Week 1
Lecture 1 Models of food choice
After this lecture the student is able to…
Describe and apply several determinants of food choice / availability
Explain the main components of the Food Choice Model (1) and illustrate them with
examples
Explain the main components of the EV, TRA, and TPB (2)
Analyse the differences between EV, TRA, and TPB
Describe strengths and weaknesses of TPB (in relation to other models of food choice)
Modelling food choice
Food choice not only about what we eat, but also when, with who, etc.
Types of models (existing vs. new models; mono vs. multi-factorial; qualitative vs.
quantitative)
What models can (strengths, e.g. simplify, make it understandable) and cannot (weaknesses,
e.g. face validity is about translation to the real world) do
Determinants of food choice
Biggest determinant of what one eats = availability. But, determinants of what is available are...
Biological aspects: People have (innate) taste biases (e.g. preferences for sweet taste and
dislike for bitter tastes). Moreover, people are experiencing the omnivore’s dilemma.
Humans are omnivores (can eat almost anything) and are therefore balancing between being
resistant to new foods (neophobia; not everything is safe) and being drawn to new foods
(neophilia, natural curiosity).
Psychological aspects: In one experiment, there was an assortment of 300 M&M. In this
bowl with M&M’s, participants had 7 or 10 different colours M&M’s. All of those colours
were of identical taste. People eat more (43%) out of the bowl with 10 colours. Conclusion:
increasing perceived diversity will increase consumption because of natural curiosity to new
foods.
Social aspects: The risk of obesity is associated with SES and education. In ‘low-income’
countries low risk for obesity in lower social classes (explanation: e.g. not having the
resources to overeat). However, in ‘upper-middle-income’-countries high risk for obesity in
lower social classes. Risk for obesity in lower social classes increases with gross national
product.
Cultural aspects: You meet a stranger, whose food preference you want to predict. You can
ask one question. Then you ask from which country this person is coming from. Cultural
aspects are really important in predicting food choice.
Food and food choice can only be understood by a mixture of biological, psychological, social and
cultural perspectives, all taken within a historical context.
Food Choice Models (1)
Food choice process model over the life course (food choice shaped by life
course). Qualitative study by Devine and colleagues (1998): Life-course
influences on fruit and vegetable trajectories. This study found that there are
personal and environmental forces influencing this food choice trajection:
Food upbringing: both positive experiences (e.g. living on a farm) as
negative experiences (e.g. being forced to eat vegetables as child)
Roles + role transitions: e.g. marriage, divorce, employment,
childbearing
Health: e.g. acute and/or chronic illnesses, aging, self/others (others = e.g., changing your
own diet when someone in your household has to change his/her diet)
, Ethnic traditions: e.g. related with culture
Resources: e.g. perceived knowledge/skills, available time, space, money
Food system (context): e.g. changing health and diet information, cultural trends in cuisine
Food Choice Models: Key concepts (1)
The Food Choice Process model distinguishes between
micro-and (e.g., moving to a home with an own vegetable
garden) macro contexts (e.g. reduced salt content in bread
since 2021). Furthermore, it distinguishes between turning
points (drastic impact on food choice, becoming a
vegetarian, diagnosis of diabetic) and transitions (shift in life
course which leads to minor changes in food choice pattern,
e.g., changing from breakfast).
Food Choice Models (1)
Framework provides complexity of influences:
Ideals (e.g. normative standards)
Personal factors (e.g. physiological characteristics, preferences )
Resources (e.g. budget, transportation, skills)
Social factors (e.g. relationships with people, negotiating with environment)
Contexts (e.g. macro-context and micro-context)
Food Choice Models (1)
Personal food system: Translations of influences on individual food choices into how and what one
eats in particular situations:
Development of food choice values: (1) Taste, (2) Convenience, (3) Cost, (4) Health, (5)
Managing relationships (considering interests of others) and (6) Other (e.g., quality,
symbolism, safety, waste)
Classification foods/eating situations according to personal food choice values (e.g. eating at
home is healthier than eating out)
Value negotiation: prioritize values and weighing of options because most of the time not all
values can be taken care of (e.g. fresh
broccoli is healthy and convenient but
expensive and not tasty)
Balancing competing values: process to
resolve food choice value conflicts (e.g.
