Individual differences in the conceptualization of food across eating contexts

Individual differences in food-related knowledge structures were explored by applying schema theory to examine the categories 42 adults used to classify foods across four eating contexts. Food card-sort labels were organized into 12 categories, category salience for each person was evaluated, and cluster analysis was used to identify clusters of participants according to the salience of their categories. Clusters were further evaluated for complexity and consistency of category use across contexts. Seven food schema clusters were identified. Meal/time and Routine categories were the most salient overall and were used by most clusters. Well-being, Person, Source, Convenience, Meal component, and Food group categories varied in salience across clusters. The complexity and consistency of the food categories participants used across the contexts varied among the clusters. This study provided insight about cognitions that may underlie food-choice behaviors. Understanding individuals' food schemas could help nutrition professionals tailor messages to maximize health impact.

Classifying foods in contexts: how adults categorize foods for different eating settings

This project examined adults' food cognitions by applying schema theory to explain how adults categorized foods for different contexts. Qualitative interviews and repeated card sort activities for different eating contexts were conducted to elicit as many food categories as possible from 42 US adults. Participants labeled card sort piles with their own words, providing 991 card sort labels. Qualitative analysis of the labels resulted in the emergence of 12 category types. Personal-experience-based types were specific to the individual (e.g., Preference). Context-based types were related to situational aspects of eating episodes (e.g., Location). Food-based types were related to intrinsic properties of the foods (e.g., Physical characteristics). Different combinations of the 12 category types were used for different eating contexts. Personal-experience and context-based types were used most frequently overall. Some category types were used more frequently for specific contexts (e.g., Convenience for work contexts). Food-based taxonomic category types were used most frequently when no context was defined. Script-oriented categories were more often used in response to specific eating contexts. These findings provide a framework to consider how individuals classify foods in real-life eating contexts. Attention to personal-experience and context-based category types may help improve understanding of relationships between knowledge and food choice behaviors.