Lin, Biing-Hwan, Elizabeth Frazao, and Joanne F Guthrie. 1999. Away-from-Home Foods Increasingly
Important to Quality of American Diet. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service,
Lindeman, M., and K. Stark. 1999. "Pleasure, Pursuit of Health or Negotiation of Identity? Personality
Correlates of Food Choice Motives Among Young and Middle-Aged Women." Appetite 33
(1):141-161.
12
Maslow, A.H., and K.J. Lewis. 1987. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs: Salenger Incorporated.
Miller, L. 2010. Divided We Eat. Newsweek, November 29, 43-48.
Senauer, B. 2001. "The Food Consumer in the 21st Century: New Research Perspectives." Working
Paper: Retail Food Industry Center, University of Minnesota.
Stewart, H., N. Blisard, S. Bhuyan, and R. M. Nayga Jr. 2004. The Demand for Food Away from Home.
In Agricultural Economic Report, edited by US Department of Agriculture Economic Research
Service.
Stewart, H., J.L. Lusk, J. Roosen, and J.F. Shogren. 2011. "Food Away from Home." The Oxford
Handbook of the Economics of Food Consumption and Policy 1: 647-666.
13
Table 1. Demographics of Survey Sample Compared to the United States (US Census Bureau 2010)
Category
U.S. Census
Sample
Age
18-34 years old
30.71%
30.36%
35-44 years old
17.64%
18.86%
45-54 years old
19.36%
20.54%
55-64 years old
15.44%
15.37%
65 years or older
16.84%
14.86%
Education
Some college, high school degree or less
Bachelor's degree
Graduate degree (MS, MA, MBA, PhD, MD, or JD)
79.44%
13.58%
6.99%
62.98%
21.59%
15.42%
Gender
Female
Male
49.13%
50.87%
51.16%
48.84%
Ethnicity
White
Black or African American
Hispanic
Other
64.89%
12.14%
16.07%
6.90%
84.29%
6.71%
3.43%
5.57%
Location
Northeast U.S Census region
Midwest U.S Census region
South U.S Census region
West U.S Census region
17.96%
21.72%
36.91%
23.41%
19.69%
21.54%
32.38%
26.39%
Annual household
income
Less than $20,000
$20,000 to $39,999
$40,000 to $59,999
$60,000 to $79,999
$80,000 to $99,999
$100,000 or more
14.06%
19.72%
17.05%
14.00%
10.17%
25.01%
14.47%
26.74%
19.25%
14.73%
10.34%
14.47%
Number of times
exercising per week
None
1-2 hours per week
3-4 hours per week
5-6 hours per week
7 or more hours per week
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
22.11%
32.12%
23.54%
13.26%
8.97%
Number of times eating
fast food per week
None
1-2 meals per week
3-4 meals per week
5 or more meals per week
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
26.27%
60.26%
11.11%
2.35%
Primary shopper of the
household
Yes
No
Equally shared
N/A
N/A
N/A
77.75%
5.63%
16.62%
14
Table 2. Summary Statistics on Food Attribute and Food Personality Variables
Variable
N
Mean Std Dev
Food is a…
Necessity
774
2.970
1.143
Fuel
774
3.337
1.054
Symbol
774
2.840
1.149
Comforting
772
3.272
1.091
Enemy
770
2.299
1.163
Passion
774
3.124
1.109
Social
772
3.299
1.116
Sacred
771
2.754
1.064
Food Personality Factors
Bottom (necessity, fuel)
Middle (comforting, enemy)
Top (symbol, passion, social, sacred)
774
768
769
Food Attributes (1=Least Important, 3=Most Important)
Price
774
Naturalness
774
Nutrition
774
Grown
774
Safety
774
Environmental impact
774
Appearance
774
Convenience
774
Taste
774
Minimum
Maximum
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
3.154
2.788
3.005
0.945
0.907
0.801
1.00
1.00
1.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
2.530
1.797
2.545
1.598
2.202
1.399
1.704
1.640
2.585
0.691
0.786
0.606
0.694
0.720
0.595
0.700
0.709
0.675
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
Food Attribute Factors
Necessity (price, safety)
Value-added (nutrition, convenience, appearance)
Luxury (natural, grown, environment, taste)
774
774
774
-0.164
-0.266
0.552
0.561
0.470
0.469
-1.00
-1.67
0.00
1.00
0.33
2.00
Food stamp participation (1 = Yes)
Education Indicator (1 = College degree)
Weight
771
774
774
0.292
0.367
1.000
0.455
0.482
0.873
0.00
0.00
0.14
1.00
1.00
7.26
15
Table 3. Factor Analysis for Food Personality
Attributes
Factor 1 – Top Tier
Factor 2 - Bottom Tier
Necessity
-4
60 *
Fuel
6
61 *
Symbol
41 *
10
Comforting
18
0
Enemy
-7
2
Passion
68 *
-8
Social
57 *
-9
Sacred
59 *
16
Factor 3 – Middle Tier
3
0
19
50 *
48 *
-5
18
-11
Printed values are multiplied by 100 and rounded to the nearest integer. Values greater than 0.4 are flagged by an '*'.