eating spicy food when eating alone or out,
but accept bland food when eating with
young children)
Strategies for recurring events: simplifying
food choices in situations that occur
repeatedly (picture)
Food Choice Models (1)
Limitations Food Choice Process Model:
Descriptive model (e.g. describing why people eat what they eat), not predictive (broad but
‘shallow’; not detailed)
Focus on specific factors but leaves out others (i.e. biology, to some extent culture)
Oriented on post-industrial Western society (where you have a choice in what you can eat)
Summary Food Choice Model (1)
Determinants of food choice - biology, psychology, sociology and anthropology
Food Choice Process Model - life course perspective on food choices
, Life course = framework for 5 groups of influences on food choice: ideals, personal factors,
resources, social factors, and context
Influences provide a framework for the personal food system → translated influences into
how and what one eats in particular situations
Personal food system is based on values: taste, convenience, cost, health, managing
relationships
Food Choice Models (2)
Food choice models based on attitudes, intentions and behaviours: expectancy - value model,
theory
of reasoned action and theory of planned behaviour
Food Choice Models (2)
Attitude = a disposition to respond favourably / unfavourable to an object, person, institution or
event
Attitude = hypothetical construct (you can’t touch it), inaccessible to direct observation, must be
inferred from measurable responses:
cognitive responses - awareness, knowledge
affective responses - preference, liking
conative responses - conviction (belief people hold), natural tendency
Food Choice Models (2)
Expectancy-value (EV) theory: Attitude to behaviour is in turn predicted by a set of salient beliefs
about the outcome of the behaviour (e.g. ‘eating fast food will cause overweight’) and the evaluating
of that outcome (e.g. ‘overweight is a bad thing’). It deals with rational behaviour. However, people
don’t act always rational or in line with their believes.
Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA): The TRA aims to
explain the relationship between attitudes and
behaviors within human action. It is mainly used to
predict how individuals will behave based on their
pre-existing attitudes, subjective norm and
behavioral intentions.
Better explanation for irrational behaviour, bit still
assumes that you will do what you want. However,
you only deal with behaviour that you have under
control.
Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB):
TRA and EV are ‘earlier’ versions that by adding
elements build up to TPB. TPB is the extension of TRA
by perceived behavioural control.
TPB in relation to healthy eating behaviours.
Questionnaires include measures of TPB on 20
components of healthy eating, e.g. eating a balanced
diet, avoiding eating fried foods, eating plenty of
fruits.
Attitudes - ‘what is your overall attitude toward plenty of fruits’
Subjective norms - ‘people who are important to me think that I should eat a balanced diet’
PBC - ‘how difficult or easy do you think it would be for you to eat a varied diet’
Intentions - ‘in the future I intend to eat a varied diet’
Good support for its predictive power, but, other additional predictors + moderating effects (e.g.
attitudinal ambivalence to healthy foods - ‘good for you but bad taste’)
, Summary part II
Food choice models based on attitudes, intentions, behaviour: TRA, EV, TPB
TRA and EV are ‘earlier’ versions that by adding elements build up to TPB
Interrelated elements of TPB (attitudes, subjective norms, PBC, intention and behaviour)
Lecture 2 Regulation of food and energy intake: the role of
properties of food
Learning outcomes
Explain and illustrate basic principles and theories (de Graaf, Blundell/Mela, Herman &
Polivy)
Explain differences, relationships between satiety, energy intake and body weight
Apply basic design principles for satiation, satiety studies
Calculate COMPX score
Reproduce hierarchy of satiating capacity of macronutrients
Explain protein leverage hypothesis of energy intake
Reproduce satiating capacity CHO > FAT; starch = sugar; solid CHO > liquid CHO
Explain passive overconsumption with fat
Role of alcohol in energy intake; absence of relationship with obesity
Distinguish between different types of dietary fibres: bulking, gelling, viscous, fermenting
Regulation of food and energy intake
1. Theories on short and long term intake
2. Three levels of research: satiety, energy intake, body weight
3. Properties of food: (a) protein, (b) carbohydrates), (c) fat, (d) alcohol and (e) fibre
4. Energy density and structure/texture, eating rate
Eating behaviour
Blundell’s satiety cascade adapted by Mela
This model is illustrative for the different factors that
influence satiety (absence of hunger, between meals)
and satiation (brings the meal to an end, during a
meal). Different factors have an influence on satiety
and satiation factors: sensory processes (during a meal,
determines what you eat), cognitive processes (during
and shortly after eating, e.g., people have expectations
on the satiation of the food) and physiological factors
(after eating, post-ingestive and post-absorptive e.g.,
satiety hormones signals to brain that you are
satiated)
Eating behaviour: long term energy balance (Swartz)
Previous models about short-term, this model is
about long-term energy balance. Long term energy
balance is related with the fat mass of an individual.
