4.1 Article

Family Members' Influence on Family Meal Vegetable Choices

期刊

JOURNAL OF NUTRITION EDUCATION AND BEHAVIOR
卷 42, 期 4, 页码 225-234

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jneb.2009.05.006

关键词

family meals; vegetables; exchange theory; food preparer role

资金

  1. Children Youth and Families Seed [5/05-6/30/06]
  2. Pennsylvania State University Outreach [2/06-1/31/07]
  3. National Cancer Institute [U01 CA114622]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Characterize the process of family vegetable selection (especially cruciferous, deep orange, and dark green leafy vegetables); demonstrate the usefulness of Exchange Theory (how family norms and experiences interact with rewards and costs) for interpreting the data. Design: Eight focus groups, 2 with each segment (men/women vegetable likers/dislikers based on a screening form). Participants completed a vegetable intake form. Setting: Rural Appalachian Pennsylvania. Participants: Sixty-one low-income, married/cohabiting men (n = 28) and women (n = 33). Analysis: Thematic analysis within Exchange Theory framework for qualitative data. Descriptive analysis, t tests and chi-square tests for quantitative data. Results: Exchange Theory proved useful for understanding that regardless of sex or vegetable liker/disliker status, meal preparers see more costs than rewards to serving vegetables. Experience plus expectations of food preparer role and of deference to family member preferences supported a family norm of serving only vegetables acceptable to everyone. Emphasized vegetables are largely ignored because of unfamiliarity; family norms prevented experimentation and learning through exposure. Conclusions and Implications: Interventions to increase vegetable consumption of this audience could (1) alter family norms about vegetables served, (2) change perceptions of experiences, (3) reduce social and personal costs of serving vegetables, and (4) increase tangible and social rewards of serving vegetables.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据