Table 4. Factor Analysis for Food Attributes
Attributes
Factor 1 - Luxury
Price
-35
Naturalness
66 *
Nutrition
-28
Grown
69 *
Safety
-13
Environment
69 *
Convenience
-26
Taste
-67 *
Appearance
-36
Factor 2 - Value Added
-2
27
92 *
-3
3
-9
-57 *
5
-50 *
Factor 3 – Necessity
-47 *
-18
-4
-6
95 *
13
-27
-6
1
Printed values are multiplied by 100 and rounded to the nearest integer. Values greater than 0.4 are flagged by an '*'.
Table 5. Food Attribute Average Rankings
Rank
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Attribute
Taste
Nutrition
Price
Safe
Naturalness
Appearance
Convenience
Grown
Environmental
Average
2.59
2.55
2.53
2.20
1.80
1.70
1.64
1.60
1.40
Family not in Agriculture
Taste
2.62
Nutrition
2.54
Price
2.53
Safety
2.21
Naturalness
1.77
Appearance
1.71
Convenience
1.65
Grown
1.57
Environment
1.39
16
Family in Agriculture
Nutrition
Price
Taste
Safety
Naturalness
Grown
Appearance
Convenience
Environment
2.56
2.49
2.31
2.17
2.01
1.83
1.63
1.53
1.47
Table 6. Food Personality Traits Average Rating of Importance
Trait
Social
Fuel
Comforting
My Passion
A Necessity
A Symbol
Sacred
My Enemy
Average
3.31
3.30
3.28
3.11
2.92
2.81
2.73
2.34
Table 7. Difference in the Mean Rank of Food Attributes and Level of Agreement with Food Personality
Statements
Not on Food Stamps (N=546) On Food Stamps (N=225)
Mean
Standard
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Deviation
Variable
Difference
p-value
Price
2.5183
0.7095
2.5644
0.6385
0.0461
0.3788
Naturalness
1.7857
0.7757
1.8178
0.8060
0.0321
0.6100
Nutrition
2.5421
0.6020
2.5556
0.6180
0.0134
0.7794
Grown
1.5678
0.6880
1.6533
0.6910
0.0856
0.1164
Safety
2.1722
0.7114
2.2711
0.7394
0.0989
0.0872
Environment
1.3993
0.6102
1.4000
0.5590
0.0007
0.9920
1.6722
0.7223
1.5644
0.6725
-0.1077
Convenience
0.0478
2.6355
0.6331
2.4711
0.7502
-0.1644
Taste
0.0038
Appearance
1.7070
0.6948
1.7022
0.7167
-0.0047
0.9362
2.9029
1.1037
3.1333
1.2247
0.2304
Necessity
0.0146
Fuel
3.2985
1.0337
3.4267
1.1041
0.1281
0.1362
Symbol
2.8315
1.1337
2.8489
1.1894
0.0174
0.8494
Comforting
3.3088
1.0755
3.1867
1.1263
-0.1222
0.1646
Enemy
2.2813
1.1338
2.3318
1.2329
0.0506
0.5962
Passion
3.0861
1.0895
3.2133
1.1568
0.1273
0.1586
Social
3.3051
1.0902
3.2889
1.1806
-0.0163
0.8572
2.6943
1.0338
2.8889
1.1264
0.1946
Sacred
0.0258
17
Table 8. Regression Results for Each Food Personality Factor Level as Dependent Variable
Bottom Level
Middle Level
Top Level
Parameter
Parameter
Parameter
Variable
Estimate
p-value
Estimate
p-value
Estimate
p-value
Intercept
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
2.5999
2.5979
2.5221
Necessity
0.0219
0.0377