Lecture 1 Models of food choice
After this lecture the student is able to…
Describe and apply several determinants of food choice / availability
Explain the main components of the Food Choice Model (1) and illustrate them with
examples
Explain the main components of the EV, TRA, and TPB (2)
Analyse the differences between EV, TRA, and TPB
Describe strengths and weaknesses of TPB (in relation to other models of food choice)
Modelling food choice
Food choice not only about what we eat, but also when, with who, etc.
Types of models (existing vs. new models; mono vs. multi-factorial; qualitative vs.
quantitative)
What models can (strengths, e.g. simplify, make it understandable) and cannot (weaknesses,
e.g. face validity is about translation to the real world) do
Determinants of food choice
Biggest determinant of what one eats = availability. But, determinants of what is available are...
Biological aspects: People have (innate) taste biases (e.g. preferences for sweet taste and
dislike for bitter tastes). Moreover, people are experiencing the omnivore’s dilemma.
Humans are omnivores (can eat almost anything) and are therefore balancing between being
resistant to new foods (neophobia; not everything is safe) and being drawn to new foods
(neophilia, natural curiosity).
Psychological aspects: In one experiment, there was an assortment of 300 M&M. In this
bowl with M&M’s, participants had 7 or 10 different colours M&M’s. All of those colours
were of identical taste. People eat more (43%) out of the bowl with 10 colours. Conclusion:
increasing perceived diversity will increase consumption because of natural curiosity to new
foods.
Social aspects: The risk of obesity is associated with SES and education. In ‘low-income’
countries low risk for obesity in lower social classes (explanation: e.g. not having the
resources to overeat). However, in ‘upper-middle-income’-countries high risk for obesity in
lower social classes. Risk for obesity in lower social classes increases with gross national
product.
Cultural aspects: You meet a stranger, whose food preference you want to predict. You can
ask one question. Then you ask from which country this person is coming from. Cultural
aspects are really important in predicting food choice.
Food and food choice can only be understood by a mixture of biological, psychological, social and
cultural perspectives, all taken within a historical context.
Food Choice Models (1)
Food choice process model over the life course (food choice shaped by life
course). Qualitative study by Devine and colleagues (1998): Life-course
influences on fruit and vegetable trajectories. This study found that there are
personal and environmental forces influencing this food choice trajection:
Food upbringing: both positive experiences (e.g. living on a farm) as
negative experiences (e.g. being forced to eat vegetables as child)
Roles + role transitions: e.g. marriage, divorce, employment,
childbearing
Health: e.g. acute and/or chronic illnesses, aging, self/others (others = e.g., changing your
own diet when someone in your household has to change his/her diet)
, Ethnic traditions: e.g. related with culture
Resources: e.g. perceived knowledge/skills, available time, space, money
Food system (context): e.g. changing health and diet information, cultural trends in cuisine
Food Choice Models: Key concepts (1)
The Food Choice Process model distinguishes between
micro-and (e.g., moving to a home with an own vegetable
garden) macro contexts (e.g. reduced salt content in bread
since 2021). Furthermore, it distinguishes between turning
points (drastic impact on food choice, becoming a
vegetarian, diagnosis of diabetic) and transitions (shift in life
course which leads to minor changes in food choice pattern,
e.g., changing from breakfast).
Food Choice Models (1)
Framework provides complexity of influences:
Ideals (e.g. normative standards)
Personal factors (e.g. physiological characteristics, preferences )
Resources (e.g. budget, transportation, skills)
Social factors (e.g. relationships with people, negotiating with environment)
Contexts (e.g. macro-context and micro-context)
Food Choice Models (1)
Personal food system: Translations of influences on individual food choices into how and what one
eats in particular situations:
Development of food choice values: (1) Taste, (2) Convenience, (3) Cost, (4) Health, (5)
Managing relationships (considering interests of others) and (6) Other (e.g., quality,
symbolism, safety, waste)
Classification foods/eating situations according to personal food choice values (e.g. eating at
home is healthier than eating out)
Value negotiation: prioritize values and weighing of options because most of the time not all
values can be taken care of (e.g. fresh
broccoli is healthy and convenient but
expensive and not tasty)
Balancing competing values: process to
resolve food choice value conflicts (e.g.
