Skip to main content
×
Home

The Eating Motivation Survey: results from the USA, India and Germany

  • Gudrun Sproesser (a1), Matthew B Ruby (a2), Naomi Arbit (a3), Paul Rozin (a2), Harald T Schupp (a4) and Britta Renner (a1)...
Abstract
Abstract Objective

Research has shown that there is a large variety of different motives underlying why people eat what they eat, which can be assessed with The Eating Motivation Survey (TEMS). The present study investigates the consistency and measurement invariance of the fifteen basic motives included in TEMS in countries with greatly differing eating environments.

Design

The fifteen-factor structure of TEMS (brief version: forty-six items) was tested in confirmatory factor analyses.

Setting

An online survey was conducted.

Subjects

US-American, Indian and German adults (total N 749) took part.

Results

Despite the complexity of the model, fit indices indicated a reasonable model fit (for the total sample: χ 2/df=4·03; standardized root-mean-squared residual (SRMR)=0·063; root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA)=0·064 (95 % CI 0·062, 0·066)). Only the comparative fit index (CFI) was below the recommended threshold (for the total sample: CFI=0·84). Altogether, 181 out of 184 item loadings were above the recommended threshold of 0·30. Furthermore, the factorial structure of TEMS was invariant across countries with respect to factor configuration and factor loadings (configural v. metric invariance model: ΔCFI=0·009; ΔRMSEA=0·001; ΔSRMR=0·001). Moreover, forty-three out of forty-six items showed invariant intercepts across countries.

Conclusions

The fifteen-factor structure of TEMS was, in general, confirmed across countries despite marked differences in eating environments. Moreover, latent means of fourteen out of fifteen motive factors can be compared across countries in future studies. This is a first step towards determining generalizability of the fifteen basic eating motives of TEMS across eating environments.

Copyright
Corresponding author
* Corresponding author: Email gudrun.sproesser@uni-konstanz.de
Footnotes
Hide All

Current affiliation: La Trobe University, Department of Psychology and Public Health, Wodonga, VIC, Australia.