-0.0254
0.6339
0.1481
0.1295
Value-added
-0.1490
0.0694
-0.1354
0.0875
0.0023
-0.2069
Luxury
0.0022
-0.0058
0.9400
-0.1264
0.0565
-0.2457
Primary shopper
0.2162
0.0856
0.1925
0.1130
<.0001
0.5176
Fast food
0.0004
0.9891
<.0001
0.0007
0.1391
0.0907
Exercise
-0.0002
0.9907
-0.0137
0.3720
0.0008
0.0441
Food stamp
0.0475
0.5588
0.0209
0.7901
0.0981
0.1443
female
0.0004
0.0130
0.8542
-0.0947
0.1183
-0.2592
Less than $20,000
0.0003
0.0170
-0.1892
0.0708
0.4556
-0.2923
$20,000 to $39,999
<.0001
0.0296
0.0013
0.4744
-0.2351
-0.2976
$40,000 to $59,999
0.0054
0.0012
-0.1585
0.0883
0.3135
-0.3523
$60,000 to $79,999
0.1396
0.2403
-0.2151
0.0611
-0.1878
0.0560
$80,000 to $99,999
0.1868
0.1466
-0.0258
0.8353
0.0153
-0.2580
Education indicator
0.1472
0.0834
0.0601
0.4641
0.0852
0.2246
**Coefficients in bold are significant at the 5% level.
Table 9. Difference in the Mean Rank of Food Attributes and Level of Agreement with Food Personality
Statements
Not Primary
Equally Shared
Primary Shopper
Shopper (N=43)
Shopper (N=127)
(N=595)
Variable
Mean Std Dev
Mean Std Dev
Mean Std Dev Differencea p-value
Price
2.604651 0.583076 2.582677 0.659978 2.509244 0.706749
-0.0954 0.3078
Naturalness 1.651163 0.719911 1.692913 0.771638 1.836975 0.792629
0.1858 0.1052
Nutrition
2.511628 0.592497 2.582677 0.569613 2.539496 0.616581
0.0279 0.7642
Grown
1.627907 0.690868 1.496063 0.653125 1.620168 0.703716
-0.0077 0.9442
Safety
2.279070 0.766115 2.259843 0.703874 2.179832 0.722134
-0.0992 0.4122
Environment 1.441861 0.665558 1.354331 0.556742 1.408403 0.599885
-0.0335 0.7490
Convenience 1.604651 0.694863 1.677165 0.677084 1.630252 0.713807
0.0256 0.8180
Taste
2.511628 0.767559 2.661417 0.632712 2.574790 0.675973
0.0632 0.5962
Appearance 1.767442 0.750784 1.692913 0.660829 1.700840 0.704423
-0.0666 0.5754
Necessity
2.976744 1.034831 2.858268 1.059533 2.973109 1.163104
-0.0036 0.9840
Fuel
3.209302 1.013202 3.299213 1.018207 3.349580 1.067808
0.1403 0.3844
Symbol
2.581395 1.199852 2.700787 1.018207 2.884034 1.172782
0.3026 0.1118
Comforting
3.093023 0.995561 3.212598 1.081078 3.295110 1.100795
0.2021 0.2006
Enemy
2.142857 1.049307 2.373016 1.078771 2.293423 1.186171
0.1506 0.3682
2.697674 1.145070 3.062992 1.036998 3.171429 1.115029
0.4738 0.0086
Passion
Social
3.046512 1.068009 3.228347 1.017225 3.332209 1.137175
0.2857 0.0910
Sacred
2.581395 0.851681 2.669291 0.976348 2.788851 1.093440
0.2075 0.1310
a. Difference is the difference between Primary Shopper and Not Primary Shopper
18
Figure 1. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs in Relation to Food (Belonax 1997)
Figure 2. Food Personality Question
19