eating spicy food when eating alone or out,
but accept bland food when eating with
young children)
Strategies for recurring events: simplifying
food choices in situations that occur
repeatedly (picture)
Food Choice Models (1)
Limitations Food Choice Process Model:
Descriptive model (e.g. describing why people eat what they eat), not predictive (broad but
‘shallow’; not detailed)
Focus on specific factors but leaves out others (i.e. biology, to some extent culture)
Oriented on post-industrial Western society (where you have a choice in what you can eat)
Summary Food Choice Model (1)
Determinants of food choice - biology, psychology, sociology and anthropology
Food Choice Process Model - life course perspective on food choices
, Life course = framework for 5 groups of influences on food choice: ideals, personal factors,
resources, social factors, and context
Influences provide a framework for the personal food system → translated influences into
how and what one eats in particular situations
Personal food system is based on values: taste, convenience, cost, health, managing
relationships
Food Choice Models (2)
Food choice models based on attitudes, intentions and behaviours: expectancy - value model,
theory
of reasoned action and theory of planned behaviour
Food Choice Models (2)
Attitude = a disposition to respond favourably / unfavourable to an object, person, institution or
event
Attitude = hypothetical construct (you can’t touch it), inaccessible to direct observation, must be
inferred from measurable responses:
cognitive responses - awareness, knowledge
affective responses - preference, liking
conative responses - conviction (belief people hold), natural tendency
Food Choice Models (2)
Expectancy-value (EV) theory: Attitude to behaviour is in turn predicted by a set of salient beliefs
about the outcome of the behaviour (e.g. ‘eating fast food will cause overweight’) and the evaluating
of that outcome (e.g. ‘overweight is a bad thing’). It deals with rational behaviour. However, people
don’t act always rational or in line with their believes.
Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA): The TRA aims to
explain the relationship between attitudes and
behaviors within human action. It is mainly used to
predict how individuals will behave based on their
pre-existing attitudes, subjective norm and
behavioral intentions.
Better explanation for irrational behaviour, bit still
assumes that you will do what you want. However,
you only deal with behaviour that you have under
control.
Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB):
TRA and EV are ‘earlier’ versions that by adding
elements build up to TPB. TPB is the extension of TRA
by perceived behavioural control.
TPB in relation to healthy eating behaviours.
Questionnaires include measures of TPB on 20
components of healthy eating, e.g. eating a balanced
diet, avoiding eating fried foods, eating plenty of
fruits.
Attitudes - ‘what is your overall attitude toward plenty of fruits’
Subjective norms - ‘people who are important to me think that I should eat a balanced diet’
PBC - ‘how difficult or easy do you think it would be for you to eat a varied diet’
Intentions - ‘in the future I intend to eat a varied diet’
Good support for its predictive power, but, other additional predictors + moderating effects (e.g.
attitudinal ambivalence to healthy foods - ‘good for you but bad taste’)
, Summary part II
Food choice models based on attitudes, intentions, behaviour: TRA, EV, TPB
TRA and EV are ‘earlier’ versions that by adding elements build up to TPB
Interrelated elements of TPB (attitudes, subjective norms, PBC, intention and behaviour)
Lecture 2 Regulation of food and energy intake: the role of
properties of food
Learning outcomes
Explain and illustrate basic principles and theories (de Graaf, Blundell/Mela, Herman &
Polivy)
Explain differences, relationships between satiety, energy intake and body weight
Apply basic design principles for satiation, satiety studies
Calculate COMPX score
Reproduce hierarchy of satiating capacity of macronutrients
Explain protein leverage hypothesis of energy intake
Reproduce satiating capacity CHO > FAT; starch = sugar; solid CHO > liquid CHO
Explain passive overconsumption with fat
Role of alcohol in energy intake; absence of relationship with obesity
Distinguish between different types of dietary fibres: bulking, gelling, viscous, fermenting
Regulation of food and energy intake
1. Theories on short and long term intake
2. Three levels of research: satiety, energy intake, body weight
3. Properties of food: (a) protein, (b) carbohydrates), (c) fat, (d) alcohol and (e) fibre
4. Energy density and structure/texture, eating rate
Eating behaviour
Blundell’s satiety cascade adapted by Mela
This model is illustrative for the different factors that
influence satiety (absence of hunger, between meals)
and satiation (brings the meal to an end, during a
meal). Different factors have an influence on satiety
and satiation factors: sensory processes (during a meal,
determines what you eat), cognitive processes (during
and shortly after eating, e.g., people have expectations
on the satiation of the food) and physiological factors
(after eating, post-ingestive and post-absorptive e.g.,
satiety hormones signals to brain that you are
satiated)
Eating behaviour: long term energy balance (Swartz)
Previous models about short-term, this model is
about long-term energy balance. Long term energy
balance is related with the fat mass of an individual.