Footnotes
References
Hide All
1. Eertmans A, Victoir A, Vansant G et al. (2005) Food-related personality traits, food choice motives and food intake: mediator and moderator relationships. Food Qual Prefer 16, 714726.
2. Glanz K, Basil M, Maibach E et al. (1998) Why Americans eat what they do. J Am Diet Assoc 98, 11181126.
3. Pollard TM, Steptoe A & Wardle J (1998) Motives underlying healthy eating: using the Food Choice Questionnaire to explain variation in dietary intake. J Biosoc Sci 30, 165179.
4. Sproesser G, Strohbach S, Schupp HT et al. (2011) Candy or apple? How self-control resources and motives impact dietary healthiness in women. Appetite 56, 784787.
5. Steptoe A & Wardle J (1999) Motivational factors as mediators of socioeconomic variations in dietary intake patterns. Psychol Health 14, 391402.
6. Sun YH (2008) Health concern, food choice motives, and attitudes toward healthy eating: the mediating role of food choice motives. Appetite 51, 4249.
7. Ogden J, Oikonomou E & Alemany G (2017) Distraction, restrained eating and disinhibition: an experimental study of food intake and the impact of ‘eating on the go’. J Health Psychol 22, 3950.
8. Steptoe A, Pollard TM & Wardle J (1995) Development of a measure of the motives underlying the selection of food: the food choice questionnaire. Appetite 25, 267284.
9. Bucher T & Keller C (2015) The web-buffet – development and validation of an online tool to measure food choice. Public Health Nutr 18, 19501959.
10. Konttinen H, Sarlio-Lähteenkorva S, Silventoinen K et al. (2013) Socio-economic disparities in the consumption of vegetables, fruit and energy-dense foods: the role of motive priorities. Public Health Nutr 16, 873882.
11. Renner B, Sproesser G, Strohbach S et al. (2012) Why we eat what we eat. The Eating Motivation Survey (TEMS). Appetite 59, 117128.
12. Cattell RB (1943) The description of personality: basic traits resolved into clusters. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 38, 476506.
13. Eysenck HJ & SBG Eysenck (editors) (1969) Personality Structure and Measurement, 1st ed. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
14. John OP & Srivastava S (1999) The Big Five trait taxonomy: history, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, 2nd ed., pp. 102138 [AL Pervin and OP John, editors]. New York: Guilford Press.
15. Allport GW & Odbert HS (1936) Trait names: a psycho-lexical study. Psychol Monogr 47, 1.
16. Goldberg LR (1990) An alternative ‘description of personality’: the big-five factor structure. J Pers Soc Psychol 59, 12161229.
17. Norman WT (1967) 2800 Personality Trait Descriptors: Normative Operating Characteristics for a University Population. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
18. Eysenck HJ (1991) Dimensions of personality: 16, 5 or 3? – Criteria for a taxonomic paradigm. Pers Individ Dif 12, 773790.
19. Milfont TL & Fischer R (2010) Testing measurement invariance across groups: applications in cross-cultural research. Int J Psychol Res 3, 111121.
20. Rozin P, Kabnick K, Pete E et al. (2003) The ecology of eating: smaller portion sizes in France than in the United States help explain the French paradox. Psychol Sci 14, 450454.
21. Rozin P, Fischler C, Imada S et al. (1999) Attitudes to food and the role of food in life in the USA, Japan, Flemish Belgium and France: possible implications for the diet–health debate. Appetite 33, 163180.
22. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2014) Food and nutrition in numbers. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4175e.pdf (accessed June 2017).
23. Rozin P, Remick AK & Fischler C (2011) Broad themes of difference between French and Americans in attitudes to food and other life domains: personal versus communal values, quantity versus quality, and comforts versus joys. Front Psychol 2, 177.
24. Pérez-Cueto FJA, Verbeke W, de Barcellos MD et al. (2010) Food-related lifestyles and their association to obesity in five European countries. Appetite 54, 156162.
25. Siegrist M, Shi J, Giusto A et al. (2015) Worlds apart. Consumer acceptance of functional foods and beverages in Germany and China. Appetite 92, 8793.
26. Pechey R, Monsivais P, Ng Y-L et al. (2015) Why don’t poor men eat fruit? Socioeconomic differences in motivations for fruit consumption. Appetite 84, 271279.
27. Norenzayan A & Heine SJ (2005) Psychological universals: what are they and how can we know? Psychol Bull 131, 763784.
28. Nagla M (2007) Feeding the family in India: an approach to household food consumption. Int J Consum Stud 31, 295302.
29. Ruby MB (2012) Vegetarianism. A blossoming field of study. Appetite 58, 141150.
30. Ruby MB, Heine SJ, Kamble S et al. (2013) Compassion and contamination. Cultural differences in vegetarianism. Appetite 71, 340348.
31. Arbit N, Ruby MB, Sproesser G et al. (2017) Spheres of moral concern, moral engagement, and food choice in the USA, India and Germany. Food Qual Prefer 62, 3845.
32. Sproesser G, Klusmann V, Ruby MB et al. (2017) The Positive Eating Scale: relationship with objective health parameters and validity in Germany, the USA, and India. Psychol Health (Epublication ahead of print version).
33. Buhrmester M, Kwang T & Gosling SD (2011) Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspect Psychol Sci 6, 35.
34. Government of India (2015) Health and nutrition indicators by social groups. https://data.gov.in/catalog/health-and-nutrition-indicators-social-groups (accessed November 2016).
35. Government of India (2011) Selected socio-economic statistics, India. http://mospi.nic.in/mospi_new/upload/sel_socio_eco_stats_ind_2001_28oct11.pdf (accessed March 2016).
36. Cantril H (editor) (1965) The Pattern of Human Concern , 2nd ed. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
37. Rozin P, Fischler C & Shields-Argelès C (2012) European and American perspectives on the meaning of natural. Appetite 59, 448455.
38. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2017) Dietary Screener Questionnaire. http://appliedresearch.cancer.gov/nhanes/dietscreen/dsq_english.pdf (accessed June 2017).
39. Sproesser G, Schupp HT & Renner B (2014) The bright side of stress-induced eating: eating more when stressed but less when pleased. Psychol Sci 25, 5865.
40. Rozin P, Bauer R & Catanese D (2003) Food and life, pleasure and worry, among American college students: gender differences and regional similarities. J Pers Soc Psychol 85, 132141.
41. Arbit N, Ruby MB & Rozin P (2017) Development and validation of the Meaning of Food in Life Questionnaire (MFLQ): evidence for a new construct to explain eating behavior. Appetite 59, 3545.
42. Schultz PW (2001) The structure of environmental concern: concern for self, other people and the biosphere. J Environ Psychol 21, 327339.
43. Gold MS & Bentler PM (2000) Treatments of missing data: a Monte Carlo comparison of RBHDI, iterative stochastic regression imputation, and expectation-maximization. Struct Equ Modeling 7, 319355.
44. Curran PJ, West SG & Finch JF (1996) The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychol Methods 1, 1629.
45. Kline RB (editor) (2011) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd ed. New York: Guilford Press.
46. Hu L-T & Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling 6, 155.
47. Bollen KA & Long JS (editors) (1993) Testing Structural Equation Models. SAGE Focus Editions vol. 154. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
48. Steenkamp J-BEM & Baumgartner H (1998) Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. J Consum Res 25, 78107.
49. Chen FF (2007) Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Struct Equ Modeling 14, 464504.
50. Heene M, Hilbert S, Draxler C et al. (2011) Masking misfit in confirmatory factor analysis by increasing unique variances: a cautionary note on the usefulness of cutoff values of fit indices. Psychol Methods 16, 319336.
51. van de Schoot R, Lugtig P & Hox J (2012) A checklist for testing measurement invariance. Eur J Dev Psychol 9, 486492.
52. Cheung GW & Rensvold RB (1999) Testing factorial invariance across groups: a reconceptualization and proposed new method. J Manage 25, 127.
53. Januszewska R, Pieniak Z & Verbeke W (2011) Food choice questionnaire revisited in four countries. Does it still measure the same? Appetite 57, 9498.
54. Pieniak Z, Verbeke W, Vanhonacker F et al. (2009) Association between traditional food consumption and motives for food choice in six European countries. Appetite 53, 101108.
55. Brunsø K & Grunert KG (1995) Development and testing of a cross-culturally valid instrument: food-related life style. Adv Consum Res 22, 475480.
56. Scholderer J, Grunert KG & Brunsø K (2005) A procedure for eliminating additive bias from cross-cultural survey data. J Bus Res 58, 7278.
57. van Strien T, Frijters JER, Bergers GPA et al. (1986) The Dutch Eating Behavior Questionnaire (DEBQ) for assessment of restrained, emotional, and external eating behavior. Int J Eat Disord 5, 295315.
58. Wu S, Cai T & Luo X (2017) Validation of the Dutch Eating Behavior Questionnaire (DEBQ) in a sample of Chinese adolescents. Psychol Health Med 22, 282288.
59. Nagl M, Hilbert A, de Zwaan M et al. (2016) The German version of the Dutch eating behavior questionnaire: psychometric properties, measurement invariance, and population-based norms. PLoS One 11, e0162520.
60. Dakanalis A, Zanetti MA, Clerici M et al. (2013) Italian version of the Dutch Eating Behavior Questionnaire. Psychometric proprieties and measurement invariance across sex, BMI-status and age. Appetite 71, 187195.
61. Jackson B, Cooper ML, Mintz L et al. (2003) Motivations to eat: scale development and validation. J Res Pers 37, 297318.
62. van de Vijver FJR (2003) Bias and equivalence: cross-cultural perspectives. In Cross-Cultural Survey Methods, 1st ed., pp. 143155 [JA Harkness, FJR Van de Vijver and PP Mohler, editors]. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
63. Keller C & van der Horst K (2013) Dietary restraint, ambivalence toward eating, and the valence and content of spontaneous associations with eating. Appetite 62, 150159.
64. Heine SJ (editor) (2008) Cultural Psychology, 1st ed. New York: WW Norton & Company.
65. Stroebe W, Mensink W, Aarts H et al. (2008) Why dieters fail: testing the goal conflict model of eating. J Exp Soc Psychol 44, 2636.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Public Health Nutrition
  • ISSN: 1368-9800
  • EISSN: 1475-2727
  • URL: /core/journals/public-health-nutrition
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Type Description Title
WORD
Supplementary Materials

Sproesser et al. supplementary material
Tables S1-S3

 Word (47 KB)
47 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 6
Total number of PDF views: 33 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 231 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 30th October 2017 - 18th November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.